Let's post the greatest treasons of all time. Ofcourse Ephialtes, from the Battle of Thermopylae, is one of the most well known.
From wikipedi:
"a Malian Greek traitor named Ephialtes informed him of a path around Thermopylae and offered to guide the Persian army. Ephialtes was motivated by the desire of a reward.[40] For this act, the name of Ephialtes received a lasting stigma, coming to mean "nightmare" and becoming the archetypal term for a "traitor" in Greek.[41]"
Mobile airpower
"The enemy dies relaxed," observed a Lockheed Martin manager.
The Cambridge Five, as they are known passed information to the USSR during and after the Second World War.
As you might expect, the Government haven't issued full details of what they told the Russians, but there was a good programme about them shown a couple of years ago.
Philby reported Konstantin Volkov of the KKVD to Moscow when he tried to defect to the UK - leading to his torture and execution.
He was also a liaison to the CIA & informed the Russians of what they knew about Soviet operations in the west. He also covered up for some agents, saving them from capture.
MacLean also passed information on the progress & development of nuclear weapons to the USSR.
Information from both of them is believed to have played a part in authorizing the Soviet blockade of West Berlin in 1948 and the arming of North Korea.
Cairncross is also believed to have handed over information which helped the Soviet nuclear programme.
Burgess was secretaryto the Deputy Foreign Minister and gave Moscow Foreign Office documants.
Blunt helped recruit some of the others and passed ULTRA decodes to Russia.
My favorite is, of course, Benedict Arnold, but it's awfully obvious.
Provost
Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929
Here's a thought, considering the effect on the world that the United States has had over the last 230 years and the prominence that the USA has today (and the knock on effects for everyone on earth as a result of that dominance) would it be fair to call the American War of Independence (certainly a treasonable act as far as the British were concerned at the time) the "greatest treason of all time".
I realise that to a certain extent it's a matter of perspective but certainly at the start of the war/rebellion a treasonable act would be a pretty fair description, or would it ?.
Actually, the greatest treason for the Hellenes from a military point of view was not that of Ephialtes at the Battle of Thermopylae.
The Hellenes, even without this betrayal, could not have realistically fought off such a high number of Persian troops. Ephialtes action merely speeded up the inevitable.
Although American revolutionary propaganda decried and lambasted George III as the root cause of all the difficulties between the mother country and the 13 colonies, claiming that an un-constitutional monarchy had no right to make decisions for free men the truth is very different. A the time of the war of independence Britain wasn't governed by a King it was governed by an elected parliament and all decisions regarding the running of the country and its colonies were made by that elected body. In short the decision to tax the 13 colonies (a fraction of what people were taxed in Britain itself by the way) in order for them to pay a small amount towards their own defence and the decision to fight the treasonable act of rebellion within those colonies was made by Lord North and an elected government which was part of an overall elected parliament.
By 1775, as a direct result of the English Civil War (but indirectly because of many events over the previous 500 years), the monarchy had very limited powers within the now United Kingdom, just like today Britain was constitional monarchy governed by an elected parliament. There was no re-establishment of the monarchy after Cromwells death, not in the way that the monarchy had existed here before, and the reigns of power were very tightly held by an elected parliament.
Even before the Civil War the monarchy in England was far from the absolute monarchy that existed in medievel times, it was the kings attempts to subvert the power of parliamnet and re-establish an absolute monarchy that caused the war in the first place, somewhat ironic considering after the kings execution Oliver Cromwell became a de-fact dictator with absolute power for the next 10 years but that's another story.
I think that people forget that there have been two great internal struggles in England over the past 800 years that made a fundamental difference to everything. The first was the fight to counter absolute monarchs which began in 1215 when the Barons forces King John to sign Magna Carta and after alot of conflict with several different Kings finally came to an end after the Civil War with the execution of Charles I in 1649.
The second was the struggle to replace Catholicism as the primary faith in England, a very bitter struggle (but neccessary one) that we still see the consequences of today.
