Passive resistance against the Nazis

lastlaugh

I was recently having a discussion (sort of) with a friend of mine. He has very strong opinions regarding things like the death penalty (it's murder and that's never OK) and War. He is totally against the principle of War and is of the opinion that it is 'never needed'.

So I put the case of war against Nazi Germany being justified. He wasn't having that, and instead came out with the view that if everyone in occupied countries 'passively resisted' the occupation, eventually the regime would fall apart.

Does anyone agree with this view and where do you think he is getting this ideology from? Some kind of new age Ghandism or something?

Surely the only way Nazism could/should have been dealt with was with military defeat???

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

As much as I hate war, I think that claiming passive resistance could have defeated the Nazi's is absolute lunacy.

BlaasForRafa

Your friend is an idiot.

Its kind of ironic that your posting this thread on the 70th anniversary of Operation Barbarossa as well.

lastlaugh

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

As much as I hate war, I think that claiming passive resistance could have defeated the Nazi's is absolute lunacy.

That's what I think.

Here's an extract from the discussion we were having in Facebook of all places. Sorry for the lenght. He seems to have some kind of idealistic pacifist thing going on, I can't get my head around it...

"The lowest credible estimates for casualties in WW2 put the figure at 50 million dead (and many estimates are toward 90 million). As can be seen numerous times throughout history, whenever a belligerent over-ambitious regime seeks to build... an empire by invasion, the empire is unsustainable and eventually disintegrates. In the case of the Nazis, occupying and controlling Europe for any meaningful length of time would have proved impossible. Had every citizen of every country they invaded passively resisted their occupation, their empire would certainly have collapsed in no more than two decades, and probably a lot sooner. I'd suggest they would have had to withdraw from most of the occupied countries within a decade, installing puppet regimes before they left. The puppet regimes would eventually have been overthrown by popular opposition, and the Nazi regime would as a consequence, have eventually collapsed. The suggestion that had the Nazis been allowed to advance without military opposition, we would all now be under the yoke of Nazi oppression is false. Their madness was doomed to failure because it was just that, madness. Just as the Soviet system collapsed without military action, so too will the religious extremist regimes of the Middle East (it's happening now) and so too eventually will North Korea's junta (and so too will the oil/resource empire of the west, eventually to be superseded by Chinese, then possibly Russia, India, and so on, for as long as people fall to see the folly of confrontational and competitive international politics, but that's a debate in itself). There is only so long you can oppress people before the pressure for change becomes critical. I'm positive that whatever the outcome of WW2 had been, there would be no Nazi empire in 2011. I guess the human toll of the pacifist approach to opposing the Nazis would have been no more than 20 million, and the long term influence of a peaceful resistance to tyranny would have set a precedent and example to all those contemplating taking up arms"

riffmongous

How does passive resistance work against a group that is trying to exterminate you?

digme

riffmongous wrote: »

How does passive resistance work against a group that is trying to exterminate you?

I think you will find it was the Germans who didn't want a war.
As for the original question. I think your friend is away with the fairies.

Iwasfrozen

digme wrote: »

I think you will find it was the Germans who didn't want a war.
As for the original question. I think your friend is away with the fairies.

Invading other countries is not a good way to not start a war.

lastlaugh

digme wrote: »

I think you will find it was the Germans who didn't want a war.
As for the original question. I think your friend is away with the fairies.

And what exactly did the Germans want? To be good neighbours and maybe just have a little bit of extra living space somewhere local?

digme

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Invading other countries is not a good way to not start a war.

What countries ?

riffmongous

digme wrote: »

I think you will find it was the Germans who didn't want a war.
As for the original question. I think your friend is away with the fairies.

sorry mate, I don't follow

digme

riffmongous wrote: »

sorry mate, I don't follow

I was pointing out germany never wanted a war.

Orim

Conservative estimates of the number of people killed by the Nazis is just under 10.5 million. This includes the time gaining power and fighting WW2. Yet he believes that with no war and another 20 years (a strikingly low figure if their is no international confrontation and only internal opposition) the death toll of would only be 20 million?

With Hitler in control the Nazi empire may not have lasted indefinitely but the loss of life over the years would have catastrophic and probably would have exceeded the numbers that were killed as a result of the war.

lastlaugh

digme wrote: »

I was pointing out germany never wanted a war.

What did they want apart from the extermination of the Jews and a master race?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

digme wrote: »

What countries ?

Poland, Austria, Czechoslovakia. Several more after war was declared by Britain and France. Make sure to come into school tomorrow, we'll be doing our ABC's.

digme

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Poland, Austria, Czechoslovakia. Several more after war was declared by Britain and France. Make sure to come into school tomorrow, we'll be doing our ABC's.

Yes that's right. Britain declared war on Germany.And why was that?
I'll wait while you score google..........

Cannibal Ox

lastlaugh wrote:

Surely the only way Nazism could/should have been dealt with was with military defeat???

