Other researchers, though, have questioned the collaborative behavior of the JWs who worked for the SS and survived the war in positions of privledge.
I appreciated ADCMS' comment on page 1 that the subservience to the SS officers came naturally for a group of people who were trained to be sheep-like.
It's kind of hard to believe that the Society brags that the JWs could be counted on to safely shave the SS officers, who were known to execute prisoners as punishment, and in some cases were taking part in the gassing of the Jews. Most people would admit that pacificism can be admirable, but surely there's a point where pacificism that is conveniently self-serving starts to smack of cowardice or unethicality?
What if we found out that Hitler's photographer was a JW, passing up the opportunity to take his life on many occasions? Or that a JW was aiding in the record-keeping of the camp exterminations and made no attempt to tell the outside world what was happening? Presumably the Society would draw the line at bragging about such hypothetical scenarios, but I do wonder.
On the subject of political neutrality, I seem to recall Rutherford giving a speech somewhere that had big U.S. flags hanging on each side of the stage, and the Society did not depict the flags when recreating the scene for a recent video, but I might have the details wrong.