Nobel Peace Prize 1935/6 - Carl von Ossietzky

[Beskar]

Even then, the definition doesn't matter since he made a big contribution in efforts of World Peace by whistle blowing what is going on, which was ignored in many cases, hence the fallout scenario later, so being a "traitor" = Which was the original point in the first place.

[Louis VI the Fat]

See, I knew we'd all agree.

I hate it when that happens.

All my hope now is with PJ....

The clever traitor gets out of the country before he can be caught.

Should that be so? What of people who stay and put up a fight?


Ossietzky was befriended to Tucholsky, another Weimar journalist. Both men full well realised in 1933 what was coming. Ossietzky decided to stay. He died in 1936. Tucholsky (Jewish) went into exile in 1933. He took his own life in 1935. Neither man even reached the age of fifty.
Both men were dead, even before the world had come to understand what both men had been warning about for their last fifteen years. The books of both men were among the first batch of books the Nazis burned.

At the beginning of the 1930s it became clear to Tucholsky that his warnings were falling on deaf ears, and that his actions in favour of the Republic, for democracy and human rights were apparently to no effect. It was a crushing blow to him, as he recognised the danger approaching with Adolf Hitler. "They are preparing to head towards the Third Reich" he wrote, years before Hitler's Machtübernahme in 1933, and was under no deception as to where Hitler's chancellorship would take the country. Erich Kästner, looking back in 1946, described him as the "little fat Berliner" who wanted to "prevent a catastrophe with his typewriter".

Another vile traitor:

The journalist and writer Kurt Tucholsky (1890-1935), who undoubtedly wielded one of the Weimar Republic’s most caustic pens, would have turned 120 this year . He was an outstanding literary critic as well as being an astute observer of contemporary political and social developments.

Born in Berlin on January 9, 1890, Tucholsky remains the archetypal figure of the controversial left-wing intellectual, grappling with his tumultuous epoch while at the same time searching for inner peace. Like Heine, Tucholsky lived in Paris and actively sought to promote understanding between the Germans and the French.

The son of a Jewish banker who died when he was only 15, Tucholsky studied law before being conscripted and sent to the Eastern Front during the First World War. He did his first journalistic work while still a young man, but it wasn’t until 1919, in the Weimar Republic, that he made a name for himself as a politically committed journalist and writer. His name is closely associated with the journal “Die Weltbühne” (The World Stage), to which he was a major contributor, writing under various pseudonyms, and for which he worked as a Paris correspondent in the 1920s.

The author of roughly one hundred books and several thousand newspaper articles, Tucholsky was one of the Weimar Republic’s best-known journalists. He was and remained a fierce advocate of democracy, expressing regret that the revolution failed to materialize, although there were socialists among those in power. In the early 1920s, Tucholsky was one of the defenders of liberal democracy, the foundations of which were repeatedly shaken by political murders.
A pacifist by conviction, who detested the contemporary aristocracy’s militarism and who championed human rights, Tucholsky divided public opinion with his statement “soldiers are murderers”. He presciently denounced the rise of the National Socialists long before Hitler came to power. Deprived of his German citizenship, he was one of the first Germans to go into exile, permanently settling in the Swedish town of Hindas near Gotheburg from 1930 onwards. It was there that he took his own life in 1935, plagued by physical and psychological problems.

http://www.germanyandafrica.diplo.de...Tucholsky.html

[PanzerJaeger]

Naturally, I do not share your opinion that Ozzietzky was a tool for the communists because he oppossed the 'greatest opponnents' of communism, the Nazis.

I do not think Ozzietzky was a communist sympathizer because he opposed Nazism, but because he actively supported the Communist Party and Thälmann in particular. In fact, that alone makes the man a traitor in my eyes. Any educated German that understood the KPD and its allegiances, as Ozzietzky most certainly did, and made the decision to vote for Thälmann supported a far more obvious subversion of national interests - to the will of the Soviet Union - than Hitler represented at the time. (Not to mention the election was not a choice between Hitler and Thälmann exclusively. Most moderate, republican oriented voters chose Hindenburg.)

The intention was to violently overthrow the peace. To create the possibility of a violent take-over of the German state. The plot was kept secret to the German people, of whom never a majority voted in favour of hard right extremism.

