It’s no less murder. But fairly obviously murdering a larger number of people is worse than killing a smaller number.
The Communist murderers of 100M+ innocents have been forgotten, while low-level camp guards implicated even remotely in the approximately 12M killed by the Nazis are still being pursued.
Does that seem right to you?
That one should be pursued..Yes. That the other not...No. But politics will always be more important than morality and no hand is too bloody for a politician to shake in partnership.
I agree it's not right that certain people are not punished, but what your saying is going down a weird road.
In the United States, some people are convicted of murder, while other people get away with much worse crimes. (possibly their identities are never discovered)
Do you really think the United States should not prosecute murderers, if "worse" murderers have not been prosecuted? Because that's the comparison.
Now if you limited your debate to the level of Nazi that should be prosecuted or the fact that evidence is murky after that long, that is a difficult point,
Personally, I think a criminal should be punished for murder no matter how long after their crime is. But obviously, evidence is difficult at this point. It's also hard to say whether certain people were involved to a level of culpability.
In the case of Nazi Germany, war criminals could be punished at the Nuremberg trials, and subsequently by Germany, the U.S., and Israel in trials in those countries.
I wish Stalin or Mao could have gone on trial. I wish others beneath them could have. But how was that going to happen? Unless Russia, China, etc. did it? And that was never going to happen. Israel was able to kidnap Eichmann in Argentina, but because of the nature of communist countries such kidnappings were not possible.
If you guys have Superman's number, let us know so we can call him. Other than that, how was it possible to punish these terrible people?
(More than 30 years later they are holding some trials against the Khmer Rouge)