Dailide Guilty? (Unequivocal YES)

A comment which provoked some thought was recently posted on the entry for ALGIMANTAS DAILIDE.  The commenter felt this entry was untrue, unfair and bigoted.  I was upset by the accusation, but I can only imagine how she feels, given that the entry concerns a relative.

Dailide was accused of and convicted (in Lithuania) for his involvement in the death of fourteen people.  However, being more than 86 years old, the Lithuanian court did not think it would be prudent to imprison him.

“He was a 20 year old clerk.  He was charged for being there.  He was a young man trying to support himself and his mother.” [excerpt from the posted comment]

Here’s where things get pretty tricky.  It’s claimed he was trying to support his family and self during a tough time (Second World War).  No doubt, the world was flipped upside down and chaos reigned supreme.  I am sure many people were reduced to an impoverished condition, lost their homes, livelihood and pretty much everything else they may have known.  People were forced to make tough decisions.

I ask myself what I’d do in a similar situation.  Would I sacrifice or save myself?  Would I look for the easy way out or make life difficult for myself?  Would I kill others?  Or would I watch my mother die?  I honestly don’t know.  What is duress, really?  Is the possibility of starving to death the same as having a gun held to your head?  Do desperate times really call for desperate measures?  Is desperation a valid excuse for desperate deeds?  This is very conflicting.

If there is no threat of state endorsed persecution (terror) against one’s person, than that person should have more than just desperate options available to them.  Does that make sense?  Given that Dailide was able to apply for and receive employment by a government agency, he was not under threat of persecution from his government.  He was not as desperate as others.  It is possible that he could’ve found another means of supporting his mother and self..

Then arises the question of morality.  Is it okay to persecute people for reasons other than their personal actions (crimes)?  I am thinking with my twenty-first century sensibility, not that of the 1940s, but at some point, someone must’ve thought that the persecution of ‘sub-humans’ was wrong (immoral).

 

I am not sure morality should even be a factor of this debate (conversation).  The bottom line is, if the Nazis had been victorious, there wouldn’t be any Nazi war criminals, just a whole slew of heroes.  But, that’s not the case.  They lost the war and their moral imperative along with it.

 

Can I tell you everything about Dailide?  No.  Do I know what his circumstances were during the war?  No.  Do I know what he was thinking?  No.  Do I know if he believes his actions were justified?  No.  Only Dailide knows.  Do I know where he was employed during the Nazi occupation?  Yes.  Do I know what he was accused and convicted of?  Yes.  Did he pull the trigger?  No.  Did he supply people for persecution?  Yes.

 

There you have it.  No matter what the situation.  No matter what the reason.  Everyone MUST be held accountable for their actions.  Otherwise, there will always be some ‘legitimate’ excuse for poor behaviour.