Traitors or no?

[Cybach]

I got into a historical debate recently concerning the Alsace-Lorraine contingents in the Waffen SS and Wehrmacht. Technically the Alsatians and Mosellans were French citizens due to Alsace-Lorraine being a French province. However they were ethnic Germans who also spoke a dialect of German and were culturally German and not French. Add to the problem that many of those who fought were born when Alsace-Lorraine was still part of the Kaiserreich and not France.

About 130,000 young men from Alsace-Lorraine were also drafted or volunteered to serve in the German Wehrmacht or the Waffen-SS during the Second World War. After the war their service for Germany, whether volunteered or conscripted was a matter of contention and strife in France. Many of whom saw them as traitors or collaborators. However the Alsatians and Mosellans often countered that they as Germans had a duty to fight for Germany. Not to mention they claimed heavy persecution by the French government in the inter-war years (citing examples such as the supression of the German language/culture, eviction of German populations in the region and being forced to accept French citizenship and not being allowed to keep their former German Reich citizenship). Also complicating matters German laws required all ethnic Germans to be conscripted into the Wehrmacht or SS. Meaning even those that didn't volunteer were forced to serve in the German military due to their not being Frenchmen.

After the war calls were made to punish the Mosellan/Alsatians. However de Gaulle not wishing a possible revolt in in Alsace-Lorraine against French rule, instead followed a line of reconciliation excusing the service of all "Malgré-nous," provided they did not personally take part in a war crime.

Your opinion? Were they traitors? As they were French citizens who fought for Germany in WW2? Or because they were ethnic Germans, who spoke German, followed a German culture, and were often born in the region while it was still part of Germany; they should not be considered traitors? Should a distinction be made between volunteer and conscriptee?

[Dododecapod]

No, they were not traitors. A traitor is someone who changes his or her allegiance unlawfully, after it has been given; the Alsatians and Mosellans did not do that. Instead, they (like many people, in every war) found themselves faced with a choice of allegiances, and in such circumstance, one must make a choice. To choose one over the other is not to be disloyal; it is to be loyal to the greater allegiance. Merely being a citizen of a nation does not mean you have, or necessarily should have, your first loyalty to that country, particularly if it was not your choice to be a citizen of that nation.

[South Lorenya]

De Gaulle made the right choice; after all, it's not their fault that Alsace-Lorraine switched nations three times in less than thirty years.

[Skibereen]

Guilty of Treason absolutely yes. No Offering of Loyalty required, its automatic as a citizen. Did the Degulle make the right choice, yes. Dealing with a specific incident he accounted for all factors and used specific judgment...brilliant.

[Dododecapod]

Guilty of Treason absolutely yes. No Offering of Loyalty required, its automatic as a citizen. Did the Degulle make the right choice, yes. Dealing with a specific incident he accounted for all factors and used specific judgment...brilliant.

Why should someone be required to be loyal to a nation they were neither born to nor chose?

[GetBert]

De Gaulle made the right decision. Though, being de Gaulle, he probably did it for the wrong reason.

[Saxomercunia]

No. They were loyal to there race. Everyone sticks with there own kind in the end no matter what there passport says. Compare them with the cossacks who where not ethnic Germans but fought against there fellow slavs. They were real traitors.

[Cybach]

Guilty of Treason absolutely yes. No Offering of Loyalty required, its automatic as a citizen. Did the Degulle make the right choice, yes. Dealing with a specific incident he accounted for all factors and used specific judgment...brilliant.

Most were born citizens of Germany. When after Versaille Alsace-Lorraine was given to France, they were not given a choice in citizenship and "forced" to accept French citizenship. Even though they were ethnically, linguistically and culturally German. Not to mention many of them had a hatred of France stemming from anti-German policies in the region practiced by France in the 20-30s such as suppressing their language, culture and attempting to force them to converse in French and hold all their affairs in French. Thereby alienating any possible loyalty they might have felt towards the French State even more, as well as ironically leading to the invading Germans as being viewed as liberators instead of occupiers in that region.

De Gaulle followed his decision on the wish for peace as well. After all the French were war weary, opening up new local conflicts was not in his interests. Also he was afraid of the remote chance that the victorious powers such as the US and the UK might simply assign Alsace-Lorraine to the West German occupation zone in order to ensure a final peace settlement in the West, if there would have been eruptions of violence, revolution and civil war towards the French government in that region. Also it could have led to the UK/US deciding to disallow the French occupation of the Saarland on the basis that the French proved that they cannot sustain a peaceful occupation without revolts from the local population. Which probably would have followed had the French government decided to arrest every male who served in the German Army, which might have been a good 1/4th or 1/3rd of all adult men between 18-45 in the Alsace-Lorraine region.

