Why were there no significant insurgency in occupied Germany after the war? The country had been brainwashed for years and a great chunk of the population were fanatic nazis.
In baltics there was more or less intense guerrilla war going on well to the 1950's, but not in Germany. No one of them did nothing when the soviets cucked their once so great reich for decades.
Why was that?
Why were there no significant insurgency in occupied Germany after the war...
Kevin Flores
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
ucl.ac.uk
archive.org
un.org
twitter.com
Aiden White
There were plans for one (operation werwolf), but there were no supplies with which to wage war.
Carter Scott
Germans are like robots, you gain control over them, tell them to do something and they will do it no matter what is it.
Grayson Richardson
German commies were Happyend to not have to do a Revolution they wanted to build a new state and a new World in the gdr. Also Germany was done after Two lost wars again the entire world
Jaxson Flores
Lack of conventional supply lines has never stopped guerrilla movements and Europe was full of weapons and other stuff after the years of fighting. In an example of baltics, it literally needed a forced population shift on their support areas to get rid of them.
Justin Bailey
Because the manpower pool that could have sustained such an insurgency went to the Volksturrm instead and were largely wiped out.
Owen Johnson
I'm of the opinion that there was, but it was covered up, especially in the east. I've spoken to BAOR veterans who were ordered to never leave their base alone or if at night, not in a group, because they'd be attacked and stabbed "by all those old Hitler Youth kids". So far 3 separate veterans, from different parts of the country and stationed in different parts of Germany have said the same thing.
Ayden Wilson
>ywn live in a 1960s where US soldiers blast "It ain't me" from their UH-1s while on a search and destroy mission looking for Viktor Karl
Brody Roberts
The sheer number of occupying soldiers precluded any kind of insurgency. Between the French, the British, the Americans, and the Soviets, Germany was very heavily occupied. Also, the young military-age males who are the backbone of any insurgency were basically already dead. They died in the Russian winter, and there were none left to continue the fight.
Jeremiah Jones
Because Germans just follow whoever is in charge, it's in their nature. That's why they have no problem defending Merkel's lunacy.
When the Soviets conquered Germany their high command anticipated YEARS of anti-partisan operations, they basically imagined Gernany would be like Afghanistan. They were shocked when the Germans were like "okay" and just tolerated the occupation instead.
Xavier Rivera
Then how was that Freikorps chimped out around Germany and eastern Europe for years after the first war?
Luis Cook
1. The Allied Powers did not militarily occupy Germany (Saar notwithstanding) after WW1 and the Reichswehr's authorized strength was only around 100,00 so there was really no one could challenge the Freikorps.
2. Freikorps mainly composed of demobilized soldiers who were allowed to take their personal weapons (and often crew serviced ones as well) home with them. Meaning they had an immediate supply of arms. By comparison the overwhelming majority of German military personnel at the end of WW2 were taken into Allied custody, their units disbanded, all weapons confiscated, and potential trouble makers executed/arrested.
The United States actually wound up making a virtually identical blunder to WW1 in Iraq. Most of the Iraqi Army was simply allowed to be demobilized and go home, taking their weapons with them, rather than being taken into custody. When Paul Bremer decided to permanently disband the Iraqi Army, he immediately put 400,000 soldiers, most of whom still had their weapons out of a job. Naturally, they drifted to extremism in short order.
t. Imperial Life in the Emerald City
Henry Bennett
youtube.com
here you
Gabriel Brooks
Any legit theories about this?
James Green
All of their military age males were in jail or dead. Literally.
Colton Martinez
Germans tend not to go along with what their leaders say.
Ryan Cox
I think even the most diehard fanatic could see that it would be pointless. There would be essentially zero chance of victory.
Caleb Sanchez
>whole country virtually leveled by carpet bombings
>male adult population is nearly extinct,12 yo kids and old people were doing the fighting in Berlin
>live under communist rule, or the threat of communist rule if peace is broken and what little structure society has vanishes, causing UK/US/France to leave the Germans to deal with the commies.
hmm, I wonder why there was no uprising
Henry Garcia
All dead.
Juan Davis
What about 1848, the revolution of 1918, the instability during early weimar and the end of the republic, student revolts and RAF terror during the 60's and 70's, Monday demonstrations and the fall of the Berlin wall? NSU terror and burning refugee shelters?