No, it wasn't. Versailles left Germany defenseless in the heart of Europe. French attempts to incite rebellion in the Rhineland and the looting of German businesses in the Ruhr by French troops highlighted that weakness.

Weimar defense policy was simply that - defense. The country spent far less on defense in terms of GDP than the Western Allies during the period. As Husar pointed out, the German military at the end of the Republic was miniscule in comparison.

Finally, you'll note that neither Hitler nor the 'conservative conspiracy' you often refer to used the military to overthrow the republic. In fact, that same military was used to stop Hitler's attempt at doing just that.

To me, the German (Ossietzky) who warned in 1933 what was coming is not a traitor. Those who silenced him are.
The German who exposed Auschwitz is not a traitor. The German who refused to murder civilians is not a traitor. The German who would not fight for Hitler is not a traitor.

Ossietzky was not convicted of treason for being anti-Nazi. Emotional appeals to the Holocaust do not change that.

He was a traitor to the Nazi-controlled late Weimar Republic.

The Nazi-controlled late Weimar Republic? He betrayed the Republic before the Nazis had any control of the German government. The defense policy he published was that of a the moderate, republican Grand Coalition of the SPD, Center Party, and other smaller liberal parties.

[Husar]

Should that be so? What of people who stay and put up a fight?

They die a painful death in a cold cellar and only many years after that, once the problem has been solved by people from the outside, some leftists feel the need to sing odes to them for being martyrs, ironically a concept originating from religion.

I'd also still like to know how, in the absence of cloning, they could keep it a secret that their huge army, that was destined to conquer the world soon, could disappear to Russia unnoticed to be trained for world domination on a single airfield?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I do not think Ozzietzky was a communist sympathizer because he opposed Nazism, but because he actively supported the Communist Party and Thälmann in particular. In fact, that alone makes the man a traitor in my eyes.

This raises the question, which Germany must one support to not be considered a traitor?

He who supports (/pals around with) communism is a traitor.
What of he who supports Nazism? A traitor or not?
And he who supports democratic Germany? A traitor?

All three are mutually exclusive, sworn enemies. Do you agree that the Nazi is a traitor to Germany? Or is the German democrat a traitor?

[Louis VI the Fat]

They die a painful death in a cold cellar and only many years after that, once the problem has been solved by people from the outside, some leftists feel the need to sing odes to them for being martyrs, ironically a concept originating from religion.

I'd also still like to know how, in the absence of cloning, they could keep it a secret that their huge army, that was destined to conquer the world soon, could disappear to Russia unnoticed to be trained for world domination on a single airfield?

Secret re-armament does not mean to hide a physical army. One needs to hide the administration of the army.

The funds were hidden, the numbers lied about, statistics were manipulated. With the exception of such developments as a German airforce trained and hidden in the tundra 400 km from Moscow, the secrecy of the remilitarisation was a matter of administration.

Of course, a remilitarisation of the scale of Germany in the 1920s couldn't be kept secret. And so it wasn't. It was well publicised, documented beyond doubt.

Still they could get away with it because the majority of Germans would see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. They 'hadn't known it'.

What the phrase really means, is that the Germans laughed away everybody who warned them, cried that they were traitors, laughed when these 'traitors' were sent to the camps, laughed when they burned their books, laughed when the nazis shrieked it was payback time for these jews and bolshevists.

Then afterwards, once the Germans were done laughing in 1945, they cried that they 'hadn't known it'.

[Strike For The South]

I fully support anyone who stands with a republic over fascism, nationality be damned. Nation states are fleeting, the republic idea, which will lift humanity out of the dregs of tyranny and oppression, will last forever. Therefore it must be supported, nurtured, and most of all defended against those who wish to pervert power for their own gain, which of course is the state of things without the republic

[Strike For The South]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Lettow-Vorbeck

Here Panzer, here is a nice strong German to emulate

[Husar]

This raises the question, which Germany must one support to not be considered a traitor?

He who supports (/pals around with) communism is a traitor.
What of he who supports Nazism? A traitor or not?
And he who supports democratic Germany? A traitor?

