Why Peter Truned Traitor

[pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it]

No: HPFGUIDX 21945

Edis wrote:
<Basically, a young Peasant Loucien Lacombe tries to join the 
<resistance in 1944, is turned down and becomes a Gestapo informer on 
<the rebound. This gives him some status and self identity. He is 
<responsible for many betrayals and deaths amongst his neighbours. 
<However he becomes aware of what he is doing and saves two people. 
<There is no ultimate happy ending though.

<I was thinking of Lucien Lacombe as we discussed Peter Pettigrew
 
<(and also stories from other tyrannies. I could match this with 
<stories from Soviet times and places)
 Peter Pettigrew is only too 
<believable as a figure in the story of our times. And you don't have 
<to be exceptionally weak or depraved to fall onto Pettigrews path.

I'm sure there are countless stories like this that happened during 
periods of oppression, no matter where. But IMHO you can't 
necessarily compare them to Peter Pettigrew's story:
1) Unlike Lucien Lacombe, he had *not* been turned down, on the 
contrary: He had been offered friendship and loyalty. That he 
hinmself wasn't up to accepting it, is another problem.
2) Before Peter turned a spy for Voldemort, bringing everybody to 
suspect of everybody, the "old group" was a secure and spy-less 
hideaway. Fighting at their side against Voldemort would have been as 
prestigious as anything Peter could achieve on his side.
3) I know this is very thin ice, but there is a difference between 
somebody who's not a born hero- and I know mankind isn't too rich of 
them- and deliberately chosing the wrong side, without immediate 
danger for your own life or the lives of people one loves. Had he 
just stayed where he was, on Dumbledore's side, without doing 
*anything* neither pro nor contra, *that* would be understandable. 

Sorry again for insisting, but that's a touchy point 

Susanna