Benjamin Moore
>Why were there no significant insurgency in occupied Germany after the war?
>Why was that?
Threatening the complete ethnic annihilation might have something to do with it.
Check the (((author))) of this claim, too.
Blake Hernandez
>Threatening the complete ethnic annihilation might have something to do with it.
Stop lying, you stormshit.
Adam Rogers
>germany must perish is a lie
>author wasn't influential to the victorious powers
lulz
>le stormy
Facts are fascist, apparently.
Brandon Moore
>germany must perish is a lie
It is. It was written by Goebbels propaganda ministry to encourage the Germans to fight harder and work longer hours. Nobody ever heard of Kaufman until then, he was a pseudonym made up by your favorite "people". That's why you see the Germans talk about it but never the Allies.
>author wasn't influential to the victorious powers
How could he be? It was written by the Nazis.
Jeremiah Allen
It was written by a jewish American, Theodore Newman Kaufman, kek.
>How could he be? It was written by the Nazis.
Hahahahahahahaha....
The book at least was proposed to US congress towards the end of WWII. Fucking idiot.
Nathan Evans
>It was written by a jewish American, Theodore Newman Kaufman, kek.
Nope, you fell for more Goebbels propaganda. Why do you think he has a German name? Can you point to ANYTHING proving mr "Kaufman" existed prior to 1941?
>The book at least was proposed to US congress towards the end of WWII. Fucking idiot.
Nope, Goebbels propaganda. That's why you don't cite any evidence (inb4 mass wikipedia quotes) and none exists.
Nathan Baker
>must be Goebbels propaganda
No, it wasn't, as wasn't the case for the Morgenthau plan.
>Nope, Goebbels propaganda.
How so?
Jack Martinez
Germany was never occupied after WWI, you fucking idiot.
Colton Carter
>No, it wasn't, as wasn't the case for the Morgenthau plan.
Giving up already? "Occupy and restore the economy" is a long way from "ethnic annihilation".
>Youtube link
Not from before 1941, idiot. Try again. Maybe your favorite? Greatest Story Never Told? Goebbels told lies, and you retards are STILL believing them.
David Myers
Fuck off, conspiratard.
Matthew Martinez
Except the same and much worse happened to Poland and yet there was an anti-communist resistance in Poland. Same with the Baltics. And even Ukraine.
Aaron Young
Oh, a new person with a number and a seat. Maybe you can provide some evidence. Who was this mysterious Mr. Kaufman? How did he come out of nowhere and write a book that nobody seems to notice in America before Goebbels notices it in Germany? What evidence is there that it was in any way taken seriously as policy? Do you have anything?
Jack Cruz
There probably was but were covered up, like in Yugoslavia
Josiah Murphy
There were uprisings in the GDR, too. Literally just search "east german uprisings."
en.m.wikipedia.org
At least do a little bit of basic research before embarrassing yourself.
Jace Howard
the guy has his own wiki page
Zachary Gomez
It was a workers uprising, not a military resistance. Completely different thing.
William Richardson
>not before 1941
>you must be giving up on my bullshit argument
I don't care about your red herrings, nigger. You failed in your claim that this was German propaganda, swallow a wheelbarrow of dicks, faggot.
Samuel Hernandez
No I didn't. You cited a youtube video that proves nothing other than a stormshit like yourself made a youtube video. Germany Must Perish is German propaganda. And now, instead of providing a birth certificate, statements of people who allegedly knew him, business records for his supposed business, publishing data, you throw insults. Really makes you think, huh?
John Cox
>posting a link means you're the creator of the video
lmao, what a desperate last ditch effort. No, Thomas Kaufman was not a German nationalist, he published his shit in the pro-Zionist US, as was the case for the Morgenthau Plan.
>muh youtube
>muh german propaganda
>muh irrelevancies
>makes you think
top kek, no, it doesn't.
Is there a point worth replying to here? No, didn't think so. Nice try.
Lincoln Howard
Not really. Clearly you have some kind of confirmation bias issues going on. It sounds as though you just want to validate your impotent rage against germans by baiting "muh docile worker ants" memes from other posters.
Nathan Smith
No one calls Polish Poznan protests from 1956 an anti-communist armed resistance. We are talking here about partisans fighting against the new regime.