Brits and French are main traitors of whole history. Because of 1939. According to their "guarantees" for Poland, they should attack Germany in full power attack in 14-th September (two weeks after German attack). They did nothing. French army was in this time more powerfull than German Army. Only 15% of German forces was positioned on the west, 85% of German forces was in Poland. What is not known commonly in falsified WWII history, at 14-th September German army in Poland was exhausted, had very serious cassualties in human power and great loss of equipment, abt. 30% of German tanks, guns, trucks etc was inactive, not only due to direct loss in fight, but due to poor technical condition. As much more important, at 14-th September, Germans have only 20% of original ammunition stocks and almost no new production of ammunition. And very small oil reserves... Any full French offensive in that situation up till 14th September = collapse of German army = Soviets not attacks eastern Poland in 17-th September = end of war in November...
Second time Brits traitored Poles in Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam. Poland at the and of war was a country with greatest summarised war effort, greatest cassualties in humans and greates damages in infrastructure. And, was a 4-th ally as to military force ( sum of Polish forces on west, on east and in resistance forces), well before f.g France... And Poland was traitored by Brits in Yalta. More, there are lately more amd more evidence, that Brits murdered Polish Prime Minister in-exile, gen. Sikorski, in so-called Gibraltar accident...
This message has been edited by Wosiu on Sep 4, 2008 6:57 PM This message has been edited by Wosiu on Sep 4, 2008 6:50 PM
From their perspective it was the right decision. Never forget, what may seem right or right for one person is not the same for the other.
I personally think they could of done a lot more and should of. But I couldn't be pissed off for them not doing it in their situations. This includes almost all other situations from Potsdam and Yalta.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
Wosiu Brits and French are main traitors of whole history. Because of 1939. According to their "guarantees" for Poland, they should attack Germany in full power attack in 14-th September (two weeks after German attack). They did nothing. French army was in this time more powerfull than German Army. Only 15% of German forces was positioned on the west, 85% of German forces was in Poland. What is not known commonly in falsified WWII history, at 14-th September German army in Poland was exhausted, had very serious cassualties in human power and great loss of equipment, abt. 30% of German tanks, guns, trucks etc was inactive, not only due to direct loss in fight, but due to poor technical condition. As much more important, at 14-th September, Germans have only 20% of original ammunition stocks and almost no new production of ammunition. And very small oil reserves... Any full French offensive in that situation up till 14th September = collapse of German army = Soviets not attacks eastern Poland in 17-th September = end of war in November...
Second time Brits traitored Poles in Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam. Poland at the and of war was a country with greatest summarised war effort, greatest cassualties in humans and greates damages in infrastructure. And, was a 4-th ally as to military force ( sum of Polish forces on west, on east and in resistance forces), well before f.g France... And Poland was traitored by Brits in Yalta. More, there are lately more amd more evidence, that Brits murdered Polish Prime Minister in-exile, gen. Sikorski, in so-called Gibraltar accident...
france and britain declared war on Nazi Germany for Poland you ungratefull bastard. How one can go so low! May be France and Britain didn't do it right but clumsyness is NOT traison. May be they were right though, french rearmamet started late 1938 and was running full steam mid 1939 and was faster than German one. Blockade of Germany have started, time was on allied side. That's why Hitler attacked immediately when he finished with Poland. Now saying that the french army was tronger than the German army in 1940 is plain bullsh:t, may be on the west front during the invasion of Poland but else that is a legend.
France had in September 1939 more tanks and aircrafts than Germany. As to the west:
"After the war, General Alfred Jodl commented that the Germans survived 1939 "only because approximately 110 French and English divisions in the West, which during the campaign on Poland were facing 25 German divisions, remained completely inactive." "
Wosiu France had in September 1939 more tanks and aircrafts than Germany.
Tanks:
In 1940 France had, like Germany, around 3000 modern tank (I don't count the FT17)
On those only 960 were endivisioned. All the rest was spread on the units. On the contrary all the 3000 Panzer were endivisionned.
So:
France: 6 divisions of 160 tanks average
Germany: 10 divisions of 300 tanks average.
add to that the fact that the Panzer divisions had excellent air defense (Flak) as well as radio, both badly lacking on french divisions.
We can compare the tanks, both had there quality and flaws but I would say all in all the french tanks: B1 Bis, Somua S35 were slightly better.
about air defense, Germany: 9300 modern pieces vs France: 3800 generally outdated one.
In the end it's not a question of hardware (apart air defense) but rather a question of doctrine but we already knew that right ?
Aircrafts:
France: 630 fighters, 270 bombers. Germany: 1500 fighters, 1500 bombers. You are kidding right ?
As to the west:
"After the war, General Alfred Jodl commented that the Germans survived 1939 "only because approximately 110 French and English divisions in the West, which during the campaign on Poland were facing 25 German divisions, remained completely inactive." "
correct. how is it a treason ? may be a mistake, yes, but not a treason WTF?
Even the mistake at this level is debatable, like I said, France was arming faster than Germany, the naval blockade of Germany had started, in short, time played for the allies.
For example it was time for France to replace its old Maurane Saulnier MS 406 that was the core of it's air force. It was to be replaced mainly by the Dewoitine D520 that was on the level of the Me 109. 2250 pieces were ordered. Delivery started in january but because of delays, it became operational only in May. Only a few fought. A few month later and the Lufftwaff would have been in trouble against more and better planes.
If Hitler attacked immediately it's because he knew all that.
This message has been edited by ultrarep on Sep 19, 2008 9:10 PM
No He sayd tha The German Army on the West could hold only for 1 or at the most 2 Weeks......
-------------------------------------------------------
Battle of France,Germany had following Nummber of Tanks:
Panzer I: 523
Panzer II: 955
Panzer III: 398
Panzer IV: 280
Panzer 35(t):118
Panzer 38(t): 228
Total German Tank Strenght : about 2502 Tanks
===========================================================
Franch Army :
Renault FT-17: 278
(AMR)+AMC: 450
FCM: 100
Renault R-35: 900
Hotchkiss H-39: 770
D1+D2: 145
Somua S-35: 300
Char B1: 274
British Army had
Mark II Matilda: 160
Cruiser Mark IIA: 240
Cruiser Mark IIIA: 240
Belgian Army had:
T13/T15: 270
Dutch Army had:
Landverk light Tanks :40
Total Allied Tank Strenght :about 4200 Tanks
==============================================================
Thats almost twice the nummber of Tanks more Than Germany,also bether and heavier Tanks...
ultrarep!You need to straighten your History Right!Germany has
not eavn fully mobilised its laborforce nor Solders......So confidant was Germany to beat France(as long USSR stays out)
As for See Blocade...That also wouldew not worked,Cus Germany had already all the suplys form Norway and Soviet Union...on
top of that Germany was Building Submarines with unbolivable speed.German Wolfpacks were also doing a good job at the time.
So dont confuse your self...
This message has been edited by Veles25 on Sep 22, 2008 2:09 AM This message has been edited by Veles25 on Sep 22, 2008 2:06 AM This message has been edited by Veles25 on Sep 21, 2008 11:22 PM
Also for Airforces,Germany had a larger Airorce than France allone,but if you combine all Allied Airforces then its only a marginal advantage the Germans had in 1940 over UK,France,Belgium,Nethelande...
This message has been edited by Veles25 on Sep 21, 2008 11:21 PM
Its also worth mentioning That France had the Largest standing Army in Europe at the time of 5.5 Million(with reserves)...
Then count in Maginot Line and Brits,Belgians and Dutch...
Here is a YouTube Vidio that US analysts watched(including George Patton)...Meinsteins Case Yellow
apart that you are off topic and that raw number don't mean much (counting FT17 tanks? WTF LOL), what is your point ?
That the German Blitzkrieg doctrine was supérior ?
That the Manstein plan, that mean puncture the front on the little defended Ardenne then attack the armies on the North from the back, was a gamble that paid off beyong expectation ?
.. or that the German soldier is the best of the best ?
For the first two point well I think pretty much everybody agree (though I know some that would argue against the first point with some good arguments: battle of Gembloux and the Hedgehog tactic in June for the battle on the Somme)
For the third point, you are wrong: history proved well enough that well commanded french soldier is supérior
Fist of all it was NOT a Gamble...That French Myth dosent work!
German Army was vary confidant they will beat France vary fast
as long the USSR stays out...After all in WW1 it was Russian Empire that prevented Germany from overuning France...
Just as France was overun in Franco-German War!
Second...I counted also Panzer I for Germany...wich is nothing but a light Training Tank...
Third...You need to stop inventing Myts!Like saying that the French Solder is Superior? WTF? Are you Nuts?Or going insane.
This message has been edited by Veles25 on Sep 25, 2008 8:41 PM
John "Ketchup" Kerry, faking his bravery medals
with the complicity of Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
and hiring out as an enemy subversive on the payroll
of the Viet Cong. Tried unsuccessfully to get elected
as President so he could destroy his country.
However, Georgie-Poo Bush did the destruction for him,
spending away like a drunken Democrat.
No two is Baraka Hussein Obama, born in Kenya of a filthy drunken
hippie welfare slime.
Immigrated illegally in the USA, got elected to the Senate with Arab oil money.
Went back to Kenya last year to elect Odinga his cousin.
They lost the election, but with the promise of Sharia law,
Obama and Odinga effected a putch and took power after a massive
genocide of hundred of thousands of Kikuyus murdered by the
Marxist-Islamist Luo tribe of Obama-Odinga.
(Thirty burnt cadavers in that one church alone)
Sharia law is being forced on the Kenyans as we speak,
The US of A tomorrow...guaranteed!!!
france and britain declared war on Nazi Germany for Poland you ungratefull bastard.
Yes, but the point he is making is that France didn't uphold their part of the bargain. Mobilisation of troops was to commence 2 weeks after the invasion, France never mobilised and Poland held for 4 weeks.
So no matter how much you argue, France did not uphold its end of the alliance nor did Britain.
I don't blame them however. With todays hindsight we can see it was a disastrous decision for all of Europe, but how were the people at the time to know?
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
The thing is:
- mobilisation takes time,
- after the 1925 Locarno treaty, where she signed the alliance treaty with Poland and Tchekoslovaquia, France disarmed and went for an all defensive strategy witch is contradictory to those treaty because to help Poland or Tchekoslovaquia France would have had to go to the offensive. That was an incoherent policy but Poland and Tchekoslovaquia had all the time to figure it out. They hadn't many other choice though.
In the end France and Britain respected there signature with Poland (but berayed Tchekoslovaquia that's right). That's surprising we hear more polish complaining than the Tchekoslovaque who have much better reason to do so.
Read the biography of the nazi Leon Degrelle, Hitler's own adopted son.
He relate that during the "Drôle de guerre"(funny war), ALL French officers
got drunk as skunks and had everyone on the road arrested and shot dead,
thus assassinating hundreds of thousands, a crime kept top secret after the war.
He hit the road to try to join Germany around the active front...
Degrelle got arrested with everyone but was saved because soldiers
recognized him as the Rexist-Belgian-Nazi chief,
beat the crap out of him and left him for dead in the ditch.
Most of the shooting victims in Degrelle column where Jewish traveling salesmen and
Alsatian-frenchs(with a German name)...there was even a French-Canadian hockey instructor!!!
The massacre only stopped when the disgusted troopers of the firing squads
demanded written orders from their drunken officers.
The tradition continue with French commissioned officers being usually
as drunk as their Russian counterparts...(as anyone doing business
with them will acknowledge!!!)
Leon, AKA Tintin:
Man, the biggest mouth I ever heard...the scumbag's foghorn voice could make the windows shake!!!
