Oskar Groening, a Nazi guard at Auschwitz, will be standing trial for his role in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Jews at what was considered one of the worst of all concentration camps. The former Nazi guard is 93 years old, but is still be prosecuted for his war crimes. According to a Tuesday, Dec. 16 report by News Max, the Oskar Groening trial will start sometime next spring.

Groening has been charged with “complicity” to over 300,000 counts of murder. He claims that he was only a guard at Auschwitz and did not kill anyone. Despite his claim, he is still facing charges and will be tried in a court of law.

It was Groening's job at Auschwitz to guard the luggage and other items left behind by the Jews as they went off to the “selection.” That was when it was decided if the Jews would become "workers" at the concentration camp or if they would be immediately taken to the gas chambers where they would be slaughtered. He was also responsible for sorting the money that was taken from the Jews arriving at Auschwitz.

Auschwitz had about 6,500 guards during its history. So far, only 49 of those guards have been convicted. As of April 2013, there were at least 1,005 investigations into Nazi war criminals. About 500 of those investigations are taking place in Poland. There are 471 such investigations taking place in Germany. At the time of publication, it was unknown how many of those investigations involve guards at Auschwitz.

Less than 20,000 Jews survived the horrors of Auschwitz to be liberated by the Soviet army in May 1945. Despite that, there are more than 100 Auschwitz survivors that are still alive today. It is believed that 49 Holocaust survivors will attend the Oskar Groening trial next year.

It is possible that the Oskar Groening trial could be one of the last Nazi war crime trials. Many being investigated are too old, frail or sickly to stand trial for their role in the Holocaust. Groening was one of the “dirty dozen” that were being investigated. The other charges were dropped “due to age, infirmity or lack of clear evidence.”

examiner.com