The question of whether concentration camp guards have the right to self-defense is a complex one that has been debated by legal scholars, ethicists, and survivors of concentration camps. There is no easy answer, as the issue is fraught with moral and legal implications.
On the one hand, it is clear that concentration camp guards were responsible for heinous crimes against humanity. They were involved in the systematic extermination of millions of people, including Jews, Roma, homosexuals, and other marginalized groups. As such, they can be seen as having forfeited their right to self-defense.
On the other hand, some argue that even the most heinous criminals have a right to self-defense if they are faced with imminent danger. This is because the right to self-defense is seen as a fundamental human right that is essential for preserving life and limb.
However, there are several reasons why the right to self-defense may not apply to concentration camp guards. First, concentration camp guards were not simply acting in self-defense when they killed prisoners. They were carrying out orders from their superiors, and they were often motivated by hatred and prejudice. Second, concentration camp guards were not facing imminent danger when they killed prisoners. The prisoners were defenseless and unarmed, and they posed no threat to the guards.
In addition, allowing concentration camp guards to claim self-defense would set a dangerous precedent. It would send the message that it is acceptable to kill people who are different from us or who we believe are inferior. This would undermine the rule of law and could lead to further violence and discrimination.
For these reasons, it is generally accepted that concentration camp guards do not have the right to self-defense. They are responsible for their crimes, and they must be held accountable for their actions.