How long could a Nazi insurgency have lasted?

Although the general German government still surrendered as OTL and although Hitler is dead, a significant contingent of SS, volunteer, and militia groups maintain a presence in southern Germany and Austria, attacking occupation forces and perhaps controlling a few villages in addition to their presence in the Alps. How much damage can they cause before they're inevitably destroyed?

(in other words, what if Werwolf had been more fleshed-out?)

EDIT: Wrong board, please move to After 1900.

Not long. They had little support from the German people or outside sources.

Depends. In the Soviet Zone, it would last as long as it took for the NKVD to persuade the population that shelter the insurgents was a really poor choice. Considering Beria's mindset that wouldn't take very long.

In the Western Occupation Zones it depends. The French wouldn't be quite NKVD, unless they used some of the North African tribal troops for the job (apparently those folks were seriously bad news) but they wouldn't brook any resistance from Germans either. Butthurt is a powerful motivator.

The British could go either really hard core or just go the colonial policing route. Both they and the French had recent experience running colonies filled with folks who didn't necessarily adore them.

The U.S. is a wild card. No real recent colonial policing to speak of, although some small scale work in Central America is on the books, and no "secret police" of any sort. It would really come down to the commander on scene. The ones who helped liberate the camps will react very differently from pure occupation units fresh out of the States.

With no external support, even in the "best case" I'd give them six months.

Ultimate Paragon said:

Not long. They had little support from the German people or outside sources.

Click to expand...

I thought most Germans didn't think Nazism was a bad thing and that it took years of allied re-education efforts to persuade them otherwise?

Snowstalker said:

Although the general German government still surrendered as OTL and although Hitler is dead, a significant contingent of SS, volunteer, and militia groups maintain a presence in southern Germany and Austria, attacking occupation forces and perhaps controlling a few villages in addition to their presence in the Alps. How much damage can they cause before they're inevitably destroyed?

(in other words, what if Werwolf had been more fleshed-out?)

EDIT: Wrong board, please move to After 1900.

Click to expand...

Actually, a small-scale insurgency was attempted in occupied Germany, both prior to the official surrender (*), and for a couple of years into the occupation. Didn't work out too much for the would-be insurgents.

Why didn't it work out? The population was utterly exhausted by six years of war and millions of casualties. Most of the people who would mount such an insurgency were dead, crippled for life or imprisoned. The people were hungry, out of work, without shelter. If they wanted food and shelter and work, they co-operated with the new Allied masters. And for those few who didn't co-operate, well, there was the guillotine, the gallows, the firing squad, the labor gangs and the threat of transfer to Soviet hands waiting for them. And those who resisted discovered that their insurgency was obscured and masked by an on-going crime wave of spectacular proportions committed by foreign displaced persons. Once order was restored, the insurgents had nowhere to hide, and no significant element of the population willing to support them. At all.

(*) Portions of Germany were occupied by Allied forces as early as September of 1944,eight months before V-E Day. Guerilla resistance was attempted. The Americans responded by shooting teenagers after brief trials, sentencing children as young as twelve to life imprisonment, while the British handed our death sentences for people in possession of a photograph of Hitler. Mere possession of small-arms ammunition led to appointments with the guillotine at Wolfenbuettel, and unruly German prisoners got a trip to the coal mines in England.

Germany in the 1940's was not fertile ground for an insurgency when those suppressing the insurgency were, in a word, prepared to do whatever it took it put it down.

This is the same Germany that (I believe) was genuinely outraged at the reports (whether true or false is immaterial) of civilians sniping at soldiers in both 1871 and 1914.

The Germans generally display a profound attachment to Order (Ordnung), and fighting after the government says the war is finished -- that isn't "in Ordnung". Neither is civilians usurping the "organized application of violence" role of soldiers. Neither is scampering about among the civilian working population, blowing things up and disrupting productive life after peace has been declared.

Regardless of the harshness or leniency of the Allied response, a post-WW2 insurgency won't gain popular support in Germany and won't last long. It just doesn't fit with the German character as I see it.

Note: one can certainly point to exceptions to the rule -- street violence after WW1, for example -- but the usual response to such events (the majority of Germans longing for a government strong enough to put a stop to such nonsense) I think supports my theory.

