[David]

After World War II, when the US occupied Germany and Japan, did US troops face the types of problems (i.e. attacks and protests) like we do currently in Iraq?

(I do not recall hearing of any such post-WW II attacks/protests during my history classes.)

If not, why is Iraq different from these other countries liberated by the United States and its allies?

:confused: :what: :confused:

Thanks...

[Mike Irwin]

By and large, no.

The problems that were there generally resulted from clashes with the German and Japanese black markets.

Why were Japan and Germany different?

By and large I think the people were completely ready, 6 years of war, much of it dropping from the sky on their cities, to capitulate. Sheer exhaustion played a large part in it.

In Japan, also, the God-Emperor demanded that the people comply with his surrender order. Given how most Japanese were raised at the time, that the word of the Emperor was inviolate (sp?), you listened.

In Germany the central figure was also dead, not broadcasting resistance messages.

Then, of course, there's the entire religious aspect to it in Iraq.

[Ian]

Like Mike said, one important factor in Japan was that the Emperor was left in his position and he supported the Japanese surrender (not just to pander to the US troops either, Hirohito was the driving Japanese force behind the surrender in the first place).

[Baba Louie]

To date, no one in Baghdad has ever finally accepted an unconditional surrender. In both Germany and Japan their Gov'ts did and spread the word.
In Germany at least, a whole lot of the surviving troops and citizens headed west to surrender to the American/British soldiers as opposed to dealing with the Soviet victors coming from the East.
They had both seen their cities and countryside laid waste by the Allied forces, not a quick jaunt into Berlin or Tokyo with minimal air power "Shock and Awe" as it were.
All of the surrounding countries had also been heavily impacted with the exception of Switzerland and had very few fanatics coming across the border to stir up trouble.
In Japan, those few remaining warrior types who felt so dishonored by their loss decided the honorable thing to do was commit seppku. Without taking additional persons with them.
Also remember that after Gulf War I, Hussein claimed victory as the Coalition forces left that country.

Its a mindset thing.

Adios

[Bahadur]

It's also the leadership thing. In both Germany and Japan, war criminals that they were, there were still enough leaders among the elites who realized the continued resistance would be both futile and enormously destructive to their country and people. In their twisted ways, they still loved their country.

Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athists aren't about preserving Iraq and Iraqis for a more prosperous future. They are about re-enslaving the Iraqis in order to continue their murderous ways.

They don't care if 99% of the country fries in a apocalyptic struggle, so long as they think they'll be back to rule what is left of it.

[Hkmp5sd]

Historians: Germany's resistance unlike Iraq's

White House has drawn on comparison
By MAURA REYNOLDS
Los Angeles Times
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON - As violence continues in Iraq, Bush administration officials have increasingly compared the postwar situation there with that of Germany after World War II. In particular, they have likened the guerrilla-type attacks on U.S. forces to actions by the die-hard Nazis known as "werewolves."

"SS officers - called 'werewolves' - engaged in sabotage and attacked both coalition forces and those locals cooperating with them, much like today's Baathist and Fedayeen remnants," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said in a speech Monday.

But historians and military analysts take issue with that comparison.

"The werewolves existed more in the idea or the fantasy stage than ever as a real phenomenon," said Lt. Col. Kevin Farrell, a historian at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

The werewolves were founded in September 1944 by SS chief Heinrich Himmler, who saw them as a special force that would work behind U.S. lines to sabotage equipment and kill U.S. troops. About 5,000 SS officers were trained as werewolves.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/front2003/082903iraq_werewolves_2003.shtml

[telewinz]

Some German citizens to this day still spit on American GI's in uniform. There are still hard feelings among some of the older German citizens. Whats happening in Iraq did happen in Germany for a few months after the surrender, fanatics and their beliefs die hard. In Japan by and large the citizens obeyed their Emperor and were quite polite although there were cases of Japanese military personel taking action (suicidal) against the allies for several weeks after the surrender. As with Germany, these acts were downplayed and often not reported to the press so as not to anger the American public.