Adam Ross
>posting a link means you're the creator of the video
I don't even know how you came to that idiotic conclusion. No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying Youtube is worthless. Anyone can make a video and say anything.
>No, Thomas Kaufman was not a German nationalist,
He has a German name, and published a "book" that appeared primarily for galvanization of Nazi German working and war efforts. Really makes you think, doesn't it?
>he published his shit in the pro-Zionist US, as was the case for the Morgenthau Plan.
Then why was it first noticed by Goebbels?
>Is there a point worth replying to here? No, didn't think so. Nice try.
The point is that you haven't cited any actual evidence of my questions. Where is the evidence that Mr. Kaufman existed before writing his book? Where is the evidence that anyone outside Germany read it or took it seriously? Why is it first noticed by Goebbels of all people? Because you're the one claiming that the Allies were threatening "Ethnic annihilation", and relying on a piece of German propaganda to "prove" it.
Joseph Morgan
>I don't even know how you came to that idiotic conclusion
You said it yourself, fucking idiot.
>No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying Youtube is worthless. Anyone can make a video and say anything.
Yes, it was, and your point is irrelevant. The information exists outside of wiki and youtube, a quick citation on youtube doesn't imply what you think it does.
>He has a German name, and published a "book" that appeared primarily for galvanization of Nazi German working and war efforts. Really makes you think, doesn't it?
OMG GERMAN SOUNDING = GERMAN NATIONALISM
Eat a bowl of dicks, fucking idiot. Same as above, he advocated for something completely against what you're claiming.
>Then why was it first noticed by Goebbels?
LADIES AND GENTS, GOEBBELS CLAIMS THE SKY IS BLUE AND GRASS IS GREEN, MUST BE HIS PROPAGANDA...
Sheep.
>The point is that you haven't cited any actual evidence of my questions.
The existence of the book itself plus the Morgenthau Plan is more than enough. You're in complete denial. Using Goebbels doesn't excuse your own ignorance.
Jordan Morris
>You said it yourself, fucking idiot.
No I didn't. Please, cite to one of my posts where I said such a thing.
>Yes, it was, and your point is irrelevant. The information exists outside of wiki and youtube, a quick citation on youtube doesn't imply what you think it does.
Then you should have no trouble actually citing something contemporary to its alleged existence. But for some reason, the only "information" you can dredge up is stuff long after lying Nazis have had time to muddy the waters.
>OMG GERMAN SOUNDING = GERMAN NATIONALISM
Yes, it's so strange to assume that a German man would be a German national. You know, like how Lenin having one Jewish grandfather means that Jews invented Bolshevism. It's not so much fun when the standards are equally applied, is it?
>LADIES AND GENTS, GOEBBELS CLAIMS THE SKY IS BLUE AND GRASS IS GREEN, MUST BE HIS PROPAGANDA...
You're really getting buttmad, aren't you? Can't you keep your cool and provide some actual evidence? The first official notice of "Germany must Perish" was Goebbels Ministry. Why is that?
>The existence of the book itself plus the Morgenthau Plan is more than enough
No they aren't. Someone (supposedly) wrote a book. That in no way demosntrates it had any influence on policy. You'd need to show that someone important read that book and attempted to implement it. Which you haven't done, of course.
>Using Goebbels doesn't excuse your own ignorance.
What ignorance? It's just a long list of lying fabrication from the official German Propaganda minister. You know, alongside things like the Gleiwitz incident and the "Destruction" of Dresden.
Landon Watson
en.wikipedia.org
This is his father's wiki page.
Tyler Collins
>Most of the Iraqi Army was simply allowed to be demobilized and go home, taking their weapons with them, rather than being taken into custody.
Why was this allowed to happen? Surely someone would have seen how stupid that decision was.
Camden Brooks
>No I didn't. Please, cite to one of my posts where I said such a thing.
You mean here >I didn't say what I meant to say
Damage control.
>Then you should have no trouble actually citing something contemporary to its alleged existence. But for some reason, the only "information" you can dredge up is stuff long after lying Nazis have had time to muddy the waters.
