J. D. Vance at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.

Vance, on the same day he assisted in berating President Zelenskiy.

James Donald Bowman of Middleton Ohio is sort of a hard guy to figure out.  Bowman, and that's his real name, or rather the one he held at birth, grew up in a suburb of Cincinnati, not exactly part of Appalachia.  His parents divorced when he was very young, and when he was six, his mother married for the third time, and his name was changed to James David Hamel.  That's the name he served in the Marine Corps under, and went to university under.  He didn't become "J. D. Vance" until he was ready to graduate from Yale Law school.  Vance was the last name of his maternal grandmother.

Vance has also changed religions over the course of his lifetime.  As a proper Hillbilly would, he was once a member of an Evangelical faith, that of his fathers.  By the time he was out in the world, however, he was an atheist.  He became Catholic through the influence of a Yale law school friend, and became a very traditionalist Catholic at that.

I don't fault him the change in religions (I do the adult change of names, which I regard as phony).  I am, of course, a Catholic, and I therefore welcome those into the faith.  Moreover, I often find that converts are more devout than than "cradle Catholics", who often don't know their own faith all that well, although that's certainly not universal.  And I admire traditionalist Catholics as well.

But here's where I begin to have a problem with Vance.  Just as I don't admire Catholics who become another religion for convenience, something we've always experienced (it often used to be for economic reasons, but now is usually due to divorce and remarriage), I don't admire jettonsing of elements of the faith when it becomes difficult, and Vance has done just that.  Catholics believe that life begins at conception, and that conception should always be via natural means.  Vance has changed his position on abortion to tolerate it where states provide it should be, and he's okay with IVF ,which Catholics definitely are not.

Having said that, on basic moral principals, Vance was closer to the faith than many Catholic politicians have been since 1960.

But now he's an active Vice President, and things are beginning to shift again.  He attempted to strain Catholic social teaching the other day to suggest that Catholics have a diehard family first position in regard to loving our neighbor, and got immediately rebuked.  

Vance is actually the highest elected official in the United States right now, given that Donald Trump cannot Constitutionally occupy the position he pretends to without a Congressional dispensation he has not received.  He's a convert to Catholicism, but occupies an odd status in that he's an intellectual conservative traditionalist convert, but with a wife who is a Hindu and who hasn't followed him there (my Protestant wife hasn't followed me either) and who has heavily compromised himself on certain principal Catholic moral teachings in his recent campaign.

So he makes for an interesting, if predictable, speaker at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, something that I frankly didn't know even existed.

His speech, and some comments.

I came here last year as a very young senator not knowing how much my life would change, and I'm thankful to God — but also thankful to the friendship of the people in this room for helping us get there, because I think that we have turned a new page in Washington, D.C., and we are going to take advantage of the opportunity that God has given us. 

We? 

So I want to say a couple of words just about Trump administration policy because, while you're certainly not always going to agree with everything that we do in President Trump's administration, I feel very confident in saying that between protecting the rights of pro-life protesters, between ensuring that we have an opportunity to protect the rights of the unborn in the first place, and importantly, protecting the religious liberty of all people — but in particular, Catholics — I think that we can say that President Trump, though not a Catholic himself, has been an incredibly good president for Catholics in the United States of America.

Now we know of course the last administration liked to throw people in jail for silently praying outside of pro-life clinics. We know that they liked to harass pro-life fathers of seven, very often, Catholic fathers, for participating in the pro-life movement. And we know that the last administration wanted to protect taxpayer-funded abortion right up unto the moment of birth. 

The Biden Administration was extremely hostile to pro life positions, and tacked to the extreme left on social issues in general.  Whomever allowed Biden to take these turns, and I suspect it wasn't Biden's idea, should be severely dope slapped.  In large measure, it's such things that gave us King Donald. 

On every single one of those issues, in 30 short days, Donald J. Trump has gone in the exact opposite direction and I am thankful for that. And I'm sure that every single person in this room is thankful for that as well. But I actually want to talk about a couple of other things in particular. 

One of the most important parts of President Trump's policy, and where I think President Trump's policy is most in accord with Christian social teaching and with the Catholic faith, is that more than any president of my lifetime, President Trump has pursued a path of peace. And we very often, I think, ignore the way in which our foreign policy is either an instrument or an impediment to people all over the world being able to practice their faith. And we know — and as, of course, I learned in this breakfast last year — I believe there were some Nigerian priests who were being persecuted, and were trying to protect their flock despite incredible persecution. 

Trump has followed a path of being a bully, trying to extort the mineral wealth of another country, while making it compromise with an invader.

There will always be wars and rumors of war.  Ukraine is justly defending itself. Catholics are not pacifists. 

We know that some of the biggest groups that are persecuted all over the world today are Christians and the Trump administration promises you that whether it's here at home with our own citizens or all over the world, we will be the biggest defenders of religious liberty and the rights of conscience. And I think those policies will fall to the benefit of Catholics in particular all over the world.

But I would say, my friends, that it's not enough simply to protect the rights of conscience, to pursue funding opportunities and grant-making opportunities that protect the rights of people to engage in religious conscience. We also have to remember that oftentimes the biggest impediments to religious liberty have not come through malice from the United States government but have actually come through carelessness. And one of the things that — I have to be honest — that I am most ashamed about, is that in the United States of America, sometimes it is our foreign misadventures that lead to the eradication of historical Christian communities all over the world. 

And so when President Trump talks about the need to bring peace whether it's in Russia and Ukraine, whether it's in the Middle East, we of course have to recognize that, as a policy oriented towards saving lives, and carrying out one of Christ's most important commandments, but I think we also must recognize it as an effort to protect the religious liberty of Christians. Because over the past 40 years, it has often been historical Christian communities who bear the brunt of failed American foreign policy and that is, in my view, perhaps the most important way in which Donald Trump has been a defender of Christian rights all over the world. He has a foreign policy that is oriented towards peace. 

Trump's peace policy in the Middle East involves siding with one group of people in their entirety while thinking, as his tiny brain does, that the others can happily simply be moved to a second rate Middle Eastern version of a Florida housing development. 

We have done it already so much in the past 30 days, and I'm proud that we will work for peace all over the world in the remaining four years of President Trump's term, and I think that's an important thing.

Now of course, we're not always going to agree, and I'm sure that there are people in this room who agree or disagree with some of our views on foreign policy on any number of issues. The one thing that I will promise you is that you're always going to have an open door with me and with the president. I think that you've already seen that, and if you haven't, please come and bring your concerns — and some of you have already brought many concerns to me over the last 30 days — but also your “attaboys,” because I think that part of being a good presidential administration for people of faith all over the United States, part of it is listening to people of faith when they have concerns.

And I think that it's important — and I'll make this commitment to you in front of God, and in front of all those television cameras back there — that we will always listen to people of faith and people of conscience in the United States of America. You have an open door to the Trump administration even if, and especially maybe when, you disagree with us. So please use that opportunity: communicate with us when we get things right but also when we get things wrong. And that is my solemn obligation but also my request because, of course, as I've learned during the campaign — of course, I've got Secret Service protection and it's bumped up now that I'm the vice president of the United States — I live in a bubble, ladies and gentlemen, I live in a roaming bubble and wherever I go, I'm surrounded by armed agents. The only way to keep me honest, and the only way to know what is actually affecting the real lives of people all over our country, is for you to talk to us. So please, consider that open door very much an invitation, but also a request.

And I will say that I believe that I'm the first Catholic convert to ever be vice president of the United States, [applause] — I appreciate you guys clapping because, it turns out, there are some people on the internet who don't like Catholic converts. And in fact, there are some Catholics who appear not to like Catholic converts. I've learned that the hard way. But of course, the gross majority of of my brothers and sisters in Christ have been incredibly welcoming and Incredibly charitable and for that I'm grateful.

Vance's comments about converts and the Internet here are quite valid.  Vance has proven to be polarizing, including amongst Catholics, which has lead to Twitter wars of a very unfortunate nature.  As noted, converts are often amongst the most devout Catholics. 

I wanted to just reflect on that, on being a Catholic and particularly a Catholic convert in public life, in the hopes that maybe it would provide some wisdom or some guidance, or maybe just some interesting stories for those of you who are enjoying your breakfast. And you know, one of the things that I try to remind myself of as a convert, is that there's a lot I don't know. When I was a kid, we used to call new converts to the faith “baby Christians” and I recognize very much that I am a “baby Catholic” — that there are things about the faith that I don't know. So I try to be humble as best I can when I talk about the faith and publicly, because of course, I'm not always going to get it right. And I don't want my inadequacies in describing our faith to fall back on the faith itself. And so if you ever hear me pontificating about the Catholic faith, please recognize it comes from a place of deep belief, but it also comes from a place of not always knowing everything all the time.

And you know, now I say that of course, I don't try to comment on every single Catholic issue. I try not to get involved in the civil wars between Dominicans and Jesuits and conservative Catholics and progressive Catholics. But as Michael Corleone said in The Godfather, “Sometimes they pull me back in.” Sometimes I can't help — I can't help but spout off. I am a politician after all, ladies and gentlemen. 

But the thing that I have tried to remind people of, and the thing that I try to remind myself of, is that what attracted me to the Christian faith, and what attracted me to this Church in particular, is the recognition that grace is not something that happens instantaneously. It's something that God works in us over a long period of time — sometimes many years, and sometimes many decades. I think that when I I was a kid, my assumption was that grace is something where the Holy Spirit would come in and it would solve all of our problems.

