Having got him to confess, perhaps more good would have been done by pursuading him to give a full account that further undermines holocaust denials in the future.

He already has, see extract taken from Vice referencing a 2005 BBC documentary:

Groening appeared in a 2005 BBC documentary titled Auschwitz: The Nazis and the Final Solution. Responding to Holocaust deniers, he stated clearly: "I saw the gas chambers. I saw the crematoria. I saw the open fires. I was on the ramp when the selections [for the gas chambers] took place. I would like you to believe these atrocities happened — because I was there."

[Link]

I find Groening's and a Holocaust survivor's comment really interesting. She asks why he and those like him, cultured and educated, did not challenge that atrocities that were happening. He effectively says he was following orders, being obedient:

"There was a self-denial in me that today I find impossible to explain," Groening said during the trial. "Perhaps it was also the convenience of obedience with which we were brought up, which allowed no contradiction. This indoctrinated obedience prevented registering the daily atrocities as such and rebelling against them."

But on that - what happens if you challenge orders of the Nazi hierarchy? Probably get shot. So to not follow orders is suicide. And what does that say about soldiers carrying out orders that are later deemed illegal. Are they all put on trial - where do you draw the line? Will hundreds of Serbian soldiers be facing trial too for the mass murder of civilians?

I'm not defending it - my gut reaction is that they should all hang for the atrocities, but it's a bloody complex thing.

This trial is completely pointless. What's to be gained? Nothing other than what we know already.

Many, many people were forced to do things against their will and to resist, as 'Frickin' points out, would be suicidal.
Self-preservation would be paramount to all 'recruits' involved at the time and I'd be the bloody same, do as I was told and hope it's over as quickly as possible.

He would have been, at the time, in his very early twenties, if that, at the start. As has been mentioned, such service could have looked a preferable option to the eastern front or north Africa. Wasn't most of the German nation guilty, to varying degrees, of turning a blind eye to atrocities?

Bexley Dave

Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing!

"The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

What if he'd done the accounts as a job for an external firm, or worked for Allianz to insure the camps?

I won't go so far as to mention the story that Cola Cola invented Fanta for the Nazis as they didn't have the ingredients to make the actual cola in Germany, or whichever oil company it was who had to develop a new fuel for the Luftwaffe's planes or Boss designing the uniforms, but there was a lot more direct involvement that could equally be punishable.

I can't boycott the whole country (who signed up for it) as I'm off there to see Palace this weekend.

I'm with the survivor who says he should be given community service lecturing on what he saw.

Edited by johnfirewall (16 Jul 2015 11.19am)

You should be sorry - in fact you should be put on trial for crimes against plain English.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

We could blame Margaret for a number of things - but for creating Jamie Martin? She would feel like Dr.Frankenstein if she had.

Edited by leggedstruggle (16 Jul 2015 12.38pm)

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler