The Role of Treason In Germany's Defeat

[Mortimer]

The following link http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/script ... /wa00.html is to WORM IN THE APPLE a 1952 book which gives a basic outline of the traitors in the third reich. Some were ideological such as communists (how anyone could condemn Hitler and support Stalin is beyond me) or members of the aristocracy who didn't like a commoner being in charge or in some cases egomaniacs who thought they knew what was best for the country and thought that they should rule. Individual traitors even went to England before the war and met with Churchill. During the conflict they held up troops and weapons at crucial times to turn the events in the Allies favour. They also withheld vital information from Hitler and loyal Germans. It is fashionable amongst the politically correct to simply say that Hitler lost the war because of mistakes of his own making without being honest and mentioning the role of this unheard of treason.

[Mortimer]

"The betrayer of military secrets is a pariah, despised by every man and every nation. Even the enemy whom he serves has no respect for him, but merely uses him. Any nation which is not uncompromisingly unanimous in its condemnation of this type of treachery is undermining the very foundations of its own state, whatever its form of government may be."
Karl Doenitz (Taken from his book Ten Years and Twenty Days)

[Kingfisher]

Whatever one's personal views on the issue, the position taken by the Western powers was clearly that a person's first duty was to their nation of birth as in the case of William Joyce ("Lord Hawhaw") who went to Germany and took German nationality, but was hanged as a traitor. It seems only to apply in one direction though, as Thomas Mann and Marlene Dietrich are seen as heroic figures.

[neugierig]

The treason/opposition issue is a subject I spend some time on. A. Dulles had set up shop in Switzerland to co-ordinate the opposition (Dulles, Germany’s Underground), and yes, they were traitors. My conclusion: They would have toppled Hitler if the Allies would have given them guarantees re. Germanys integrity, but those who started the wars wanted nothing less than Germanys total defeat, to render it impotent.

That is why any of the dealings with the traitors were never mentioned following the war, in fact it was verboten to do so. From “The German opposition to Hitler”(Henry Regnery Company, 1948), by Hans Rothfels (Rothfels, a Jew, fled Germany and spend the war years in the US):

“For quite a while the topic of German opposition was taboo.[21] Early in 1945, an American correspondent in Europe was forbidden, on directions “from highest Washington levels” to give out “any news about any specific resistance” to Hitler. Later on, when another correspondent traveled in Germany, one of the main sources of information. Fabian von Schlabrendorff’s book “Offiziere gegen Hitler”(which had been published in Switzerland in 1946 and is now available in an abridged American translation) was taken from him. Germans obviously were not supposed to read such a dangerous book”(pp.20/21)
21 The following facts are given on good American authority

The traitors played a decisive role in the defeat, but Hitler was not without fault.

Regards
Wilf

[Mortimer]

Adolf Hitler addresses the German nation on radio after the July 1944 attempted assassination - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpCwuCzud-E He sounds fairly calm and collected considering that a bomb went off in his vicinity only hours earlier.

[Mortimer]

Otto Ernst Remer was the general in charge of the security of Berlin on July 20 1944. Here he recounts the events of that day from a personal perspective - http://codoh.com/library/document/2192/

[Mortimer]

This reprint of an article from The Times makes the claim that Churchill authorised bribes worth millions of pounds to be paid to Spanish generals during World War 2. Franco wanted to join the war on the side of Germany but was repeatedly talked out of it by these traitors who were on the British payroll.
https://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/200 ... f-the-war/

[adolf]

The following link http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/script ... /wa00.html is to WORM IN THE APPLE a 1952 book which gives a basic outline of the traitors in the third reich. Some were ideological such as communists (how anyone could condemn Hitler and support Stalin is beyond me) or members of the aristocracy who didn't like a commoner being in charge or in some cases egomaniacs who thought they knew what was best for the country and thought that they should rule. Individual traitors even went to England before the war and met with Churchill. During the conflict they held up troops and weapons at crucial times to turn the events in the Allies favour. They also withheld vital information from Hitler and loyal Germans. It is fashionable amongst the politically correct to simply say that Hitler lost the war because of mistakes of his own making without being honest and mentioning the role of this unheard of treason.

My opinion is that, The Role of Treason In Germany's Defeat in WWII, was not even negligible, for the simple reason that, none of their actions actually succeeded:
The communists were already eliminated long before WWII started, so they could not do anything to bring Germany to defeat.
The White Rose's actions were local and had no effect on the overall population (which read/heard precisely the news the ministry of propaganda wanted them to read/hear).
Georg Elser bomb did not kill Hitler, neither did the July 20 Plot bomb.
Same is true in relation to the additional traitors, none of who succeeded in bringing about the outcome they hoped for.

