Nobel Peace Prize 1935/6 - Carl von Ossietzky

[Louis VI the Fat]

The absence of Liu Xiaobo from this year's Nobel prize ceremony has raised the ghost of Carl von Ossietzky, the 1920s/30s German pacifist.


Important to me is that Von Ossietzky in the 1920s and early 1930's was very active in exposing Germany's secret rearmament strategy. In a bid to overthrow the peace of Europe, Germany and the Soviet Union closely co-operated in the 1920s/1930s. Ossietzky showed how Germany in the 1920s transferred American funds to the Soviet Union, rebuild an airforce, and secretly trained a new generation of pilots in Stalinist Soviet Union.

Ossietzky, a pacifist and a man of great insight, saw the storm that was brewing. Alas, his writings could not stop the tide, could not prevent the final act of the German conservatives dangerous game, the installation of their puppet in 1933. This meant game over for Ossietzky, who was almost immediately send to a concentration camp, was miserably tortured for years, and died in 1938.


The Nobel committee was so divided over his Peaze Prize in 1935, that initially no prize was awarded. In the fiercely extremist political climate of the 1930s, Conservatives, including the Norwegian king, oppossed Ossietzky as a traitor to his country, as a Christian from a converted Jewish family, and as an enemy of Germany. Eventually, Ossietzky was awarded the prize in 1936, amidst controversy and great pressure for Germany. It very much resembles the current row over Liu's Prize, and China's fierce, vehement, reaction.


I would say that history has vindicated Ossietzky, but sadly modern popular history has adopted the German ultra-nationalist / nazi concept of Germany suffering as a victim of conspiracy in this period, and, perhaps even more sadly, the German federal court of justice in 1992 upheld the verdict of 1931: Ossietzky's publishing of Germany's secret re-armament was an act of treason. Shame on both accounts.


Mr Liu, 54, is currently serving an eleven-year sentence on the charge of "inciting subversion" after he co-authored a petition for political reform in China.

Mr Ossietzky, a German journalist and pacifist who spoke out against Hitler's rise to power, was convicted of high treason and espionage in 1931 after publishing an article about Germany's efforts to rebuild its air force, in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles.

He was tortured in Spandau prison in 1933, after the Reichstag fire, and was interned in the KZ Esterwegen concentration camp near Oldenburg when he was awarded the prize in 1936.

The Nazi regime put enormous pressure on the Nobel committee not to award him the Peace prize, to the extent that the 1935 Peace prize, which he had been nominated for, was not awarded at all.
It took the Nobel committee a year to work up the courage, and two members withdrew, before it finally announced the 1935 prize to Mr Ossietzky on the same day as awarding the 1936 prize to Carlos Saavedra Lamas, who brokered a truce between Paraguay and Bolivia. Mr Ossietzky's prize was described by newspapers at the time as "a slap in the face of fascism".

King Haakon VII of Norway stayed away from the ceremony, while the award was generally condemned by conservatives. Aftenposten, the Norwegian newspaper, argued that Mr Ossietzky was a criminal who had attacked his country "with the use of methods that violated the law long before Hitler came into power".
One of the German activists supporting Mr Ossietzky in Norway was Herbert Frahm, a 21-year-old exile who took the name Willy Brandt and would eventually become chancellor of West Germany and win the Peace prize himself.

Germany reacted with fury, and an unnamed official called the award "preposterous". The Nazi government told Mr Ossietzky, by then suffering from severe tuberculosis in a hospital bed, that he had to decline the prize, a demand that he refused. A year-and-a-half later he died, at the age of 48.
Meanwhile, Hitler established his own alternative Peace prize and declared that no Germans were to ever accept the Nobel prize again. The University of Oldenburg is now named after Mr Ossietzky. I was going to put this in the Monastery, but then, a thread touching on Hitler, Chinese Communists, Jews and treacherous kings is a bit Backroomish.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8192385/Nobel-Peace-Prize-echoes-of-1936-when-Hitler-barred-von-Ossietzky.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Ossietzky


When Carl von Ossietzky, the anti-militarist journalist whom the Nazis had thrown into a concentration camp, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1936, Heinrich Mann wrote, "in one moment the conscience of the world arose, and the name which it spoke was his."

Mann was referring to the international campaign in support of awarding him the prize in which some of the leading figures in the intellectual and political life of the time took part. The Ossietzky prize was one bright moment in the dark days preceding the outbreak of World War II, when the forces for peace and freedom in large sections of the world seemed about to be overwhelmed by ever more powerful forces of totalitarianism and reaction.

In 1936 Nazi Germany was rearming in violation of the Versailles Treaty and in March reoccupied the Rhineland. In the same year Hitler formed the Rome-Berlin axis with Mussolini, who was completing the conquest of Ethiopia, began to aid the rebel generals who were marching to overthrow the Spanish Republic, and entered an agreement with Japan. In the summer of 1936 the Olympic Games in Berlin provided Goebbels with the opportunity to mount a great propaganda show of the "New Germany." Many abroad were dismissing the grim reports of concentration camp atrocities as exaggerated, and statesmen treated them as domestic affairs of no concern to other states.

In the face of this situtation and despite all the efforts of the Nazi propaganda machine and the German Foreign Office, a little band of German emigrès in Paris managed to organize a multinational campaign in behalf of a concentration camp victim little known outside Germany which saved his life, got him released from camp, and won him the Nobel Peace Prize. http://www.irwinabrams.com/articles/ossietzky.html

What a dreadful age it must have been for the pacificist, the intellectual, the internationalist! To see what was coming, and yet to watch powerless as your entire world comes undone, is put to the flames.

[PanzerJaeger]

He was nothing more than a communist sympathizer and a traitor. He was acting to hurt Germany long before Hitler came to power. In fact, it was people like Ossietzky that spurred the reactionary anti-communist shift to the far Right in Germany that swept Hitler into the Chancellery.

Every nation has the right to defend itself, and German re-armament in particular was in the best interest of the German people. Despite Louis' claims of some conservative conspiracy, most moderate and even many leftist German politicians saw Stalin's military buildup and the growing threat of expansionist international communism and knew that Germany stood helpless against outside threats under the Versailles conditions. That is why re-armament was sought by the Weimar Republic long before the Nazis ever came into existence. Ossietzky, a communist supporter, sought to weaken Germany not under Hitler, but under a democratically-elected representative government.

He received the prize because he later became a victim of the Nazi Party. It was a convenient choice out of thousands of others because of his outspoken anti-Nazi positions. It was also convenient to ignore that he was a traitor to a legal government before he became a victim. The German Federal court, of course, could not ignore that.


According to the case law of the Supreme Court of the German Reich, the illegality of covertly conducted actions did not cancel out the principle of secrecy. According to the opinion of the Supreme Court of the German Reich, every citizen owes his Fatherland a duty of allegiance regarding information, and endeavours towards the enforcement of existing laws may be implemented only through the utilization of responsible domestic state organs, and never by appealing to foreign governments. –Ruling of the Federal Court of Justice, 3 December 1992

[Louis VI the Fat]

Every nation has the right to defend itself, and German re-armament in particular was in the best interest of the German people. Despite Louis' claims of some conservative conspiracy, most moderate and even many leftist German politicians saw Stalin's military buildup and the growing threat of expansionist international communism and knew that Germany stood helpless against outside threats under the Versailles conditions. That is why re-armament was sought by the Weimar Republic long before the Nazis ever came into existence. Ossietzky, a communist supporter, sought to weaken Germany not under Hitler, but under a democratically-elected representative government. Ah, but Ossietzky was not a Communist. Leftwing, but bourgeois.

The Weltbühne-Prozess, the trial in question is about Ossietzky exposing the cooperation between Germany and the Soviet Union! Both countries together ran a secret airbase 400 kilometer from Moscow. Here German pilots were trained, and a new airforce was build. All in secret. Starting in 1925. This is what Ossietzky revealed. Far from being helpless against outside threats, the revelations of Ossietzky showed that Germany was in full co-operation with the Soviet Union, both biding their time to overthrow the peace together.
With the revelation, Ossietzky did not betray German interest to the communists. Not at all. Ossietzky exposed the alliance between the two revisionist powers. He revealed the close co-operation between Germany and the Soviet Union.

There were people in Europe - an increasingly lonely, but proud minority - who resisted both the extreme left and the extreme right. For unlike the propaganda of these two, the choice was not at all between either extreme left or extreme right. The real choice in the 1930s was liberal democratic pacifism and moderateness, or either extreme left / right madness. The latter two were merely two cheeks of the same arse. Sadly, this was not understood by most people, the voices of moderation drowned in the sheer volume and vehemence of the extremists.

[Beskar]

Dismissing Louis' post based on "Traitor to his country" = :rolleyes:

[PanzerJaeger]

Ah, but Ossietzky was not a Communist. Leftwing, but bourgeois.

Note that I did not say he was a communist. From my understanding of his biography, I believe him to be a communist too savvy to adopt the label (there were many), but IIRC he never joined the party. He certainly played in those social circles and often wrote favorably about the cause.

Further, he was a supporter of Ernst Thälmann, who unlike some of the more organic German communists, took his orders directly from the Soviet Union and Stalin. Had he won, he likely would have mirrored other Stalinist puppets in cruelty and oppression.



The Weltbühne-Prozess, the trial in question is about Ossietzky exposing the cooperation between Germany and the Soviet Union!

Of course. His revelations of low level military cooperation between the two international pariahs was meant to have a twofold effect.

It was to first damage and further ostracize Germany in the eyes of the Western Democracies. Second, it was to make the Soviet Union appear to the German people to be a friend, an ally, of Germany; when in actuality the military cooperation was strictly out of necessity, not any grand strategy.

Thus, Ossietzky's piece was no real effort in pacifism, but an effort to keep Germany ostracized from the West and push her closer to the Soviet Union.


There were people in Europe - an increasingly lonely, but proud minority - who resisted both the extreme left and the extreme right.

Indeed there were. Ossietzky was not one of them.


Dismissing Louis' post based on "Traitor to his country" =

I assume this is directed toward me. First, thank you for your contribution. Second, I did not dismiss Louis' post. He elicited opinions about the man's legacy and I gave mine. I appreciate all of Louis' historical posts, despite disagreeing with most of his analyses. Third, you'll note that the German Supreme Court agreed with my position.

[Beskar]

I assume this is directed toward me. First, thank you for your contribution. Second, you'll note the German Supreme Court agreed with my position.

Doesn't mean anything. Especially if you consider the ones who were 'loyal' to the country. They would also rule that Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg was a traitor to his country as well, along with Oskar Schindler, Julius Leber and various other big names.

So ultimately going "he is a traitor" = :rolleyes:

[PanzerJaeger]

Doesn't mean anything. Especially if you consider the ones who were 'loyal' to the country. They would also rule that Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg was a traitor to his country as well, along with Oskar Schindler, Julius Leber and various other big names.



Really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_to_the_German_Resistance)? You think the German Supreme Court would rule Stauffenberg a traitor?


The Memorial to the German Resistance (German: Gedenkstätte Deutscher Widerstand), is a memorial and museum in Berlin, capital of Germany. It was opened in 1980 in part of the Bendlerblock, a complex of offices in Stauffenbergstrasse (formerly Bendlerstrasse), south of the Tiergarten in western Berlin. It was here that Claus Graf von Stauffenberg and other members of the July 20 plot of 1944 that attempted to assassinate Adolf Hitler were executed.

Although the memorial is primarily intended to commemorate those members of the German Army who tried to assassinate Hitler in 1944, it is also a memorial to the German Resistance in the broader sense. Historians agree that there was no united, national resistance movement in Nazi Germany at any time during Hitler's years in power (1933-45). Joachim Fest describes it as "the resistance that never was."[1] Nevertheless, the term German Resistance (Deutscher Widerstand) is now used to describe all elements of opposition and resistance to the Nazi regime, including the underground networks of the Social Democrats and Communists, The White Rose, opposition activities in the Christian churches (e.g. the Confessing Church), and the resistance groups based in the civil service, intelligence organs and armed forces.

The visitor enters the museum from Stauffenbergstrasse through an archway, on the wall of which is inscribed: "Here in the former Supreme Headquarters of the Army, Germans organized the attempt of 20 July 1944 to end the Nazi rule of injustice. For this, they sacrificed their lives. The Federal Republic of Germany and the State of Berlin created this new memorial place in the year 1980."

[Louis VI the Fat]

Doesn't mean anything. Especially if you consider the ones who were 'loyal' to the country. They would also rule that Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg was a traitor to his country as well, along with Oskar Schindler, Julius Leber and various other big names.I enjoy my little bouts with PJ about the history of this period, even if his ideas differ from mine.

Nor is the case for Ossietzky completely closed. The fact remains that to the German court - of modern, democratic Germany - the man is still a traitor! A travesty, as far as I'm concerned. To no small degree owing to a historical idea about Weimar as a somewhat clumsy, failed, doomed but peaceful Germany. I think that underestimates the incessant agitation of national-conservatives in many sectors of Germany before 1933. Very much so the German judges of this period, who showed as poor judgement before Hitler as they did in the period 1933-1945. which was one long and sad legal travesty.



You do marvelously bring the focus to the essence of this thread, short of the historical details which are perhaps of little interest to most. Namely, what makes a hero, and what a traitor?

Is Liu a traitor, like the Chinese claim? Assange? Sacharov? Mandela? Three of which have won the Nobel Prize, and the fourth, like the other three, a contender for both imprisonment and the Peace Prize itself.


Edit: Also, there is a remarkable similarity in the Prize and the reaction to it by Nazi Germany and Communist China. A shared vehemence, complete with foreign threats, blackmail of third countries, and lots of show and bogus other prizes. By comparison to these two, the reaction of the Soviet Unio to Sacharov's Prize seemed very mellow. The response of the Burma regime to the Prize for what's-her-name-again, that I don't really know, the country is a complete mystery to me.

[HoreTore]

More than a decade in house arrest was Burmas response, Louis.

Though one can of course wonder, would Suu-Kyi have been killed if not for the international focus the peace prize brought? She's still alive, while a lot of Burmas democratic opposition lies in the grave...

[Beskar]

Really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_to_the_German_Resistance)? You think the German Supreme Court would rule Stauffenberg a traitor?

Thank you for proving the hypocrisy of the German Supreme Court.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_to_the_German_Resistance)? You think the German Supreme Court would rule Stauffenberg a traitor?Has the GSC ever ruled about Stauffenberg after 1945?

Germany is full of memorials for Ossietzky. Schools, a university, a peace prize, the lot.

The general reverence for Ozzienzky in democratic Germany is not the same as a legal verdict. It is of course a travesty: a German journalist, who exposed plans for German re-armament, who received a Nobel Peace Prize for it, who was so much systematically tortured in a concentration camp over it that he died because of it - and he is still considered a traitor to the German court. :no:

Interesting actually. Has a South African court ever reversed the case against Mandela, or has he been simply released? What of similar cases? I should look that up.

[PanzerJaeger]

Thank you for proving the hypocrisy of the German Supreme Court.

Can you elaborate on that hypocrisy? You are aware that the two acted against completely different governments, correct?


It is of course a travesty: a German journalist, who exposed plans for German re-armament, who received a Nobel Peace Prize for it, who was so much systematically tortured in a concentration camp over it that he died because of it - and he is still considered a traitor to the German court.

His treatment under the Nazis does not change his actions against the previous democratic government. That was the basis of the ruling.

[Hax]

His torture does not change his actions against the previous democratic government. That was the basis of the ruling.

That depends on your own perception fo what is more valuable. Global stability or national stability?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Interesting. It would seem that most, if not all, of what this fellow blew the whistle about were programs conducted under the auspices of the Weimar regime and/or the military operating without official authorization.

Talk about having no chance at all....

Even if this fellow hadn't been a left-wing politician (almost all of whom were silenced by the Nazi regime after 1933) he would probably have been sent off simply for providing any evidence that Hitler had not personally rebuilt the Luftwaffe from scratch (can't have anyone stealing credit from the great leader, now, can we?).

Still, he lasted longer than some of Adolf's ardent supporters like Rohm.

I think US mafia families were as good or better about loyalty among their peers than were the Nazis.


Still, the Weimar regime was the duly elected government and he blew the whistle on secret policy decisions they'd made. Any in-power government would label that treason. After Hitler's deal with the Army for power, there was no way they were going to show mercy to a leftist who'd ticked off the Army Junkers.