Google is your friend, and the only person who has made claims here that cannot be substantiated is you. This is not pure German propaganda, and its not something that didn't exist on the Western Allied side in WW2. :^)
>You're really getting buttmad, aren't you? Can't you keep your cool and provide some actual evidence? The first official notice of "Germany must Perish" was Goebbels Ministry. Why is that?
Lies and projection. Discarded. I'm not going to spoon-feed you.
>No they aren't. Someone (supposedly) wrote a book. That in no way demosntrates it had any influence on policy. You'd need to show that someone important read that book and attempted to implement it. Which you haven't done, of course.
Morgenthau Plan was considered before rejection by the Allies, where as Germany Must Perish was reported by NYT and Time, but also ignored.
Thankfully, the latter took place. I don't care about whether or not the Allies accepted it, only that this trash was written at all and considered after WW2.
Action speaks louder than words, as Germany was practically de-industrialized after WW2, pretty much in line with Morgenthau Plan.
>What ignorance? It's just a long list of lying fabrication from the official German Propaganda minister. You know, alongside things like the Gleiwitz incident and the "Destruction" of Dresden.
More red herrings and distractions.
So far, you've committed more fallacies here than you claim. Not a good look for you.
Camden Murphy
Another wikipedia article, created in 2011, whose only working links are from 1943 and onwards, (and don't mention Theodore), claiming that he was indeed German. Other information, like a supposed 1920 U.S. Census data, are simply mentioned and not even linked. I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to demonstrate here.
Let's try it from a different tack, since you seem not to be getting the point. How many copies of "Germany Must Perish" were sold in America? Can you provide any sort of figure? After all, a clearly influential book would have sold, yes?
Nathaniel Gutierrez
>somebody is German in origin
>therefore its German propaganda/nationalism
You're an idiot.
Benjamin Gutierrez
> You cited a youtube video that proves nothing other than a stormshit LIKE YOURSELF made a youtube video.
Go back to 3rd grade and learn to fucking read. I never claimed that you made the youtube video.
>Google is your friend, and the only person who has made claims here that cannot be substantiated is you.
So, no actual information.
>Lies and projection. Discarded. I'm not going to spoon-feed you.
No actual information.
>Morgenthau Plan was considered before rejection by the Allies, where as Germany Must Perish was reported by NYT and Time, but also ignored.
Oh, so now the Morgenthau plan wasn't implemented? Why is it then proof positive that the Allies were planning "ethnic annihilation" (Which the Morgenthau plan doesn't call for in any case)
>where as Germany Must Perish was reported by NYT and Time, but also ignored.
So, the Allies weren't considering it, huh? What exactly is your argument again? You've moved your own goalposts so many times, I'm not even sure what you're claiming anymore. Were the Allies threatening "Ethnic annihilation" of Germans or not?
>Action speaks louder than words, as Germany was practically de-industrialized after WW2, pretty much in line with Morgenthau Plan.
No it wasn't.ucl.ac.uk
>More red herrings and distractions.
A known liar tells you that he's found a pot of gold and wants to share it with you. Clearly his previous lies are irrelevant in deciding whether or not you believe him. That's just a red herring and a distraction.
Benjamin Martinez
Someone has a German ancestor, who gave them a German name, therefore is a German national, therefore has German notions inculcated in them, whether they live in Germany or not. I don't see what is so hard about this line of reasoning. It's used all the time in other cases and places.
Daniel Young
>Go back to 3rd grade and learn to fucking read. I never claimed that you made the youtube video.
Take your own advice.
>So, no actual information.
In your own mind.
>Oh, so now the Morgenthau plan wasn't implemented? Why is it then proof positive that the Allies were planning "ethnic annihilation" (Which the Morgenthau plan doesn't call for in any case)
I didn't claim Morgenthau was about ethnic annihilation, learn to read, it was about de-industrialization, which was carried out.
>So, the Allies weren't considering it, huh? What exactly is your argument again? You've moved your own goalposts so many times, I'm not even sure what you're claiming anymore. Were the Allies threatening "Ethnic annihilation" of Germans or not?
Kaufman was threatening it in his book, Morgenthau was advocating de-industrialization. Your inability to keep up and commit fallacies isn't my problem.
>ucl.ac.uk
>height of Germany economy in 1940s until defeat
>country split in half
>Marshall plan
This doesn't mean German industry wasn't significantly damaged towards the end of the war.