When your food supply is controlled by an occupying power that demonstrated a willingness to starve you if you even thought about resistance, in fact even on the rumor of it, then you really are not going to have any means of resistance or any sort of civilian support, rather more likely a lot of civvies turning you in to end the suffering. The Nazi party was never really that popular, though Hitler was until about 1943; then the Germans people had to ride out the war and Hitler's reign. Once that experience was over they had no tolerance for Nazis or their prerogatives. They just wanted to live; besides most of the fanatical Nazis had died already in the war or committed suicide, while the rest of fighting age men or boys were scooped up by the Allies, so really there wasn't much left to fight with and the fighters would have stood out like a sore thumb if they moved around in public.

I heard about franc-tireurs in the Soviet East Prussia, Soviets deporting the entire youth of a Kreise to Siberia and orders to summarily shoot German guerilla using weapons against Allies.

Could a guerilla movement have born east of the Oder-Neisse Line?

And were the death sentences for possessing a picture of Hitler really executed?

Johannes Parisiensis said:

I heard about franc-tireurs in the Soviet East Prussia, Soviets deporting the entire youth of a Kreise to Siberia and orders to summarily shoot German guerilla using weapons against Allies.

Could a guerilla movement have born east of the Oder-Neisse Line?

Click to expand...

Nope. The Soviets were ruthless in a way no one else but the Nazis were. They would have just massacred anyone that resisted, as they were already just doing revenge massacres. They ruthlessly suppressed and massacred Poles that were anti-communist and had resisted the Nazis while ethnically cleansing Germans from East of the Oder-Neisse. There was some resistance IOTL, but it was swiftly dealt with.

Johannes Parisiensis said:

I heard about franc-tireurs in the Soviet East Prussia, Soviets deporting the entire youth of a Kreise to Siberia and orders to summarily shoot German guerilla using weapons against Allies.

Could a guerilla movement have born east of the Oder-Neisse Line?

And were the death sentences for possessing a picture of Hitler really executed?

Click to expand...

In one case of a young man (23) who put a portrait of Hitler in his bedroom room in 1946, the sentence was commuted. But the law could be applied harshly. Somewhere in my files I have newspaper clippings about a German who was executed by the British for printing pro-Nazi broadsheets. I doubt there were many examples of this sort, to be honest.

A long time, if they used the same tactics as the IRA. Having an active membership of only about 200 is going to be trouble. Well in to the '70's and maybe even today. The IRA has been going in one form or another for well over 100 years, even though now active membership is only about 30 men, maybe less.

wiking said:

Nope. The Soviets were ruthless in a way no one else but the Nazis were. They would have just massacred anyone that resisted, as they were already just doing revenge massacres. They ruthlessly suppressed and massacred Poles that were anti-communist and had resisted the Nazis while ethnically cleansing Germans from East of the Oder-Neisse. There was some resistance IOTL, but it was swiftly dealt with.

Click to expand...

There were anti-Soviet resistance groups operating well into the 1950's in the Baltic States. The Lithuanian partisans maintained quite a large footprint at least until 1949, IIRC.

I do not think this fact has much, if any, application for a postwar German
resistance, though. Different terrain, different culture, different circumstances. Plus, I believe the Baltic resistance movements received clandestine assistance from the West; what nation would aid a pro-Nazi resistance?

tallthinkev said:

A long time, if they used the same tactics as the IRA. Having an active membership of only about 200 is going to be trouble. Well in to the '70's and maybe even today. The IRA has been going in one form or another for well over 100 years, even though now active membership is only about 30 men, maybe less.

Click to expand...

How much of the IRA's financial support has come from people in other nations, though? I gather it's quite a bit. I can't see a postwar pro-Nazi German resistance getting much external support.

Plus, I'm not at all confident that a pro-Nazi resistance would find as much domestic support in Germany as the IRA has found in Ireland.

So I'm not convinced that tactical issues are paramount.

How much of valuables stolen by the nazis are still unaccounted for? They had a lot of gold lying around at some point, that can be a nice nest-egg.

NettiWelho said:

How much of valuables stolen by the nazis are still unaccounted for? They had a lot of gold lying around at some point, that can be a nice nest-egg.

Click to expand...

True, but I'm not sure how much of that wealth would be available to fund a resistance movement. Much was probably lost, and much of the rest consisted of Nazi leaders' private hordes, I suspect. And in the end, those rats were most interested in their own enrichment.

I guess we ought to look at this comprehensively.