Germany's Defeat was, therefore, the direct result of the overwhelming greater military power of the Allied forces. The Role of Treason In Germany's Defeat is about Nil.

[Mortimer]

German traitors were handing over battle plans to the enemy so they could counter them in advance. For instance Luftwaffe bombing raids were known about beforehand so the enemy could arrange fighter and anti aircraft batteries to blunt the attacks. Adolf wrote : "The communists were already eliminated long before WWII started, so they could not do anything to bring Germany to defeat". This is a profoundly ignorant statement! The Red Orchestra spy network caused a lot of damage to the German war effort. Joseph Goebbels stated that their actions were responsible for the death of 500 000 German soldiers on the eastern front.
http://www.archives.gov/iwg/research-pa ... -file.html

[adolf]

German traitors were handing over battle plans to the enemy so they could counter them in advance. For instance Luftwaffe bombing raids were known about beforehand so the enemy could arrange fighter and anti aircraft batteries to blunt the attacks. Adolf wrote : "The communists were already eliminated long before WWII started, so they could not do anything to bring Germany to defeat". This is a profoundly ignorant statement! Joseph Goebbels stated that their actions were responsible for the death of 500 000 German soldiers on the eastern front. caused a lot of damage to the German war effort.
http://www.archives.gov/iwg/research-pa ... -file.html

Mortimer:
1. Do you have any proof you can show us re: your claim that "German traitors were handing over battle plans to the enemy so they could counter them in advance. For instance Luftwaffe bombing raids were known about beforehand so the enemy could arrange fighter and anti aircraft batteries to blunt the attacks"?
2. You say that Joseph Goebbels stated that their (The Red Orchestra) actions were responsible for the death of 500 000 German soldiers on the eastern front.
So Joseph Goebbels said this or that.
Since when do we hold any respect to the propaganda wizard and consider him to say the truth to the Germans?

I still maintain that, no matter what was the role of traitors in Germany's defeat, even if these traitors did not do anything to aid Germany's enemies, these enemies would have still won the war due to their great military power. That is why the taitors' role in Germany's defeat is practically zilch.

[neugierig]

Adolf, consider reading The Red Orchestra. The Soviet Spy Network Inside Nazi Germany, by V. E. Tarrant and Hitler’s Traitor. Martin Bormann and the defeat of the Reich, by Louis Kilzer, for a start. To this day we do not know who “Lucy” was, theories abound, Kilzer makes a fairly good case for Bormann, who had the only uncontrolled radio station at the Wolfsschanze (Deschner, Reinhard Heydrich, p.153) Deschner elaborates, making Bormann a distinct possibility. Lucy informed the Soviets, sending exact information, about Zitadelle for instance, the last German offensive operation of any consequence in the East, turning it into a failure before it started. (Tarant, pp.172ff)

The war was lost because of Hitler’s interference and traitor activity, could it have been won, in spite of the overwhelming odds against Germans? We will never know.

Regards
Wilf

[Mortimer]

German traitors were handing over battle plans to the enemy so they could counter them in advance. For instance Luftwaffe bombing raids were known about beforehand so the enemy could arrange fighter and anti aircraft batteries to blunt the attacks. Adolf wrote : "The communists were already eliminated long before WWII started, so they could not do anything to bring Germany to defeat". This is a profoundly ignorant statement! Joseph Goebbels stated that their actions were responsible for the death of 500 000 German soldiers on the eastern front. caused a lot of damage to the German war effort.
http://www.archives.gov/iwg/research-pa ... -file.html

Mortimer:
1. Do you have any proof you can show us re: your claim that "German traitors were handing over battle plans to the enemy so they could counter them in advance. For instance Luftwaffe bombing raids were known about beforehand so the enemy could arrange fighter and anti aircraft batteries to blunt the attacks"?
2. You say that Joseph Goebbels stated that their (The Red Orchestra) actions were responsible for the death of 500 000 German soldiers on the eastern front.
So Joseph Goebbels said this or that.
Since when do we hold any respect to the propaganda wizard and consider him to say the truth to the Germans?

I still maintain that, no matter what was the role of traitors in Germany's defeat, even if these traitors did not do anything to aid Germany's enemies, these enemies would have still won the war due to their great military power. That is why the taitors' role in Germany's defeat is practically zilch.

