Nobel Peace Prize 1935/6 - Carl von Ossietzky

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

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

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

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Strike For The South]

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

[Strike For The South]

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

Here Panzer, here is a nice strong German to emulate

[Husar]

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

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

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

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here Panzer, here is a nice strong German to emulate

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

[Beskar]

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

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

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

I sense no bias anywhere.

[PanzerJaeger]

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

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

I sense no bias anywhere.

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

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

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

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

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

[Strike For The South]

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

This is why you're not popular

[PanzerJaeger]

This is why you're not popular

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Panzer:

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

So:

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

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

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

[PanzerJaeger]

Panzer:

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

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

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

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

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

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

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