I learned the hard way, as a Catholic — in part, by following the sacramental life as best as I could — that grace is very much a process that God works in us over time. He makes us closer to him and makes us better people in the process. And so when I first became a Catholic, I would probably go to confession every other week because I would fail to go to Mass every other week. Things would come up, you'd have business trips you'd have — the kids would get sick — and I just remember that this process of thinking: okay, if I don't go to church this week I'm going to have to go and talk to some stranger about everything that I did bad the last two weeks, and that process worked in me a much better discipline, a much better prayerful life. And you know I'm batting probably like 95% of Sundays now that I actually go to Mass. This is, I think, one of the geniuses of our faith — that it teaches us through repetition in some ways, and it forms us through a process, of course, that is I think at the heart of the mystery of faith, that somehow by practicing the sacraments — even imperfectly, as I certainly do — God transforms us. 

And while I am as imperfect a Christian as any person in this room, I really do feel that God is transforming me every single day, and that's one of the great blessings of our faith, and one of the great blessings of following the sacraments as I try to do. So thank you all for welcoming a convert into your ranks, because I certainly benefit from it — and my family does too.

The second thing that I take from my Catholic faith is a recognition that the deepest and most important things are not material. They're not GDP. They're not the numbers that we see in the stock market. The real measure of health in a society is the safety and stability and the health of our families, and of our people. We are in the business, in President Trump's administration, of producing prosperity, but that prosperity is a means to an end. And that end is the flourishing, hopefully, of the life of every single citizen in the United States of America. 

Trump, his supposed boss, does believe that the only thing that matters in the world is wealth, and therefore is an extreme materialist.  He's put part of the government in the hands of a materialist atheist.

That's why we care about these things. I often remind myself that there have been times in the past where you know the GDP numbers were maybe moving in the right direction, where the stock market was moving in the right direction, but the United States of America was losing life expectancy. I think that what the Catholic Church calls me to do is to say that if the stock market's doing okay, but people are literally dying and losing years off of their life, then we have to do better as a country. 

We do, which raises the question of why we'd wipe out USAID, which was a lifeline for many people around the world. 

Catholicism — Christianity at its root, I think — teaches our public officials to care about the deep things, the important things, the protection of the unborn, the flourishing of our children, and the health and the sanctity of our marriages. And yes, we care about prosperity but we care about prosperity so that we can promote the common good of every citizen in the United States of America. 

And when I think about the deep things, the things that really matter there was something really amazing that happened to me in November of 2024. All my friends were there, all my family was there. We were gathered together in a great moment of celebration and, of course, I'm talking about when my 7-year-old chose to be baptized into the Christian faith. And he's at school right now, so he won't see this, but as amazing as it was to win the election of course in November of 2024, and as amazing as it was to know that President Trump would become president again and would get to accomplish so many good things for the American people, the thing that I was most excited about in November of 2024 is that the week after we won the election my son chose to be baptized in the Christian faith. 

Now here's the basic idea, and and for those of you, of course — you all mostly are cradle Catholics, I assume —  typically we do water baptism of infants in the Catholic Church very very early on. But as many of you know, I am part of an interfaith marriage. My wife, though she comes to church with us almost every single Sunday, she is not Catholic herself. And so the bargain that we have struck is that we will raise our kids Catholic, but we will let them choose the moment that they want to ultimately become baptized. And if that's terrible sacrilege, blame the Dominicans, because they're the ones who came up with this scheme. 

But my 7-year-old elected to become baptized and it was the proudest moment maybe that I've ever had as a father, and he took it very seriously and he wanted to know what are the right things to say: 'Dad what do I need to do? What does this mean? Why is this important?' 

And it was an amazing thing for me to see :my 7-year-old working through these things himself and when I talk about the deep things, the important things, that's what I I'm talking about. Of course we care about our economic indicators and of course we care about the wages of our citizens. We care about those things because when our people are doing better they can have the kinds of moments that promote the kind of flourishing that all of us believe is the very core of a good human life and that of course, in my case, was watching my little 7-year-old son become baptized.

And so while, again, I will never be perfect, I will always try to remind myself that the goal of our public policy is to promote the common good and I will fight for that every single day that I am a public official. 

And that brings me to the final observation I'd like to make as a Christian, a Catholic convert in public life, is that you know, sometimes the bishops don't like what I say and I'm sure, by the way, sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong. My goal is not to litigate when I'm right and when they're wrong or vice versa. My goal is to maybe articulate the way that I think about being a Christian in public life.

When you also have religious leaders in public life who have a spiritual duty to speak on the issues of the day and the way that I try to think about it is, the Catholic church is a kind of technology. It's a technology that was developed 2,000 years ago and it's coming into contact with a technology that's about 10 years old, 20 years old — and that's, of course, social media.

What I I try to remind myself of, is that the clergy are important spiritual leaders. You'll sometimes hear people say, ‘Well we'll let, you know, the clergy talk about matters of the Church, but we can ignore them when it comes to matters of public policy.’ I think that's the wrong way to look at it. That's certainly not the right way to look at it for me. But what I try to remind myself of is that we are not called as Christians to obsess over every social media controversy that implicates the Catholic Church, whether it involves a clergy or a bishop or the Holy Father himself. 

I think that we could frankly take a page out of the books of our grandparents who respected our clergy, who looked to them for guidance, but didn't obsess and fight over every single word that came out of their mouth and entered social media. I don't think that's good and I'm not again counseling all of you but I don't think it's good for us as Christians to constantly fight with one another over every single controversy in the Church. Sometimes we should let this stuff play out a little bit and try to live our faith as best we can under the dictates of our faith and under the dictates of our spiritual leaders, but not hold them to the standards of social media influencers because they're not. 

That brings me of course to the last point that I want to make which is that, as you've probably seen publicly, the Holy Father, Pope Francis, has criticized some of our policies when it comes to immigration. Again, my goal here is not to litigate with him or any other clergy member about who is right and who is wrong. You obviously know my views and I will speak to them consistently because I think that I have to do it because it serves the best interest of the American people. 

I hate the casual use of the world "litigate", but frankly it's one of Vance's favorite. 

What I want to do instead is remind, and I talk to a lot of conservative Catholics and I talked to progressive Catholics too, and I think that sometimes a lot of conservative Catholics are too preoccupied with their political criticisms of a particular clergy member or the leader of the Catholic Church. And of course, I'm not telling you that you're wrong because sometimes I even agree with you. I think that what I would say is that it's not in the best interest of any of us, again, to treat the religious leaders of our faith as just another social media influencer, and I think frankly that goes in both ways if I can be so bold. 

I think it's incumbent upon our religious leaders to recognize that in the era of social media, people will hang on every single word that they utter even if that wasn't their intention and even if a given declaration wasn't meant for consumption in the social media age, but every day since I heard of Pope Francis' illness, I say a prayer for the Holy Father because while yes, I was certainly surprised when he criticized our immigration policy in the way that he has, I I believe that the Pope is fundamentally a person who cares about the flock of Christians under his leadership. And he's a man who cares about the spiritual direction of the faith.  

I say this because every day me and my children have said a prayer for the Holy Father and we pray for his health and we pray for his comfort as he deals with what appears to be a a pretty serious health crisis. 

And while, yes, some of our media and some of our social media influencers and even some of us fellow Catholics I think, try to bring the Holy Father into every culture-war battle in American politics, I will always remember the Holy Father — whether he makes his way through this illness, and I certainly hope that he does — I will always remember the Holy Father in March of 2020 at a time of incredible stress for really the entire world, remember that was the height of the COVID pandemic. None of us knew how bad it was. We heard reports from Italy of people dying en masse on ventilators and personally, I had just a few weeks earlier welcomed our second child into the world and so when the pandemic happened, I had a 3-week old baby at home and I went to Dick’s Sporting Goods and I bought 900 rounds of ammunition and then I went to Walmart and I bought two bags of rice and I sat at home with my bags of rice and my  900 rounds of ammunition and said, “All right, we're just going to wait this thing out,” and into that void when a lot of people didn't know how bad it was, and of course, thankfully the pandemic was not as bad as the very worst predictions. It was quite bad, but not as bad as the very worst predictions.

Ugh, the AR15 Effect and the Stalingrad Weltanschauung making an appearance. 

I think all of us can remember that moment of the Holy Father standing in an empty St Peter's Square holding the Eucharist above his head and giving a sermon that I returned to consistently because it was incredibly meaningful to me at the time and it remains meaningful today — and so if you'll forgive me, I hope that you'll be okay with me reading just an excerpt of the homily that Pope Francis gave:

‘When evening had come’ (Mark 4:35). The Gospel passage we have just heard begins like this. For weeks now it has been evening. Thick darkness has gathered over our squares, our streets and our cities; it has taken over our lives, filling everything with a deafening silence and a distressing void, that stops everything as it passes by; we feel it in the air, we notice in people’s gestures, their glances give them away. We find ourselves afraid and lost. Like the disciples in the Gospel we were caught off guard by an unexpected, turbulent storm. We have realized that we are on the same boat, all of us fragile and disoriented, but at the same time important and needed, all of us called to row together, each of us in need of comforting the other. On this boat … are all of us. Just like those disciples, who spoke anxiously with one voice, saying ‘We are perishing,’ so we too have realized that we cannot go on thinking of ourselves, but only together can we do this.

It is easy to recognize ourselves in this story. What is harder to understand is Jesus’ attitude. While his disciples are quite naturally alarmed and desperate, he is in the stern, in the part of the boat that sinks first. And what does he do? In spite of the tempest, he sleeps on soundly, trusting in the Father; this is the only time in the Gospels we see Jesus sleeping. When he wakes up, after calming the wind and the waters, he turns to the disciples in a reproaching voice: ‘Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?’