As whistle-blowers of all stripes must determine for themselves, "Is revealing the truth of enough value to you that you will sacrifice your freedom or your life to reveal it?" The wages of such efforts are well known, however noble the intent.

[Louis VI the Fat]

His treatment under the Nazis does not change his actions against the previous democratic government. That was the basis of the ruling.Indeed. Which of course touches on a pet peeve of mine: has history too much overlooked the agitation within the Weimar Republic? In this case, it were not the Nazis, it was democratic Weimar which incarcerated this man, the (national-conservative) politicians and judges and military who closely co-operated in censoring the whistleblower.

Germany's legal system acknowledges Weimar as democratic, and will uphold its legal decisions. Unlike Germany's two dictatorial regimes, of which especially the legality of the legal order of the Nazi period is mostly unrecognised.
Ah well, add in an autocratic Kaiser and not much democratic history remains. A country can not undo all of its history.



That depends on your own perception fo what is more valuable. Global stability or national stability?Excellent.

An overwhelming amount of later Germans would wish their history had listened to Ossietzky, instead of to the national-conservatives. Who is the traitor of Germany? The man who warns for the coming catastrophe, the whistleblower, or the people striving towards the catastrophe?

Who is a traitor to the Chinese people? Who is the traitor to our societies?



two international pariahs Quod non. Weimar Germany was a member of the League of nations. Enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in Europe. Received massive foreign loans. Was fully embedded in the western legal, economic, scientific and cultural order.
The Soviet Union was none of that. Its only friends were foreign communists, and German nationalists. Germany has always been the patron saint of the Soviet Union, from installing it, to allying with it in the 1920s, to overrunning Eastern Europe together with it in 1939. Only Hitler was a brief interlude, his virulent anti-communism nearly undid all the hard work of German diplomacy of the fifteen years before. Silly man, even after he had renewed the alliance with the Soviet Union, he couldn't resist the temptation to challenge Stalin, his superior by far.

Why were German nationalists and the Soviet Union such good friends? Because only together could they ever hope to stand a whiff of a chance against the rock-solid alliance of the three western powers, who would of course never be so stupid as to undo their succesful alliance and let themselves be picked off one by one. :shame:.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Still, the Weimar regime was the duly elected government and he blew the whistle on secret policy decisions they'd made. Any in-power government would label that treason. After Hitler's deal with the Army for power, there was no way they were going to show mercy to a leftist who'd ticked off the Army Junkers.

As whistle-blowers of all stripes must determine for themselves, "Is revealing the truth of enough value to you that you will sacrifice your freedom or your life to reveal it?" The wages of such efforts are well known, however noble the intent.What this does show, is the extent of the continuation between (an undercurrent of) Weimar and Nazi Germany.

It is common that after a revolution, a true coup, much is reversed. What was black before, is white now,. Who was a traitor, is now a hero. After 1945, everything was different. The Traitor to the Nazi was the hero to both West and East Germany. After 1989, the traitor to East Germany was the hero to unified Germany. Not so in 1933. The traitor to Weimar was still the traitor to Nazi Germany. A chilling thought, one which serves as a reminder to Weimar's dark undercurrent.

[PanzerJaeger]

It is common that after a revolution, a true coup, much is reversed. What was black before, is white now,. Who was a traitor, is now a hero. After 1945, everything was different. The Traitor to the Nazi was the hero to both West and East Germany. After 1989, the traitor to East Germany was the hero to unified Germany. Not so in 1933. The traitor to Weimar was still the traitor to Nazi Germany. A chilling thought, one which serves as a reminder to Weimar's dark undercurrent.

Allow me to point out, one more time, that you are confusing two separate incidents.

Ossietzky published Weimar state secrets and was tried and convicted for it. After being released, he came out as a supporter of Comintern puppet Ernst Thälmann and was an outspoken critic of the Communist's biggest opponent, the Nazi Party. After Hitler came to power, Ossietzky, like many other communists and their sympathizers, was arrested and sent to a concentration camp. The Nazi's did not arrest him as a carry-over from his troubles with the Republic.

Ossietzky's supporters tried to get his treason conviction overturned using guilt and the hero status he has gained in some circles due to his treatment under the Nazi regime. It did not work.

While Ossietzky's case brings up some pet peeves of yours, it also touches on one of mine. That being the post-war deification of practically anyone who opposed the Nazis, including the beloved Stauffenberg, regardless of their motivations. Germany is filled with memorials to men who opposed the Nazis out of self interest, because they had no choice, and most annoyingly, because they supported a different totalitarian ideology.

Then again, in my own city I can stroll through my choice of Confederate Park, Jefferson Davis Park, and even Nathan Bedford Forrest Park (http://www.roadsideamerica.com/news/10904), where the good general and KKK Grand Master lies in rest - and I wouldn't have it any other way. I guess you cannot put much stock in memorials.

[Husar]

Germany's two dictatorial regimes, of which especially the legality of the legal order of the Nazi period is mostly unrecognised.
Ah well, add in an autocratic Kaiser and not much democratic history remains.

Two? You mean the Kaiser was a dictator? By the people he was seen as a benevolent monarch, his internal policies are often seen as better than Bismarck's.
Sure, I'm no fan of his, but that's mostly because I blame him for our involvement in the war and a failed foreign policy, nothing to do with him being an evil dictator(except that he booted Bismarck :furious3: ).



An overwhelming amount of later Germans would wish their history had listened to Ossietzky, instead of to the national-conservatives.

An overwhelming amount of Germans also wished that history had let them keep their Kaiser, and I think that is especially a high amount of those who still lived under the Kaiser. The Kaiser was so sad about being away from his beloved people that he died of misery not too long after the war, one could speculate that things could have gone a much better path had he been left in power.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Kaiser Wilhelm II died in exile in the Netherlands in 1941 at the age of 82.

According to some, he had hoped for a return of the monarchy following the Nazi takeover in the early 30s. Hitler had no use for the man, so any such thoughts were wasted. He was not a fan of the Nazi policies towards Jews.

[Hax]

Kaiser Wilhelm II died in exile in the Netherlands in 1941 at the age of 82.

Yeah, I live not five kilometers from the house where he lived and died!

[Louis VI the Fat]

Two? You mean the KaiserNo, the two 'German dictatorships' are Nazi Germany and the German Democratic Republic, East Germany.


The Kaiser was so sad about being away from his beloved people that he died of misery not too long after the warAre you sure you are not mixing that up with a Disney fairy tale about some poor king who died of grief? The one where all the people cry when the king leaves and the evil stepmother is installed on the throne, until the squirrels and the frog prince set the kingdom free.


I must inform you that reports about your beloved Kaiser soon having died of grief because he missed his people are greatly exaggerated.
Your exiled Kaiser lived on for decades after the war, in good health, well into his eighties. Although I think we can safely assume he did grief over his lost empire and collection of pointy helmets.



Here's your beloved moustached one:

During his last year at Doorn, Wilhelm believed that Germany was the land of monarchy and therefore of Christ and that England was the land of Liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) and therefore of Satan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan) and the Anti-Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christ). He argued that the English ruling classes were "Freemasons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons) thoroughly infected by Juda". Wilhelm asserted that the "British people must be liberated from Antichrist Juda. We must drive Juda out of England just as he has been chased out of the Continent."[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Emperor#cite_note-R.C3.B6hl.2C_p._211-41)

He believed the Freemasons and Jews had caused the two world wars, aiming at a world Jewish empire with British and American gold, but that "Juda's plan has been smashed to pieces and they themselves swept out of the European Continent!"
Continental Europe was now, Wilhelm wrote, "consolidating and closing itself off from British influences after the elimination of the British and the Jews!" The end result would be a "U.S. of Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Europe)!"[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Emperor#cite_note-R.C3.B6hl.2C_p._211-41) In a letter to his sister Princess Margaret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Margaret_of_Prussia) in 1940, Wilhelm wrote: "The hand of God is creating a new world & working miracles ... We are becoming the U.S. of Europe under German leadership, a united European Continent." He added: "The Jews [are] being thrust out of their nefarious positions in all countries, whom they have driven to hostility for centuries." :balloon2:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Ossietzky published Weimar state secrets and was tried and convicted for it. After being released, he came out as a supporter of Comintern puppet Ernst Thälmann and was an outspoken critic of the Communist's biggest opponent, the Nazi Party. After Hitler came to power, Ossietzky, like many other communists and their sympathizers, was arrested and sent to a concentration camp. The Nazi's did not arrest him as a carry-over from his troubles with the Republic.
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.