All three are mutually exclusive, sworn enemies. Do you agree that the Nazi is a traitor to Germany? Or is the German democrat a traitor?

Depends entirely on the government in power.
And the exact definition of traitor. If one assumes that people have absolutely no duty or connection to the country they were born in, then even handing that country over to the mongol hordes wouldn't make one a traitor.
The national socialists apparently believed that everyone had to do their best to support the national socialists and their agenda in order to not be a traitor. Most governments seem to think that one does not give out secret information to anyone and that one does not leave the army without approval in order to not be considered a traitor.
Since the guy gave away secret information about a training program for the army, I suppose that explains why the Weimar republic locked him up as a traitor. Sounds very kind even, I thought traitors are shot.

[PanzerJaeger]

This raises the question, which Germany must one support to not be considered a traitor?

He who supports (/pals around with) communism is a traitor.
What of he who supports Nazism? A traitor or not?
And he who supports democratic Germany? A traitor?

All three are mutually exclusive, sworn enemies. Do you agree that the Nazi is a traitor to Germany? Or is the German democrat a traitor?

To answer these questions one must look at what each ideology was offering in the 1932 elections.

The republican parties offered more of the same - a Versailles created, Western-styled democracy, with all the associated inefficiencies and legislative sloppiness that comes with it, along with the perceived international weakness, internal turmoil, and economic depression that was unique to the Weimar Republic. Germany ruled by Germans.

The Nazis offered a return to the authoritarian form of government that many in Germany were accustomed to from the Empire. They ran on nationalism, order, and restoring Germany to prominence. (Note that to Germans of the time, authoritarian did not equate to totalitarian, and Hitler did not campaign on turning the country into a police state.)

I could see German patriots, or as you would probably say, misguided patriots, voting for either ideology.

The KPD, on the other hand, was a completely different animal. At this point I am repeating myself, but it is important to point out the lengths to which Thälmann went to make German communism subservient to the Comintern and the Soviet Union. The KPD spent the majority of its time and effort during the '20s and early '30s not fighting the far right, but destroying the more organic German communist parties and purging any of its own members who sought a more independent German communist state.

Despite my personal feelings towards communism, I do not consider all communists to be traitors to their nations. There have been plenty of organic communist movements all across the globe that were made up of people who truly believed the ideology represented a step forward in living standards and equality for their respective nations.

German communism and its supporters, including Ossietzky, were not among those groups. The KPD made no secret of seeking to directly subvert German independence to the Soviet Union. They were the most obvious traitors in 1932.

Of course, a remilitarisation of the scale of Germany in the 1920s couldn't be kept secret. And so it wasn't. It was well publicised, documented beyond doubt.

Still they could get away with it because the majority of Germans would see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. They 'hadn't known it'.

What the phrase really means, is that the Germans laughed away everybody who warned them, cried that they were traitors, laughed when these 'traitors' were sent to the camps, laughed when they burned their books, laughed when the nazis shrieked it was payback time for these jews and bolshevists.

Then afterwards, once the Germans were done laughing in 1945, they cried that they 'hadn't known it'.

Yet again you're mixing separate events, replacing reason with rhetoric, and making emotional appeals to cover for logical holes in your narrative.

The scale of German remilitarization in the '20s was tiny both in its own right and in comparison to the Western nations. The effort was technological, not numerical - an attempt to keep up with the military developments of other nations.

The subtle, or not-so-subtle rhetorical linkage you're trying to make between Weimar and the Third Reich also belies all historical reality. The fact that the Weimar Republic sought to undermine the ridiculously strict Versailles military restrictions that left it defenseless does not make it the Third Reich-lite. Weimar continuously fought off coup attempts by the far-Right conservatives, including Hitler, that you seem to imply were running the show.

Here Panzer, here is a nice strong German to emulate

Thanks Strike! I had never, ever heard of this Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck before!! The existence of one of Germany's greatest military heroes is news to me!

[Beskar]

The subtle, or not-so-subtle rhetorical linkage you're trying to make between Weimar and the Third Reich also belies all historical reality. The fact that the Weimar Republic sought to undermine the ridiculously strict Versailles military restrictions that left it defenseless does not make it the Third Reich-lite. Weimar continuously fought off coup attempts by the far-Right conservatives, including Hitler, that you seem to imply were running the show.