>A known liar tells you that he's found a pot of gold and wants to share it with you.
Is that what you're trying to do? Thanks, good of you to admit that you lied and want to backtrack or ignore that.
Josiah Baker
>Someone has a German ancestor, who gave them a German name, therefore is a German national, therefore has German notions inculcated in them, whether they live in Germany or not. I don't see what is so hard about this line of reasoning. It's used all the time in other cases and places.
No, it isn't. You're absolute wrong in every conceivable sense of this, as you were when you thought I was the creator of the linked video, or that this was German propaganda through Goebbels.
Multiple lies in a row.
>defending Russia means you're Russian
>defending China means you're Chinese
>defending British Empire means you're Anglo
lmao
Jaxon Brooks
>Someone has a Jewish ancestor, who gave them a Jewish name, therefore is a Jewish national, therefore has zionist notions inculcated in them, whether they live in Israel or not. I don't see what is so hard about this line of reasoning. It's used all the time in other cases and places.
Josiah Morgan
>Take your own advice.
No, I'm reading just fine. I never claimed that you posted said youtube video, just someone with similar idiotic ideas to you. This contradicts what you claimed back >I didn't claim Morgenthau was about ethnic annihilation, learn to read, it was about de-industrialization, which was carried out.
No, you claimed that the allies were threatening ethnic annihilation, of which you have provided 0 proof, other than the existence of a Goebbels propaganda book and a plan that mentions nothing of the sort.
>Kaufman was threatening it in his book, Morgenthau was advocating de-industrialization. Your inability to keep up and commit fallacies isn't my problem.
Neither of them are relevant, since neither were allied policy.
>This doesn't mean German industry wasn't significantly damaged towards the end of the war.
WHich has absolutely nothing to do with your supposed plan of "de-industrialization" that you claim the Allies implemented; rather, Germany's growth in the 1950s was the highest the country ever had.
>Is that what you're trying to do? Thanks, good of you to admit that you lied and want to backtrack or ignore that.
No, I'm saying that something being surreptitiously discovered by a propaganda ministry is not a red herring. 3rd grade. It can really help you.
Are you falsely attributing claims to me because you're lying and desperate to win this internet argument, or are you too stupid to read what I've written and understand it?
Yes, stormshits like you use this reasoning all the time. That's how you come to the conclusion that Marxism and Bolshevism were Jewish plots and Germany needed to defend against them. I don't see why you're complaining about it now.
Andrew Jenkins
Your reading is shit, you're projecting and backtracking.
>No, you claimed that the allies were threatening ethnic annihilation, of which you have provided 0 proof, other than the existence of a Goebbels propaganda book and a plan that mentions nothing of the sort.
Yeah, the ethnic cleansing of Germans prior to and during WW2 never happened. kek
>Neither of them are relevant, since neither were allied policy.
As I said, at least one of them was close to Allied policy decision making at the end of WW2. There is a reason why 'rejection' was used, retard.
>WHich has absolutely nothing to do with your supposed plan of "de-industrialization" that you claim the Allies implemented; rather, Germany's growth in the 1950s was the highest the country ever had.
Yes, it does. Deliberately targeting an enemies industrial capacity was part of the Allied/Soviet goal in WW2, no matter how much you deny it. Citing a document that shows a peak despite the country at its production peak during the war, plus later being split in half (further biasing the information), and then being given a marshall doesn't discount what happened.
>No, I'm saying that something being surreptitiously discovered by a propaganda ministry is not a red herring. 3rd grade. It can really help you.
Completely irrelevant, you lied that it was solely German propaganda, that I made up the video myself on youtube, and that the motivations for the book in question were German nationalism, and not international Zionism/Anti-German in nature.
>Are you falsely attributing claims to me because you're lying and desperate to win this internet argument, or are you too stupid to read what I've written and understand it?
No, I'm pointing out how utterly stupid your viewpoint is. Someone having a seemingly 'German sounding' name does not imply they support said ethnic group, and the book he published demonstrates that, because he doesn't defend it, he in fact attacks Germans.
Alexander Lewis
>Your reading is shit, you're projecting and backtracking.
Which is of course why you can't provide proof of that, a recurring theme in this thread.