[Post-Unity Terra]

No. They were loyal to there race. Everyone sticks with there own kind in the end no matter what there passport says. Compare them with the cossacks who where not ethnic Germans but fought against there fellow slavs. They were real traitors.

It's nice to see such conviction in two contradictory statements.And by nice I mean a little worrying.

[Skibereen]

Guilty of Treason absolutely yes. No Offering of Loyalty required, its automatic as a citizen. Did the Degulle make the right choice, yes. Dealing with a specific incident he accounted for all factors and used specific judgment...brilliant.

Most were born citizens of Germany. When after Versaille Alsace-Lorraine was given to France, they were not given a choice in citizenship and "forced" to accept French citizenship. Even though they were ethnically, linguistically and culturally German. Not to mention many of them had a hatred of France stemming from anti-German policies in the region practiced by France in the 20-30s such as suppressing their language, culture and attempting to force them to converse in French and hold all their affairs in French. Thereby alienating any possible loyalty they might have felt towards the French State even more, as well as ironically leading to the invading Germans as being viewed as liberators instead of occupiers in that region.

De Gaulle followed his decision on the wish for peace as well. After all the French were war weary, opening up new local conflicts was not in his interests. Also he was afraid of the remote chance that the victorious powers such as the US and the UK might simply assign Alsace-Lorraine to the West German occupation zone in order to ensure a final peace settlement in the West, if there would have been eruptions of violence, revolution and civil war towards the French government in that region. Also it could have led to the UK/US deciding to disallow the French occupation of the Saarland on the basis that the French proved that they cannot sustain a peaceful occupation without revolts from the local population. Which probably would have followed had the French government decided to arrest every male who served in the German Army, which might have been a good 1/4th or 1/3rd of all adult men between 18-45 in the Alsace-Lorraine region.

If they were French Citizens then they committed treason- period. It doesnt matter how they got put in that position, i didnt say it was fair merely that it was so.

[LOL ANARCHY NUBZ]

No.

[Dododecapod]

If they were French Citizens then they committed treason- period. It doesnt matter how they got put in that position, i didnt say it was fair merely that it was so.

So, if we declare Cuba to be US territory, are we then allowed to hang anyone who fights against it, as traitors?

[Skibereen]

Under our own law, yes we would be. That answer should have been obvious, I am not debating the morality of the issue I am speaking on the reality of the charge. And it wasnt just "declared" a French territory, it was made French by a Treaty(if I am not mistaken).

[Dododecapod]

Under our own law, yes we would be. That answer should have been obvious, I am not debating the morality of the issue I am speaking on the reality of the charge. And it wasnt just "declared" a French territory, it was made French by a Treaty(if I am not mistaken).

An imposed treaty (Versailles) that Germany, and most certainly the citizens involved, had no input into at all.

However, following your logic, these people STILL were not traitors, because Alsace/Lorraine was ceded BACK to Germany by the treaty of Compeigne prior to their service, making them GERMAN citizens. (Again, with no input by those affected.)

[Bot-Hell]

If they were French Citizens then they committed treason- period. It doesnt matter how they got put in that position, i didnt say it was fair merely that it was so.

So, if we declare Cuba to be US territory, are we then allowed to hang anyone who fights against it, as traitors?

There are always two sides to the concept of "traitors", and they are normally polar opposites. Take the founding fathers of the USA as a prime example. They are often held up as the paragon of patriotism in the US, but during their day and age they were the most vile of traitorous British citizens. Any time one group claims that a band of people are traitors another group will see them as patriots, almost without fail.

Since its typically the winners that write history, then the group in question here will go down in history as traitors. If Germany had won, they would be liberating patriots. Its all just a matter of perception.

[Benzei]

No, they were not traitors. A traitor is someone who changes his or her allegiance unlawfully, after it has been given; the Alsatians and Mosellans did not do that. Instead, they (like many people, in every war) found themselves faced with a choice of allegiances, and in such circumstance, one must make a choice. To choose one over the other is not to be disloyal; it is to be loyal to the greater allegiance. Merely being a citizen of a nation does not mean you have, or necessarily should have, your first loyalty to that country, particularly if it was not your choice to be a citizen of that nation.

I think that much summons up the debate IMO

[LOL ANARCHY NUBZ]

If they were French Citizens then they committed treason- period. It doesnt matter how they got put in that position, i didnt say it was fair merely that it was so.

So, if we declare Cuba to be US territory, are we then allowed to hang anyone who fights against it, as traitors?

There are always two sides to the concept of "traitors", and they are normally polar opposites. Take the founding fathers of the USA as a prime example. They are often held up as the paragon of patriotism in the US, but during their day and age they were the most vile of traitorous British citizens. Any time one group claims that a band of people are traitors another group will see them as patriots, almost without fail.