I remember reading about that. Didn't they just sent the Right-Wing coupists to a luxery hotel "prison" for a few months, even when convicted of treason? Hitler was laying back in comfort while writing his groundbreaking fantasy novel "Mein Kampf" after being sentenced for Treason in his Beer Hall Putsch.

In contrast, I remember the left-wing coupists, such as Rosa Luxemburg, were executed.... oh wait, that wasn't "official", and the people involved with her death were conveniently not sentenced, or given a slap on the wrist.

I sense no bias anywhere.

[PanzerJaeger]

I remember reading about that. Didn't they just sent the Right-Wing coupists to a luxery hotel "prison" for a few months, even when convicted of treason? Hitler was laying back in comfort while writing his groundbreaking fantasy novel "Mein Kampf" after being sentenced for Treason in his Beer Hall Putsch.

In contrast, I remember the left-wing coupists, such as Rosa Luxemburg, were executed.... oh wait, that wasn't "official", and the people involved with her death were conveniently not sentenced, or given a slap on the wrist.

I sense no bias anywhere.

Have you been paying attention? I cannot keep you up to speed if you're not even willing to read the OP. The subject of this thread himself, avowed Leftist Carl von Ossietzky, was also convicted of treason in the Weimar Republic and jailed for a mere 6 months. Bias? The only bias may have been towards unusually short treason sentences in the Republic.

Anyway, we'll put that aside for now. That is an interesting comparison. However, even taken on its face, deeper analysis renders it a bit weak.

Rosa Luxemburg was ordered summarily executed by a low level military officer at the height of the chaos in Berlin during German Revolution, who was later jailed for the offense. IIRC, the Weimar Constitution had not even been adopted.

Hitler was tried and convicted of high treason by the Weimar Republic. His short sentence was the result of one activist judge. Democratic states with an independent judiciary tend to have those.

How one could spin the two stories together and come up with evidence of Nazi bias by the Weimar government is beyond me, but then again, so is a lot of what has been conjured up in this thread.

[Strike For The South]

Thanks Strike! I had never, ever heard of this Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck before!! The existence of one of Germany's greatest military heroes is news to me!

This is why you're not popular

[PanzerJaeger]

This is why you're not popular

There are a lot of reasons why I'm not popular.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Panzer:

I simply cannot see his support/work for communism in Germany as treason. Selling secrets to Joe Stalin or stuffing the ballot box on a "Let's join the Soviet Union" plebescite would qualify but publicly arguing for a particular political cause simply cannot be treasonous. I thought the "unilaterally divest ourselves of all nuclears weapons so that there will be peace" folks that cropped up in the USA from time to time in the 60's through 80's were short-sighted idiots, but in no way were they traitors.

So:

Overt political activity done within the election laws of your state CANNOT equal treason.

Whistle-blowing CAN constitute treason, but must be evaluated case by case. The clear and present danger standard should matter here.

This chap did not, in my opinion, commit treason by breaking the law to disclose that which his government preferred to be kept quiet. He broke the law, and paid the price under Weimar's courts. That is the cost of doing business for whistleblowers. You have to assess if it is worth it to you.

[PanzerJaeger]

Panzer:

I simply cannot see his support/work for communism in Germany as treason. Selling secrets to Joe Stalin or stuffing the ballot box on a "Let's join the Soviet Union" plebescite would qualify but publicly arguing for a particular political cause simply cannot be treasonous. I thought the "unilaterally divest ourselves of all nuclears weapons so that there will be peace" folks that cropped up in the USA from time to time in the 60's through 80's were short-sighted idiots, but in no way were they traitors.

I believe that actively supporting a political party that seeks to subvert national independence to another nation is treasonous. Obviously, where such action falls legally is unique to each nation's treason laws, but the intent is unquestionable. A German supporting a party that takes its orders from Russia is a traitor.

I've tried my best to explain the relationship between the Soviet Union and the KPD, but my efforts do not seem to have yielded a proper understanding of the situation. The best modern example I can think of is Hezbollah in Lebanon. They are simply puppets of Iran.