By this reasoning, all communism is off the hook because it was the greatest opponent of Nazism.

That is the whole trap, that sad mistake of the 1930s. 'This opposses totalitarianism version X, so this good'.

The real struggle of the 1930s was not between nazism and communism, it was between the totalitarian ideologies and liberal democracy. Internal power struggles within the totalitarian world - fascism vs nazism, nazism vs communism, Leninist-Trostkyism vs Stalinism - are of secondary interest.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Husar, I must say I am surprised to see that you voted that Ossietzky is a traitor, who deserved death.


Brave journalists like him exposed to the German people what was happening in the 1920s. He and like-minded reporters warned about German secret re-armament, about the plots and the agitation and the schemes to overthrow German democracy and re-start a war. They warned Germany for the coming catastrophe. Ozzietzky was also one of the first to understand in 1933 what was happening.

Who is the traitor? The national-conservative powers who secretly (secret for the German people) build a clone army in the Soviet Union, or the reporter who exposed that to the German people?
It is owing to the work of brave reporters like him that the German people were informed, that a majority of Germans understood the attack against German democracy, that the German people have the historical dignity that their democracy was not voted out of existence by themselves, but had to be overthrown in a coup.


Are you not a democrat? Do you support the concentration camps? Do you seriously support that this should've been the fate of this man: The International Red Cross representative allowed to visit him in November 1935 found "a trembling, deadly pale something, a creature that appeared to be without feeling, one eye swollen, teeth knocked out, dragging a broken, badly healed leg . . . a human being who had reached the uttermost limits of what could be borne."

[Husar]

You compare my hyperbole to fairy tales and then suggest that I should not see him as a traitor because he was treated badly by the Nazis?

That the Nazis treated him badly has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was a traitor, I also thought cloning was not possible back then, so maybe you pulled that out of your own fairy tales? He revealed a plot that was essentially meant to benefit his nation in the long run, that makes him a traitor, whether a frenchman thinks this revelation was a good thing is completely irrelevant as one man's traitor is usually another man's freedom fighter. That the german people had no big problems voting those secretly training nutcases into office was shown a few years later, when new secret training programs were established and cheered by the german people.
So yes, he was a traitor, maybe not to you or me, but apparently to the german people and government of the time.

The only reason Assange isn't a traitor is that he isn't an American, otherwise he'd be a traitor, too, regardless of whether I approve of his leaking or not.
The clever traitor gets out of the country before he can be caught.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You compare my hyperbole to fairy tales and then suggest that I should not see him as a traitor because he was treated badly by the Nazis?PJ made the same point. It is correct, one should not confound Ossietzky's incarceration by Weimar with his being slowly tortured to death in a Nazi concentration camp.
But neither should one regard both as separate events either. Ossietzky was released at Christmas 1932 by Weimar, only to be send to the camps a few months later by Nazi Germany, for the same 'crimes'. The Nazi coup was in this respect, as in so many others, not a ceasure but a continuation. A mere intensification.


That the Nazis treated him badly has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was a traitor, I also thought cloning was not possible back then, so maybe you pulled that out of your own fairy tales? You're not a Star Wars fan, I take it. :beam:

A Clone Army was build in the outer rim. Initially secret, later approved by the democratically elected Republican Senate. However, the idea had always been to use the army to overthrow the Republic. This was the work of those who secretly conspired to overthrow the Republic, the Sith. The dark Sith lord was eventually installed as Emperor. The Senate granted him emergency powers, because it thought it could contain him. However, the clone army was now used by the Emperor to overthrow the very Republic.
Apparantly George Lucas has read the same history books as I have.



He revealed a plot that was essentially meant to benefit his nation in the long run, that makes him a traitorThe 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.

Did this all benefit Germany in the long run? Well if one considers 'May 8th 1945' the long run, then obviously not. It was a catastrophic game they played. It led to a destruction of Germany that was total, and that was complete - moral, poltical, militarily, economically, physically. Some 'benefit for the nation in the long run'. They were all dead, and those Germans left alive by 1945 by the violence of other Germans and foreign retaliations had a Russian in the barn molesting their daughter. Well done. What a great plot, what great benefit to the German nation!

My traitor are the plotters, those who sought to end democracy and plunge Germany into war again. These are the traitors to Germany. The reporter who reported it, deserved a Nobel Prize for exposing it.

[Husar]

PJ made the same point. It is correct, one should not confound Ossietzky's incarceration by Weimar with his being slowly tortured to death in a Nazi concentration camp.
But neither should one regard both as separate events either. Ossietzky was released at Christmas 1932 by Weimar, only to be send to the camps a few months later by Nazi Germany, for the same 'crimes'. The Nazi coup was in this respect, as in so many others, not a ceasure but a continuation. A mere intensification.

It still doesn't absolve him from being a traitor.


You're not a Star Wars fan, I take it. :beam:

Not really, though I knew most of the things about the clone army, Star Wars is still a fairy tale though.


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.

Where were the huge protests when Hitler came to power if the majority didn't like him at all? And how big was this secretly trained army that it could have been used for a violent take-over? How come the families of the hundred thousands of soldiers never noticed or told anyone?


Did this all benefit Germany in the long run? Well if one considers 'May 8th 1945' the long run, then obviously not. It was a catastrophic game they played. It led to a destruction of Germany that was total, and that was complete - moral, poltical, militarily, economically, physically. Some 'benefit for the nation in the long run'. They were all dead, and those Germans left alive by 1945 by the violence of other Germans and foreign retaliations had a Russian in the barn molesting their daughter. Well done. What a great plot, what great benefit to the German nation!

So you think the intention of the right wingers was to destroy Germany?
And this particular plot wasn't what lead to the takeover by the Nazis as it was reported, that's what this thread is about, isn't it?


My traitor are the plotters, those who sought to end democracy and plunge Germany into war again. These are the traitors to Germany. The reporter who reported it, deserved a Nobel Prize for exposing it.

Had the allies not removed the Kaiser, then there had never been a reason for the Monarchists to try and overthrow the government again.

[Louis VI the Fat]

traitorWe disagree.


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.

One is not a traitor to Germany for refusing to raise one's right arm, start goosestepping, and go off to kill some Jews. However un-German it may sound, even a German must sometimes disobey orders.

[Hax]

He was a traitor to the Nazi-controlled late Weimar Republic. He was a hero and a patriot to the later BRD and modern state of Germany. Maybe that's the best way to see it, then?

[Husar]

He was a traitor to the Nazi-controlled late Weimar Republic. He was a hero and a patriot to the later BRD and modern state of Germany. Maybe that's the best way to see it, then?

Pretty much.

[Hax]

See, I knew we'd all agree.

[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" = :rolleyes: 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. :balloon2:

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) and human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights) were apparently to no effect. It was a crushing blow to him, as he recognised the danger approaching with Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler). "They are preparing to head towards the Third Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Reich)" he wrote, years before Hitler's Machtübernahme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machtergreifung) in 1933, and was under no deception as to where Hitler's chancellorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor) would take the country. Erich Kästner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_K%C3%A4stner), looking back in 1946, described him as the "little fat Berliner" who wanted to "prevent a catastrophe with his typewriter".

:shame:



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/Vertretung/pretoria__dz/en/05__GL/Literature/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. :bulb:

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! :yes:

[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" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsberg_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" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsberg_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. :laugh4:

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. :grin:

[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! :yes:

This is why you're not popular :sad:

[PanzerJaeger]

This is why you're not popular :sad:

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 (http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-German-Communism-Science-Classics/dp/0878558802/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1292549240&sr=8-12).

[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? :idea2:

(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? :idea2:

(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 (http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-German-Communism-Science-Classics/dp/0878558802/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1292549240&sr=8-12).

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 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treason) 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? :idea2:

(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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.'Communist'? :huh:

Not a single communist has been brought up by me. They were all social-democrats and Christian conservatives.
'Communist' is what the nazi calls anybody to the left of Goebbels. See, this is what I mean when I say you have adopted Nazi concepts, Nazi language, and consequently, a Nazi view of history.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Let's explore the concept of traitor a bit further. A reporter discovers that the German chancellor is conspiring with Russia against Poland. Secret funds are exposed, the German state funds strategic German-Russian incentives, segments of the German government including the chancellor conspire with a Russian despot. The reporter makes this public to the German people. Is he a traitor for going against his government? Should the freedom of the press exclude reporting about one's government? Should the reporter be locked up?
Mind we are talking about democratic Germany, not a dictatorship.

