Why are Nazi war criminals being prosecuted now?
<p>Lately numerous former Nazi war criminals are being prosecuted. The latest being a <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/ex-nazi-guard-93-trial-083349153.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">97 year old former SS soldier</a>. </p>

<p>But why are they being prosecuted now? Why did they take so long to do this? </p>

<p><a href="https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/small-wheel-in-the-machinery-of-murder-former-ss-guard-to-stand-trial-in-germany-1.7652091" rel="nofollow noreferrer">It is reported</a> that this is the result of new legal reasoning in German law. In the cases of Demjanjuk in 2011 and 2015 it was found that being a camp guard is enough to be found guilty of accessory to murder, even without specific evidence of a crime. In a more recent trial (Rehbogen) the prosecution used the same reasoning to charge and try a concentration camp guard. </p>

<p>There are fewer such trials than there were half a century ago, but each gets more media attention, simply because there are so few and it was so long ago. Germany is prosecuting the last living defendants of a very long backlog of delayed justice.</p>

<ul>
<li>There is no statute of limitation on murder.</li>
<li>A large number of Nazi criminals were tried immediately after WWII, both by the Allies and by the restored German legal system. Plenty of death sentences, plenty of jail terms.</li>
<li>In West Germany (the FRG) and to a lesser degree in East Germany (the GDR) there was some hesitation to try <strong>all</strong> those involved in Nazi crimes, because so many were accessory to the crimes. For instance, there was a tendency to exonerate the Wehrmacht by blaming the SS, and to exonerate SS men if they were "useful" for rebuilding.<br>
Are you aware of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#Slave_labor" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wernher von Braun</a>, the rocket scientist? Or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_L%C3%BCbke" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Heinrich Lübke</a>, a West German President?</li>
<li>While Nuremberg made clear that "just following orders" was no valid defense, in practice this led to many cases being dismissed. After all, prosecutors and judges have been "just following orders" themselves during the Nazi era. A disturbing number continued their careers.</li>
<li>The prosecution was hindered by the Cold War, both because archives and witnesses were unavailable and because charges became politicized. </li>
</ul>

<p>Finally, as user6726 mentions, there is a greater tendency to prosecute logistical support for genocide as being murder or accessory to murder. Less grave crimes would have run through their statute of limitations in the 1960s at latest, so there was no attempt to prosecute them in the 70s or 80s.</p>

<p>I think user6726 is not quite correct when he talks about</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>even without specific evidence of a crime</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The difference is that there need not be specific evidence of pulling a trigger or pouring gas as long as there is evidence that the defendant helped to imprison victims in the camps where other people killed them. This is similar to the legal doctrine in the US that when someone dies during the commission of a crime, all participants of that crime are guilty of murder.</p>

germany