Timeline for Were Nazi atrocities legal according the German law of the time?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
34 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 27, 2022 at 22:58 | history | edited | Anixx | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Dec 27, 2022 at 17:02 | comment | added | jmoreno | I don’t have a cite for it, but I believe this theory is based on a decision (or possibly just a declaration) saying that whatever the Führer said was law was law. This may have been an interpretation of the Enabling Act, but I don’t think so. | |
| S Dec 26, 2022 at 21:49 | history | suggested | Mary | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
spelling and punctuation
|
| Dec 26, 2022 at 20:24 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 26, 2022 at 21:49 | |||||
| Sep 24, 2022 at 11:32 | comment | added | Mark Johnson | @phoog This matter has been under discussion for many years (last 2015), but nothing has been resolved. Today, all hate crimes (which includes anything about race) falls under niedrigen Beweggründe of §211. Since Roland Freisler, who supposedly wrote this paragraph, participated in the 1942 Wannsee Conference we can safely assume that they interpretated niedrigen Beweggründe differently. That is the core of the problem. | |
| Sep 24, 2022 at 11:17 | comment | added | phoog | @MarkJohnson absolutely. I'm not questioning that at all, but rather the details of motivation that are now at issue in e.g. Anixx's answer. These may have changed, and other sections of the law that may have been changed or remove since 1941 may have been relevant. | |
| Sep 24, 2022 at 11:05 | comment | added | Mark Johnson | @phoog The text of T20 A11 §826 AltPrALR from 1794 and §175 PrStGB from 1851 is almost identical to that of §211 of 1871. So nobody can claim, with any justification, that "only citizens are protected by criminal laws" in the past. | |
| Sep 24, 2022 at 10:19 | comment | added | phoog | "only citizens are protected by criminal laws": in general? Today? If that were the case then why not steal from noncitizens? There are surely publicly available examples from the news media of people who have been convicted of crimes victimizing noncitizens. The idea that noncitizens are not protected by the law is not only wrong but also a dangerous element of xenophobic rhetoric that should be challenged at any opportunity. | |
| Sep 24, 2022 at 6:23 | comment | added | Anixx | @kisspus selfish robbery was persecuted in Nazi Germany, robbery for the state was considered high purpose, not primitive motives. See my new answer to this question. | |
| Sep 24, 2022 at 6:19 | comment | added | kisspuska | @Anixx good that you say so how would you explain that it was not done, in part, to cover up for the mass robbery? Then the law you arrested to not have applied applied. | |
| Sep 24, 2022 at 6:01 | comment | added | Anixx | @MarkJohnson this wording even more shows that killing for biological theory, merci killing of disabled, killing infected by typhus to stop epidemic, local civilians to stop partisans or killing for scientific experimentation do not fall under this paragraph because these motives are complicated and state-approved. See my new answer, by the way. | |
| Sep 24, 2022 at 5:56 | comment | added | Anixx | @kisspuska killing for stealing wealth for oneself was still illegal in Nazi Germany. | |
| Sep 23, 2022 at 22:25 | comment | added | kisspuska | @Anixx what are you talking about!? They killed, inter alia, to steal the wealth and deprive them of other right, killing them was a means to cover all of these crimes. | |
| Sep 23, 2022 at 22:00 | vote | accept | Anixx | ||
| Sep 23, 2022 at 21:59 | answer | added | Anixx | timeline score: -1 | |
| Sep 23, 2022 at 21:21 | comment | added | Mark Johnson | @Anixx primitive motives might be a better expression for niedrigen Beweggründe. | |
| Sep 23, 2022 at 21:19 | comment | added | Anixx | @MarkJohnson obviously this paragraph does not satisfy modern standards and the judges simply apply common sense. | |
| Sep 23, 2022 at 21:10 | comment | added | Mark Johnson | @Anixx Well, that is your opinion. Nevertheless those that were found guilty was based on §211, so obviously your conclusion is wrong. | |
| Sep 23, 2022 at 21:07 | comment | added | Anixx | @MarkJohnson in other modern countries, it seems, the defonition is the same as in the German 1871 version, and there are few exceptions for combat, self defense, escape of prisoners and legal execution. | |
| Sep 23, 2022 at 21:03 | comment | added | Anixx | @MarkJohnson national ideology or biological doctrine or killing hostages in occupied territory are definitely not base motives! | |
| Sep 23, 2022 at 20:58 | comment | added | Mark Johnson | @Anixx Both are considered mass murder and charges maded based on base motives [niedrigen Beweggründe] (that you left out of your list) of § 211 StGB, so your claim that they are 'NOT illegal' is not correct. I don't have the 1926 version (where, I believe, the last change to the criminal code took place before 1933), but the 1871 version of §211 read as: Anyone who intentionally kills a human being, if he has carried out the killing with deliberation, is punished with death for murder. | |
| Sep 23, 2022 at 20:20 | comment | added | Anixx | @MarkJohnson this is very interesting! Under this paragraph the Holocaust and T4 euthanasia are NOT illegal, because they were conducted not for greed, lust, sex, nor for cover up and gassing was considered not cruel! I initially assumed that Nazi Germany kept the imperial Germany's paragraph intact (can we compare them?). Now it seems this paragraph was changed specifically to legalise the Holocaust. Why did modern Germany not change it? | |
| Sep 23, 2022 at 11:38 | comment | added | Mark Johnson | The German Criminal Code makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens. The present day §211(2) was introduced on the 8th of September 1941. §211(2) Murder - German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB): A murderer under this provision is someone who kills a person out of a lust to kill, to obtain sexual gratification, out of greed or otherwise base motives, perfidiously or cruelly or by means constituting a public danger or to facilitate or cover up another offence. | |
| Sep 23, 2022 at 7:12 | history | edited | Anixx | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 66 characters in body
|
| Dec 10, 2019 at 18:31 | answer | added | hszmv | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 10, 2019 at 16:33 | answer | added | Acccumulation | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 27, 2017 at 17:37 | comment | added | Pere | Nuremberg trials are often used as textbook examples of natural law given positive value, since nazis actions weren't illegal under positive (German) law but they were universally seen as evil crimes. | |
| Nov 16, 2016 at 11:15 | answer | added | Dale M♦ | timeline score: 15 | |
| Nov 16, 2016 at 10:25 | answer | added | gnasher729 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 16, 2016 at 8:05 | comment | added | Peter Point | International Law and the Laws of War go back to Roman Law and quite possibly predate Rome. Grotius was writing about International Law in 17th century. The Hague and Geneva Conventions, predating the Third Reich, codified law which would have covered the Nazi atrocities even if those atrocities had been sanctioned as "law" [sic] by Hitler's personal 'diktat'. | |
| Nov 16, 2016 at 2:12 | comment | added | Anixx | @user6726 I am asking whether the atrocities were legal according all the relevant German laws. | |
| Nov 16, 2016 at 2:07 | comment | added | user6726 | Are you asking if it is factually correct that German law at the time claimed these things? The answer there is no: German law did not say that there is no international law, that killing non-citizens is permitted etc. Or are you asking there were any laws that might somehow be related to these claims, e.g. "what is the text of the Nuremberg Laws"? | |
| Nov 16, 2016 at 0:49 | history | edited | Anixx |
edited tags
|
|
| Nov 16, 2016 at 0:40 | history | asked | Anixx | CC BY-SA 3.0 |