betrayal!

Lupo Solitario · Post by **Lupo Solitario** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 2:34 pm

a question about something apparently absent in WWII

Which do you think had been the most important betrayal action in WWII if any?

bye
Lupo

Piet Duits · Post by **Piet Duits** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 3:24 pm

Lupo,

One word: Italy.

Italy was responsible for a lot of bad things if one has to be truelly honest. Without Italy, I doubt there would have been an Afrikakorps. Without Italy, the war against Russia (hmm, another betrayal) would have started earlier. (read: Balkan operation).

Of course were there other important betrayals. But these were more or less logical: Hungary, Bulgary, Finnland declaring war against their former ally. Not so strange when Josef Wissarionowitsch Dschugaschwili's armies are "advising" you to enter their side. :)

Commissar D, the Evil · Mon Nov 10, 2003 5:06 pm

I think whoever leaked the plans for the Kursk Offensive belongs on the list.

Cheers,
~D

Piet Duits · Post by **Piet Duits** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 5:07 pm

Lucy?
Does spying count as betrayal? I would say Outsmarting. :)

Commissar D, the Evil · Mon Nov 10, 2003 10:02 pm

Well, "betrayal" is a broad word. How about the Rumanian defection? I think that doomed the Reich far more than Italy dropping out of the war.

Cheers,
~D, the EviL

Henrik Krog · Post by **Henrik Krog** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 3:14 am

A bit one-sided today, are we :-)

How about Hitler betraying Stalin by attackin in June 1941??

After all, they DID have a pact of non-aggression :-)

Henrik

Piet Duits · Post by **Piet Duits** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 3:24 am

Henrik Krog wrote:A bit one-sided today, are we :-)

How about Hitler betraying Stalin by attackin in June 1941??

After all, they DID have a pact of non-aggression :-)

Henrik

I did, I did! :)

"Without Italy, the war against Russia (hmm, another betrayal) would have started earlier. "

KlemenL · Post by **KlemenL** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:10 am

Well, I personally would vote for the Munich Agreement 1938, an agreement reached on September 29, 1938, between Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy (no Czechoslovakia???) as one of the worst betrayals in WW2. The poor Czechoslovaks, very close allies of British and French, were left with no alternatives than to "vote" for the self-destruction of their own state. Read lately some Czech books and articles and there was a lot of frustration and disappointment among the Czechs because of the way their Allies literally "sold them as piece of cheap meat" to the enemy.
URL: http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob66.html

lp,

Klemen

Commissar D, the Evil · Tue Nov 11, 2003 11:58 am

Yes well Klemen, I thought the original question only concerned betrayals during WWII, not before it started.

Using your logic, the absolute betrayal was Adolf Hitler's betrayal of the German People by leading them into World War II.

Best Regards,
~D, the EviL

Henrik Krog · Post by **Henrik Krog** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:05 pm

Well, strictly speaking Hitler just lead them into a German-Polish war.

Problem was, it escalated from there.

Personally, I still think that if Great Britain and France hadnt declared war in 1939, in the long run the world would have been better off.

Henrik

Piet Duits · Post by **Piet Duits** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:11 pm

Henrik,

Please explain what you mean. Better off? Don't you believe France was a target for revenge?

The conquering of the European mainland is more or less explainable, but why O WHY did he attack Norwegen?! Was it because Norwegen could be a threat in the future? Or because of the minerals? Or did Hitler like snow? Or did he want Santa Claus to be a part of the Third Reich too???
(SSanta Claus)

All those questions... sigh...

Lupo Solitario · Post by **Lupo Solitario** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:20 pm

mmm....I think having been a bit misunderstood...My question was about acts of betrayal by single person, example officer AB of XY army which sold secrects to enemy or similiar.

In general terms I think that morality for nations is a bit more "elastic" than for singles, es. Italy had the right to surrender in 1943 cause it had lost war and there was no reason to save germany losing italy (it had been done in a @#% way, however...) If you want we could debate about Germany had never fulfilled agreements for all three years before...
Bur as I told I was interested in single persons act (always for example, there are good clues indicating that italian naval intelligence leader worked for allies but no demonstration)

bye
Lupo

Piet Duits · Post by **Piet Duits** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:32 pm

Lupo,

Didn't intend to insult you. If you are looking for individual acts of betrayal, I can provide that too.

http://www.okem.nl/~s.p.duits/betrayal.jpg

Source: T78 R661, Allgemeine Heeresmitteilungen 1944 (forgot to write down which one...)

Edelweiss. · Post by **Edelweiss.** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 3:00 pm

Ah, the Munich Agreement, ever the contraversial topic. I find it very harsh to judge Chamberlain as naive and/or foolish (I suppose that makes me a revisionist, pro-appeasement), as he was not simply going by his own instincts. He had decided on a particular course of action which he believed to be in the interests of Great Britain and the British people. Rearmament had not begun until 1936, when Chamberlain himself was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and long before he assumed office, Britain had decided upon a foreign policy centred around the preservation of her Empire and defence of the 'home islands'. The mentality was one of defence, not offence. Thus, there was no expeditionary force to speak of to deploy on the continent!

I personally see Chamberlain's policy as the rational following of political trends and the desire to preserve the security of both the British Isles, and the British Empire. Do not judge him too harshly.

With regards to Henrik's comment on the British and French declaration of war, Lord Halifax believed that the guarantee of Polish security was one that Britain could not successfully accomplish, and that it would only act as a catalyst to an unnecessary war. Had I been a member of Chamberlain's government in September 1939, I would have sided with him. Nowadays, well, I can still sympathize with his position, and the prospect of no declaration of war after the invasion of Poland is a very valid 'what if' for us consider.

Klemen mentions the articles written by the Czechs, well there are also books written by British authors who wish to reappraise Chamberlain's foreign policy. See below:

Chamberlain and the Lost Peace, by John Charmley

A brief synopsis:

This study of the origins of World War II, is controversial in that it sees Chamberlain as neither naive nor foolish. John Charmley, whose prize-winning first work was "Duff Cooper", employs the collective biography technique to reassess Chamberlain's role. He works from the papers of Lord Halifax, R.A.B. Butler and Chamberlain himself, and also pays particular attention to the roles of Eden, Churchill and Sir Nevile Henderson.

Regards,
Edelweiss

Patrick · Post by **Patrick** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 7:49 pm

On a side note about Chamberlain...

Does anybody know happened to that little piece of paper Chamberlain waved around? Is it on display in the British Museum? Can it be viewed in some archive somewhere?