And if this is not treason, then what is the difference between exposing the above, and exposing in 1929 that German funds are secretly funneled to Russia to undermine Poland and strenghten a German-Russian alliance**?



Not a hypotethical case! Here's looking at you, Schröder, you useless political prostitute, selling out Europe to the Russians for a few rubbles. :no:


Gerhard Schroeder's Sellout

IT'S THE SORT of behavior we have -- sadly -- come to expect from some in Congress. But when Gerhard Schroeder, the former German chancellor, announced last week that he was going to work for Gazprom, the Russian energy behemoth, he catapulted himself into a different league. It's one thing for a legislator to resign his job, leave his committee chairmanship and go to work for a company over whose industry he once had jurisdiction. It's quite another thing when the chancellor of Germany -- one of the world's largest economies -- leaves his job and goes to work for a company controlled by the Russian government that is helping to build a Baltic Sea gas pipeline that he championed while in office. To make the decision even more unpalatable, it turns out that the chief executive of the pipeline consortium is none other than a former East German secret police officer who was friendly with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, back when Mr. Putin was a KGB agent in East Germany. If nothing else, Mr. Schroeder deserves opprobrium for his bad taste.



But the announcement should also raise questions in German voters' minds about the real reasons Mr. Schroeder was so keen to see this pipeline project launched. The pipeline has cost Germany diplomatically by infuriating its Central European and Baltic neighbors.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/12/AR2005121201060.html


Husar - do you insist that the information above too must be censored in Germany? That this reporter too ought to be locked up for treason aginst his government?
Or do you agree that the German people have a right to be informed of secret dealings of elements of their government with the likes of Stalin and Putin?

(One could, I suppose, agree together with German conservatism in the 1920s, with Nazi Germany, with communists throughout the 20th century, and with a 21st century social-democratic chancellor, that Germany's strategic interest is to ally itself with a Russian despot of whatever sort. But perhaps the German people ought to be consulted for a change, instead of secretly conspiring against them every single time. Then again, every single time large, all too large segments of the German people have shown themselves prone to 'a dull a stupid sleep', to borrow the beautiful phrase from the White Rose group. They'll censor themselves for you, and their neighbour too, each time the perfect tools for anybody wishing to impose yet another authoritarian regime in Germany.)



** With the Soviet Union, that is. There's your communists for you. The Soviet Union was supported by national-conservative elements in the German government. This was exposed by Ossietzky, whom you so carelessly dismiss as a communist. Quod non.

[Husar]

Schröder didn't make any secret dealings that were supposed to help the nation defend itself against a french occupation of the Rhineland for example, did he?
How doing that can be compared to bullying Poland is also beyond me.
And in addition, today ratting people out is much more acceptable on a grand level (less so at work or other smaller groups, which shows that not everything has changed) than it was back then, different times, different values.

[Brenus]

“secret dealings that were supposed to help the nation defend itself against a french occupation of the Rhineland for example”:
Of course, this is just ignoring the fact that was part of the Peace Treaty signed by Germany.
This just fits in my theory that Hitler didn’t create the tool but just inheritate it from Weimar and used it… And the Conservative Germany never intented to keep its word...

“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.”
So are you telling here is the true German Patriots are the ones who fought almost until the end (but letting the Foreign SS –Dutch and French- really doing it) in Berlin, the ones who deserve a Patriotic Day are the SS who killed until the last day the Jews, Gipsies and hanged the German Deserters as it was the “legitimate” government of their Country that told them to do so?

I prefer to be a traitor to a so criminal state like Nazi Germany than to be a hero of it.
My German Heroes are the ones who disobeyed, who falsified documents and saved the Jews and others of the consequence of the legitimate Government orders of the Country.
If you think that whatever murders Nazi Germany did, it was the duty of a German to obey…. I am speechless…

Do you really, but really think that nothing absolve to be a traitor? What about the German Jews? Should have fought for Hitler and Germany against the Red Army?
That all Russians should have supported Stalin, all Cambodians Polt Pot?
That a country is above all critics whatever the criminality of a Regime?

[PanzerJaeger]

Let's explore the concept of traitor a bit further. A reporter discovers that the German chancellor is conspiring with Russia against Poland. Secret funds are exposed, the German state funds strategic German-Russian incentives, segments of the German government including the chancellor conspire with a Russian despot. The reporter makes this public to the German people. Is he a traitor for going against his government? Should the freedom of the press exclude reporting about one's government? Should the reporter be locked up?
Mind we are talking about democratic Germany, not a dictatorship.

And if this is not treason, then what is the difference between exposing the above, and exposing in 1929 that German funds are secretly funneled to Russia to undermine Poland and strenghten a German-Russian alliance**?



Not a hypotethical case! Here's looking at you, Schröder, you useless political prostitute, selling out Europe to the Russians for a few rubbles. :no:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/12/AR2005121201060.html


Husar - do you insist that the information above too must be censored in Germany? That this reporter too ought to be locked up for treason aginst his government?
Or do you agree that the German people have a right to be informed of secret dealings of elements of their government with the likes of Stalin and Putin?

You're reaching Louis.

Publishing the career choice of a former leader along with innuendo about his motives does not equate to publishing state secrets.




(One could, I suppose, agree together with German conservatism in the 1920s, with Nazi Germany, with communists throughout the 20th century, and with a 21st century social-democratic chancellor, that Germany's strategic interest is to ally itself with a Russian despot of whatever sort.)

Amazing! The very subject of this thread, Mr. Ossietzky, fervently supported a communist puppet of the Soviet Union and somehow it is everyone else in Germany that suddenly wanted to jump in bed with the Russians! Your skills at revision are second to none!


** With the Soviet Union, that is. There's your communists for you. The Soviet Union was supported by national-conservative elements in the German government. This was exposed by Ossietzky, whom you so carelessly dismiss as a communist. Quod non.

Can you please detail this grand support? Germany essentially rented a tiny portion of Russian land and airspace at a pittance (the Soviets needed every ruble they could get) for Abteilung M to train on away from prying eyes - the same sort of small-scale dealings all countries secretly engage in. The defense advancements gained were worth far more to Germany than anything the Russians got out of the deal.


So are you telling here is the true German Patriots are the ones who fought almost until the end (but letting the Foreign SS –Dutch and French- really doing it) in Berlin, the ones who deserve a Patriotic Day are the SS who killed until the last day the Jews, Gipsies and hanged the German Deserters as it was the “legitimate” government of their Country that told them to do so?

I prefer to be a traitor to a so criminal state like Nazi Germany than to be a hero of it.
My German Heroes are the ones who disobeyed, who falsified documents and saved the Jews and others of the consequence of the legitimate Government orders of the Country.
If you think that whatever murders Nazi Germany did, it was the duty of a German to obey…. I am speechless…

Do you really, but really think that nothing absolve to be a traitor? What about the German Jews? Should have fought for Hitler and Germany against the Red Army?
That all Russians should have supported Stalin, all Cambodians Polt Pot?
That a country is above all critics whatever the criminality of a Regime?

Must you engage in such hyperbole? :drama3:

Mr. Ossietzky's conviction has nothing to do with the Nazis.

[Brenus]

“Must you engage in such hyperbole”, Yes, because it was an question (or answer) to “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.”

[Greyblades]

Uh excuse me but whats is the poll option "...is a traitor who must be prosecuted for rape in Sweden" about?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Schröder didn't make any secret dealings that were supposed to help the nation defend itself against a french occupation of the Rhineland for example, did he?'help the nation defend itself against a French occupation of the Rhineland' - this is as Nazi a concept of history as they come.

*sigh*

It is based on fundamentally erroneous concepts. My usual mantra applies: in Versailes mythology, the truth is the exact reverse of popular German-nationalist history.

Here we go:
Germany did not need an army to defend itself. Germany already had an army. This army Germany did not use to defend itself with. Germany used this army to declare war on France, to invade. To invade from the north, to sneak attack against neutral Belgium, a neutrality Germany had shortly before 'solemnly swore to protect'.

France then beat you to a pulp.