This message has been edited by hotspur666 on Oct 24, 2008 6:19 AM This message has been edited by hotspur666 on Oct 23, 2008 6:00 AM
He relate that during the "Drôle de guerre"(funny war), ALL French officers
got drunk as skunks and had everyone on the road arrested and shot dead,
thus assassinating hundreds of thousands, a crime kept top secret after the war.
well during the phony war (drole de guerre) there was no french troop in Belgium. The cooperation was even terrible with as many Belgian troop facing the french than the German. So I take those hundred thousand killed were french killed by the french army. Only that is little credible to say the least. Now keeping hundred thousand killed top secret is a real achievement but hey impossible is not french.
Can we have a link on your Nazi fairy tale ?
But yeah Degrelle is quite a traitor, that's right.
Leon Degrelle was considered a traitor by his own party BEFORE the war
for allying himself with the hated Flemish nazi VlaamVerbond:
"un accord entre Degrelle et Staf De Clercq, président du Vlaamsch
Nationaal Verbond qui était titré «Rex défend le programme suivant:
la transformation du régime unitaire belge en un Etat fédéral»"
He went through France to Join the SS, thinking to go around the fighting,
where he was beaten to an inch of his life.
Treatorness is relative, as De Gaulle was a traitor to Vichy's France
and Petain was seen as a traitor to all anti-nazi French.
Churchill and De Gaulle would have been shot as traitors
if the Jerries had invaded England.
The big question is why Petain was NOT executed as traitor
when he was captured...
And the big reason is he had proof that the "long cochon"
was a Nazi then a Stalinist spy, as Roosevelt and Churchill have
always hinted in their biography.
Just ask any Pied Noir!
Conclusion...the biggest traitor in all history
is Charles "Long Cochon(pig)" De Gaulle, for first betraying
his German spy masters, then the whole country of France,
where he was regarded as a hero by giving away it's most
prosperous region, Algeria, to an unarmed gaggle of poisonous
terrorists refugied in Moscow.
It is of note that he was elected with the promise
of "NEVER ABANDONING ALGERIA TO SATAN'S GOONS"
http://deuxiemeguerremondia.forumactif.com/le-front-de-l-ouest-f25/le-massacre-d-abbeville-t3598.htm
Le conseil de guerre du Gross-Paris commença à la fin de 1941 le procès du lieutenant Caron et du sergent-chef Mollet, arrêtés en septembre. Condamnés à mort après un procès exploité par la propagande, ils furent fusillés au Mont-Valérien 7 avril 1942. Le premier responsable du massacre, le capitaine Dingeon. s'était soustrait aux représailles en se suicidant en janvier 1941 à Pau. On n'a pu identifier de façon certaine un sous-officier de gardes mobiles qui aurait joué un rôle déterminant dans l'organisation des exécutions.
De nombreux livres ont relaté les tragiques journées de mai et de juin 1940: la débâcle des armées, l'exode, le chaos qui emporta nos institutions, la déliquescence de toute une société.... De cette période, les anciens nous racontaient mille anecdotes parfois drôles mais le plus souvent tragiques. Le massacre d'Abbeville par exemple! Ainsi, en mai 1940, 78 suspects sont transférés de la prison de Bruges vers la France. Traités comme du bétail tant par les autorités policières belges que plus tard par leurs gardiens français, le calvaire de 21 d'entre-eux prend fin à Abbeville où ils sont assassinés par des militaires français. Leur histoire est racontée par les cousins Prosper et Francis sur le site "Freefrench" de tonton Jacques.
Un historien belge, Carlos Vlaemynck, consacre au massacre d'Abbeville un volumineux dossier que nous proposons à nos lecteurs. Qui étaient ces 78 suspects? Pourquoi ont-ils été arrêtés? L'auteur a interrogé les témoins, compulsé les archives, recueilli nombre de documents d'époque émanant de tous les bords, .... Des questions restent en attente! Pourquoi, encore de nos jours, les autorités d'Abbeville sont-elles si réticentes à faire la lumière sur cette tragique affaire? Pourquoi une rue d'Abbeville porte-t-elle le nom d'un des meurtriers? Pourquoi les cendres de 12 victimes reposent-elles toujours à l'ossuaire d'Abbeville sans qu'une sépulture ne leur soient accordées?...