Let us try to understand. In what does the lack of the disciples’ faith consist, as contrasted with Jesus’ trust? They had not stopped believing in him; in fact, they called on him. But we see how they call on him: “Teacher, do you not care if we perish?” Do you not care: they think that Jesus is not interested in them, does not care about them. One of the things that hurts us and our families most when we hear it said is: ‘Do you not care about me?’ It is a phrase that wounds and unleashes storms in our hearts. It would have shaken Jesus too. Because he, more than anyone, cares about us. Indeed, once they have called on him, he saves his disciples from their discouragement.

The storm exposes our vulnerability and uncovers those false and superfluous certainties around which we have constructed our daily schedules, our projects, our habits and priorities. It shows us how we have allowed to become dull and feeble the very things that nourish, sustain and strengthen our lives and our communities. The tempest lays bare all our prepackaged ideas and forgetfulness of what nourishes our people’s souls; all those attempts that anesthetize us with ways of thinking and acting that supposedly ‘save’ us, but instead prove incapable of putting us in touch with our roots and keeping alive the memory of those who have gone before us. We deprive ourselves of the antibodies we need to confront adversity.

And that is how I will always remember the Holy Father: as a great pastor. As a man who can speak the truth of the faith in a very profound way at a moment of great crisis. And so I would ask all of us, if you would join me, in this prayer for Pope Francis:

In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Almighty and generous God, we thank you for your charity. Please grant your mercy upon Pope Francis so he may be restored from sickness and guide us in watchful care. We pray that you bless our Holy Father's doctors, nurses and medical staff with wisdom and capability so that you may work through them to renew the health of your shepherd through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

As I conclude my remarks here: I'm not ever going to be perfect. I'm never going to get everything right. But what I will try to do is to try to be the kind of leader who helps our shared civilization build those true antibodies against adversity. And if the Holy Father can hear us, I hope he knows that there are thousands of faithful Catholics in this room and millions of faithful Catholics in this country who are praying for him as he weathers his particular storm.

God bless you. 

Thank you.

Well, could be a lot worse.

I worry, however, that the Trump administration is going to result in a lot of harm to Christians in general, and Catholics specifically.  Trump was raised as as Calvinist and both he and Musk act like them.  Trump isn't close to Catholicism, he's close, for political purposes, to the New  Apostolic Reformation Evangelical Christians who believe that the United States has a militant Protestant purpose. Catholic itself is a barely evolved Latin word, Catholicus, meaning universal.  We have a universal world outlook, which the Trump administration seems to completely lack.  When Trump's policies all fall apart, and they're already starting to, those on the outside will cast a negative eye towards "Christians", not realizing that much of what we're seeing has very little to do with "one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", and that we mean those words.

The last Catholic President, Joe Biden, didn't do Catholicism any big favors.  The prior one, John F. Kennedy, didn't either.  Let us hope and pray that J. D. Vance as Vice President, and probable President soon, won't walk that well worn path.

Blog Mirror: Why Stalingrad still matters.

 

Why Stalingrad still matters

The last word has not been written on WWII's bloodiest battle

Saturday, May 13, 1943. The Germans lay down their arms in North Africa (after having sustained greater losses than they did at Stalingrad), Postwar careers of the Wehrmacht, Mary Wells born.

Today In Wyoming's History: May 13: 1943  A measles epidemic was raging in the state.  As everyone in my family has the stomach flu today, I can sympathize with epidemics.  Attribution:  Wyoming State Historical Society.

That was, of course, in 2013, when that entry was written.  Other health problems are visiting now, ten years later, of a more serious nature.

Lieutenant General Bernard Freyberg (left), commander of the 2nd New Zealand Division, Brigadier Graham and Major General Kurt von Liebenstein at the surrender.

The German Army's 164th Infantry Division laid its weapons down and Major General Kurt Freiherr von Liebenstein surrendered the unit, becoming the last Afrika Korps unit to do so.

Of significant note, in the few days that the final Axis surrender in North Africa took place, 267,000 Afrika Korps troops became POWs.

In contrast, the Soviets took 91,000 German prisoners at Stalingrad.  In fairness, the Germans lost 500,000 men at Stalingrad.  However, in fairness again, during the entire North African campaign, the Germans and Italians suffered 620,000 casualties.  The British Commonwealth lost 220,000 men and the United States 18,500, one of whom was the brother of one of my father's good friends.

I note this as, once again, it sheds light on the Soviet propaganda of the time that they were fighting the war alone. The Soviets lost 750,000 men fighting the Germans at Stalingrad, which is a massive loss, and the battle is regarded as the largest in human history, but in terms of campaign loss, if viewed that way, the Germans and Italians loss more men fighting the British (mostly) and the Americans in North Africa.

Von Liebenstein would go on to join the Bundesherr in 1955 and retire five years later at his World War Two rank of Major General.  He died in 1975 at age 76.  His career dated back to World War One.

This raises a question I've never been able to get a good answer for.  Did the Federal Republic of Germany recognize per 1955 military service for retirement purposes for West German soldiers?  I'm thinking it must have.

The early Bundesheer was packed with former members of the Wehrmacht, and even a handful of SS officers, capped at major for career advancement, were allowed into it, after first being declined.  I don't know the percentage, but a roster of Bundesheer officers reads like a whose who of former Nazi era Heer rolls. 

Indeed, amazingly, the West German government called upon ten senior former Nazi era officers in the early 1950s, including Erich von Manstein, about how to reestablish a German army.  In 1953 Manstein addressed the Bundestag on this topic, noting that he favored a conscript army with 18 to 24 months mandatory male service, thereby looking back to the pre-1939 German system.  This system was in fact adopted.  Von Manstein himself was not allowed back into that army, but it's well known that he had a veto power over former German officers applying to join it, and that he did not want "traitors".

One American historian, a former Army officers, has called this group a "handful", but that's far from true.  There were a lot of them.  And more than a few of them had a background like von Liebenstein.  He'd started off as a junior Imperial German Army in 1916, had gone on to the Reichsheer after the German defeat, had served the Nazi's after that, and completed his career in the service of the Federal Republic of Germany.

How did he view his loyalties?

On this, it ought to also be noted, the post World War Two German Federal Republic's offices were simply packed with those who had served the Third Reich.  Over 70% of its judiciary in that era had.  This really began to come apart with the upheavals of 1968, which gave us the Germany, culturally, we have today.

FWIW, the post-war Austrian Army also had officers who had been in the German Heer, and before that, in the Austrian Army.

Famous Motwon singer Mary Wells was born on this day in Detroit.

Friday, March 5, 1943. Wings.

The Battle of the Ruhr, an Allied air campaign, well let's make this clear, a Western Allied air campaign, against the industrial heart of Germany commenced with a large raid by the RAF on the Krupp munitions factory at Essen.

The campaign would go on into July.

The final German holdout surrendered at Stalingrad.  On the same day, the NKVD shot five German officers it found who were hiding in the city.

The British Gloster Meteor, a jet engined fighter, made its first flight.

The fighter became operational in July 1944 and was the only Allied jet to engage in combat operations during the war.  It was first deployed against V1 flying bombs, an early drone, which made sense given that the V1 was a jet engined aircraft, but late in the war it was deployed on the continent. The RAF largely prevented it from being flown over Germany out of fear that one would be captured and then analyzed by the Germans, or the Soviets.

Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man was released by MGM

Sunday, February 7, 1943. The sacrifice of Howard W. Gilmore, Japanese complete Operation Ke, Hitler rallies his followers.

Howard W. Gilmore, age 40, commander of the USS Growler, ordered the submarine to submerge even though he was too wounded to escape down the hatch, thereby allowing the boat to escape, and causing his drowning.

He was awarded a posthumous Medal of Honor.

The Japanese successfully completed Operation Ke, the withdrawal of 10,000 Japanese troops from Guadalcanal.  Deception was a key part of the operation, causing the U.S. to believe that the Japanese were reinforcing the island.

Hitler gave a rousing speech to German officials and high ranking Nazis at his headquarters, successfully reassuring them that Germany would win World War Two.  During the speech, according to notes taken at the time, he stated "„Entweder wir werden Herr über Europa, oder wir erleben eine komplette Liquidierung und Vernichtung“, or "Either we will be the master of Europe, or we will experience a complete liquidation and extermination,", which likely seemed impossible to the audience, who were also seeking reassurance.  He also promised total war against the remaining Jewish population within his control.

Tuesday, February 2, 1943. No common law marriages.

The Soviet Union announced its victory at Stalingrad.  This date is regarded as the epic battle's date of conclusion.

Surrendered German soldier at Stalingrad.  His coat is non standard and probably adapted from a civilian coat.  By Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-E0406-0022-011 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 de, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5362314

Approximately 11,000 German soldiers continued fighting, with some still fighting until mid March.  A post war analysis of letters from German soldiers in the city showed that most of them expressed faith in an ultimate German victory and in Nazism, so it is not safe to assume that they continued on because they knew their chances as a Soviet prisoner were poor.

General Maharaja Sir Ganga Singh, GCSI, GCIE, GCVO, GBE, KCB, GCStJ (13 October 1880 – 2 February 1943), ruling Maharaja of the princely state of Bikaner, and only non British member of the Imperial War Cabinet during World War one, died at age 62.

The Wyoming Supreme Court made an important decision that continues to have repercussions to this day:

Today In Wyoming's History: February 2: 1943  The Wyoming Supreme Court determines that it is not possible to contract common law marriages in Wyoming.

