Why wasn't there any insurgency or resistance forces in Allied-controlled Germany post WW2?

Thinking of examples from modern-day Iraq to the French resistance in WW2 there always seemed to be insurgent groups or resistance fighters still fighting on despite a total military domination.

Why was there supposedly none in Germany when they first became occupied following WW2?
 
Thinking of examples from modern-day Iraq to the French resistance in WW2 there always seemed to be insurgent groups or resistance fighters still fighting on despite a total military domination.

Why was there supposedly none in Germany when they first became occupied following WW2?

Technically there was, but the Allies were well prepared & dealt with any residual resistance harshly. The Red Army & NKVD we're very proactive in this.

Unlike Iraq a squad of Allied soldiers occupied every street corner and most ally ways. Unlike Iraq the German soldiers were rounded up, confined, screened, and methodically released on a parole, or imprisioned if suspect. Unlike Iraq the weapons were collected and possession prohibited.
 

Deleted member 1487

The fighting men were dead, disabled, or imprisoned by 1945 and the Allies controlled the food supply. The Soviet and Allied governments were also very prepared for resistance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf#Allied_reprisals

Plus the Nazi government really made no serious effort to prepare for such a post-war resistance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf#Misconceptions

The German people who remained in 1945 were also extremely sick of war and had little desire to die especially once Hitler committed suicide.
 

Ian_W

Banned
It goes against various bits of national mythology, but resistance fighters/insurgents/terrorists need support from an external power.

In the case of Occupied France, you had the UK supplying assistance.

In the case of Iraq, you had Iran.

In the case of the American rebels, you had France.

The Nazi remnants had no one.
 
As others have said, Germany was exhausted by war, it's leaders were dead or imprisoned and Allied Armies actively occupied most of the country. Hitler dismissed any plans at organizing resistance as "defeatist" and there was basically no will to resist any further after the Nazi government surrendered.
 
What would be the objective of such resistance?

In the western zones, at least, it made no sense, as even if the WAllies pulled out (most unlikely) the Soviets would move in. Did any West German want that?
 
It does make a difference if the enemy formally surrenders or not, the leaders of the centralized organization tell their underlings to stand down and they obey as they were drilled to obey.
 
Iran's foreign policy isn't great power style realism. Its about ideology and religion.
It's also about making as much trouble for the US as possible. Vide Iran's alliances with Russia, Venezuela, and Syria, Iran's welcome of Louis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam "theology" is not merely heretical but outrageously blasphemous to any orthodox Moslem), and Iran's assistance to Al-Qaeda.
 
Also note that Iran wasn't the only one arming insurgents in Iraq. Al-Qaeda, while fading at the time, were supporting the Sunnis, especially once it was clear the Shi'ites sought rapprochement with Iran and feared its growing influence.

As was mentioned before, the German leadership failed to set up a proper resistance movement, and the German people were plain sick of it all (six years of war and only misery and ruin to show for it). The Allies made sure to prepare for any possible insurgency, though sometimes their overreaction left a bad impression on the Germans. Also, the nation-building of postwar Germany is a prime example on how to do reconstructions and is taught in universities, or damn well should be.

By contrast, the Iraq War occupation was a textbook example of what not to do. The Coalition disbanded the Iraqi Army without trying to keep track of its more dangerous elements, focused on trying to find evidence of WMDs that they completely ignored conventional weapons stocks the Iraqi Army soldiers knew where to find, and the "nation rebuilding" of Iraq post-2003 is a joke. While the Iraqi regime didn't exactly prepare a resistance movement in advance, the Coalition badly mishandled everything, practically allowing insurgencies to develop where none had existed before, and then continued to bungle the issue with their refusal to treat the insurgents as anything but "regime dead-enders".

The French resistance was a cowed but not entirely pacified populace growing discontent under the jackboot of an enemy nation. The Soviet and Eastern European partisans were literally fighting a war against extinction, where failure meant the death of themselves and everyone they ever cared about. While the Germans feared the Soviets would engage in massive genocide in reprisal for the failed attempt to wipe them out, at least Germans had West Germany to escape to (and as it turned out, the Soviets were pretty sick of the killing themselves by then, so weren't out to annihilate the German people).
 
Thinking of examples from modern-day Iraq to the French resistance in WW2 there always seemed to be insurgent groups or resistance fighters still fighting on despite a total military domination.

Why was there supposedly none in Germany when they first became occupied following WW2?

Because the suppression of Germany after WW2 was done with a considerably heavier hand (in the form of the NKVD and Morgenthau--lite USA) than the occupations of Iraq by the USA, or France by the Germans themselves earlier in the war. Resistance fighters aren't superhuman: in certain conditions it becomes impossible for them to achieve their objectives, or even to exist. Those conditions existed in 1945 Germany.
 
Top