Nobel Peace Prize 1935/6 - Carl von Ossietzky

[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'?

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.

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...121201060.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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121201060.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?

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, 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.

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.

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. “


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).
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

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.

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.

[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?