En annexes du livre, l'auteur propose une abondante documentation, riche de près de 200 pages contenant les comptes-rendus et les procès-verbaux de justice, les lettres des condamnés, des témoins, des autorités... etc...
Un bémol! Le livre est rédigé en Néerlandais et son édition est épuisée. Que le lecteur belge se rassure! Il trouvera l'ouvrage dans toutes les bibliothèques publiques de Flandre et de Bruxelles.
Francis Deleu.
This message has been edited by hotspur666 on Oct 26, 2008 6:59 AM
Since the suspects weren't transportable it's normal they were massacred. Better do the mistake of killing innocents than do the mistake of keeping traitors alive. There was some rotten apples in the basket, having no time to short the good and bad apples they were right to destroy the whole basket.
The one who ordered to do the dirty work was judged and killed by the Nazis, proof he wasn't all wrong. The one that should have been judged are the one who stopped the killing and those who left Degrelle alive.
At this time there was an average 3000 soldiers killed each days, 70 suspect civilian more or less isn't that a big deal.
All this affair has been dramatized by Nazi propaganda.
Degrelle is a good example of traitor though, good find.
As for De Gaulle, give me a break, even if I can understand the "pieds noirs" (french living in Algeria) felt betrayed.
In Abbeville, France, twenty-two Belgian right wing political leaders were arrested by the French Police. Just before the German invasion the twenty-two men were taken to a public park in the town and shot. This must constitute Western Europe's first 'War Crime' of World War 11 and the first to be documented. After the shootings hundreds of the victims followers rushed to join the volunteer regiments of Germany's Waffen SS.
So for thousands read 22 ok a "War Crime" yes a great Treason no.
As for the Polish question How does France Attack Germany? Directly like in 1914 and get mowed down again? Its not as if the Gemanes left there Border undefended. Rember Belgium and all the Low countrys are not in the War. SO how does France assult Germany with all the senior Officers bearing the Scares of WW1?
For the alltime biggest traitor, I maintain the long pig degôle win the cake.
Betrayed just about everyone except his master Stalin.
Forget the half million Pieds Noirs, native of Algeria and the economic
future of France(Algerian petroleum, agriculture, industry, 20% growth a year)
He basically kept unc' Joes commies under control and ready to strike us
in the back in the event the cold war would heat up...
And the "bombinettes" where NOT aimed at Moscow!!!
HE WAS NOT ON OUR SIDE!!!
(Read Lajos Marton, A MUST KNOW!!!)
As for murdering prisoners of war...
Remember he who win the war get to re-write history.
I personally listened to veterans' tales of WW II,
specifically the Fusiliers Mont Royal at the Dieppe raid and the Normandy
invasion. The Jerries did not keep prisoners and neither did we...
Officers where sent for a walk, prisoners "tried to escape"
and where no more alive when the brass returned after
finishing their "cigarette break". All that so our grunts could steal
the Jerries' gold watch and pocket money...
Hotspur666 He basically kept unc' Joes commies under control and ready to strike us
in the back in the event the cold war would heat up...
It's Roosevelt who abandonned the eastern countries in the hand of the Bolchevic. De Gaulle rufused to recognize the Polish communist government and supported the real Polish gov in exile in London. As well he was against Yalta. It's Roosevelt who was naive toward Stalin, not De Gaulle. btw De Gaulle left power in 1946 to take it back only in 1958.
Now you've said enough BS (hundred thousand Belgium civilian massacred during phony war yeah right)
Le long cochon, roi de la Gaule et précurseur de la république bananière actuelle,
aurait dû gracier Bastien-Thiry qui finalement a favorisé son élection au
suffrage universel et valait mieux que son ministre Papon.....
Il a planté les graines de la honte et de la trahison, son héritage,
la francarabie...
">