[spartacus2002]

Another thing to remember is that Japan and Germany had histories of government by democracy. They were not feudalistic theocracies like so many Middle Eastern countries today.

Amazing how many people (NOT referring to people in this thread, just society at large) forget or never got taught that Hitler and the Nazis were popularly elected.

[Sleeping Dog]

Germany and Japan were major powers, not sideshows. When they surrender, that's it. No more war, except for gangsters and soldiers on islands who didn't hear or believe the surrender order.

If we had completely conquered North Korea in the '50's or North Vietnam in the '60's, would that have been the end of communism? No. They were sideshows. Serious and nasty, but not major players.

Iraq was a terrorism sideshow. It may have had a genuinely evil guy running things, but it was not a player on the world level. Getting rid of Saddam doesn't defeat the major powers in the terrorism game, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria.

Every US soldier's death causes great cheering, high fives, and end-zone dances throughout the muslim world, from the mideast and north Africa to Indonesia, Britain, the US, France of course.

Regards

[hops]

There were 'some' problems that are similar. Most issues were in getting the infrastructure running again. Germany was a mess after WWII and had a severe manpower shortage (good for the single GI - since many found future wives there).

Interesting similarities between the efforts of de-nazification and de-baathitization.

Here is a link: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012326.php#012326

November 04, 2003

DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN -- reader Kathy Nelson has typed in a second Saturday Evening Post article from 1946 on how the occupation was going in Germany. Not terribly well, is the answer, and once again there are quite a few familiar bits.

In response to the previous post along these lines, a reader pointed out that the Marshall Plan was introduced later, and perhaps in response to critiques like these. [LATER: Another reader emails: "I wonder how many who point that out are actually FOR the $87 billion reconstruction package for Iraq?" Me, too.] I think that's probably right and that criticism did lead to the Marshall Plan, but I think that his implied point -- that therefore I shouldn't be criticizing the kind of sloppy-and-snarky coverage of Iraq that we're seeing from places like Newsweek -- is wrong. I'd love to see thoughtful coverage of what's going well and badly in Iraq. I'm complaining because I'm not seeing much of it.

Some excerpts follow -- just click "MORE" to read them. I wish that I could reproduce the whole thing, but I've tried to be representative here.
How Long Will We Stay in Germany?

By Demaree Bess
Saturday Evening Post
February 2, 1946

Berlin

?Just what I expected!? angrily exclaimed the official from Washington. ?I told President Truman that the Army doesn?t understand coal mining. I told him he would have to send civilian specialists to manage this coal business in Germany.?

The official was exasperated. Here he was, inspecting the fuel situation in Europe, and what did he find? He found that although winter was already here, the rich German coal fields still were not producing much, and the United States would have to ship our own coal to Europe to make up the deficiency.

The American general who was responsible for getting coal for the United States zone in Germany was even more exasperated.

?I?d like to know what your civilian specialists would have done with this setup?? he retorted. And he went on to point out that there is practically no coal in the American zone of occupation. The mines of Silesia are controlled by the Red Army; the Ruhr fields are in the British zone; the Saar coal is in the French area.

?We Americans thought at first that it didn?t matter where the mines were located,? the general continued. ?We thought that everybody in Europe was equally anxious to get the coal out of the ground before this winter. But it certainly hasn?t worked out that way.? . . .

Thus, although General Eisenhower went into Germany with instructions to bring order out of chaos---for the immediate security of our own Army---he was simultaneously directed to create new disorders in the process of ?remaking Germany.? Self-styled ?social engineers? in Washington devised projects to ?solve the German problem? economically by transforming industrial Germany into a pastoral nation, and to solve the political problem by weeding out all Nazis. In attempting to carry out these complicated directives, a struggle developed here between Americans who were trying to get things running, and other Americans who had been entrusted with staging the ?revolution.? In most cases this struggle was not deliberate; both groups were just trying to obey their orders from Washington. . . .