If you are interested in the subject, please check out Fischer's definitive Stalin and German Communism.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I believe that actively supporting a political party that seeks to subvert national independence to another nation is treasonous. Obviously, where such action falls legally is unique to each nation's treason laws, but the intent is unquestionable. A German supporting a party that takes its orders from Russia is a traitor.

So you are saying that Adolf should've been shot as a traitor for subverting Austria's national independence?

(Or at any rate that all Nazis in Austria should've been hung for treason)

[PanzerJaeger]

So you are saying that Adolf should've been shot as a traitor for subverting Austria's national independence?

(Or at any rate that all Nazis in Austria should've been hung for treason)

I suppose that depends on where one stands in regard to the Heim ins Reich initiative.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I believe that actively supporting a political party that seeks to subvert national independence to another nation is treasonous. Obviously, where such action falls legally is unique to each nation's treason laws, but the intent is unquestionable. A German supporting a party that takes its orders from Russia is a traitor.

I've tried my best to explain the relationship between the Soviet Union and the KPD, but my efforts do not seem to have yielded a proper understanding of the situation. The best modern example I can think of is Hezbollah in Lebanon. They are simply puppets of Iran.

If you are interested in the subject, please check out Fischer's definitive Stalin and German Communism.

Not denying that aspect of your point at all, PJ. The KPD was a virtual "arm" of the CCCP and would, effectively, have sought satrapy status for Germany had they been brought to power. Similar stances were taken, sometimes openly and sometimes not, by the Communist Party in the USA, Spanish Republicans in the SCW, etc.

I am simply denying that it is treasonous. If I can convince my fellow Americans --using the extent system -- to pass a Constitutional ammendment granting our Louis dictatorial powers and setting up DevDave as his master of horse and thereby supplanting the extent system of the U.S. Constitution, such an action is not treasonous. It would be against everything we have stood for culturally and morally since the inception of the republic and a complete reversal of what we have heretofore considered "right," but assuming I have convinced folks in open discussion and suaded them to vote for the necessary changes using the accepted procedures, it simply cannot be treasonous.

[PanzerJaeger]

Not denying that aspect of your point at all, PJ. The KPD was a virtual "arm" of the CCCP and would, effectively, have sought satrapy status for Germany had they been brought to power. Similar stances were taken, sometimes openly and sometimes not, by the Communist Party in the USA, Spanish Republicans in the SCW, etc.

I am simply denying that it is treasonous. If I can convince my fellow Americans --using the extent system -- to pass a Constitutional ammendment granting our Louis dictatorial powers and setting up DevDave as his master of horse and thereby supplanting the extent system of the U.S. Constitution, such an action is not treasonous. It would be against everything we have stood for culturally and morally since the inception of the republic and a complete reversal of what we have heretofore considered "right," but assuming I have convinced folks in open discussion and suaded them to vote for the necessary changes using the accepted procedures, it simply cannot be treasonous.

I understand your position more clearly now. We just have a fundamental difference in what we consider treason.

An appeal to the almighty Dictionary.com yields the following:

trea·son   /ˈtrizən/ Show Spelled
[tree-zuhn] Show IPA

–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

I see educated KPD supporters such as Ossietzky falling squarely into definition number two. Of course, such things are never cut and dry, and you seem to be operating under a stricter, more legalistic definition of the term.

[Husar]

So you are saying that Adolf should've been shot as a traitor for subverting Austria's national independence?

(Or at any rate that all Nazis in Austria should've been hung for treason)

If he had kept his Austrian citizenship, then the Austrians could have tried, but I doubt that they would have been very successful...

[Louis VI the Fat]

I remembered one!


The White Rose group, of Sophie Scholl. Made famous through the movie bearing her name. They were students in Munich, who protested their government in 1943. They warned that Germany would lose the war, that the American bombs and Russian invasion would be inevitable if Germany would not stop its path to self-destruction. For merely distrubuting pamphlets saying so, they were tortured and finally beheaded.

The court martial verdict did not get repealed for decades. There was even some ado in the 1980s when a movie about them faced difficulty with distributon in Germany because it portrayed traitors.