Indeed, the way the issue arose, in the context of an estate, is something that people still inquire about now, when the situation is too late to fix.  The opinion, Roberts v. Roberts, 133 P.2d 492 (Wyo. 1943), stated:

Wyoming Supreme Court

Roberts v. Roberts, 133 P.2d 492 (Wyo. 1943)

Wyoming Supreme Court

Filed: February 2nd, 1943

Citations: 133 P.2d 492, 58 Wyo. 438

Docket Number: No. 2253

Author: Fred H. Blume

This case arose out of a proceeding instituted in Natrona County in the matter of the estate of Ora P. Roberts, deceased, who died in June, 1940, to determine the heirship of the deceased. The petitioners claimed to be the brothers and sisters of the deceased and his sole heirs at law. Barbara Kaiser Roberts, theretofore appointed administratrix of the estate, claimed to be his widow, and, as such, entitled to all the property of the estate, since its value was said to be less than twenty thousand dollars. She claimed to have been married to the deceased on November 1, 1934, in Natrona County, Wyoming, by a so-called common law marriage, that is to say, that she and the deceased, on that day, in the presence of one William Holliday, a lawyer, now deceased, and one McKenzie, declared to each other that they would then and there be husband and wife, and that pursuant thereto they, thereafter, cohabited with each other as such. The petitioners denied that any such marriage took place. The court found against Barbara Kaiser Roberts and in favor of the petitioners, on the ground that the so-called common law marriage had not been proved and on the further ground that no such marriage is recognized under the laws of this state. Judgment was entered accordingly, from which Barbara Kaiser Roberts, hereinafter called appellant, has appealed.

We shall not pause to set out the testimony tending to show a common law marriage between the deceased and appellant, nor the testimony in contradiction thereof, but proceed at once to determine whether such marriage, when entered into in this state, is recognized as valid under our laws. That has not heretofore been determined, a few cases in which common law marriages are mentioned, as Weidenhoff v. Primm, 16 Wyo. 340, 94 P. 453; In Re Kiesel, 35 Wyo. 300; 249 P. 81; Willis v. Willis, 48 Wyo. 403, 49 P.2d 670, having *Page 443 been disposed of on other grounds. Connors v. Connors, 5 Wyo. 433,40 P. 966, has at times been considered as holding such marriages valid, but in that case there was a ceremonial marriage, a license had been issued, but it had not been recorded. This was held not to make the marriage invalid. The court by way of dictum stated that the marriage would have been valid if no license had been issued. That dictum is supported by other authorities, though there are cases to the contrary. The point is not involved herein. In the case at bar, there was a total absence of compliance or attempted compliance with the regulations prescribed by our statute. For our present purpose it is sufficient to say that a so-called common law marriage is said to be entered into by words of present assent (per verba de praesenti). In other words, it is an informal contract by the parties declaring that they are then and there husband and wife. Some of the courts require subsequent co-habitation; others do not. The subject before us has given rise to many discussions, even acrimonious in character, and to many opposite opinions. Bishop strenuously maintains the validity of such marriage, not even shrinking from the fact that it might be called concubinage. Section 396, Bishop on Marriage, Divorce and Separation. Others, on the other hand, have deplored or wondered at the fact that the contract of marriage, the most sacred of all contracts, should be treated so lightly. 2 Pollock Maitland, History of English Law, 369; Judge Redfield, in his edition of Story, Conflict of Laws, Section 112; Dunbarton v. Franklin, 19 N.H. 244; Note 17 Eng. Ruling Case Law, 168. In the face of such different views it would be vain to hope that anything which we might say on the subject would convince anyone having the contrary opinion. But inasmuch as the ultimate authority to declare the law in this state is vested in us, we shall state our opinions and conclusions as *Page 444 dispassionately as possible, knowing that if we are wrong, the Legislature has power to correct whatever errors we may commit. It has been said that the law on the subject in the United States is in a state of chaos. We cannot hope to put it in order, but if we can furnish one ray of light to penetrate the gloom, we shall be satisfied.

It has been many times stated that the idea of the validity of a common law marriage comes to us directly from the canon law and through it from the Roman law. Marriage is an institution common to the human race, and a glimpse at part of its history, momentary only as that must necessarily be, will perhaps aid us in keeping our mind at equilibrium on so controversial a subject. If the facts left to us on the pages of history have been correctly stated and if we are not amiss in the interpretation thereof, it may be safety stated that we have strong grounds for believing that at least in the last twenty-four centuries, in countries pretending to any civilization, marriage without any formality aside from the agreement of the parties has at times been tolerated but has never met with general approval. Formalities in connection with marriage did not always consist of ceremonies, though they were usual, but might, for instance, consist of written contracts, generally relating to dowry rights. In ancient Greece, ceremonies, particularly among the higher classes, were much more elaborate than with us. A dowry was thought to be necessary to be brought to the husband by the wife to mark the distinction between a wife and a concubine. Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, 3rd ed., Vol. 1, p. 692, and Vol. 2, p. 136. See Schouler, Marriage, Divorce, etc., 6th ed., Sec. 28. In ancient Rome marriages were attended by religious ceremonies performed under the auspices of the pontiff, and the idea of the sanctity of marriage, even in Ovid's day, may be gathered from *Page 445 the superstition that the month of May and the first half of June were deemed unlucky for the rite. 1 Smith, supra, 142, 143. Marriage, soon, from a legal standpoint, came to consist of a mutual agreement, and the only thing necessary was to place the woman in the control of the husband. With it came the logical accompaniment of the theory of such contract, namely, divorce by agreement of the parties. Buckland, Textbook of Roman Law, 112, 117. Notwithstanding that, ceremonies, formal betrothal, and dowry instruments, were usual. Corbett, Roman Law of Marriage, p. 1; McKeldy on Roman Law, Dropie Translation, Sec. 549; Code Justinian, 5, 1; Girard, Manuel Elementaire de Droit Romain, 7th ed., 161; 1 Smith Cheatham, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, 458. It may be gathered from Code Justinian 5, 4, 23, 6, which provided that marriages without dowry instruments should be valid, that an opinion to the contrary had prevailed. Corbett, Roman Law of Marriage, 94. In fact, the Emperor Marjorian had enacted a law to that effect. Nov. 6, 9. Concubinage, in its outward form, was not distinguishable from marriage by agreement of the parties. Girard, supra, 161, 162. Mainly doubtless on account of slavery and because soldiers were not permitted to marry during the early part of the empire, concubinage came to be recognized since the time of Augustus as legal, without giving the woman the rights of a wife and without making the children legitimate. Constantine denounced concubinage, but, partly through the influence of the Christian Church, subsequent emperors made numerous laws on behalf of the children of such unions, and even some provisions for the concubine. Code, 5, 27; Nov. 74 and 87. The evil, or supposed evil, of concubinage, had become so great that Justinian, in Nov. 74, Ch. 4, felt himself impelled to make a new law compelling men to execute a dowry instrument or have the marriage ceremony performed *Page 446 in the Christian Church, stating among other things, significantly: "It was provided by former and by our laws that marriage entered into without written marriage contracts and through mere marital intentions, should be valid and enforced. By reason of that, the Republic has become filled with fictitious contracts and witnesses come forward who lie with impunity that men and women living together have called each other husband and wife, and in this manner invent marriages which in fact were never contracted." He exempted from the law "rustics and common soldiers and the lowly and obscure." He was later compelled to modify the law, lessening its scope. Nov. 117, c. 4. Less than a century later the Visigothic Code made elaborate provisions on the subject of marriage, providing among other things that no marriage should be entered into without written dowry instruments, because "marriage is recognized to have greater dignity and honor" in such case. Translation by E.P. Scott, p. 75. And the thought that contracts of marriage by mere agreement would not be good for the interests of society, and, partially at least, to get rid of concubinage, led Leo, the philosopher in the East, about 900 A.D., Charlemagne, in the West, about 800 A.D., and King Edmund, in England, about 940 A.D., to make religious ceremony of marriage mandatory, as had been customary from early Christian times. And that, too, appears to have been true among the Visigoths. The popes, also, strove to get rid of concubinage. Beamish v. Beamish, infra; Smith Cheatham, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, Vol. 1, p. 422; Vol. 2, pp. 1105 and 1107; Glueck, Pandecten, 25, 428, de concubinis.