Our denazification policy is another example of the tug of war which has developed in the United States zone between our ?reconstructionists? and our ?revolutionaries.? The policy makers who were hell bent for revenge saw to it that our Army was ordered to arrest all officials of the Nazi Party ?down to and including local group leaders and officials of equivalent rank.? But the Nazi Party, at its peak, claimed more than 8,000,000 adherents, including the majority of skilled workers. A large number of the most skilled railroad workers, for example, are thus automatically included in our category of ?mandatory arrests.?

However, it was imperative to get the railroads running again in order to supply food for the approximately 20,000,000 persons for whom our Army was responsible for this winter, including our own soldiers, displaced persons and German prisoners and civilians. American engineers assigned to this job scoured our zone for trained German workers, while our counterintelligence officers were scouring the countryside arresting ex-Nazis.

In Berlin I heard an argument between two American officers. One cried despairingly, ?How can I keep this railroad operating if you take away all my skilled workers??

The other replied, ?Don?t think you are the only one with problems. Where am I going to find enough jails to accommodate all these fellows we are arresting?? . . .

This, then is the segment of Germany for which Americans have accepted responsibility---an economic slum in the heart of Europe where the people can be maintained at subsistence level only by importing food and coal. Here we were confronted with the choice of letting the Germans sicken and starve and freeze this winter, or of shipping in food and other supplies from the United states to support our former enemies. If we made the first choice, we discredited our own administration. By making the second choice, we aroused the anger of some of our Allies who also are short of food and coal and housing.

Nor are American obligations in Germany easily confined to our own zone. An American officer in Berlin, Col. Frank Howley, told me about the situation in a suburb adjoining our sector, but just outside of the city limits and therefore located in the Russian zone. The mayor of this suburb came to our Berlin headquarters to plead for help, declaring there were 1000 women and children in his little town, and all the food reserves had been exhausted.

?But why do you come to us?? inquired Col. Howley. ?Your town is in the Russian zone.?

?The Russians say they cannot do anything for us,? replied the mayor.

?And what happened to the people in that town?? I asked.

?I don?t know,? Colonel Howley answered gruffly. ?I believe in being tough with the Germans, and I don?t blame the Russians for being tough. When that mayor returned to my office and begged me to go with him to look at his starving children, I told him to get out and never come back again?I have children of my own and I do my job here best by keeping completely away from children.?

No time limit has been placed upon jobs such as Colonel Howley?s. The United States Army is committed to stay in our zone until the ?German problem? is solved. When General Eisenhower?s deputy, Lt. Gen. Lucius D. Clay, was asked in Berlin how long he believed our occupation would last, he replied that it would take at least a generation ?if we are going to do the job here we have to do.? . . .

Here in Germany there is no indication that Washington politicians have any clear conception of the precise purposes and probable duration of our German occupation. Our administrative machinery here is building up in a hit-or-miss fashion, and the men to run the machine are being recruited hastily and haphazardly, with almost no evidence of a coherent long range plan. Nevertheless, the chances are very great that this American bureaucracy in the heart of Europe will survive for at least a generation---and perhaps more. We have caught a bear by the tail in Germany, and it will not be easy to let loose without endangering the peace of Europe, which involves our own peace as well.

And we're still there. Does that mean we should have stayed home?
Posted by Glenn Reynolds at November 04, 2003 09:54 AM

[David]

Great replies -- I am learning a lot!

:D :D :D

[moa]

Another thing too is that the German military was totally defeated with little combat power left. The American zone of Germany, with a population of 20 million, was occupied for a long time by about at least 400,000 American troops.

With Iraq we a have about 23 million people occupied by about 160,000 Coalition troops, a significant number of which are not Americans. Much of Iraq is lighty occupied. Much of the Iraqi military and security forces simply quit and went home, many taking their small arms with them. In some instances, the military commanders disbanded their outfits.

Apparently, for about a year after WWII, there was some German resistance, but I have never read of anything significant. I did read that Nazis killed the German mayor of the city of Aachen.