This being the internets, I suppose I can safely ask without expecting a unanimous 'no': who agrees that these students ought to have been beheaded? Who agrees they are traitors?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Especially for you Husar, for I think you are often dissapointingly close to a Nazi view of history. Here are people arguing for the true interest of Germany, instead of those nazi pied pipers of Hameln, leading Germany to catastrophe with their disingenuous lies. All it took was to convince the moderates of their absurdities. Which, and this is one of the real shockers of the period, turned out to have been not that difficult at all. Slumbering in a dull and stupid sleep indeed. There is no excuse in the 21st century to still believe all that tripe, to be under the spell of these criminals.

Isn’t it true that every honest German is ashamed of his government these days? Who among us has any conception of the dimensions of shame that will befall us and our children when one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the most horrible of crimes—crimes that infinitely outdistance every human measure—reach the light of day? ”

— From the first leaflet of the White Rose

“ Since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way … The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals … Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty! ”

— From the second leaflet of the White Rose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

[HoreTore]

No no no, Louis.

That quote must be a fabrication. You see, the German people was unaware of any misdeed towards the Jew until May 1945. Until then, no German knew of any crime towards a Jew, so how could a group of students in München, far away from the front and who had probably never been close to an extermination camp, have any knowledge of Jews getting killed industrially?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Interesting bit of history. Had not read of this before. Brave souls.

[PanzerJaeger]

I remembered one!

No, you didn't.

Ossietzky was a traitor to a democratically elected republic. Sophie Scholl was a traitor to the Nazi dictatorship. The former is generally considered legitimate, while the latter is not, hence the overturning of White Rose convictions and not that of Ossietzky. That you have refused to acknowledge that fundamental difference throughout this thread does not void it.

This being the internets, I suppose I can safely ask without expecting a unanimous 'no': who agrees that these students ought to have been beheaded? Who agrees they are traitors?

They were certainly traitors. One's view of the relative morality of their actions, however, depends on one's view of the legitimacy of the Nazi government.

That quote must be a fabrication. You see, the German people was unaware of any misdeed towards the Jew until May 1945. Until then, no German knew of any crime towards a Jew, so how could a group of students in München, far away from the front and who had probably never been close to an extermination camp, have any knowledge of Jews getting killed industrially?

Some did, most did not. Note the wild innacuracies in the propaganda leaflet and the lack of any supporting facts. It was guesswork motivated by bias against the Nazis, not hard evidence. It did happen to be very correct, of course.

[Louis VI the Fat]

No no no, Louis.

That quote must be a fabrication. You see, the German people was unaware of any misdeed towards the Jew until May 1945. Until then, no German knew of any crime towards a Jew, so how could a group of students in München, far away from the front and who had probably never been close to an extermination camp, have any knowledge of Jews getting killed industrially?

Quite.

Save for one caveat: many members of this group had been on the front, most as medics. They had seen the Eastern front, had witnessed the atrocities.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Interesting bit of history. Had not read of this before. Brave souls.

They were Christians too. Catholics. They expected that their appeal would be succesful in Germany's south, and in Austria.
They themselves did not expect to find a listening ear in the sternly protestant north and east.
It's good ammunition in a debate with anti-papists and those vile secularists in general! Because despite having gone through the Hitlerjugend, these students had still been brought up in the long tradition of European civilisation through their church. This conserved a minimum of values, prevented a complete overthrow of all values.

It was guesswork motivated by bias against the Nazis, not hard evidence. It did happen to be very correct, of course.

Are you kidding me? Bias and guesswork? That then just accidently happened to turn out to be nearly spot on?

The imminent German catastrophe could have been seen coming forever. Events could've unfolded differently - wars won or lost, peaces made - but the destruction of German civilisation in one way or another was a given from januari 1933, for those with eyes to see. It was the very project of Hitler, even if he sold it as 'in Germany's best interest'.

[Husar]

As I'm sure I already said, some communist hyperbole and the fact that the third reich killed thousands and millions of people does not absolve anyone from being a traitor to their country/government.

[Beskar]

As I'm sure I already said, some communist hyperbole and the fact that the third reich killed thousands and millions of people does not absolve anyone from being a traitor to their country/government.

Though being a traitor is an arbitrary definition for an imaginary concept.