How, then, did it come about that after the struggle with concubinage above mentioned, the idea was formed or retained that marriage by mutual consent without ceremony was valid? Since that was contrary to Edmund's law, it was, in England, doubtless due *Page 447 largely to the canon law, part of which at least, as ecclesiastical law, became a part of the common law of England. That, on first impression, may seem strange, but it is not so after full consideration. The law of Edmund and of Charlemagne (though the latter was confirmed in a church council in 909 A.D.) finally fell into desuetude. The Church had, almost from the beginning, encouraged marriages with religious ceremonies. Marriages entered into otherwise were, and gradually became more and more, odious to the prelates of the church. They had detested and even prohibited them. Beamish v. Beamish, infra; 2 Smith Cheatham, supra, 1105, et seq; Kurtz, Church History, Secs. 39-1, 89-4, 104-6. But the Christian Church arose under the Roman Empire. The canon law was modeled after the Roman law, and the latter permitted so-called common law marriages and even concubinage. Christian feeling was divided between the fear of recognizing what might seem half marriages only on the one hand and the desire to sanction any union which fulfilled the primary condition of marriage on the other. It desired to convert to its faith the heathens of France, of England and of Germany, and found, during the dark and middle ages, disorganized society, free and easy marriages, and concubinage. Due partly, doubtless, to Roman tradition, partly to anxiety to keep people out of meretricious relations and to make children legitimate, and doubtless partly to the fear of driving men out of or not retaining them in the church, it recognized many clandestine unions as valid, though irregular, and presumed everything in favor of the validity thereof. Bryce, Marriage and Divorce, 3 Selected Essays in Anglo-American History, 810, 813; 1 Smith Cheatham, supra, 422; 2 Pollock Maitland, 366-370. And it did not prohibit marriages without religious ceremony until the Council of Trent (1545-1563). The proceedings of that Council were not accepted *Page 448 in France or England. However, under Henry III and Henry IV of France (1574-1606) religious ceremonies in connection with marriage became compulsory. Beamish v. Beamish, infra. And it appears that that was true as well in Protestant countries on the continent. Glueck, Pandecten, 24, p. 357. It is, however, agreed among the authorities that up to the time of the Council of Trent the canon law was that a marriage with words of present assent (per verba de praesenti) was valid. Was this part of the canon law fully accepted as part of the common law of England? The question was answered in the affirmative in Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 2 Hadd. Const. 54 (1810), 17 Eng. Ruling Cases 11; 161 Eng. Rep. 665. The question was answered in the negative in Reg. v. Millis, 10 Cl. Fin. 544, 8 Eng. Rep. 844, 17 Eng. Ruling Cases 66, a case carried to the House of Lords on appeal from the Irish courts, and decided in 1844. The case was referred by the House of Lords to the judges of Common Pleas, who held unanimously that the canon law of continental Europe was adopted only as modified by the customs and usages of England, a doctrine which sounds familiar to the American lawyer. Not only cases decided in the civil courts but also ecclesiastical usages, mandatory in form, were cited. And it was accordingly held that a marriage by words of present assent without intervention of the clergy was void; in other words, that a so-called common law marriage was never valid in England. The Lords voting on the question were evenly divided, but according to procedural rule, the law of that case became as mentioned. It was re-affirmed in Beamish v. Beamish, 9 House of Lords Cases 274, 11 Eng. Rep. 735. The three cases here mentioned constitute a complete treatise on the subject before us, to which little can be added. We take it that intervention of the clergy was required because no statute regulating marriage was in existence after *Page 449 the law of Edmund had fallen into desuetude, leaving no other course if marriages by mere agreement were not to be upheld. The judges of the Common Pleas have been accused of being ignorant of the ecclesiastical law, and the opinion of Lord Stowell in Dalrymple v. Dalrymple has been highly extolled. Many think that the opinion in the latter case is correct and that of Reg. v. Millis unsound. 2 Pollock Maitland, 374, et seq., argue at great length that the decision in the latter case is erroneous. We do not feel that we are competent to contradict so great an authority, and yet repeated careful comparison of Dalrymple v. Dalrymple and Reg. v. Millis may well cause one to hesitate to pronounce an unqualified judgment that the latter case, in so far as the question before us is concerned, is unsound, though we may regret the results in that case under the special facts therein. A number of authorities cited therein are hard to explain on the theory that common law marriages were recognized, and one is almost tempted to believe that the doctrine of the validity of such marriages took its main beginning from the dictum of Lord Holt in Collins v. Jessot, 6 Mod. 155, 87 Eng. Repr. 913, decided in 1705, a century after the 4th year of James II, as of which time we adopted the common law. Sec. 26-101, Wyo. Rev. St. 1931. The canon, or ecclesiastical, law was a subordinate and inferior part of the common law, and applicable in so far, and in so far only, as recognized by the courts by usage and custom. Hale, Common Law, 5th ed., 31, 32; 1 Blackst. Comm. 84. And the judges of the Common Pleas should have been in at least an equally good position as the ecclesiastical judges of knowing the extent to which the canon law had been adopted as part of the common law. Dalrymple v. Dalrymple concerns Scotch, not English, law. It attempted to state the rule under the latter, but the discussion in that connection was but incidental and *Page 450 far from thorough. The only case cited which was decided before the 18th century is Bunten's Case, 4 Coke 29, 76 Eng. Repr. 950, much discussed in Reg. v. Millis. And that case, so far as we can see, in no way sustains Lord Stowell, but is, fairly construed, to the contrary. However that may be, it seems beyond question that a contract of marriage with words of present assent was at most an imperfect marriage, if it was a marriage at all. 1 Blackst. Comm. 439, states that "any contract per verba de praesenti, or in words of the present tense, and in the case of cohabitation per verba de futuro also, between persons able to contract, was, before the late act (Marriage Act of 1753), deemed a valid marriage to many purposes, and the parties might becompelled in the spiritual courts to celebrate it in facieecclesiae (in the face of the church)." The words put by us in italics, unfortunately not elucidated by Blackstone, appear to have been almost entirely ignored by the courts in this country, and yet seem of importance. The purposes mentioned were, perhaps, those discussed by the Lord Chancellor in Reg. v. Millis, supra, which, as he held, gave no reciprocal property rights and did not make the children legitimate. In any event, all the authorities agree that under a marriage of that kind the parties received no reciprocal rights in the property of the other, even after death, so that, even if a common law marriage were held to be valid in this state, we could not, if we should follow the common law, give the appellant herein any rights in the property of the deceased. See 10 Law Quarterly 49; Reg. v. Millis, supra.

The opinions above mentioned, that the decision in Reg. v. Millis, supra, is unsound, are by no means unanimous. The author in 2 Univ. of Cincinnati Law Review 127, who himself appears to favor the recognition of common law marriage, but who appears to have given careful consideration to the law on the subject, states *Page 451 that the so-called common law marriage in our states is not derived from the common law of England; that the rule of Reg. v. Millis is "native law," that of Dalrymple v. Dalrymple "foreign and exotic"; that the rule of Reg. v. Millis had been sustained during 700 years without exception by the common law courts; that there were in England two species of marriage, one a marriage performed with religious forms recognized and enforced by the common law courts to the exclusion of the other, and the other a contract of marriage without religious forms, but enforced in the ecclesiastical courts by compelling, under penalty, observance of religious forms thereafter. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1810, in the case of Milford v. Worcester, stated that "when our ancestors left England, and ever since, it is well known that a lawful marriage there must be celebrated before a clergyman in orders." The colonial law in New York of 1684, hereinafter mentioned, bears eloquent testimony to the correctness of Reg. v. Millis. Dennison v. Dennison, 35 Md. 361 (1871), is one of the few cases in this country which have by careful examination attempted to examine the common law at the time when this country was settled, and is one of the clearest cases on the subject. It quotes at length from Swinburne, Treatise on Espousals, written in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and from Park on Dower, which show that by the common law, marriage by consent per verba de praesenti did not make the issue lawful, nor confer reciprocal property rights on the parties. The court approves the rule in Reg. v. Millis, supra, and gives an additional reason why the canon law cannot be held applicable in this country:

"The ecclesiastical polity of England forms no part of the common law as we have adopted it. We have in our system no tribunal as in England, clothed with power and jurisdiction to enforce the solemnization of marriages between the parties contracting per verba *Page 452 de presenti. Unless, therefore, there can be something in the law of this state, apart from the common law of England, to render such contracts valid without solemnization, it follows, necessarily, that they can at most only be valid to the extent that they are good at common law without solemnization; and as we have seen, such unsolemnized contracts are incomplete, and are not effective to confer legitimacy upon the issue, nor the rights of property upon the parties — a right that is attempted to be enforced in this case."

This reasoning of the case was approved in Furth v. Furth,97 Ark. 272, 133 S.W. 1037, Ann. Cas. 1912 Dall. 595. Parsons in Contracts (6th ed.) 84, referring to Roper on Husband and Wife, in a note, states that "I cannot but think that he places upon strong grounds his conclusion that a contract of marriage per verba de praesenti without ceremony or celebration of any kind does not constitute a valid marriage at common law."

The question of the validity of the so-called common law marriage came before the courts of this country for the first time (1809) in Fenton v. Reed (N.Y.) 4 Johns. 52. The decision is per curiam, but it is generally attributed to Chancellor Kent, then Chief Justice of the appellate court. He held that "no formal ceremony of marriage was requisite (at common law). A contract of marriage made per verba de praesenti amounts to an actual marriage and is as valid as if made in facie ecclesiae." He cited Collins v. Jessot, 6 Mod. 155, 86 Eng. Repr. 913; Wigmore's Case, 2 Salk. 437, 91 Eng. Repr. 380; and Reed v. Passer Peake 303, 170 Eng. Rep. 164, which in Reg. v. Millis, supra, were held not to express the common law rule on the subject or were explained on some other ground. It has been said that he was influenced by Dutch law, which was derived from Roman law, and by the fact that he was learned in the Roman and the Civil law. But that is not likely to be the correct explanation, in view of his personal attitude towards the rule announced by him. *Page 453 Great scholar that he was, he simply, apparently, took at correct the rule announced or apparently announced in the English cases above mentioned, without further investigation. His decision is the beginning and at least partially the foundation of the doctrine of other cases as to the validity of common law marriages. It probably has had more influence in establishing that doctrine than any other case. See, for instance, Becker v. Becker, 153 Wisc. 226; Lefkoff v. Sicro, 189 Ga. 554,6 S.E.2d 687, 133 A.L.R. 738; Hall in 30 Col. Law Review 1, 6; Black in 2 Univ. Cin. Law Rev. 131. But it would seem that the decision in Fenton v. Reed, supra, was wrong. The Colonial Assembly of New York (Laws of the Colony of New York, 1665-1719, p. 150), on October 23, 1684, passed an act reciting:

"Whereas By the Law of England noe Marriage is lawfully consumated without a Minister whose Office is to joyne the partyes in matrimony after the Bands thrice published in the Church or a Lycence first had and obtained from some other person thereunto authorized all which formality cannot be duely practiced in these parts yett to the end a Decent Rule may be therein observed Bee It Enacted by the Generall Assembly and by the authority of the same" etc.

