Civil disobedience to Allied occupations in Germany and Japan

Armored Diplomacy

How would the Allied occupiers have reacted to mass civil disobedience and non-violent resistance campaigns in Germany and Japan? Suppose for whatever reason, such a campaign broke out. The likeliest reason I can think of is if the US went through with a plan to reduce Japan to that of a small economic power and dismantling much of it's economy, which the Japanese government protested by reminding the US it was a violation of the Potsdam Declaration. The de-industrialization of Germany was also proposed.

But let's say for whatever reason, the Allied powers decide to do something the governments and peoples of the occupied countries vehemently protest. So they face things like protest and disobedience to Allied rules. In addition, the local authorities refuse to cooperate (IE local police not cooperating with the occupation governments in moderating protests and arresting who they want). How would the Allied powers react to such a scenario?
 

Dunbar

I think even the Western Allies were in no mood to play around. Soviets would probably just start shooting people until they got the message. I can see the Western Allies using something like access to food in order to force compliance
 

Oldbill

Poorly I think. No one on the Allied side is in the mood to put up with any resistance from those two countries. A massive percentage of their populations is not in the mood to conduct such protests, being relieved to still be alive, hungry and often destitute, just wanting to eat and live. There are hardcore militarists in both nations who will be willing to act, however their ability to do so is lessening with each meal the Allies provide, along with the realization that the Allies will only tolerate so much, and its better to turn in the miscreants than to allow them to drag the people further down. Was there a history of non-violent protest in these nations before? I know violent protests were, and unless there was, then I don't foresee non violent protests being held, and if so, they would be hijacked and turned violent. Anyway it goes, the best the people can do is to just get by and not rock the boat. If such protests took place, that would mean the Allies would need to keep more troops there, in uniform. That alone could mean continued co-operation with the SU, both being in the same predicament (although I expect the SU to be a bit "firmer" in its tactics, from the beginning) , and a willingness to overlook harsh measures from the SU. Push any of the Allies hard enough, and bad things happen to the defeated nations.
 

Armored Diplomacy

Keep in mind we're not talking only about the months immediately after the occupations began in 1945 (especially since the Allies didn't establish the Federal Republic of Germany until 1949). This can also happen at some point when the situation is less severe. The occupations of both countries dragged on into the 1950s. But there are things that might be able to create this kind of scenario, especially if the Allies try wider de-industrialization.
 

Young Lochinvar

The cost of rebuilding Germany for the Allies was high in political terms given they were an enemy and you have Britain, Benelux, and France to also rebuild. That political cost grows higher once the Americans realise the Germans are ‘ungrateful’ for the economic assistance they are providing. Maybe the Americans don’t resupply Berlin during the blockade as a show of force, or maybe they start circulating the idea that they’ll let the Soviets administer West Germany as well (the Western Allies’d never actual hand them over but the propaganda value of the Soviets as a threat would, I suspect, bring the West Germans on board to the whole thing. )

It really depends what aims were intended. There were few if any aims that enough of the German population would support with disobedience that the Wetsern Allies wouldn’t give them. An independent Germany? that was already underway in the West by 1948, but as pointed out above the Soviets were never going to stand non-violent protest in the East. No deindustrialisation? Well the Allies realised that too much of Europe’s industry was in Germany to dismantle it and still have Europe’s economy recover so that was also scrapped by-and-by. Or maybe crazily a desire for a return of the NSDAP? bu then German popular support for them collapsed once the mass graves became public.

For Japan, a good option to set this off might be if the US tries to depose the Emperor, that could easily set the Japanese off. But I think the Allies would cave and just let the Japanese keep their monarch relatively quickly.
 

Armored Diplomacy

Young Lochinvar said:
The cost of rebuilding Germany for the Allies was high in political terms given they were an enemy and you have Britain, Benelux, and France to also rebuild. That political cost grows higher once the Americans realise the Germans are ‘ungrateful’ for the economic assistance they are providing. Maybe the Americans don’t resupply Berlin during the blockade as a show of force, or maybe they start circulating the idea that they’ll let the Soviets administer West Germany as well (the Western Allies’d never actual hand them over but the propaganda value of the Soviets as a threat would, I suspect, bring the West Germans on board to the whole thing. )
Click to expand...

Except this POD assumes they do something different. Say instead of rebuilding Germany they try to deindustrialize it. Even if not fully they could try severely limiting it's industry. There was a proposal to seriously reduce German industry to light industry, things like toy manufacturing. Keep in mind some US officials seriously suggested purposely limiting Japan's economic growth and not letting it have a standard of living higher than any of the countries it had conquered.
 

Young Lochinvar

Armored Diplomacy said:
Except this POD assumes they do something different. Say instead of rebuilding Germany they try to deindustrialize it. Keep in mind some US officials seriously suggested purposely limiting Japan's economic growth and not letting it have a standard of living higher than any of the countries it had conquered.
Click to expand...

Ok, I didn’t realise that was your preferred jumping off point, rather than just a likely option you’d considered. I apologise for that.

