Traitors or no?

[Skibereen]

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.

The Founding fathers were treasonous to the Crown and they knew it was treason and said as much--there was no doubt of the law. There are not two sides to being a guilty of treason, either you are or you are not(it isnt a moral or philosophical question its concrete legal one). If you win, then perhaps you dont get punished but guilty you are no less.
I am aware of the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" rule but the law on treason isnt ambiguous.

[Greed and Death]

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.

I doubt the Mexicans here would ever want to hand over Texas to Mexico again either.

[Allemande]

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

In the same exact way that Alsace and Lorraine were forced to become German territories in 1871, following the Franco-Prussian War - through a treaty imposed on France by force.

Legally, they were traitors (the legality of the Treaty of Compiegne being subject to question by the Gaullist government); yet DeGaulle's decision was a just and fair one. It was also the right decision, morally and politically. In truth, very few of these people had any choice in the matter.

[United Technocrats]

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.

The French State, under Marshal Philippe Pétain, did not include these territories, which were annexed to Germany at the time. So, they were German citizens and any refusal to fight for the then legitimate German Reich would have been a treason. Hence, they committed no treason.

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?

Basically yes, but provided that you successfully occupied Cuba and installed a puppet (or at least friendly) regime. In such circumstances, any armed resistance would probably be declared "terrorist actions" by the US.

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.

While I agree that it is the winners that write history books, I would also note another simple fact. The same person, engaged in a conflict between two sides, who owes allegiance to both through some means, can be considered both a traitor and a hero. He can be a traitor to a side he chose to fight against, and a hero to a side he chose to fight for. In this respect, there are no "universal" traitors...

[United Technocrats]

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.

I doubt the Mexicans here would ever want to hand over Texas to Mexico again either.

That issue can only be settled by a referendum. Only those Mexicans living there are eligible to answer that question. Basic democracy...

[Blouman Empire]

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.

I doubt the Mexicans here would ever want to hand over Texas to Mexico again either.

It would clear Texas of Mexicans.

And Robarya your analogy doesn't work, because the Lorraines didn't move from Germany into Lorraine they were always there and were ethnic Germans despite changes to borders.

[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.

I doubt the Mexicans here would ever want to hand over Texas to Mexico again either.

It would clear Texas of Mexicans.

And Robarya your analogy doesn't work, because the Lorraines didn't move from Germany into Lorraine they were always there and were ethnic Germans despite changes to borders.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Elsass-Lothringen had a German majority since at least the 1600s. But I still think that my point remains valid that you can't change ownership of land based on ethnic majorities alone, because of the problems it could cause. Germany did earn the land back after winning the war against France, though.

[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.

I doubt the Mexicans here would ever want to hand over Texas to Mexico again either.

Maybe not. But the scenario I put forward was meant to be hypothetical.

[Dyakovo]

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?

The latter.

Should a distinction be made between volunteer and conscriptee?

Certainly. I can see how the ones who volunteered could be considered traitors (though I don't agree with it), the ones who were conscripted though I don't see how they could possibly be called traitors, fighting for the Germans wasn't their choice.

[Cybach]

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.

Traitors? After this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decossackization

Are they still required to be loyal citizens to Russia with that going on? I doubt it. For them the Germans came as liberators from a terror unimaginable. It doesn't surprise me they defected in masses to fight for the Germans.

[Robarya]

Besides, Cossacks have a separate culture than Slavs. Also, even though Cossacks have served in Russian armies, they have also on many occasions throughout history fought against their Russian overlords. So it is not as if they considered themselves Russian, really.