This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations, as well as the First and Second World Wars in general hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Michael Miller's Axis Biographical Research and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.
at least 100,000 would have had to have been fanatical enough to mount a post-war insurgency if they thought they could get away with.
CJK1990 wrote:I've always been puzzled as to why there was no German resistance movement after the war. Based on everything I've read, the Nazis were relatively popular and the vast majority of Germans supported the war effort. Furthermore, Allied occupation policy in the first two years was harsh, with low food rations, a massive refugee crisis, and little hope of economic recovery from devastation.
True, people were sick of the fighting and the resistance might not have been that effective. But that hasn't stopped lots of other resistance movements past or present.
My theory is that Germany took so many casualties in the war that there just weren't that many people left to resist. Resistance movements are usually composed of strongly motivated young men who are physically fit. By mid-1945, a huge portion of ideologically motivated physically fit young men were either dead or disabled. As a result, a resistance movement couldn't get off the ground.
In many ways it seems like the allies just paid the price of resistance upfront rather than after the war. The Germans killed more American soldiers and airmen in April 1945 alone (9,273) than insurgents have killed in nearly eight years of Iraq and Afghanistan combined (less than 6,000, including noncombat deaths).
Does anyone have an alternative theory?
Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi pingpongtweet,
I have been reading the list of examples of resistance in your link and was struck that virtually none of them are attributable to ideological "resistance". The most serious case occurred not after the war in Bremen when five US personnel were killed by what was probably a delayed action bomb, though it is not clear when it was set. Jealous squabbles over German girls and accidents in munitions stores seem to be the main cause of death. The list tends to emphasise the paucity of active German resistance.
"In conclusion it can be said that when all parties involved (with the exception of the victims) have a common interest in presenting a biased account, it is this story which is likely to prevail and to become the accepted truth. It is only by resorting to comparative analysis that such “anomalies” can be detected. Naturally, another obvious implication is that historians should not blindly trust official statements even when they have been accepted for a long time."
Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi Pingpongtweet,
I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the occupations were "without friction".
The point is that, for the most part, these incidents appear not to be residual Nazi-inspired or -organized ideological resistance, but the result of the daily frictions that almost necessarily result from innumerable interactions with a large foreign presence in residence.
I would be most interested to know why the “North China Daily News” or “Shanghai Herald” were considered authoritative on the subject of post-war occupied Germany, especially, "if you as historian just look at the official publications, press reports and newspaper articles then you are liable to seriously fool yourself." Where did the Chinese press get its information from, one wonders?
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Whitevector [Bot] and 0 guests