Another thing is after war's end there was "ethnic cleansing" in much of eastern Europe of ethnic Germans. Reports I read is something like 7 million ethnic Germans were pushed out of eastern Europe from countries like Poland and old Czechoslavkia (sp?.

It is estimated that maybe as many as one million ethnic Germans were murdered in eastern Europe after the war. So, for a lot of Germans (and most likely many Japanese) just trying to survive was first priority in a war devastated country.

[Cosmoline]

There were no major problems with revolts or uprisings in Japan or Germany after WWII. And it's the same situation in Iraq. Although the media hypes up every shooting and bombing, so far we've taken very few losses. Statistically insignificant, in fact. If the Iraqis were really revolting en masse, it would be quite different. These guys are just jihad yahoos and Saddam die hards. The hits we've taken don't even ad up to a mild skirmish. They're designed to get the media working for Saddam--and so far they're working.

[moa]

Amen, Cosmo!

[Zip06]

Not to be compared to WWII but in Indo-China after the French were defeated in 1954, radio intercepts from non-surrending bands were being monitored and documented as late as 1957. There were also holdouts after the US cut out.

[bountyhunter]

After World War II, when the US occupied Germany and Japan, did US troops face the types of problems (i.e. attacks and protests) like we do currently in Iraq?

If not, why is Iraq different from these other countries liberated by the United States and its allies?


It's pretty simple: WWII was unquestionably necessary since Germany had taken over an entire continent and was about to take Britain. In the Pacific, the japanese had run through China and the Phillipines and sunk half of our fleet.

Support for that war among our allies was 100% and support at home was the same.

As for the "after war" occupation? No, we were not hammered like we are being hammered in Iraq. For one reason, neither Germany nor japan was surrounded by countries filled with people who hated us and wanted to sneak in and fight a guerilla war against our forces.

You also have to realize that when we defeated Japan and Germany, we beat countries which had actually waged war on us. Nearly all of their soldiers fought against our troops. In Iraq, there is no credible evidence that Iraq ever directly attacked any US targets in the last decade or supported the group that did (Al Qaeada). In the opinion of most with a living brain cell, we attacked the wrong country.... saudi Arabia is the seat of all monetary support for Al Qaeda and also where most of it's fighters come from.

Comparisons to WWII are basically not valid.

[bountyhunter]

Amazing how many people (NOT referring to people in this thread, just society at large) forget or never got taught that Hitler and the Nazis were popularly elected.

True, but they also mudered most of their opponents and the rest ran away.

[Hkmp5sd]

Another thing too is that the German military was totally defeated with little combat power left.

Another way to look at it is that by 1945, most Germans were looking at the Western Allies as liberators, protecting them from the Russian Hoard.

[StuporDave]

There were American (Allied) casualties In Germany and Japan after the surrenders. The media just didn't make them front page news on a daily basis like they're doing with the casualties in Iraq. (One American loss is one too many, but ladies and gentlemen of the media, we are at war in case you hadn't noticed.)

Dave

[Mark Tyson]

There were a lot of isolated Japanese units that kept fighting after Tokyo surrendered, mostly in the Philippines area.

[Bahadur]

If the Iraqis were really revolting en masse, it would be quite different. These guys are just jihad yahoos and Saddam die hards. The hits we've taken don't even ad up to a mild skirmish. They're designed to get the media working for Saddam--and so far they're working.Remember Tet '68? A great tactical/operational defeat for Cong, a great strategic and moral victory for them, because of the perception generated in the US media.

[Drizzt]

Jeff Jacoby


A 'botched' occupation?
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | "Everywhere I've traveled recently in Germany I've run into Americans, ranging from generals down to privates, who ask perplexedly, 'What are we Americans supposed to be doing here? Are we going to take over this place and stay here forever?' "

So opened journalist Demaree Bess's article — "How We Botched The German Occupation" — in the Saturday Evening Post of Jan. 26, 1946. It appeared eight months after V-E Day, and Bess was sure that the Allies' military victory over Hitler was being squandered in the postwar.