Still, I suspect the Western Allies would give in to German demands semi-quickly. OTL it took the allies at most like 2 years to realise a deindustrialisation approach was untenable in Germany, I suspect with a civil disobedience campaign they’d arrive at that conclusion faster.
 

Aphrodite

Banned
Armored Diplomacy said:
Except this POD assumes they do something different. Say instead of rebuilding Germany they try to deindustrialize it. Even if not fully they could try severely limiting it's industry. There was a proposal to seriously reduce German industry to light industry, things like toy manufacturing. Keep in mind some US officials seriously suggested purposely limiting Japan's economic growth and not letting it have a standard of living higher than any of the countries it had conquered.
Click to expand...


If the occupying powers have a policy that so infuriates the occupied, it means they don't give a damn. In that case, they will respond with mass punishments to enforce their will.

While the Soviets might be in the mood of randomly shooting people as examples, the West is more likely to be subtle. They might just cut the electricity and turn off the water for awhile. When the locals concede, they will find some new harsh policy like increased taxes
 

Carl Schwamberger

In a tangental sense the large scale black market activity were civil disobedience. That is large scale noncompliance with the rationing, taxes, commerce regulation, & currency controls.
 

Raferty

Well, there was a good degree of civil disobedience in the late 60s-early 80s in West Germany to Allied occupation. Of course, the West German government had no patience for it and the Allies did not need to react on their own anyways.
 

Oldbill

At the end of WWII, the US, and other nations, were very intent upon demobilization and getting things back to normal. When the Korean War kicked off, veterans were recalled to active duty, and they were, to put it mildly, pissed. Calling them back for further duty, even if occupation duty, is going to be quite unpopular, and political suicide. Even by 1955, the French are not in the mood to listen or put up with Japanese or German dissatisfaction. The US, even with this later POD, will not be too accommodating and willing to let bygones be bygones, nor I think, will the Brits. Politically, it will soon be very unpopular in the US to accommodate the protesting factions in Germany or Japan. It is, IMO, simply too soon for people to give a hoot in hell about how the Japanese and Germans feel. If anything I think this could EASE tensions in the Cold War, as it gives a reason for the Soviets and US to work together more. A de-industrialized Germany, (if the Soviets are amenable to this, and I think they will be) is also a demilitarized Germany, and a significant buffer state between Western Europe and the Soviets. They would like that. The political permutations of the early Cold War will be wound all through this. It COULD go either way, but I doubt it will be different than what I've so inelegantly laid out.
 

Armored Diplomacy

Raferty said:
Well, there was a good degree of civil disobedience in the late 60s-early 80s in West Germany to Allied occupation. Of course, the West German government had no patience for it and the Allies did not need to react on their own anyways.
Click to expand...

What Allied occupation? Do you mean Allied military bases in Germany? Because Allied rule had ended by that point, any civil disobedience would be against the German authorities, not the Allied ones.
 

Raferty

Armored Diplomacy said:
What Allied occupation? Do you mean Allied military bases in Germany? Because Allied rule had ended by that point, any civil disobedience would be against the German authorities, not the Allied ones.
Click to expand...
That is what I meant, yes. But there would frequently be things like crowds blockading American military bases and even things like bombings and attempted assassinations of military personnel.

So yes, it was geared towards German authorities, but the presences of military bases were often targets.
 
LHB

LHB

What's the trigger for these acts of civil disobedience long-term? If you're talking shortly after the war's end that's a non-starter as Germany and Japan depended heavily on food shipped in by the occupying powers, particularly the United States, to not starve for the first few years. The extent of destruction was so great their economies pretty much ceased to exist for the first few years of occupation on any level beyond very basic subsistence. When people are busy trying not to die from hunger, cold or any number of other things that tend to happen in such situations they aren't in much of a place to be thinking about any level of rebellion against the people who are the best source of the materials they need to relieve those conditions.
 

Kaze

Banned
One of the easiest civil disobedience was done in the early days of the Japanese occupation. Take the Yakusa - many items "fell off the truck" and they organized the underground economy. The yakusa also organized all the prostitutes, geisha, loose women, and all the women with venereal diseases - then the yakusa let them loose on American serviceman raking in money, favors, and items that "fell of the truck". The mindset was it was far better for these women to be violated by the servicemen than the proper upstanding women of the country - and if the servicemen brought back to America some venereal disease, so much the better.
 

Alex1guy

Raferty said:
That is what I meant, yes. But there would frequently be things like crowds blockading American military bases and even things like bombings and attempted assassinations of military personnel.

So yes, it was geared towards German authorities, but the presences of military bases were often targets.
Click to expand...

I think the OP is aiming more for the years immediately after the War.

In Japan, perhaps if the Allies are forced to take Japan by force after accidentally killing the Emperor (and give the insane militarists who wanted to keep fighting a boost), the surrender is more brutal and contracted and there is a lot more resentment by the average Japanese person to the Allies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top