France being a civilised country, Germany was given the choice: peace if Germany disarms and restores France. Or else invasion and France will help herself to what is hers. A most generous offer. The dishonorable German commanders eagerly agreed, with their fingers crossed behind their backs. Rather than intending to restore France, they had given orders to quickly plunder what could be carried, and destroy everything else. Rather than disarm, they immediately started their programs of secret preparations for the next war, ranging from seeking alliance with the Soviet communists, to re-armament, to refusal to disarm, to every administartive trick in the book to hide the true size and expenditure of the German army.

Then they lied to the world and to the German people that Germany had not lost the war at all. And they lied that they hadn't agreed to anything. And they censored evryvody who showed otherwise. Next, they refused to return to France what they had promised to return. After this had gone on for years, France did what she was entitled to according to the peace treaty: use an invasion of the Ruhr as a means of pressure.

If you collectively banned from the public consciousnesness that you have just lost a war, then you can present it as 'foreign invasion! The French are invading us for no apparant reason whatsoever! We need to defend outrselves!'. If you have lied to the German people that you were granted an armistice on the condition that you pay full restoration to France, then you can present the French army forcing you to fulfill your obligation as 'The French are robbing us blind! They are wantonly robbing our factories!'. If you have lied that you did not lose a war and that you did not agree to lay down your arms, then you can cry that 'they can only get away with it because they abuse a moment of weakness! They want us disarmed forever! We need to rearm to defend ourselves!'


See, the problem is this: the French are honourable. Clemenceau is a man of his word. They expected their German counterparts to be honourable people too. This was a mistake. The German army is the most dishonourable one of all civilised countries. It lies and deceits as a matter of course. For it is incapable of recognising others as their equals, as people who need to be treated with any respect whatsoever.

What should've been done is: occupy the whole of Germany in 1918. This drives home the fact that Germany has lost. The stab in the back legend would not have existed. Next, this occupation is slowly reversed if Germany meets the obligations to which it had agreed. If it pays its share towards restoration, then an area will get de-occupied. If Germany demobilises - as is customary for a defeated country! - then anpother area gets de-occupied. Etc. Then, in some fifteen years time it is all over, passions have settled down, a dignified peace has been made, victor and vanquished have resumed their places as equal members of a peaceful state system.

Instead, the reverse happend: Germany's word was accepted that it would pay its share of restoration, and that it would lay down its arms for about fifteen years or so. If Germany would not meet these requirements, France would invade a tiny area of Germany as a means of pressure.
This was too much idealism, this can hardly work in the most perfect of circumstances. Nevermind when one is dealing with the dishonourable Prussian miitary. They will abuse your generosity, will use it to destroy the German democracy, use the peace as a temporary truce for a renewed attempt. (And will then kill fifty million people, after which they will again start their pityful lies that it wasn't their fault and that it didn't happen anyway and that they are the real victim here and that everybody else does it too and blahblahblah)

[HoreTore]

Uh excuse me but whats is the poll option "...is a traitor who must be prosecuted for rape in Sweden" about?

Reference to Julian Assange.

[Louis VI the Fat]

“Must you engage in such hyperbole”, Yes, because it was an question (or answer) to “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.”I think Husar means that subsequent crimes of Nazi Germany do not mean he was not a traitor to Weimar Germany.


(Naturally, I disagree anyway. A German who desperatly warns his fellow Germans in the late 1920s about the secret formation of a military state-within-a-state, bend on a power grab and plunging Germany into a renewed war, can scarcely be considered a traitor in the first place, regardless of whether his government is democratic or not.)


Uh excuse me but whats is the poll option "...is a traitor who must be prosecuted for rape in Sweden" about? I jokingly refer to Julian Assange, of Wikileaks. He and his sources are sometimes considered traitors, someitmes heroic exposers of injustice. He is currently under investigation for rape charges in Sweden, which some of his followers have deemed a political trial.

He is together with Liu the inspiration for this thread: 'what makes a traitor?'
Is the Chinese dissident a traitor? Does leaking diplomatic cables constitute treason? Etc.


Can you please detail this grand support? Germany essentially rented a tiny portion of Russian land and airspace at a pittance (the Soviets needed every ruble they could get) for Abteilung M to train on away from prying eyes - the same sort of small-scale dealings all countries secretly engage in.I think I'll start a Monastery thread about it. It often seems to come as a complete surprise to people that Germany and the Soviet Union were close allies in the 1920s, that German nationalist-conservatism was the biggest supporter of communism.

[PanzerJaeger]

“Must you engage in such hyperbole”, Yes, because it was an question (or answer) to “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.”

But that is fundamentally true. The fact that this fellow got roughed up later by the Nazis has no bearing on his earlier treason to the Weimar Republic.



II think I'll start a Monastery thread about it. It often seems to come as a complete surprise to people that Germany and the Soviet Union were close allies in the 1920s, that German nationalist-conservatism was the biggest supporter of communism.

The relationship is rather well known (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93German_relations_before_1941), and not atypical of the diplomatic maneuvering for mutual interest that all nations engage in - hardly a "close alliance". The Russians suggested war against Poland several times and the Republic would have none of it, which is not particularly characteristic of two nations in such an alliance. I was speaking specifically of Mr. Ossietzky's revelation regarding Abteilung M.

[Husar]

'help the nation defend itself against a French occupation of the Rhineland' - this is as Nazi a concept of history as they come.

I still haven't seen you show anywhere that a single airfield and and a few soldiers secretly brought abroad are sufficient to train a huge army to take on all of Europe, so I'm assuming it had defensive purposes.
The Versailles treaty may have said this or that but a large portion of Germans saw it as unfair and that there was no military resistance to the occupation may just have been because the 100000 man army wouldn't have had a chance and one could have expected an even harsher treaty after a failed defense in the Rhineland.


France then beat you to a pulp.

Ah yes, if my version is Nazi history, then what is this? Gaul history? Too bad for me that "Nazi" has a much worse connotation than "Gaul"...


The German army is the most dishonourable one of all civilised countries. It lies and deceits as a matter of course. For it is incapable of recognising others as their equals, as people who need to be treated with any respect whatsoever.

IS? Are you sure you're not getting carried away in your nice gaulish fantasy? ~;)


I think Husar means that subsequent crimes of Nazi Germany do not mean he was not a traitor to Weimar Germany.

Exactly.



(Naturally, I disagree anyway. A German who desperatly warns his fellow Germans in the late 1920s about the secret formation of a military state-within-a-state, bend on a power grab and plunging Germany into a renewed war, can scarcely be considered a traitor in the first place, regardless of whether his government is democratic or not.)

See above, I doubt this army was capable of starting the next world war. What you say is also full of hyperbole, are you sure he was desperate? Or just looking for a good story to make money or drive his own political agenda? If the training was known to the democratic government, then how can this army have been trained for a power grab? did the government plan to overthrow itself?


He is together with Liu the inspiration for this thread: 'what makes a traitor?'
The answer to that question is about as clear as the answer to "What is the true religion?" and I pointed that out before as well, it's all relative.


Is the Chinese dissident a traitor?
To the Chinese government he is, I mean they said so, didn't they?


Does leaking diplomatic cables constitute treason?
You cannot betray what you have no allegiance whatsoever to.
While it is debatable whether a citizen has a responsibility towards the country it is a citizen of, an Australian citizen cannot betray the USA, he can spy on them or whatever but betrayal is towards someone you were supposed to help, I doubt Australian citizens have any legal obligation to be loyal to the USA.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...While it is debatable whether a citizen has a responsibility towards the country it is a citizen of, an Australian citizen cannot betray the USA, he can spy on them or whatever but betrayal is towards someone you were supposed to help, I doubt Australian citizens have any legal obligation to be loyal to the USA.

We tried to work that in as a clause to the SEATO agreement, but some smart-aleck Kiwi insisted on READING everything before signing. The berk. Pity, we'd gotten it by the Aussies by supplying them with beer.

[Brenus]

“I think Husar means that subsequent crimes of Nazi Germany do not mean he was not a traitor to Weimar Germany.” Perhaps, but what he wrote is “the fact that the third reich killed thousands and millions of people does not absolve anyone from being a traitor to their country/government.”

“The fact that this fellow got roughed up later by the Nazis has no bearing on his earlier treason to the Weimar Republic.” He didn’t got roughed. He was murdered.
However I agree it is not because you ended in a Concentration Camps that you were a good personn. Some Criminal who were not in the Nazi system went in Concentration Camps, most of the time as Kapo.

