(Top Left) On October 18, 1945, twenty-two military, political and economic leaders during the Nazi rule of Germany were tried in Nuremberg. This was just one of several trials, but this was the best known. Of the defendants, 12 were executed, 3 sentenced to life in prison, 4 faced prison sentences of 10-20 years, and 3 were acquitted.
(Top Right) Seventy-nine years ago, on February 2, 1943, 105,000 German, Italian and Romanian soldiers who surrendered at Stalingrad were marched into captivity. Less than 6,000 return home in 1955.
I ask:
There is a difference between hard and soft complicity, but can there be a difference without a consequential distinction?
FBI and DoJ following questionable paths of justice
During discussions concerning the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation's clandestine role, both before the 2016 and after the 2020 General Election cycles, in supporting the political agenda of the Democrat Party, have any of us not heard this disclaimer about the range of complicity?
"Sure, at the senior level of the Bureau, there might have been some corruption at the F.B.I., but the fault doesn't extend down to the rank-n-file F.B.I. Agents and employees."
This might also be said of the U.S. Department of Justice. Both have followed questionable paths of justice because, well, at some point in the totem pole it's what they were told to so.
The German industrialists that built the Tiger tanks, and the Luftwaffe Stukas, often with slave labor, that made the lethal gas for the execution chambers, and supplied the war materials for the military machine that enabled the Wehrmacht to make it to the outskirts of Stalingrad--most of those industrialists survived their trials without a death penalty, or even a prison sentence. They were needed by the victorious allies to rebuild the destroyed German industries.
In many of the less known Nuremberg Trials, non-combatants, although essential to the Nazi war machine, were held to a sympathy standard of "soft complicity". They had only done what they were told to do by the Nazi regime. Sure, they made the lethal weapons of war, but what choice did they have?
Of the total 199 defendants in all the Nuremberg Trials, 161 were convicted and 37 were sentenced to death.
"What choice did they have? They were only following orders?"
As for the German invaders who surrendered at Stalingrad, you might ask, "What choice did they have? They were only following orders?"
Back to the question above: There is a difference between hard and soft complicity, but can there be a difference without a consequential distinction?
If only a very few in the F.B.I. and the DoJ end up being held to a standard of hard complicity in the wide-spread corruption of the U.S. Federal Government, while many others are tagged with soft complicity, but neither experience any serious consequences, what will that mean for the future of America?
This is the answer: Nothing good.
The Nuremberg Trials — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (ushmm.org)70th Anniversary of the German Defeat at Stalingrad | The National WWII Museum Blog (nww2m.com)
Lee Cary——Bio and Archives
Since November 2007, Lee Cary has written hundreds of articles for several websites including the American Thinker, and Breitbart’s Big Journalism and Big Government (as “Archy Cary”). and the Canada Free Press. Cary’s work was quoted on national television (Sean Hannity) and on nationally syndicated radio (Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin). His articles have posted on the aggregate sites Drudge Report, Whatfinger, Lucianne, Free Republic, and Real Clear Politics. He holds a Doctorate in Theology from Garrett Theological Seminary in Evanston, IL, is a veteran of the US Army Military Intelligence in Vietnam assigned to the [strong]Phoenix Program[/strong]. He lives in Texas.