I don't think the Nazi's convinced the vast majority of German people through blitzkrieg, and I think that's important. They used non-violent methods against the vast majority of their own people to convince them to their side. So, I'd say that the point when you could've met like for like, non-violence against non-violence, was in the 1930s, not when they were rolling into Poland or when the Allies were landing on Normandy. If you restrict it to the 40s, the answer is pretty obvious, but if you step back and say, where is the moment they were enabled to commit acts of violence, the period when they started to gain power to even dream of the violence they'd commit, and how they could've been met then, I think you get a different answer.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

digme wrote: »

Yes that's right. Britain declared war on Germany.And why was that?
I'll wait while you score google..........

Because Germany had been warned several times to stop its aggressive expansion and hadn't done so. They knew perfectly well that they were starting a war with Britain and France if they invaded Poland.

I never thought the day would come when somebody on boards would try and absolve the Nazis of any culpability in the origins of the Second World War.

lastlaugh

digme wrote: »

Yes that's right. Britain declared war on Germany.And why was that?
I'll wait while you score google..........

Because they realised Appeasment wasn't going to work and Germany invaded Poland.

Mickjg

Passive resistance would not have worked. Full stop.

Don't forget what it was that the Germans were really setting out to do: Lebensraum, which translates int "living space". The didn't just want to conquer. They were planning on making room for the Aryan race, by exterminating others. Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, religious, intellectuals, political figures and activists. The people in the east of Slavic origin were to be enslaved. Those who weren't enslaved would be exterminated. There were absolutely no compassionate plans about the Nazi Empire. There was to be no sympathy. No rights. No life.

Resistance within countries failed miserably. The Warsaw uprising was blasted into the earth, as was Kiev. After Reinhard Heydrich was assassinated in Prague the response was to go to the villages of Lidice and Ležáky and murder ALL males aged 16 and over. Hitler initially wanted the reparations to be the murder of 10,000 random czechs. The only reason this wasn't carried out was because this would reduce the work force, so the former solution was put in place.

If not for the intervention of outside forces, the Nazi regime would have had no problem in firmly and long lastingly establishing itself across Europe. The Nazi's used overwhelming force and unremitting brutality to enforce their way. Fact.

The idea that passive resistance would have beaten them is utter nonsense. Even armed resistance from within led to massacre. It just could not have happened.

baalthor

lastlaugh wrote: »

so too will the religious extremist regimes of the Middle East (it's happening now)

It's actually the more secular/liberal regimes that are under threat or have been overthrown. (Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Syria,Tunisia, Bahrain)

kev9100

digme wrote: »

I was pointing out germany never wanted a war.

Is that a joke? I mean seriously, after all we now know about WW2 and the Nazi regime, how can anyone say Germany didn't want war? Admittedly, some Nazi wanted to start the war in or around 1942 but they still wanted it.

TerrorFirmer

kev9100 wrote: »

Is that a joke? I mean seriously, after all we now know about WW2 and the Nazi regime, how can anyone say Germany didn't want war? Admittedly, some Nazi wanted to start the war in or around 1942 but they still wanted it.

That's not entirely correct. Hitler and a number of his cabinet wanted war. The Wehrmacht and it's hierarchy didn't actually want a conflict broadly speaking, and whilst its easy in hindsight to admire how quickly the Germans steamrolled over France, in 1940, many German generals felt that they would loose in a conflict with France supported by Britain, and the allies had, at that time, a considerably larger armed force then that of Germany. Appetite for war wasn't overly evident amongst the population either. There were plots within the military to remove Hitler before the war even began, but these unfortunately came to nothing.

Not to mention either, that Hitler didn't actually want war with the western powers at all, though his actions certainly offered little other choice. But it's still an accurate statement to say that the Nazi's didn't want war, at least, not in the sense that the war began in 1939, as Hitler greatly preferred the idea of not having to fight Britain and maintain the status quo in western europe, in particular. The plan was always to permanently expand eastwards to the urals at the expensive of the SU, not westwards. War with France and Britain came as a byproduct of that aggressive expansionism.

Del2005

OP where does your friend live, I fancy some passive resistance and I think I'd get more than 20 years of it. ;-)

Back to the point.

The German army was given orders to commit war crimes as part of Russian invasion.

Uncle Joe wasn't any better.

How does he think the Japanese should have been dealt with? They would have loved passive resistance.

Comparing our lives and morals now, which are largely shaped by the baby boomers aversion to death after the waste of WW2, is madness. Hell just look at Libya and see how far passive resistance and then full scale war get you against a people who don't value human life.

hinault

I'm not sure that passive resistance would have overthrown the nazi war machine.

If you look at the war, the nazi's over ran countries which resisted militarily with the exception of Britain.
Every other nation were beaten of the pitch between 1939-1941.
In 1942, the Soviets through literally millions of people at the nazi war machine in order to sustain resistance.
That terrible cost in human lives would total 27 million Soviet dead by 1945.