“Ah yes, if my version is Nazi history, then what is this? Gaul history? Too bad for me that "Nazi" has a much worse connotation than "Gaul"...”
?.
The German Army did lost the WW1, didn’t it? Or did the German Army won in Verdun, or the Somme? In 1918, was it the French or the German who were asking for the conditions? In 1914 the German crossed the Belgium Borders then the French. In 1918, well The Allied Forces were near to cross the German Border in pursuit of the retreating and defeated German Armies. So, yes Germany was beaten to pulp. Not only by the French, I give you this.

“I think Husar means that subsequent crimes of Nazi Germany do not mean he was not a traitor to Weimar Germany” “Exactly.”.
Right. To be a traitor is to give plan or information to an enemy…
But he exposed the collusion of a democratic Government to the Evil Communist Regime. He showed that the nice Democratic Regime was in fact in bed with a most Evil Dictatorship against the others Western Democratic Powers. He should be awarded for this.
Even better if he was a Communist as it made him a double traitor.
And PJ, that is where your theory him being a Communist has a problem.
To be part of the International Communist you have to defend the nest of Communism against all enemies including your own Country. So what the Soviet Union earned about these revelations? Nothing…
If he would have been a Communist he could have done this only under order of the Communist Leadership from Moscow. And there is no evidence of this.

[Husar]

Perhaps, but what he wrote is “the fact that the third reich killed thousands and millions of people does not absolve anyone from being a traitor to their country/government.”
Yes, because two wrongs don't make a right and the people who give away information from evil regimes aren't traitors, they are freedom fighters anyway, something I also said earlier.


The German Army did lost the WW1, didn’t it?
Well, that's the point, it lost World War 1, not the great Franco-Germanic war of 1914-1918 as Louis would like to tell the story.


Right. To be a traitor is to give plan or information to an enemy…
But he exposed the collusion of a democratic Government to the Evil Communist Regime. He showed that the nice Democratic Regime was in fact in bed with a most Evil Dictatorship against the others Western Democratic Powers. He should be awarded for this.
Having a secret treaty to train troops is quite different from being in bed with someone. Why anyone should reward a person they disagree with is beyond me.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Orgahs:

Chill a little. For good or for ill, all of those brave folk -- the good and the bad -- have been looking at the roots of the poppies for some time now.

Do not let the argument get personal.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well, that's the point, it lost World War 1, not the great Franco-Germanic war of 1914-1918 as Louis would like to tell the story.I think we all understand this was a world war. I am focusing on one aspect of it. I omit the British, the Americans, the Serbs, the Romanians, the Jordanians, the Chinese etcetera, not because they are unimportant, but because one can only discuss so much at any one time.

An Australian might discuss Gallipoli at great lenght without ever mentioning France once. This does not mean he mistakes 1914-1918 for the Great ANZAC Wars, or that he seeks to skew the historical perspective.



Having a secret treaty to train troops is quite different from being in bed with someone.Panzer was so kind to link to a wiki page. It is a fine place to start, and you can read all about the very intense relationship between Germany and the Soviet Union from 1918-1933. 'In bed with each other' seems perfectly apt to describe the relationship between Germany's military-nationalist right and Soviet communism. You have simply been had when read on the internets that Germany had to re-arm to defend itself against communism.
Quite the contrary. Communism and Germany were very close allies, bend on overthrowing the European peace together long before Molotov-Ribbentrop. Plans and secret agreements to attack and divide Poland between them date from the early 1920s. France and Poland knew all along - we had excellent intelligence. Sadly, the world believed the Germans more when they cried that their children were starving in the street and that there was no way they would ever contemplate re-arming to invade Poland and start it all all over again.

[Louis VI the Fat]

For good or for ill, all of those brave folk -- the good and the bad -- have been looking at the roots of the poppies for some time now. They have been dead for two hundred years. Nobody cares about that ancient history.

What I care about is persistent myth, lingering German nationalist propaganda, which caught a fresh breath of life this past decade on the wave of anti-Gallicism in 2003. Do you remember that thread where a certain Romanian poster claimed that the Jews were mostly responsible for starting WWII? How does that make a Romanian Jew feel? He can deal with the catastrophe that happened back then. It's not about that. It is about having to read eighty years later that 'Romania had to arm itself to defend against the Jews who were abusing a moment of temporary Romanian weakness to enrich themselves and enslave Romania forever'.
It's not hypothetical, it's somewhere in the Backroom back catalogue.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They have been dead for two hundred years. Nobody cares about that ancient history.

What I care about is persistent myth, lingering German nationalist propaganda, which caught a fresh breath of life this past decade on the wave of anti-Gallicism in 2003. Do you remember that thread where a certain Romanian poster claimed that the Jews were mostly responsible for starting WWII? How does that make a Romanian Jew feel? He can deal with the catastrophe that happened back then. It's not about that. It is about having to read eighty years later that 'Romania had to arm itself to defend against the Jews who were abusing a moment of temporary Romanian weakness to enrich themselves and enslave Romania forever'.
It's not hypothetical, it's somewhere in the Backroom back catalogue.

I recall the incident. My comment was not intended to force you folks to alter your points -- and I certainly agree that the discussion involves lasting lessons that supercede the historical specifics -- I just want to keep you folks on point and NOT using those points to skewer one another.

[Husar]

Panzer was so kind to link to a wiki page. It is a fine place to start, and you can read all about the very intense relationship between Germany and the Soviet Union from 1918-1933. 'In bed with each other' seems perfectly apt to describe the relationship between Germany's military-nationalist right and Soviet communism. You have simply been had when read on the internets that Germany had to re-arm to defend itself against communism.
Quite the contrary. Communism and Germany were very close allies, bend on overthrowing the European peace together long before Molotov-Ribbentrop. Plans and secret agreements to attack and divide Poland between them date from the early 1920s. France and Poland knew all along - we had excellent intelligence. Sadly, the world believed the Germans more when they cried that their children were starving in the street and that there was no way they would ever contemplate re-arming to invade Poland and start it all all over again.

Yes, that may well be true, but when push came to push and shove hit the fan or so, it was France which was in a Triple Entente with Britain and Russia, not Germany, it was France that jumped to the defense of russian imperial interests in the Balkans when it told Germany that it would attack in case of a war with Russia.
Of course you're going to claim now that Germany attacked first but under these circumstances it would have been really clever to wait for France to march into/bombard the Rhineland before doing anything. :dizzy2:

You keep arguing how it was bad of Germany to be allied with Russia during peace times while blissfully omitting how France entered the first world war on Russia's side and fought the second on Russia's side as well.

And where was France when Hitler and Stalin attacked Poland? Where was France when Hitler attacked Belgium and the Netherlands? Wasn't the french defeat mainly because instead of going north to help their neighbors the french army was mostly sitting behind the Maginot line and then too slow to react before it was encircled?

Even if Germany was evil, when it's allies had problems, Germany helped them, that's why German troops ended up in Africa and that's why Germany entered World War 1 against the russian oppression of the Serbs.

[Husar]

I recall the incident. My comment was not intended to force you folks to alter your points -- and I certainly agree that the discussion involves lasting lessons that supercede the historical specifics -- I just want to keep you folks on point and NOT using those points to skewer one another.

Somehow I have a soft spot for Louis, maybe that makes me a girl but that I like him doesn't mean I have to let him get away with his french commie propaganda. :mellow:

I mean I didn't intend to nor do I see the need to attack Louis personally.

[Brenus]

“Yes, that may well be true, but when push came to push and shove hit the fan or so, it was France which was in a Triple Entente with Britain and Russia, not Germany, it was France that jumped to the defence of Russian imperial interests in the Balkans when it told Germany that it would attack in case of a war with Russia.
Of course you're going to claim now that Germany attacked first but under these circumstances it would have been really clever to wait for France to march into/bombard the Rhineland before doing anything.
You keep arguing how it was bad of Germany to be allied with Russia during peace times while blissfully omitting how France entered the first world war on Russia's side and fought the second on Russia's side as well.
And where was France when Hitler and Stalin attacked Poland? Where was France when Hitler attacked Belgium and the Netherlands? Wasn't the French defeat mainly because instead of going north to help their neighbours the French army was mostly sitting behind the Maginot line and then too slow to react before it was encircled?
Even if Germany was evil, when it's allies had problems, Germany helped them, that's why German troops ended up in Africa and that's why Germany entered World War 1 against the Russian oppression of the Serbs. “

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You are living in a parallel world… You fall in a Black Hole and you came in our world that looks like yours but it is not. It is the only rational explanation for this text.