"We have got into this German job without understanding what we were tackling or why," he wrote. "Not one American political leader fully realized at the outset how formidable our German commitments would prove to be. There was no idea, at the beginning, that Americans would become involved in a project to take Germany completely apart and put it together again in wholly new patterns."

In Life magazine a couple weeks earlier, the novelist John Dos Passos had penned an even bleaker assessment. The postwar administration set up by the Americans was "a tangle of snarling misery" he observed. "Never has American prestige in Europe been lower. . . . All we have brought to Europe so far is confusion backed up by a drumhead regime of military courts. We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease." The title of his piece: "Americans are Losing the Victory in Europe."

Today, of course, few would argue that the United States "botched" the occupation of West Germany or that the US-secured liberty that replaced Hitler's tyranny was a "cure . . . worse than the disease." Looking back from the early 21st century, it is clear that the transformation of the shattered Nazi Reich into a bulwark of democracy was one of the signal achievements of 20th-century statecraft. But on the ground in 1946, that happy outcome was nowhere in view. What was in view was an occupation beset by troubles — chaotic, dangerous, and frequently vicious.

Just like the one in Iraq today.

There is no denying that the news out of Iraq has been brutal lately. US soldiers die in roadside bombings and in brazen attacks like the helicopter downing that killed 16 on Sunday. Terrorists target civilian venues — Red Cross offices, Muslim shrines, embassies — for the bloodiest possible carnage. Iraqis are grateful to be free of Saddam Hussein, but many nonetheless inveigh against the American occupiers who toppled him. At the moment, Iraq seems a long, long way from anything resembling the stable and tolerant democracy President Bush says he is determined to see it become.

Not surprisingly, public support for the war is eroding. Only 54 percent of Americans — down from 70 percent in late April — still say it was worth fighting, according to the most recent ABC/Washington Post poll. Just 47 percent of the public approves of President Bush's handling of Iraq; a thin majority, 51 percent, actually disapproves. Quagmire fears are deepening: 53 percent are "very" concerned that the United States will get bogged down. A few more horrific attacks, another bloody couple of months in Baghdad and Fallujah, and it isn't hard to imagine even more Americans giving up on Iraq and deciding we should never have gone in to begin with.

Which is exactly what Saddam and his murderer-loyalists and the terror cadres that have joined them are counting on. They expect us to walk away. They are certain that we will do again what we did in Beirut and Mogadishu: lose heart, pull out, and leave the Middle East to them.

Will we?

Make no mistake. We are now in the battle that will decide the course of this war. Either Iraq will be cleansed and democratized, or the war on terror will be lost. There is no middle ground. The Baathist diehards and Islamist car-bombers understand that everything is on the line. They know that if America succeeds in planting freedom and decency in the Arab world, they are finished. That is why they are determined at all costs to drive us out.

To his great credit, Bush has never wavered in his resolve to stay in Iraq until it is governed by a stable constitutional democracy. "The terrorists and the Baathists hope to weaken our will," he said on Nov. 1. "Our will canot be shaken." He and his administration have learned the core lesson of Sept. 11: The terrorist threat to civilization will never be rolled back until the Middle East is torn away from its nightmare of tyranny, cruelty, and religious fanaticism.

If only the Democrats running to replace Bush understood that lesson as well. Except for Senator Joseph Lieberman, none of them seems to grasp the magnitude of the stakes in Iraq. When they spoke of Iraq during their televised debate at Faneuil Hall Tuesday night, for example, all they appeared to care about was genuflecting to the UN and denouncing "sweetheart deals for Halliburton."

On what is by far the most consequential issue of the day, the Democrats repeatedly come across as petty and unserious. The proper goal of the US occupation, the link between Iraq and American national security, the US role in reshaping the Middle East — if the candidates have thought meaningfully about any of these, it is impossible to tell. Incredibly, the first post-9/11 presidential campaign is being contested by a Democratic lineup that has apparently learned nothing from 9/11.