>Yeah, the ethnic cleansing of Germans prior to and during WW2 never happened. kek
Prior? No, they dind't. During? I suppose you might call the vicissitudes of industrial warfare a form of ethnic cleansing, but it wasn't a deliberate policy of extermination or removal such as what the Nazis were doing in places like Poland, Ukraine, and Belraus.
>As I said, at least one of them was close to Allied policy decision making at the end of WW2. There is a reason why 'rejection' was used, retard.
The one that was't calling for ethnic annihilation. You have yet to prove anything about Mr. Kaufman, even so much as a birth certificate to demonstrate he existed in the first place.
>Yes, it does. Deliberately targeting an enemies industrial capacity was part of the Allied/Soviet goal in WW2, no matter how much you deny it.
If you mean there was a strategic bombing campaing, sure. But once the war was over, there was no policy to destroy German industrial infrastructure, indeed, Germany was the third largest recipient of Marhsall Plan funds.
>Citing a document that shows a peak despite the country at its production peak during the war, plus later being split in half (further biasing the information), and then being given a marshall doesn't discount what happened.
It does when you (the idiot) are claiming that per the Morganthau plan, Germany, AFTER (not during) the war was to be de-industrialized.
>Completely irrelevant, you lied that it was solely German propaganda,
> that I made up the video myself on youtube,
No, I didn't.
>and that the motivations for the book in question were German nationalism,and not international Zionism/Anti-German in nature.
Yes, because it's German propaganda, to make up a fictional threat of annihilation so that Germans would fight harder and work harder in the war.
Nathaniel Smith
>No, I'm pointing out how utterly stupid your viewpoint is.
It's entirely the same as the stormfag viewpoint you espouse. I guess communism isn't a Jewish plot after all.
> Someone having a seemingly 'German sounding' name does not imply they support said ethnic group, and the book he published demonstrates that, because he doesn't defend it, he in fact attacks Germans.
It's German propaganda. Much like the Gleiwitz incident, it creates a fictional 'attack' against the Germans that must be defended against, attempts to galvanize German populations, and thus, promotes the interest of Germans. You really are stupid if you can't follow this, since I've only said it like 8 times. 3rd grade. I'm sure there's an elementary school near wherever you live.
Christopher Phillips
>Which is of course why you can't provide proof of that, a recurring theme in this thread.
No, you just project, including the claims of 'winning the argument for arguments sake' as you keep posting in this thread, despite starting off with your own confusion/lies.
>Prior? No, they dind't.
I'll take your ignorance on what happened to the Volga Germans prior to any war between the Germans and Russians in WW2 as evidence that you are full of shit.
>The one that was't calling for ethnic annihilation. You have yet to prove anything about Mr. Kaufman, even so much as a birth certificate to demonstrate he existed in the first place.
Retard detected. His name is easily found on google.
>The one that was't calling for ethnic annihilation.
archive.org
Page 28 advocates sterilization. This isn't a fantasy of the NatSocs, it was a real book advocating ethnic cleansing.
>You have yet to prove anything about Mr. Kaufman, even so much as a birth certificate to demonstrate he existed in the first place.
You're yet to prove you're not a faggot who requires spoon-feeding and can do basic research on your own.
>If you mean there was a strategic bombing campaing, sure. But once the war was over, there was no policy to destroy German industrial infrastructure, indeed, Germany was the third largest recipient of Marhsall Plan funds.
Already explained my point on this, irrelevant.
>It does when you (the idiot) are claiming that per the Morganthau plan, Germany, AFTER (not during) the war was to be de-industrialized.
Yet they did do exactly that by taking Germany's brightest minds, heavy machinery, and technology out of the country after WW2.
Just because they didn't carry it out perfectly as described, doesn't mean they didn't consider or partially carry it out. What do you think Operation Paper Clip was about?
Hudson Morris
>No, I didn't.
Yes, you did. Here >You cited a youtube video that proves nothing other than a stormshit like yourself made a youtube video.
Liar confirmed. Fuck off.
>Yes, because it's German propaganda, to make up a fictional threat of annihilation so that Germans would fight harder and work harder in the war.
Wrong again. Kaufman exists and this text was published out of NY in the US in 1941. Get over it, lazy/dishonest fucker.