In case you are not joking:
France didn’t jump.
The Reality (of this world) is Germany gave a blank check to her Ally, the Austro Hungarian Empire to bully Serbia, even when Serbia had accepted most of the Austrian demands. Serbia was part of a defensive Alliances with Russia, so the Russian warned Austria about consequences. The Austro- Hungarian Empire had a protectorate on Bosnia; neighbour of Serbia, an important Serb minority was living there.
Encouraged by the solid support of her Ally, Austria did declare war on Serbia and started to bomb Belgrade and to invade. The defeats suffered by the Austrian are known and movies made about it (Mars na Drinu).:book:
So, the Tsar of Russia declare war to Austria, then Germany declare war on France and Russia, attacked Belgium etc…

You claim that Germany couldn’t wait for the French “to march into/bombard the Rhineland” would be pertinent only if Germany wouldn’t have stolen Alsace Lorraine to France after the 1870-71 war. And if fact, the plan was indeed to let the French to go forward in theses territories and to attack then in the back, cutting the advancing French by Belgium, reason why it was plan to invaded the neutral Belgium…

I am not a strong supporter of the Imperial Russia, far from it. However, to have a alliance (defensive) with a Country (not a secret one) and to train and agree with a Communist Russia (and I am not a lover of it either) is a little bit different, especially when you are doing this, the French (but not only them) were fighting (more or less convincingly, I give you that) the RED.

And the pompon (in French in the text) is “that's why Germany entered World War 1 against the Russian oppression of the Serbs.” That was the clue for the parallel world.
I hope Sarmatian will read this:laugh4:

And by the way, in 1915, Germany was allied with the Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and Bulgaria. They were the Central Powers.

Now, WW2.
“Wasn't the French defeat mainly because instead of going north to help their neighbours the French army was mostly sitting behind the Maginot line and then too slow to react before it was encircled?”
No it wasn’t.
Not in this dimension.
It was BECAUSE the French (and the BEF) went north that the French and the British were defeated.
Do you have a map in front of you? The best French Mechanised Armies and the BEF were waiting the invasion of Belgium and then the authorisation of the Belgium government to cross their territory to move.
It may look naïve, but the UK and France wanted to respect International Laws.
And it is little know that the Belgium government, in order to try to save their country's neutrality, had ordered their army to fight the Anglo-French if they had crossed the borders, this even AFTER the German Invasion,
Because you have to observe, in order to help the Dutch, you have to cross Belgium.
So, the most modern and efficient Armies marched north, pushing back the Germans.

Then, the German succeeded in crossing the Ardennes Mountains (thanks to the stupidity of the French Generals who stubbornly refused to acknowledge what their aerial reconnaissance patrols and pictures showed them) cutting these Armies from their Supplies and forcing them to retreat to Dunkirk.

Having succeeded to over flank the best French Divisions (and BEF), the German had to fight their way against territorial and 3rd line troops.
And they even were defeated as in the battle of Gembloux , showing the limit of the Blitzkrieg. Fortunately, the lessons they could have learnt were forgotten in the noise of the Triumph of the Victory against the French…

If you want to know why the French didn’t attack when Poland was invaded, have a look of the state of the French Army at this period, added to the fact that the French were not all convince that Germany and Poland were not allied in this like they were in the Anschluss (sp?) and before.
Plus the fact that the French didn’t want to renew the blood bath they had in 1914-1918.
They still gotd one as in the two month May-June 1940, the French Casualties were around 90,000 killed.
For comparison, US KIA for all theatres and wars is around 55,000. Source: US Navy. Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. History of the Medical Department of the United States Navy in World War II: The Statistics of Diseases and Injuries. vol.3. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1950. OCLC 04067096.

So, no, the French were not too slow to react. They just made the wrong move.
And if fact, if, they had preserved their main unit behind the Maginot Line, they probably had crush the German Tanks coming from the narrow path of the Ardennes forest, far from their supplies…

Thanks any way for the laught.

[drone]

For comparison, US KIA for all theatres and wars is around 55,000. Source: US Navy. Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. History of the Medical Department of the United States Navy in World War II: The Statistics of Diseases and Injuries. vol.3. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1950. OCLC 04067096.
:inquisitive: I know you Euros like to denigrate us for showing up late to the wars, but why post a casualty number that is so ridiculously low? Total US military KIA exceeded 400K.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes, that may well be true,


It is not true. Louis is hoping that you won't bother to read the link. In it you will find that statements like the following are completely false.



Plans and secret agreements to attack and divide Poland between them date from the early 1920s.



On December 4, 1924, Victor Kopp, worried that the expected admission of Germany to the League of Nations (Germany was finally admitted to the League in 1926) was an anti-Soviet move, offered German Ambassador Ulrich Graf von Brockdorff-Rantzau to cooperate against the Second Polish Republic, and secret negotiations were sanctioned.[2] However, the Weimar Republic rejected any venture into war.


The "Grand Alliance" between Germany and the Soviet Union was essentially an arms deal that resulted from the harsh limitations placed on Germany by the Versailles Treaty. Their most intense period of cooperation was during a time when Germany faced international isolation, but the goal from the German side was always mutual defense - specifically against... you guessed it! France.



Germany, laboring under onerous reparations and stung by the collective responsibility provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, was a defeated nation in turmoil. This and the Russian Civil War made both Germany and the Soviets into international outcasts, and their resulting rapprochement during the interbellum was a natural convergence.[2][3] At the same time, the dynamics of their relationship was shaped by both a lack of trust and the respective governments' fears of its partner's breaking out of diplomatic isolation and turning towards the French Third Republic (which at the time was thought to possess the greatest military strength in Europe) and the Second Polish Republic, its ally.


In the 1920s, many in the leadership of Weimar Germany, humiliated by the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles imposed after their defeat in the First World War (especially General Hans von Seeckt, chief of the Reichswehr), were interested in cooperation with the Soviet Union, both in order to avert any threat from the Second Polish Republic, backed by the French Third Republic, and to prevent any possible Soviet-British alliance. The specific German aims were the full rearmament of the Reichswehr, which was explicitly prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles, and an alliance against Poland. It is unknown exactly when the first contacts between von Seeckt and the Soviets took place, but it could have been as early as 1919-1921, or possibly even before the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.[12][13]


As Germany re-entered the international community in the late '20s and had other diplomatic options, the country quickly pulled away from Soviet relations.



Also in 1925, Germany broke their European diplomatic isolation and took part in the Locarno Treaties with France and Belgium, undertaking not to attack them. The Soviet Union saw western détente as potentially deepening its own political isolation in Europe, in particular by diminishing Soviet-German relationships. As Germany became less dependent on the Soviet Union, it became more unwilling to tolerate subversive Comintern interference.




Also of note, considering the actual topic of this thread - not the deviation that seems to have been planned the whole time...


In 1928, the 9th Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Comintern (international communist organization) and its 6th Congress in Moscow favored Stalin's program over the line pursued by Comintern Secretary General Nikolay Bukharin. Unlike Bukharin, Stalin believed that a deep crisis in western capitalism was imminent, and he denounced the cooperation of international communist parties with social democratic movements, labelling them as social fascists, and insisted on a far stricter subordination of international communist parties to the Comintern, that is, to Soviet leadership. The policy of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) under Ernst Thälmann was altered accordingly. The relatively independent KPD of the early 1920s underwent an almost complete subordination to the Soviet Union.[31][32]


Mr. Ossietzky was, of course, a fervant supporter of none other than Ernst Thälmann.

So as Germany was pulling away from the Soviet Union, Mr. Ossietzky supported a candidate who sought not just closer ties, but complete subordination to the Russians.

A national hero indeed. It is amazing the sins mistreatment by the Nazis can wash away. :shame:

[Brenus]

I know you Euros like to denigrate us for showing up late to the wars, but why post a casualty number that is so ridiculously low? Total US military KIA exceeded 400K Sorry, 291,000 KIA.
Don't know where the other source find their figures. I should have read before to copy...

[HoreTore]

Fervant supporter?

Have you even read any of his writings, PJ?