And the Assembly then provided that the intention to marry should be publicly read in the parish church or usual meeting place and might be solemnized, upon producing a license, by any minister or justice of the peace, and then provided further: "Bee it further enacted by the authority That if any man Shall p'sume to marry contrary to the Law prescribed the person offending shall be proceeded against as for fornication."

It has been thought that the colonial laws of marriage fell into desuetude. See an interesting discussion thereon in 10 L.R. App. Cas. (1805) 728 et seq. The law had not been printed in 1809, but, as stated in the preface of the volume above mentioned, remained in *Page 454 force until 1828, and, together with other colonial laws, not repealed, became the law of the State of New York upon the adoption of the first Constitution in 1777. Hall in 30 Col. L. Rev. p. 3. Chancellor Kent evidently overlooked the law. He was not in favor of the rule as announced by himself in 1809, as a matter of public policy, for in his Commentaries, Vol. 2, p. 88, he referred to common law marriage as "the loose doctrine of the common law." In view of the fact that he was in favor of greater solemnization of marriages than by the mere agreement of the parties, it is altogether improbable that Fenton v. Reed would have been decided as it was had the existence of the colonial law been known. Thus, judging from the subsequent reliance on Fenton v. Reed and Kent's Commentaries, the remarkable fact appears in our jurisprudence that the doctrine on so important a subject as the validity of common law marriages in this country is at least partially based on false premises, the extent of the falsity of which being, of course, difficult to measure at this time.

The court in Reed v. Clark (1841), 8 Paige (N.Y.) 574, 579, states that "by ancient common law in England it seems that a marriage was invalid unless it was celebrated in facie ecclesiae" (citing cases), but that it was changed at the Reformation or before. The Reformation wrought changes on the question before us. In England the Church of England was substituted for the Catholic Church. Among Nonconformists and Dissenters in this country, as during Cromwell's time in England, religious ceremony was not deemed necessary or was partly condemned. Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48; 2 Univ. Cin. L. Rev. 128. The ceremony required or usual in England was, as already stated, religious, but too much stress has been laid by Bishop and others on that element. It must be conceded, as they hold, that the American rule is against compulsory *Page 455 religious ceremony. However, the religious factor was but incidental. Ceremony was introduced in England, in part at least, for the purpose of publicity, and after the law of Edmund had fallen into desuetude, religious ceremony was deemed necessary because of the absence of any regulation by the temporal power. See Beamish v. Beamish, supra. If the colonists coming to this country had made no regulations, to take the place of religious ceremony in England, it might be plausibly urged that they approved the so-called common law marriage. But that is not the case. It is true, as Bishop, supra, Sec. 442, states, that "there must have been between the legislation and the first coming of the emigrants a time intervening when marriage without statutory help was possible." But, during that time, these emigrants would, of course, and naturally — at least wherever possible, no matter what the technical status of the common law in England may have been, adopt a ceremony according to the custom which they knew, be that according to the established church of England, or of a particular group of religious denomination, or according to Cromwell's law, which permitted magistrates to perform the marriage ceremony. In all these cases some public ceremony was usual or required. Every colony or state at some time, and some of them very early, made or adopted a substitute for — more or less variant from — the religious ceremony in England, and it would seem that the logical holding should have been, as it was in some of the states, that the marriage laws of England applied with that substitute standing in place of the religious ceremony required or at least usual in England. That would have been the logical adoption of the common law in that connection in so far as applicable to the conditions in this country. Instead of that, many courts cut the common law on this point to the bone, holding statutory regulations directory, *Page 456 and leaving what they have been pleased to call the canon law. The course taken by some of the courts is particularly strange when we bear in mind, as already stated, that when an agreement to marry by words of present assent was made, the ecclesiastical authorities in England could, under the rules of the canon law, compel the parties to properly solemnize the marriage. No such authority ever existed in this country. Denison v. Denison, supra. Little attention has been paid to this difference by the courts in this country, though it would seem that it should have had considerable bearing in determining the common law applicable in this country. A contractual marriage, the solemnization of which is enforceable, is one thing; one without such enforceability is another; to discard the element of enforceability, putting nothing in place of it, and leave the bare element of natural law, was a procedure which had little regard for the sanctity of marriage. The court in State v. Samuel, (1836), 19 N.C. 177, said on this subject:

"The rule of the common, or rather the canon law, respecting marriages de facto, contracted in verbis de praesenti, might well be adopted at a time and in a country, in which an ecclesiastical establishment was a component part of the government, with authority, by imposing temporal penalty, and pronouncing spiritual denunciations, to compel the celebration of such a marriage in facie ecclesiae, as a specific and formal execution of a contract, partly performed, and binding on conscience, though not complete in law. * * * When, however, this function of the spiritual judges was abrogated in England, there arose an exigent necessity that some other fixed mode should be established by which marriage should be publicly celebrated, and some solemn memorial thereof preserved. * * * In this state there never was a jurisdiction similar to that of the spiritual courts of England; and it is plain from the earliest period of our legislation, that in consequence thereof, it has been constantly required as an *Page 457 essential requisite of a legal marriage, that it should either be celebrated by some person in sacred office, or be entered into before some one in public station and judicial trust."

In view of the fact that the so-called common law marriage in this country is devoid of the element of enforceability of the canon law above mentioned, the former cannot, in reality, be said to represent or be based on the latter, and Black, in 2 Univ. Cin. Law. Rev. 131, seems more nearly correct in saying that it finds its concept, its basis, in the Roman law, in which, as already pointed out, was inherent the danger of concubinage and easy divorce. We half suspect that if the non-conformists, dissenters and Puritans had been told that they were adopting such a rule of easy marriages, they would have met the charge with vigorous protest and denial. It might not be profitless to re-read Hawthorne's "Scarlet Letter."

If we should admit that marriage by mere agreement as above mentioned was valid at common law, still we must examine the provisions of our statute governing marriages. The main provisions were enacted by Ch. 71, Session Laws of 1869, now contained in Chapter 68, Rev. St. 1931. Section 1 of the original act states that "in law, marriage is considered a civil contract to which the consent of parties capable of contracting is essential." Section 2 relates to the required ages of the parties to be married, Section 3 provides that no marriage declared void under the divorce laws of the State may be solemnized. This referred to Chapter 10 of the Session Laws of 1869 hereafter mentioned. Section 4 states that previous to the solemnization of any marriage, a license for that purpose "must" be obtained from the county clerk wherein the marriage is to take place. Section 5 relates to consent of parents of minors; Sections 6 and 7 to investigation as to the competency of the parties. Section 8 provides that "every judge *Page 458 and justice of the peace and every licensed or ordained preacher of the gospel may perform the ceremony of marriage. Section 9 provides as follows:

"Sec. 9. In the solemnization of marriage, no particular form shall be required, except that the parties shall solemnly declare in the presence of the magistrate or minister, and the attending witnesses, that they take each other as husband and wife, and in any case there shall be at least two witnesses beside the minister or magistrate, present at the ceremony."

Sections 10 to 13 provide for the certificate of marriage and the report of the marriage to the county clerk and the recording thereof. Sections 14 and 15 provide for exceptions to the act. The former provides that if the person performing the ceremony, professing that he is one of the persons who, under the statute, has the power to do so, does not actually have such power, still the marriage shall be valid "provided the marriage be consummated with a full belief on the part of the persons so married or either of them, that they have been lawfully joined in marriage." Section 15 provides that persons belonging to a religious society, which has its peculiar rites and customs, may be joined in marriage according to such rites and customs. Section 16 relates to the evidentiary effect of the certificate of marriage and of the record above mentioned and Section 17 recognizes the validity of marriages which are recognized as valid in other states. Further provisions were made in Chapter 10 of the Laws of 1869 relating to divorces and alimony. These laws, with some intervening changes, are now found in Chapter 35, Rev. St. 1931, and provide among other things that marriages shall be void in certain cases, for instance, when either party has a husband or wife living at the time of contracting the marriage; when either party is insane, or stands in certain relation to the other. Section 35-102, Rev. St. 1931, provides that when a marriage of a minor has *Page 459 been solemnized, it may under the conditions stated in that section be deemed voidable, and provisions are made in the succeeding sections for the annulment of marriages. In 1915 the legislature passed the Workmen's Compensation Act. It provides for compensation to a surviving widow or widower only if "he or she has been regularly married by a marriage duly solemnized by a legal ceremony." Sec. 124-120(1), Rev. St. 1931. In 1921 (Sec. 103-227) the legislature provided that:

"Every male person securing a marriage license must produce a certificate dated within ten days before the date of the application for such marriage license from a licensed physician practicing in the state of Wyoming showing applicant to be free from any venereal disease in a communicable stage."