Like the occupation of Germany in January 1946, America's work in Iraq is only getting underway. A huge amount of effort — and danger — still lies ahead. What Americans need now are leaders who can focus on the great work before them — not sideline snipers carping prematurely that the occupation has been "botched."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby.html

[agricola]

a thought provoking article.

however, it is impossible for the US to "create" a democracy, republic or other free regime in Iraq. The only people who can do that are the Iraqi people - the US can create the climate for such a country to come about, but the decision rests with them, as it rested with the Japanese and the West Germans.

that said, as I have said before, it may be that as a country Iraq is possibly too far gone to save - in reality its three countries in one. You could well create three free states - a Kurdish state in the north, a Shia state in the South (which, with its oil wealth and control of almost all the Shia holy places, would be a massive cultural threat to the Iranians), and a Sunni state centred on Baghdad.

the Kurds are your friends and have shed their blood, give them the homeland that they deserve (which, as below, would encourage the Iranian Kurds), maintain their arms and allow them to exploit and defend their oil wealth to build their country. the same goes for the Shia, who are no friends of the Wahhabists who dominate the current wave of terror, and one imagines the likes of al-Qaeda and the other Sunni groups will tire of trying to get into states like that when the first parts of the mujahdin arrive home.

Let the Saudis help the Sunni Triangle and its residents- once the remaining Iraqi people - the poor, the women who will be beaten and disenfranchised, contrast the free states with the corrupt and repressive regime of the House of Saud and its criminal "terror elements" (if indeed there is a distinction) they will make the right decision.

Imposing a decision, and allowing Western companies to exploit Iraq, will fail utterly. Freeing people, giving them independence, supporting them against tyrants and those who would exploit them, in short giving them the same that you expect for yourself, would not only benefit the people of Iraq. All those on the other side would look at you, look at Iraq and then look at themselves, and know that they have lost.

[cuchulainn]

agricola,

That's a very British plan. British partitioning worked very well for Transjordan, Ireland and India. There are no lingering land dispute in those places ;)

[bountyhunter]

Imposing a decision, and allowing Western companies to exploit Iraq, will fail utterly.

I think you will find generally universal agreement with that sentiment across the US as long as you don't ask anybody whose business address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They all seem to think it's a hell of a good idea.:barf:

[agricola]

cuchulainn,

there are no disputes in Liberia or the Phillipines either as it happens - so there is no hard and fast rule as to how these things work.

in any case, i defy anyone to show me a reasoned argument as to why the Kurds shouldnt be rewarded with what they want.

[cuchulainn]

agricola,

Yes, former U.S. colonies have their problems too. That doesn't change the fact that the British model of partitioning has been woefully destabilizing, serving only to exacerbate and prolong strife.

That’s why we shouldn’t partition off a Kurdish nation. Ostensibly, we’re in Iraq to free the nation and stablize the region. Partition would destroy Iraq as a nation and add yet another layer of instability and strife to the region.

FWIW, I find it odd that you make the valid point that we can't impose democracy, yet suggest that we impose partitioning.

And BTW, I was more ribbing you than anything else by bringing "British" into it. ;)

[bountyhunter]

FWIW, I find it odd that you make the valid point that we can't impose democracy, yet suggest that we impose partitioning.

Partitioning is the most sensible suggestion I've heard with regards to this issue. It's idiotic to believe you can throw three diverse ethnic groups together into one country and have them "play nice". If they have their own space and borders, those things can be agreed to and enforced if necessary.

As to why the Kurds will never have home: they are poor and don't have any political clout. They are basically the Arab equivalent of gypsies.

[cuchulainn]

Partitioning is the most sensible suggestion I've heard with regards to this issue. It's idiotic to believe you can throw three diverse ethnic groups together into one country and have them "play nice". If they have their own space and borders, those things can be agreed to and enforced if necessary. It sure sounds nice, and it sure sounded nice last century when the British partitioned India, Ireland and Transjordan. But, as I noted, it has been woefully destabilizing, exacerbating and prolonging strife. The strife that exists today simply will have another layer based on the perception by some or all parties that they are victims of something illegitimate imposed by an outside power.