Civil disobedience to Allied occupations in Germany and Japan

What about in the 1950s? Say around 1953 or so, or later? Maybe as a response to a prolonged occupation or some particular Allied policy.

In the 1950's the majority of West Germans welcomed--or at least accepted as necessary--the "occupation" by the Western Allies as the only way to prevent the country from being conquered by the Soviets. (That's not to say that many of them wouldn't have preferred the withdrawal of all troops, Soviet and western, and a unified, democratic Germany. But if that wasn't possible, they certainly didn't want the western troops to leave.)
 
I said vehemently, not violently. As in, protesting and striking, etc, while local authorities refuse to cooperate in things like arresting who the Allies want arrested, dismantling the military industries and equipment that the Allies want dismantled, etc. Basically making their displeasure known and forcing the Allies to do everything they want done by themselves. I have a very hard time believing that the Western Allies would shoot people over that.
I don't think the allies will start shooting but the longer it goes on the more it's kind of hurt and the people themselves may find turned in by the rest of the populace. And out-and-out uprising will eventually end up happening and the protesters will be shot.
 
I don't know about you, but I think I'd be pretty goddamn horrified as a WW2 Veteran if I started getting orders to execute civilians en masse just because they were protesting. Or at all, for that matter. In fact, the thought might occur to me "How is this any different then what the Nazi's were doing?" And then the thought might occur to me to get a few of my buddies and 'arrange' for an 'accident' to happen to any of the officers in my unit who were particularly eager and gung-ho in calling for mass executions.

How eager are the western powers going to be for calling for mass execution of protestors once their own troops start fragging their officers instead of committing the same kind of warcrimes they spent years fighting against.
Their troops wouldn't frag them. Roughly around the 1910s to say the 1960s was THE height of mass media/easy propaganda so they'd follow all kinds of horrible orders. Why? As I said propaganda, the same reason all the various mid-century atrocities were even doable.

They didn't frag officers because of Dresden or dropping the bomb OTL so I really don't see them fragging officers for this.
 
The Allies won't be shooting in to crowds unless they take fire first, these are disciplined troops. However I can see lots of tear gas, and clubs to disperse crowds.
 
I don't know about you, but I think I'd be pretty goddamn horrified as a WW2 Veteran if I started getting orders to execute civilians en masse just because they were protesting. Or at all, for that matter. In fact, the thought might occur to me "How is this any different then what the Nazi's were doing?" And then the thought might occur to me to get a few of my buddies and 'arrange' for an 'accident' to happen to any of the officers in my unit who were particularly eager and gung-ho in calling for mass executions.

How eager are the western powers going to be for calling for mass execution of protestors once their own troops start fragging their officers instead of committing the same kind of warcrimes they spent years fighting against.


Oh know they would not shoot at a civilians look what happened in the US in the 1960's and 1970's . Have you ever smelled the smell of Teargas rolling down the Streets . The Yells of Freedooom crying in the morning .The sound of Gun fire and tanks rolling in Det. These troops were able to kill and not think much of it later on .You are looking back at this stuff almost 70 years later and time have changed since then .
 
Once the Allies make access to food and other supplies contingent on working/not causing trouble, then these people will probably have to start taking food by force. I don’t think that’s a fight the Germans can win.
 
Top