In 1931 (Sec. 68-106) the legislature required that an application for a license should not be granted till after a lapse of five days, but that the requirement might be waived in an emergency by order of the judge of the district court. This provision was repealed by Ch. 3, Session Laws of 1935, but was in force when the claimed common law marriage in this case took place. The statute, while mandatory in form in several sections, as noted, does not declare marriages entered into contrary to its provisions to be void. Bishop, supra, Sec. 424, states that a common law marriage is valid notwithstanding the existence of a statute, unless the statute contains express words of nullity. 2 Greenleaf, Ev., Sec. 460, is similar. The authors, singularly enough, do not appear to distinguish between marriages which are void because of total absence of compliance with the statutes, and marriages in connection with which some irregularity merely appears. They assume, apparently, that the slightest omission of the statutory requirements must either render the marriage wholly void, or none of the requirements are mandatory. That is not necessarily true. In many instances *Page 460 some statutory provisions may be mandatory, and others, on the same subject, may be directory. A result which is reasonable is sought. Some of the cases relied on by the authors might well be regarded as presenting mere irregularities. In others the rule above mentioned was applied out of necessity. Thus in Rodebaugh v. Sanka, 2 Watts. (Pa.) 1, it appears that an early law of Pennsylvania required solemnization of marriages in presence of fourteen witnesses. The court, holding the statute directory, stated that "it is not too much to say that rigid execution of them would bastardize a vast majority of the children which have been born within the state for half a century." Dumaresly v. Fishley, 2 A.K. March (Ky.) 368, 10 Am. Dec. 76, presents a similar situation. We are not, we think, confronted with any such situation in this state which might induce us to distort the ordinary meaning of our statute, and which was a factor or contributing factor in inducing courts in other states, as, for instance, in Pennsylvania, in recognizing the validity of common law marriages. We think that our people have generally complied with our statutory provisions. In a number of states statutes similar to ours prescribing the form of marriages have been held mandatory, in part at least, though the statute contained no express words of nullity. Denison v. Denison, 35 Md. 361; Morrill v. Palmer, 68 Vt. 1, 33 A. 829, 33 L.R.A. 411; Dunbarton v. Franklin, 19 N.H. 257; Beverlin v. Beverlin, 29 W. Va. 732,31 S.E. 36; Furth v. Furth, 97 Ark. 272, 133 S.W. 1037, Ann. Cas. 1912 Dall. 595; Offield v. Davis, 100 Va. 250, 40 S.E. 910; Huard v. McTeigh, 113 Or. 279, 232 P. 658, 39 A.L.R. 528; In Re McLaughlin's Estate, 4 Wash. 570, 30 P. 651, 16 L.R.A. 699; Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, (1810); Bashaw v. State, 1 Yerg. (9 Tenn.) 176. Milford v. Worcester was the first case on marriage, considered in the light of the statute on the subject, and *Page 461 might have been accepted by other states as the law had it not been for Fenton v. Reed, supra, and for cases which had to be decided otherwise on account of necessity. The case, however, recognizes that mere irregularities will not render a marriage invalid. In 2 Parsons on Contract (6th ed.) 81, it is stated that "the essential thing seems to be the declaration of consent by both parties, before a person authorized to receive such declaration by law." Such seems to be the law in some cases. We need not decide the point.

Turning to the various provisions of our statute, we find that Section 1 of C. 71 of the Act of 1869 provides that marriage is a civil contract. It is that, but it is also, or the contract leads to, a status, so that it is more than the ordinary contract (35 Am. Jur. 183); if it were not, then, as stated in Collins v. Hoag Rollins, 122 Nebr. 805, 241 N.W. 766, it would be dissoluble at pleasure, which is not true. Too much stress should not be laid upon the first section of the act alone. The remaining sections, as we view it, provide the manner of entering into the contract, leading to the status of marriage. An attempt was made to provide for every contingency and situation, and the provisions heretofore mentioned, considered as a whole, seem to constitute a complete code on the form and requisites of marriage. Hence there is no room for the contention that statutory provisions in contravention of the common law must be strictly construed. If, as in this case, a statute covers the whole subject matter, as apparently at least it does, the abrogation of the common law on the same subject will necessarily be implied. 59 C.J. 1126. Again, it may be noted that the statute provides for cases in which a marriage will be recognized as valid notwithstanding the form prescribed in ordinary cases has not been followed. Thus a marriage according to the rites and usages of a religious society is recognized as valid if entered into by members thereof. *Page 462 And though a person assuming the authority to perform the ceremony has in fact no such authority, nevertheless if the parties believe in good faith that they have been lawfully married, such marriage will be recognized. These provisions constitute exceptions. "Where a general rule is established by statute with exceptions, the court will not curtail the former, nor add to the latter by implication; and it is a general rule that an express exception excludes all others." 59 C.J. 1292. The rule was applied in In Re McLaughlin's Estate, supra; Beverlin v. Beverlin, supra; Furth v. Furth, supra. In Bashaw v. State, supra, the court applied the rule that an affirmative implies a negative — a rule mentioned in 59 C.J. 1076. In Holmes v. Holmes, 1 Sawy. 99, 1 Abb. (U.S.) 525, Fed. Cas. 6638, the court had under consideration a statute reading as follows:

"In the solemnization of marriage no particular form is required, except that the parties thereto shall assent or declare in the presence of the minister, priest, or judicial officer solemnizing the same, and in the presence of at least two attending witnesses, that they take each other to be husband and wife."

The court stated that the section was strongly indicative of the mandatory nature of the marriage laws. Our present statute (Sec. 68-109) is similar. We have set out the section (Sec. 9, c. 71, Laws of 1869) as originally enacted and as it stood till 1931. While the meaning has not been changed, the original section sounds somewhat more imperative. The phrase "and in any case there shall be at least two witnesses beside the minister or magistrate present at the ceremony," leaves little room for construction. To hold that in spite of this, no witnesses and no minister and no magistrate need be present, and that a simple contract between the parties suffices — in other words, that the negative of the provision is just as true as the positive *Page 463 — would seem to be the merest mockery. There may be an excuse for other courts to so hold, who feel themselves bound by earlier precedents, but there would be none for us, when we find no precedents in this state. As stated by the Supreme Court of Washington in the well-considered case of In Re McLaughlin's Estate, supra: "In order to sustain the validity of common law marriages in many of the states, the courts have practically overruled the statutory law upon the subject, and we do not feel justified in following them when it results in the violation of the most ordinary rules recognized in construing statutes, nor do we think the true interests of the people lie in that direction. It is important that publicity should be given to such contracts, to guard against deceptions and to provide accessible evidence to prove the relationship." It has been said that "the construction of mandatory words as directory should not be lightly adopted, and never when it would in fact make a new law instead of that passed by the legislature." 59 C.J. 1073. To adopt the construction which appellant wants us to adopt would practically nullify our statute. In the ironical words of Chancellor Kent: "The regulations amount, therefore, only to legislativerecommendation and advice. They are not laws, because they do not require obedience!" 2 Kent Comm. 89, note (a). In 1843 the question of the validity of common law marriages in South Carolina came before the Supreme Court of the United States in Lessee of Sarah J. Jewell et al., 1 How. 219. The court was evenly divided and expressed no opinion. There were statutes in South Carolina regulating marriages. Subsequent to this decision (see 2 Parsons, Contracts, 78), Chancellor Kent modified his Commentaries (2, p. 87) to read that a contract of marriage per verba de praesenti is valid in the absence of all civilregulations to the contrary, clearly showing that he did not consider statutory regulations *Page 464 to be merely advisory. Yet despite the fact that he was thereafter often cited, no attention, apparently, was paid to the statement here italicized. Counsel for appellant seems to think that, in view of the rule in so many states, for the court to declare our statute mandatory would be for us to declare a public policy which should be left to the legislature. We do not think so. We think the legislature has established that policy and that we are merely enforcing it. But if it be otherwise, still we cannot accept the conception of counsel as to the relation of courts to public policy. The law would be in a sorry state, if courts ignored it. The common law was developed from its beginning largely through public policy, as it was conceived by the courts to be and then by them declared. Holmes, Common Law, passim; see, e.g., pp. 78, 106, 154-156, 161, 181, 198, 202-205. He states on p. 35 that "every important principle which is developed in litigation is at fact and at bottom the result of more or less definitely understood views of public policy." Time and again courts have declared a rule of law as based on public policy, established, in their opinion, either by legislation, by custom or usage, or by general public opinion. True, courts have no right to establish such policy contrary to a statute. Innes v. McMichall, 59 Ohio St. 402, 53 N.E. 60. But law and morals, when the latter are involved, cannot be separated today any more than they have been able to be separated in the past, and that principle, itself evidently one of public policy of ancient standing, applies no less in the interpretation of statutes than in other fields, and courts will, if the statute permits, adopt that interpretation thereof which is inconsistent with neither. As stated in the Virginia case of Offield v. Davis, 100 Va. 250,40 S.E. 910, "when a statute admits of two interpretations, the one destructive of the foundation of society, and inimical to the peace, welfare and good order of a *Page 465 people, and the other conducive to their welfare, and adding strength and durability to the foundation of society, the latter, we unhesitatingly think, should be adopted." Courts, of course, may err at times as to what the welfare of the people requires. The main reason for upholding common-law marriage is that children should not be made illegitimate, and a contrary holding may occasionally visit misfortune upon them. The problem has been at least partly met by statute in West Virginia, by declaring children born of a common law marriage legitimate while at the same time rendering the marriage invalid. Kester v. Kester,106 W. Va. 615, 146 S.E. 625. On the other hand, there are evils which would arise if common law marriages were held to be valid. Most of the cases in courts on the subject before us seemingly have involved situations like that in the case at bar. In any event the choice between the evils here mentioned, or the remedy or amelioration thereof is a legislative, not a judicial, function. Common law marriage has been condemned even in states which recognize it as valid. In Baker v. Mitchell (Pa.Super.)17 A.2d 738, the court stated that "the law of Pennsylvaniarecognizes common law marriages. But they are a fruitful source of perjury and fraud, and in consequence, they are to betolerated, not encouraged." During the time when common-law marriages were still considered valid in Nebraska, the Supreme Court of that state in Sorenson v. Sorenson, 68 Nebr. 500, 106 N.W. 930, stated that the rule "is alien to the ideas and customs of our people. It tends to weaken the public estimate of the sanctity of the marriage relation. It puts in doubt the certainty of the rights of inheritance. It opens the door to false pretenses of marriage and the imposition upon estates of supposititious heirs. It places honest, God ordained matrimony and mere meretricious cohabitation too nearly on a level with each other." See also Collins v. *Page 466 Hoag Rollins, 122 Nebr. 805, 241 N.W. 766. In Ohio, where common law marriages are still valid, the court holds that "it contravenes public policy and should not be accorded any favor." Estate of Redman, 135 Ohio St. 554, 21 N.E.2d 659. A vigorous condemnation of such marriages is contained in an opinion in one of the lower courts of Ohio. Estate of Speeler, 6 Ohio Opinions 529, 22 Ohio Law Abstract 223. In a similar vein the Supreme Court of Oregon, in holding such marriages invalid, states (Huard v. McTeigh, 113 Or. 279, 232 P. 658, 39 A.L.R. 528, 537):

"In our opinion the doctrine of common law marriages is contrary to public policy and public morals. It places a premium upon illicit cohabitation, and offers encouragement to the harlot and the adventuress. We do not sanction loose marriages or easy divorces. Good government demands that our laws be obeyed in the solemnization of marriages as in all things else. An adherence to the law in this regard will tend to cause the parties to look with respect and reverence upon a contract which is the most sacred known to man, and which ought not be lightly cast aside."