Dannyboy83

lastlaugh wrote: »

I was recently having a discussion (sort of) with a friend of mine. He has very strong opinions regarding things like the death penalty (it's murder and that's never OK) and War. He is totally against the principle of War and is of the opinion that it is 'never needed'.

So I put the case of war against Nazi Germany being justified. He wasn't having that, and instead came out with the view that if everyone in occupied countries 'passively resisted' the occupation, eventually the regime would fall apart.

Does anyone agree with this view and where do you think he is getting this ideology from? Some kind of new age Ghandism or something?

Surely the only way Nazism could/should have been dealt with was with military defeat???

It's like taking the fundamental conclusions of WW2, then coming to the exact opposite conclusion.

The only way it can make sense is if your friend is a holocaust denier and 6 million Jews are living on Madagascar.

The real irony is that, passive resistance is what allowed WW2 to occur.

Dannyboy83

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

That's not entirely correct. Hitler and a number of his cabinet wanted war. The Wehrmacht and it's hierarchy didn't actually want a conflict broadly speaking, and whilst its easy in hindsight to admire how quickly the Germans steamrolled over France, in 1940, many German generals felt that they would loose in a conflict with France supported by Britain, and the allies had, at that time, a considerably larger armed force then that of Germany. Appetite for war wasn't overly evident amongst the population either. There were plots within the military to remove Hitler before the war even began, but these unfortunately came to nothing.

Not to mention either, that Hitler didn't actually want war with the western powers at all, though his actions certainly offered little other choice. But it's still an accurate statement to say that the Nazi's didn't want war, at least, not in the sense that the war began in 1939, as Hitler greatly preferred the idea of not having to fight Britain and maintain the status quo in western europe, in particular. The plan was always to permanently expand eastwards to the urals at the expensive of the SU, not westwards. War with France and Britain came as a byproduct of that aggressive expansionism.

Good post.
It's worth noting that Guensche & Linge among others are on record as stating that Goering and a few others on the cabinet were opposed to the invasion of Poland as they felt Germany was insufficiently armed.

Hitler certainly wanted the war.

You can hear Hitler say it himself here (he was secretly recorded in Finland), if you skip to 27:10
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2763127556620650689#

Mein Kampf is available here:
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/

brianthelion

If you want to find out about resistence in Germany during the war then you have to read Every Man Dies Alone by Hans Fallata,Re Germany wanting war that is not really true.Hitler went about taking back the lands which had been taking from them after WW1, a part which was in Poland.England and France reluctently declared war on Germany but for about 7 months they did nothing,When the Germans rolled into France so easily they were shocked,They had the Engish and French forces at their mercy at Dunkirk and they let them go all 350,000 of them.I am not saying Germany was right all I am saying is some of your facts are wrong

hinault

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Good post.
It's worth noting that Guensche & Linge among others are on record as stating that Goering and a few others on the cabinet were opposed to the invasion of Poland as they felt Germany was insufficiently armed.

Hitler certainly wanted the war.

You can hear Hitler say it himself here (he was secretly recorded in Finland), if you skip to 27:10
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2763127556620650689#

Mein Kampf is available here:
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/

I'd be interested in how/where you derived Otto Gunsche and Heinz Linge's views?

The fact of the matter is the Gunsche wasn't Hitler's adjutant in 1939 and Linge was not on Hitlers staff in 1939 either.

Are you quoting from Stalin's "Hitler Book"?

Dannyboy83

hinault wrote: »

I'd be interested in how/where you derived Otto Gunsche and Heinz Linge's views?

You can purchase Linge's memoirs here:
http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-End-Memoir-Hitlers-Valet/dp/1602398046
He is also featured in the World at War series, among others.

Gunsche never published his memoirs - the NKVD book is the main source of his views, but not the only source.

Are you quoting from Stalin's "Hitler Book"?

Yes, among others.
This should suffice:
http://www.amazon.com/Goering-Richard-Overy/dp/1842120484

I suggest you read Albert Speers 'Inside the Third Reich' if you haven't done so.
http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Third-Reich-Albert-Speer/dp/0684829495

The fact of the matter is the Gunsche wasn't Hitler's adjutant in 1939 and Linge was not on Hitlers staff in 1939 either.

thereby implying that they weren't privy to this information?

It's corroborated by numerous individuals in the inner circle.
Linge was selected as one of Hitler's original bodyguards in 1935 and rarely left his side.
Goering's opposition to the two front war/operation Barbarossa is not exactly a secret either.

Dannyboy83

brianthelion wrote: »

Hitler went about taking back the lands which had been taking from them after WW1, a part which was in Poland.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact had already been agreed prior to the invasion of Poland, which renders that theory redundant.

JustinDee

Why is this not in the History forum???

Invasion of a country's borders is an act of war, by the way.
When the Germans and Soviets (people seem to keep forgetting the USSR here) invaded Poland in 1939, it was an act of war.