What factors have been involved in successful/long-lived resistance or terror groups?

1) reasonably sympathetic population: I think we can see this at work (to varying extents) in the IRA, various Pelestinian groups, the Viet Cong, and the post-WW2 Baltic resistance movements.

There were undoubtedly Nazi sympathizers after WW2 (there still are, ugh), but the great majority of Germans seem to have been quite disenchanted in the postwar period. So I'm not seeing much popular support.

2) external financing/training/equipment: definitely at work with the Palestinians, Vietnam Cong, the Baltic anti-Soviets, and I assume with the IRA. Also the Red Army Faction, which IIRC trained outside Germany.

But what external group would fund, supply or host training for NAZI partisans in Germany after WW2? The Soviets were generally willing to sponsor trouble in competitor nations... but i have trouble picturing them supporting Nazis, especially as they were occupying a big chunk of Germany. So probably no external support.

3) unsettled/uncontrolled domestic conditions: post-WW1 violence in Germany; the Baltics after WW2; Palestine; South Vietnam; Africa and other late- or post-colonial regions.

The second time around, the victors actually occupied Germany and administered it comprehensively and effectively. Also, Germany is fairly compact, unlike other examples. The unsettled conditions really didn't last long nor were they ever as great as in post-WW1 Germany.

None of these rule out small-scale terrorism, nor brief abortive resistance attempts. But I think they effectively rule out terrorism/resistance on a significant or enduring scale.

Anybody care to weigh in on the above, or add other factors?

Maybe the insurgency would do better if the result of the war was different? For instance, if there was no Italian-German pact, and if (for good measure) Norwegian neutrality had been respected, it could perhaps open up routes of support for Nazi insurgents after the war.

The Nazis would probably have done better if, for instance, D-Day had failed and Germany had been wholly occupied by the Soviets. Few wanted a united Germany, so this would probably be a very harsh occupation, and it's possible that the insurgents would get more support as anti-communist fighters.

Of course, insurgents fight among themselves too, and the hardline Nazi faction would probably have lost out very quickly to nationalists and democrats.

BrotherSideways said:

Maybe the insurgency would do better if the result of the war was different? For instance, if there was no Italian-German pact, and if (for good measure) Norwegian neutrality had been respected, it could perhaps open up routes of support for Nazi insurgents after the war.

The Nazis would probably have done better if, for instance, D-Day had failed and Germany had been wholly occupied by the Soviets. Few wanted a united Germany, so this would probably be a very harsh occupation, and it's possible that the insurgents would get more support as anti-communist fighters.

Of course, insurgents fight among themselves too, and the hardline Nazi faction would probably have lost out very quickly to nationalists and democrats.

Click to expand...

Why would Italy and/or Norway help the insurgents? Did they have a great deep desire to be invaded ? Because that is what would happen when the Allies found out about it.

tallthinkev said:

A long time, if they used the same tactics as the IRA. Having an active membership of only about 200 is going to be trouble. Well in to the '70's and maybe even today. The IRA has been going in one form or another for well over 100 years, even though now active membership is only about 30 men, maybe less.

Click to expand...

But the IRA never attempted the final solution. The IRA wasn't in a country where the very food supply was controlled by the occupiers. Heck, the IRA wasn't in a country under formal military occupation. Further, the IRA WAS in a country where, just across the border was a sympathetic foreign nation. (OK, so the Irish Republic's government wasn't very sympathetic, but lots of civilians were.)

Werwolf has NONE of those advantages.

If Werwolf actually was more than a handful of cranks ALL the allies would crack down HARD. Go all Morgenthau plan on them if necessary.

Seriously.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

But the IRA never attempted the final solution. The IRA wasn't in a country where the very food supply was controlled by the occupiers. Heck, the IRA wasn't in a country under formal military occupation. Further, the IRA WAS in a country where, just across the border was a sympathetic foreign nation. (OK, so the Irish Republic's government wasn't very sympathetic, but lots of civilians were.)

Werwolf has NONE of those advantages.

If Werwolf actually was more than a handful of cranks ALL the allies would crack down HARD. Go all Morgenthau plan on them if necessary.

Seriously.

Click to expand...

Germany hadn't been invaded in the 1200's, religiously oppressed in their own nation, colonized, and occupied for centuries. So it is truly a bit difficult to see why they'd respond with a fervor equivalent to someone who had been.