Dilemma II...getting more complicated..group survival?

ON DECEMBER 8, 1993, Dr. Franklin Littell of Baylor University spoke at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum about a troublesome “concrete truth.” What was that?

The truth, Littell said, was that “six million Jews were targeted and systematically murdered in the heart of Christendom, by baptized Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox who were never rebuked, let alone excommunicated.” One voice, however, did consistently speak out about clergy involvement with Hitler’s regime. And the voice, as we have seen, was that of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Hitler was a baptized Roman Catholic, as were many of the leaders in his government. Why weren’t they excommunicated? Why didn’t the Catholic Church condemn the horrors that these men were committing? Why did Protestant churches also keep silent?

Paul Johnson’s History of Christianity said: “Of 17,000 Evangelical pastors, there were never more than fifty serving long terms [for not supporting the Nazi regime] at any one time.” Contrasting such pastors with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Johnson wrote: “The bravest were the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who proclaimed their outright doctrinal opposition from the beginning and suffered accordingly. They refused any cooperation with the Nazi state.”

I have to wonder what is the point of this question? Of course people would choose the one which had better results for general welfare at large.

But it's really impossible to determine the odds of either choice being more beneficial without being there yourself. Your cursory description of one paragraph hardly gives any insight into what would be the better choice.

I guess it would make a lot more sense to smile and go along with it but try and covertly sabotage their operations and what not.

If my country is small and undervalued then I would use this to my advantage, make sure we have the best spies and saboteurs to contend with the bigger armies.