We are talking about something that happened 70 years ago. Thus the Defendant is at least 88 years of age (maybe younger, the SS was scraping the bottom of the barrel by that point in the War). Remember at least one of every ten soldiers in the German Army were NOT Germans by that time period (some estimates are higher but the Army always maintain a Draft for its enlistee ranks but did accept volunteers from other countries both to fill in German Units AND to fight as non-German Units, the one in ten Estimate ONLY applies to actual German Units).
Now the SS was something you had to WANT to join. By 1944 it was finding it hard to find recruits. Not that German Teens did not want to serve, they did, but most had been assigned jobs within the German Army by then. Thus some people estimate that in SS units the number of non-Germans were as high as 25 to 50% of the soldiers in those SS Units (This excludes SS units raised in France and Norway, those units were almost 100% French or Norwegian or other non-German "Aryan" people, as the term "Aryan" was used by the SS). Those 25 to 50% were mostly Russians, Ukrainians, Czechs and Poles drafted into the German Army (Slovakia was technically independent during WWII, but an ally of Hitler, as was Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. Slovenia was also "Independent" but under Italy control.
These Slavs were drafted into the SS and filled out the SS units. They did mostly "Staff" work, ran the supply wagons, the mules (still used by the German Army in 1944-1945 period and use of such animals had increased since 1942), did the cooking and other non-direct combat roles required by a Division. At the same time many were integrated right into SS infantry and tank units as Combat Soldiers (in such combat units such non "Aryans" were kept to a minimum).
I bring this up for the destruction of that town was the work of the SS. While the SS was more non-German then the Regular German Army by that point in the War, the SS Officer Corp were 100% hard core Nazis. The NCOs were NOT much better, almost all 100% hard core Nazis. It was in the enlisted ranks you saw the non-Germans, but the Germans in those units were almost all 100% hard core Nazis (One Jew avoided the Death Camps by passing as a hard core Nazi by joining the SS after France fell to Germany in 1940, he had tried to enlist in the German Army, but the German Army did NOT take Enlistees, they told him to go to the SS for their took enlistees, even of Germans living in France and survived the War as a SS soldiers).
Just a comment about the SS and this soldier. He was a German and enlisted in the SS, but he appears NOT have any Rank. That would be "Normal" for late war German Enlistees in the SS, the NCO ranks were reserved to people who had served a few years in the ranks. At the same time he was in the Village, for most of the support troops were non-Germans.
Thus did he kill anyone in the Village? How do you prove that with most if not all of the other people in his unit now dead (mostly of old age)? The records just said what the unit did as a whole. If someone did something extraordinary then it would be mention in the records, but unless he did something really notable (like lighting the church, but that generally be reserved for an Officer or NCO, or refused to get the gasoline to burn the Church) he would NOT even be mentioned. Thus NO evidence beside he being a member of that unit. A unit he could NOT desert (and if he did he would have been executed).
The Article said he was a "Machine Gunner" and the men had been machineguned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane
But no evidence he did the actual Machine Gunning nor evidence he did anything more then obeyed the DIRECT ORDER of his superior if he did so (Disobeying an order in Combat was a death Sentence). He does NOT appear to have had any command authority in the massacre, just was assigned to operate a Machine Gun.
One of the problem with the case was the Actual Commander was killed in Combat a few weeks later, many of his men also were killed. Another complication was that being an SS unit it had many Alsace residents in it. These soldiers native language is German, but was part of France after 1918 (and had been part of France from about 1700 when King Louis XVI decided the Eastern Border of France was the Rhine, something the Rhine had NEVER been even in Roman times and remain French till 1871 when it was returned to Germany.
Thus in the post WWII era Alsace was again part of France and held 14 of the members of the unit that did the killing. This caused a split in France, Alsace objected to the trial of those 14 men (and the region where the massacre occurred objected to the subsequent dismissal of all charges against those 14 men). Thus the only people "Condemned" at the trial in the 1950s were the people who were already dead. A Second Lieutenant was found in East Germany in 1981, and the East Germans convicted him and sentence him to life imprisonment (He was released after East Germany merged with West Germany).
In many ways today's Germany wants to show it is tougher on war criminals then East Germany had been (West Germany held the General in over all charge, but refused to try him for any crime related to that Massacre). The people these Germans are going after tend to be people with no political connections (Those with such connections held Officer Ranks and now long dead from natural Causes).
Thus the Court's ruling. Why go after privates in the rear ranks after leaving the people who actually had the command position to prevent such war crimes die of old age? The German Courts have shown they want something more then someone was around when a war crime occurred. Some rank, some act, something other then he was just a member of the unit that did the crime.
I suspect that is the real hangup in this case. The people the German Government is going after had no power to prevent the war crime, so why punish them? Furthermore, punishing them will NOT tell present day Soldiers NOT to do such crimes, for such trial are saying they can live a long life and not worry about doing such war crimes as long as their commanders are alive. Thus no good reason to hold this trial. You are NOT punishing the people who had the power to stop it (and the power to do such war crimes). You are NOT undermining such power by telling lower ranks they can object to such illegal orders and NOT be punished. You are NOT preventing such war crimes by making the people who can prevent such war crimes to be punished for their war crimes. Sentencing to life a 90 year old man for a crime done 70 years ago is not revenge. Thus nothing good can come out of such a trial.
Please note, if it can be shown he had some command position within the unit (NCO position would be sufficient) or did some extra ordinary act, like actually machine gunning the people, that is a different set of facts, but just bring in the unit that did a crime is not enough and at present that is all that can be shown for this man.
= new reply since forum marked as read