The rule upholding such marriage arose in Texas by reason of sparse settlements, long distance to places of record, bad roads, difficulties of travel, and of access to officers or ministers. Chesney v. Johnson (Tex.Civ.App.) 79 S.W.2d 658. The same difficulties may have aided in establishing the doctrine in other states. Those difficulties do not exist in this state, at least at this time, and furnish no reason to adopt the rule here. There can be no doubt that under present-day conditions loose marriages are not favored. We find it stated in 29 Georgetown L.J. 869, that "the great weight of modern opinion advocates the abolition in this country of common-law marriage. The American Bar Association, the Commission on Uniform State Laws and practically all authorities in the field of social reform favor *Page 467 the abolition of common law marriage." To the same effect is 1 Vernier, American Family Laws, 108.

In 1875, in Hutchins v. Kimmel, 31 Mich. 126, the court cited 30 cases in support of the validity of such marriages. Twenty of these are from states in which such marriages are now illegal. While at one time it could be said that the great weight of authority in this country sustained the validity thereof, that can no longer be said to be true. Annotations and a complete collection of the cases on both sides of the subject before us are found in 39 A.L.R. 568, 60 A.L.R. 542; 94 A.L.R. 1000; 133 A.L.R. 758. In at least half of the states, and probably more, such marriages are not now valid. See 1 Vernier, supra, 106-108; 5 Ohio St. U. Law Journal 31. More than 20 years ago the court in Parke v. Parke, 25 Haw. 397, stated.

"The modern tendency, however, is to recognize marriage as something more than a civil contract for it creates a social status or relation between the contracting parties in which not only they but the state as well are interested and involves a personal union of those participating in it of a character unknown to any other human relation and having more to do with the morals and civilization of the people than any other institution. For these reasons there is a gradual tendency to protect the parties as well as society by reasonable requirements unknown to the common law but which at the same time are not burdensome nor calculated to discourage marriage among those who ought to assume that relation."

In Huard v. McTeigh, supra, the court stated:

"The trend of modern authorities is against the recognition of common-law marriages, and it is noteworthy, in those states where the courts have given approval to the same, legislation has subsequently been enacted declaring common-law marriages null and void."

Neither our statutes, accordingly, construed according to the usual standards of interpretation, nor public *Page 468 policy, would justify us in holding otherwise than that common law marriages, entered into in this state as in the case at bar, are invalid. The judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.

KIMBALL, Ch. J., concurs.

RINER, J., concurs in the result.

In other words, absent a will, no marriage, no inheritance. 

Sunday, January 31, 1943. Paulus surrenders the German 6th Army at Stalingrad and the war enters its third phase in Europe.

One day after having been promoted to the rank of Field Marshal, and also having been ordered to go down fighting with his command, Friedrich von Paulus surrendered that command to the Red Army.  90,000 men of the original 250,000 of the German 6th Army remained alive, a surprisingly large number in context.  Only 5,000 would return to Germany, many having died due to the Soviet's inability to take care of such a large number of prisoners.

By Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-F0316-0204-005 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 de, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5362815

Most were German, but not all, at the end.  One of the last Axis anti tank guns to stop firing in the battle was one manned by a Russian crew.

By most measures, the Battle of Stalingrad was the largest battle in human history, although that title could be contested.  By the same token, by most measures, it was the largest battle in modern history, and of World War Two.  Often missed in the story of the epic contest, and German defeat, the Soviets had taken higher casualties than the Axis forces had, with an overall 1,129,619 compared to a potential Axis high of 868,374.  478,741 Soviet combatants were killed, more than the entire number of Germans in the 6th Army.  Axis casualties were rounded out, however, by 114,520 Italian losses, 158,854 Romanian losses, 143,000 Hungarian losses and 52,000 Soviet citizens supporting the Axis forces losses.  The battle was one whose character was defined by it being fought by two totalitarian combatants who had no regard for human life.  The Soviets had the ability to lose more men than the Axis did, and had no real option in regard to retreating further.

The battle had been taken on and fought stupidly by the Germans.  Taking the city was unnecessary and engaging in ongoing house to house fighting pointless. Defending the city, from the Soviet prospective, made a great deal more sense as it served to sap up German resources and arrest German progress.

With the fall of Stalingrad, the war entered a new and more bizarre, indeed sickening, phase.

The first phase of the war had seen the United Kingdom become Germany's principal enemy, and the German war aims had been to consolidate "German" lands in the Reich, subjugate and begin to destroy the Polish people, humble France, and to defeat the UK such that parts of the British Empire could be transferred to Germany.  The first two goals had been achieved, but the UK proved impossible to defeat and in fact was giving nearly as good as it was getting, if not more so, after the withdrawal from the Continent.  The British Empire could not defeat the Germans, but they clearly also could not be defeated by the Germans.

Faced with this, the Germans had toyed with Soviet assistance, and in fact the Soviet Union had been a German ally in this phase, which ran from 1938, with the Austrian Anschluß, to June 22, 1941.  During this phase of the war, the USSR had joined with Germany in the dismemberment of Poland and the murder of Polish elites.  It had also attacked the Baltic States and Finland, with only Finland proving impossible to defeat.  Like the Germans, the Soviets engaged in widespread murder wherever they went, with in this phase of the war the real difference being that the German atrocities, visited upon mass populations for the first time, unlike the Soviet ones which had been going on for two decades, were racial in nature to a much larger degree than the Soviet ones.

Nazi Germany, it is often noted, always had an expressed goal for Lebenstraum in the East, but often missed in that as well is that the Germans were able to put that aside, and on the shelf, as long as it appeared that there was a realistic chance of acquiring British possessions.  Ultimately, it is hard not to imagine the Germans and the Soviets going to war, but up until late 1940, it was not imminent.  After that, it became so as the Germans became increasingly desperate for raw materials for the war against the British Empire, the Soviet Union being the principal source of them.  The Soviets overplayed their hands in this after being invited by the Germans to join in the war against Britain by demanding more of British possessions than the Germans were willing to give.  Confident in their abilities in a land war, the Germans set their sites on the Soviet Union.

June 22, 1941, brought about the second phase of the war, the German Soviet phase.  The Germans expected to rapidly advance, and in fact did at first.  With this they brought murder on a wide scale to Ukraine, the rest of Poland, and Belorussia.  Their murderous intent towards the Jews rapidly evidenced itself wherever they went, and they began their planned colonization of Eastern lands almost immediately.  At the same time, their goals remained, in that phase, the defeat of the Soviet Union.

In the fall of 1942 the German advance stalled out, and the Germans became grossly overextended. Even with the support of Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian allies, they could no longer cover all of the front. The Red Army could.  Early in 1943 the German battlefield fortunes began to rapidly decline.  

With the fall of Stalingrad, a new phase of the war began.  The Germans did not concede defeat, either intellectually or militarily, but internally the central Nazi leadership seems to have grasped it.Thereafter, the goal of the war turned in an unexpressed way towards murder of the Jewish nation as its principal goal, and the mass murder of Jews accelerated and took first place in their war effort.

Franklin Roosevelt returned to the White House after attending the Casablanca Conference.   The conference had arrived upon a declaration, yet to be released, providing that the Germans and the Japanese would have to unconditionally surrender, a phrase borrowed from Ulysses S. Grant.

The wisdom of that declaration has been debated, principally in regard to Japan.  As a practical matter, there was no other way to approach the war against Germany at this time, and the declaration served to address Soviet fears that the Western Allies would arrive on a separate peace with Germany.  In reality, while it may not have been obvious to the Germans or the general public, the Western Allies regarded an Axis defeat at this point inevitable.   The real fear was that Stalin would arrange a separate peace with the Germans, which while it has been discounted by many historians, was in fact much more likely and not even unlikely.  Soviet military performance had been poor in 41 and most of 42, and the Soviet Union, as the then Bolshevik Russia, had in fact done just that in 1917.

Interestingly, its rarely noted that the US, and then everyone else, violated the unconditional surrender provision of the Casablanca agreements as to Japan.  The Japanese surrender, if not conditional, saw the Western Allies, for their own reasons, agree to keep the Japanese monarchy on the throne.  And it was also violated in regards to Italy, which negotiated its way out of the Axis and into the Allied powers, while dumping Mussolini, as a condition to the end of the Allied war against it.

The Allies prevailed in the Battle of Wau.