>It's entirely the same as the stormfag viewpoint you espouse. I guess communism isn't a Jewish plot after all.
lol
Apart from being more non-sequiturs of yours, the Bolsheviks were certainly made up of a majority of non-Russian foreigners, mostly Jews in 1917. Even the Poles saw this when they made propaganda pieces about Trotsky and Lenin during the Polish-Soviet War.
>It's German propaganda. Much like the Gleiwitz incident, it creates a fictional 'attack' against the Germans that must be defended against, attempts to galvanize German populations, and thus, promotes the interest of Germans. You really are stupid if you can't follow this, since I've only said it like 8 times. 3rd grade. I'm sure there's an elementary school near wherever you live.
No, it isn't. You're full of shit.
Mason Butler
Most of the male population of fighting age was dead or imprisoned
The population was disillusioned with Nazism after all the destruction it had wrought
Xavier Ward
>Also, the young military-age males who are the backbone of any insurgency were basically already dead. They died in the Russian winter, and there were none left to continue the fight.
No, most German soldiers survived the war.
Joshua Murphy
>No, you just project, including the claims of 'winning the argument for arguments sake' as you keep posting in this thread, despite starting off with your own confusion/lies.
I have not backtracked once. You have misunderstood me numerous times, but I actually have stuck to my guns.
>I'll take your ignorance on what happened to the Volga Germans prior to any war between the Germans and Russians in WW2 as evidence that you are full of shit.
Nothing happened to the Volga Germans prior to the Russo-German war, aside from what was going on in the USSR generally.
>Retard detected. His name is easily found on google.
Yes, as the author of this propaganda piece. Nobody seems to know who he was prior to that.
>Page 28 advocates sterilization. This isn't a fantasy of the NatSocs, it was a real book advocating ethnic cleansing.
Idiot. I am not contesting that such a book exists. I am contesting that it was written as anything other than a false flag by the Goebbels propaganda ministry. It is no more real than the Gleiwitz incident, where yes, actual explosives went off. They were just set by German troops.
>You're yet to prove you're not a faggot who requires spoon-feeding and can do basic research on your own.
Still no data.
>Already explained my point on this, irrelevant.
What point? You've claimed (And watch this, I will cite to your exact posts)>The existence of the book itself plus the Morgenthau Plan is more than enough. (To demonstrate genocidal intent of the Allies towards the Germans). You then admitted
>Morgenthau Plan was considered before rejection by the Allies
That it wasn't implemented, at which point you switch to
>This doesn't mean German industry wasn't significantly damaged towards the end of the war.
Oh well, the German economy was damaged during the war, especially towards the end.
1/3?
Henry Jones
Actions taken during wartime are not the same as dismembering a country after it has been defeated. There was no plan to economically eliminate Germany AFTER they'd been beaten. Just an attempt to destroy enough of their infrastructure during the hostilities to be able to subdue them. Which is why almost as soon as the war ended, the U.S. starts injecting massive amounts of capital into the parts of Germany they control.
>Yet they did do exactly that by taking Germany's brightest minds, heavy machinery, and technology out of the country after WW2.
They did not do anything of the sort. Paperclip brought in a few scientists, and that was it. Meanwhile, you have enormous injections of capital going the other way.
>Just because they didn't carry it out perfectly as described, doesn't mean they didn't consider or partially carry it out.
Just because they wrote about something in a book, doesn't mean the book was used as policy? Wow, way to concede your entire argument.
>What do you think Operation Paper Clip was about?
Mostly, determining the level of knowledge Germany attained, since the Americans also knew that the Soviets were snapping up German scientists and wanted to know what they could get out of them. All in all, it only absorbed about 1,600 people. Do you really think there were only 1,600 scientists in Germany in the 1940s? The Manhattan project alone employed over 80 times that number of people, let alone everything else the U.S. was doing.
2/3
Anthony Gonzalez
>Liar confirmed. Fuck off.
Illiterate confirmed. You might want to figure out what the word "Like" means. If I say
>You throw LIKE a girl
I am not calling you a girl, I am simply comparing you to one. 3rd grade. Will really help.
>Wrong again. Kaufman exists and this text was published out of NY in the US in 1941. Get over it, lazy/dishonest fucker.