Since its typically the winners that write history, then the group in question here will go down in history as traitors. If Germany had won, they would be liberating patriots. Its all just a matter of perception.

This.

[Cybach]

No, they were not traitors. A traitor is someone who changes his or her allegiance unlawfully, after it has been given; the Alsatians and Mosellans did not do that. Instead, they (like many people, in every war) found themselves faced with a choice of allegiances, and in such circumstance, one must make a choice. To choose one over the other is not to be disloyal; it is to be loyal to the greater allegiance. Merely being a citizen of a nation does not mean you have, or necessarily should have, your first loyalty to that country, particularly if it was not your choice to be a citizen of that nation.

More controversial were cases of men with one German and one French parent. They were treated more harshly for swearing their allegiance to their German lineage. Do you think they living in France and being half-French should be treated differently than full Germans in Alsace-Lorraine? Or if they identify with their German side more than their French, they should be seen the same as any full German Mosellan/Alsatian?


A more prominent example would be Guy Sajer (born 13 January 1927 in Paris). The son of a French and German marriage, Sajer states he was an inhabitant of Alsace drafted into the German Wehrmacht at age 16 and subsequently fought in the elite Großdeutschland Division during World War II. After the war he wrote about his wartime experience on the Eastern Front in The Forgotten Soldier. Which is seen as one of the most brutally honest depictions of WW2 from the perspective of a simple German soldier (ironically not written by a German soldier in the truest sense though, considering Sajer was born in France, spoke better French than German and never lived in Germany,..his only connection being the son of a German mother).

[Maurepas]

I dont think so, they were Germans, just because France owned the territory doesnt change that...

I think anyone from the South'd tell you that,

[Mirkana]

Legally, yes. They were citizens of France, they fought against France.

Morally, no. They never owed allegiance to France, or saw a greater allegiance to Germany.

Anyway, DeGaulle was right to not persecute them.

[Greed and Death]

The area should have been given to Germany at the close of WWII.

[Dododecapod]

No, they were not traitors. A traitor is someone who changes his or her allegiance unlawfully, after it has been given; the Alsatians and Mosellans did not do that. Instead, they (like many people, in every war) found themselves faced with a choice of allegiances, and in such circumstance, one must make a choice. To choose one over the other is not to be disloyal; it is to be loyal to the greater allegiance. Merely being a citizen of a nation does not mean you have, or necessarily should have, your first loyalty to that country, particularly if it was not your choice to be a citizen of that nation.

More controversial were cases of men with one German and one French parent. They were treated more harshly for swearing their allegiance to their German lineage. Do you think they living in France and being half-French should be treated differently than full Germans in Alsace-Lorraine? Or if they identify with their German side more than their French, they should be seen the same as any full German Mosellan/Alsatian?

No, actually. Just as I have no problem with German-Americans who chose to fight for Germany (thus renouncing their US citizenship) when the war started - each person must decide for themselves where their loyalties lie, and there is no right or wrong answer. The term "treason" needs to be reserved for the oathbreakers and dishonorable scum who change their allegiances for money or other rewards.

[Robarya]

The area should have been given to Germany at the close of WWII.

Even though I would have wanted a German victory in WW2, I have to say that a forced policy like this would not be a good idea. For instance, let's say Mexicans became a majority in Texas, making up 98% of its population. I doubt the US and its citizens would gladly hand over Texas with its rich oil fields to Mexico because of that.

To answer the topic: Nope. They were definitely not traitors, and the ones who volunteered were patriots.

[Skibereen]

Under our own law, yes we would be. That answer should have been obvious, I am not debating the morality of the issue I am speaking on the reality of the charge. And it wasnt just "declared" a French territory, it was made French by a Treaty(if I am not mistaken).

An imposed treaty (Versailles) that Germany, and most certainly the citizens involved, had no input into at all.

However, following your logic, these people STILL were not traitors, because Alsace/Lorraine was ceded BACK to Germany by the treaty of Compeigne prior to their service, making them GERMAN citizens. (Again, with no input by those affected.)

I didnt know that, so following my logic, indeed no I would say they are not traitors, I could only base my answer on what I knew. Had the territory been French at the time of their actions yes they were guilty of treason, were it German, or independent then no. The charge is a simple question--it is black and white. The only grey area is in the morality of accusing these people of not being loyal to the French or even if they should have been--which isnt the question in the OP.

Knowing it was a German terrority and knowing they were German citizens then of course they were not guilty of treason, they couldnt be.

[Unilisia]

No, they were not traitors. They were fighting for their nation, as I myself wish I could. But I cant with a child coming along, now can I ?