The History Book Club discussion

Excellent point Brian. Right now all sides seem to be embroiled in emotional payback.

In terms of the events of Hanns and Rudolf - at least attempting to have a war tribunal was a step in the right direction - but at the same time - it would have been difficult under any circumstances to be afforded a fair trial given the judge and jury and who they happened to be and the extent of the horror that was discovered. Also since no rules, regulations, laws against atrocities in war had been established - it is difficult to try folks for laws that you put into place after the fact and in terms of the situation that you are going to judicate. Tough situation - on one hand - genocide and extermination which can never be condoned or left unpunished and on the other side the appearance of judicial unfairness due to the above. Because of the above dilemma at the time, some could infer that the allies used "justice" to exact "revenge".

I think the fact that there were trials indicates an effort to carry out justice, however inadequate and seminal those trials were. It's my understanding that not everyone who was tried was convicted and/or sentenced to death. To me, revenge would have been more like a random rounding up and killing of anyone who had been a member of the Nazi party and/or wholesale execution of those implicated in the Holocaust without the benefit of any effort to find guilt or innocence through a tribunal.

You make some good points Donna but was Rudolf treated in the same way as the others or was he used almost as a witness for the prosecution? I think the role and the way he was treated was suspect in any normal court room proceedings but it is hard to judge so many years later. However most were executed so revenge was exacted possibly under the guise of judicial proceedings. And one thing is very clear - none of the crimes of any of the concentration camps should have gone unpunished but the soldiers and the guards who actually committed the acts went free. And yet the kingpins were told that "following orders" was not an excuse. Genocide should never be tolerated and punishment should be a deterrent - and of course that is hopefully the mindset of most reasonable human beings. But the Nuremberg Trials did have some issues and what happened to Hoess being sent back to Poland after the fact seems unorthodox.

Yes, and until their are real repercussions for revenge. (In response to message 50)

Jill wrote: "Someone in an earlier post mention "civilized justice" and it is something that we would hope happened during the rounding up of the Nazis. Unfortunately I think that concept was not as prevalent a..."

Hi Jill
For this time period "suffering through interrogation" was maybe among the least bad of the sufferings.

Anyway the children were not interrogated because they were RH's children but rather, and seemingly correctly, because of what they would/could know because they were his children. And I think that is a critical note as what you said could have ben understood to say they were "punished" because of whose children they were.

It was meant that because they were his children, they might know his whereabouts and therefore were interrogated.....nothing more.

Yes, potentially true Vince but their interrogation techniques and modus operandi were not necessarily proper and in fact we do know that the eldest son and Hedwig herself were threatened with departure, separation, etc. And without representation - certainly not legal in most courts and most countries including England and America. I think these children were subjected to actions and punishing behavior exactly because of whose children they were. That is my feeling regarding the accounting of the interactions. If they would threaten to cut off a finger or beat up a prisoner using ax handles - it gives me a general idea of how they interrogated the children and why. Just saying.

I agree with several of you, I think Hanns and his team showed restraint. By this time he knew that Rudolf had murdered his family (aunt Cacilie) who had been sent to Auschwitz and suspected the same about everyone else he knew in Berlin. I just can't find fault in his tactics.

Sarah thank you for your post - everybody sees things differently.

I think the Nazi regime made his Aunt a victim but nevertheless corporal punishment and beating up the worst criminals is something we look askance at no matter what the circumstances. Bring in the alleged criminal but do not rough him up is the idea. Juries decide the fate of the accused even though we are fairly certain they are guilty.

But this is a highly charged situation so there are opinions on both sides of the aisle but you have to admit that using ax handles and having the doctor say that the brutality needed to stop or you would not have a prisoner to bring back spoke volumes about the circumstances. Of course this is a legal opinion - but just because a person may have murdered a member of your family does not always give you the legal right to murder them back.

The logical side of me agrees with you completely Bentley!

(smile) - logic has its importance.

I have to agree with Bentley, that no matter the crime, beating or abusing prisoners in any way is not okay to me. Justice needs to be served of course, but how can we say their actions are wrong if we turn around and act in similar ways towards them when they are our prisoners?

I will acknowledge that it is easy for all of us to have an opinion, but until we are put to the test we do not know for certain what we would do. I do not envy Hans being in that position.

Hanns exercised unbelievable restraint. I do not fault him for his approach. I doubt I could have demonstrated such restraint.

Indeed, it is an interesting contrast of Hanns' different personality traits.

Interesting discussion posts. Thanks all.