If you bothered to read the info at the link I provided to the book The Worm in the Apple it has examples of treason. Also The Chief Culprit - Stalin's Grand Design To Start World War II by Viktor Suvorov has material on Soviet spies in the Wehrmacht. I am not saying that treason alone brought down the national socialist government. But it was definitely a contributing factor. If the German armed forces were in a better position militarily and able to hold out longer and inflict more casualties on the Allies then it's possible a negotiated peace might have been arranged instead of the unconditional surrender which Roosevelt and Churchill insisted on.
Your comment about communists in Germany being eliminated is naive in the extreme. The communist party was banned and their leadership was imprisoned but that doesn't mean every single supporter or party member stopped being a communist.
In regards to Joseph Goebbels and his comment on the Red Orchestra he was in a position to know about the results of treason as he had a high up role in the government. Instead of giving his opinion credence you'd rather believe the Allied propaganda version of events. If you just want Allied propaganda why are you at a revisionist forum? Why not try The History Channel or something similar. I'm sure you'd be much happier there.

[adolf]

Motrimer:

1. I did look at the link you referred to (The Worm in the Apple) and I am already familiar with some of the traitors mentioned there.
2. I agree that, both in theory and in practice, any help a traitor gives the enemy - betters the enemy's position.
My idea is however that, German traitors' help to the allies was negligible with respect the enemy's power to win the war.
I am still sure that, even without any help from those traitors, the allies would have still won the war. They were simply too many and too strong.
That is why, I concluded that the The Role of Treason In Germany's Defeat was in the vicinity of zero.
3. I disagree with the assumption that: "If the German armed forces were in a better position militarily and able to hold out longer and inflict more casualties on the Allies then it's possible a negotiated peace might have been arranged instead of the unconditional surrender which Roosevelt and Churchill insisted on. ", for the simple fact that, regardless of Roosevelt and Churchill insistence on an unconditional German surrender, Hitler himself wasn't willing to negotiate peace. Even if the allies had promoted negotiations for peace, Hitler was not willing to consider such option. So, in no way was there going to be a negotiated peace.
4. And what did it matter, if some or even many Germans continued to be communists? Firstly, such individuals likely realized well enough what would be their fate, had they been caught (by the Gestapo) aiding the enemy, which probably served as a deterring factor. Secondly, again, their ability / inability to help the enemy is negligible and the enemy would have likely won anyhow.
5. Goebbels' position in the government put him in the exact spot of power to communicate to the German population what he wanted them to read/hear/know. Telling the truth / the whole truth to the German people was never a guiding principle as far as he was concerned, we all know (e.g., the information released to the German people about the happenings of the night of the long knives and its consequences).
6. I thought this forum was to enable a debate platform, where people could express their opinions related to WWII. If all the forum's members here would have views similar to yours, then what's the point in the forum, "convincing the already convinced"?
7. The history channel does show at times pictures and documentary films with which its very hard to argue.

And, last point, Motrimer: I am curious, how is it that: when a position opposite to yours is supported by a written documentation (book, testimony, etc.) or even photos or films - you dismiss it as unacceptable, and insufficient evidence, and bring up reasons for its illegitimacy, however when you wish to support YOUR opinion about a certain subject, you bring a supporting documentation you claim to be legitimate and sufficient evidence?

[Hannover]

adolf:
Mortimer has provided very direct evidence for his position whereas, you have provided nothing.
You said:

And, last point, Motrimer: I am curious, how is it that: when a position opposite to yours is supported by a written documentation (book, testimony, etc.) or even photos or films - you dismiss it as unacceptable, and insufficient evidence, and bring up reasons for its illegitimacy, however when you wish to support YOUR opinion about a certain subject, you bring a supporting documentation you claim to be legitimate and sufficient evidence?

Oh really? Then do cite actual references for what you are talking about, talk is cheap. Anyone can write a book, make a film, etc. alleging anything they wish, witness the recent 'Son of Saul' film fiasco, Van Pelt's laughable book on Auschwitz, to name a mere couple.

Having said that, I believe that determining the amount of responsibility of spying on the efforts of opposing forces (cryptic by it's very nature) is difficult to ascertain, after all, the Germans certainly had spies at work against the Allies. At least Mortimer is providing direct evidence for his position. You, 'adolf', have only made empty claims. I also doubt you would do very well in the 'holocaust' forum.

Shalom, Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[Mortimer]

The Valkyrie bomb plotters were in touch with the Office of Strategic Services (forerunner of the CIA) and other Allied officials. They were told that even if Hitler was killed or imprisoned the policy of Unconditional Surrender would still apply. The Valkyrie bomb plotters wanted to make a separate peace with the USA/UK but continue fighting the USSR. But Roosevelt and Churchill were the ones who insisted on Unconditional Surrender so their plan was doomed to fail. Yet they still went ahead. So the Valkyrie bomb plotters were not only traitors they were inept and delusional as well -
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/ ... crime.html