And once again you have completely failed to even address my argument. Good job. Let me spell this out for you, since you're not very bright.
Sometime in 1941, Germany realizes the war is going to be much harder than they initially realized. They need to galvanize people even further. It's going to be hard. So what do they do? They make up a Mr. Kaufman, who publishes a book about how Germany needs to be mass-sterilized, and then 'discover' it, and look, PROOF! We need lots more tanks and guns to defend ourselves! But Kaufman is an invention of the Goebbels ministry, which is why you can't find a birth certificate for him.
>Apart from being more non-sequiturs of yours, the Bolsheviks were certainly made up of a majority of non-Russian foreigners, mostly Jews in 1917. Even the Poles saw this when they made propaganda pieces about Trotsky and Lenin during the Polish-Soviet War.
Oh look, more stormfag lies. See pic related.
>No, it isn't. You're full of shit.
It most definitely is.
3/3
Jordan White
>I have not backtracked once. You have misunderstood me numerous times, but I actually have stuck to my guns.
Yes you have, and lied for that matter, without acknowledging it, since the very beginning.
>Nothing happened to the Volga Germans prior to the Russo-German war, aside from what was going on in the USSR generally.
Which was what I was talking about.
>oh its not that, but it is that, USSR excuses what happened
Way to flip-flop in the same sentence.
>Yes, as the author of this propaganda piece. Nobody seems to know who he was prior to that.
Only you didn't, in this context. Thanks for tacitly admitting to your own ignorance, as I claimed you were being earlier.
>Idiot. I am not contesting that such a book exists.
Hahahaha, yes you have, in fact, you've been contesting anything about the author, let alone the books existence.
More lies from you.
>I am contesting that it was written as anything other than a false flag by the Goebbels propaganda ministry.
Which it isn't, because that wasn't the intention of Kaufman when writing it. Nice work distorting reality in your favor. The rest is irrelevant.
>Still no data.
Provided the text in the same post, thanks for proving you're retarded. You also fail at doing adequate levels of research on the point in question.
>What point? You've claimed (And watch this, I will cite to your exact posts)
I'll repeat myself; the link you provided demonstrating that German industry was untouched was biased because it showed German growth over a period that including a peak in wartime industry in the 1940s, the country dividing after WW2 changing the stats somewhat, and the followup Marshall plan which does not prove the point you made. I bet you forgot that point you made too.
>(And watch this, I will cite to your exact posts)
The point I brought up about it stating that it was 'rejected' does not imply that said actions didn't take place, because Operation Paperclip and destruction of Germany's industry happened
Benjamin Lopez
no one wanted to. even hardcore nazis realized the depths to which the nazis had sunk.
you may as well ask why there was no jim jones resistance after almost everyone drank the poisoned koolaid
Wyatt Mitchell
>Actions taken during wartime are not the same as dismembering a country after it has been defeated. There was no plan to economically eliminate Germany AFTER they'd been beaten.
De-industrialization did take place, just not a complete or absolute kind where Germany was left in the stone age, if that clarifies my point.
War wasn't the only factor in that either.
>They did not do anything of the sort. Paperclip brought in a few scientists, and that was it. Meanwhile, you have enormous injections of capital going the other way.
More than 1,000 scientists + engineers + technicians is not 'a few scientists.'
More distortions of yours.
>Just because they wrote about something in a book, doesn't mean the book was used as policy? Wow, way to concede your entire argument.
The point was that they considered the Morgenthau plan at all, imbecile, and they did somewhat carry out what it advocated. The existence of the Marshall Plan in no way subtracts from that point either. Great job misreading my point here as well.
The rest is more irrelevancies...
>Illiterate confirmed. You might want to figure out what the word "Like" means. If I say
Okay, so if you didn't mean it that way, why claim immediately afterwards that its only German propaganda, when it clearly wasn't?
You're still lying.
>And once again you have completely failed to even address my argument. Good job. Let me spell this out for you, since you're not very bright.
No, I did address what you stated, you have moved away from the point about whether or not the author existed, let alone the text, and what it was advocating. Your sole goal here is to argue it was German propaganda only, thats only a secondary aspect in the existence of the text itself, a continued distortion of reality on your part.
Stopped reading the rest of your side-stepping blather.
>Oh look, more stormfag lies. See pic related.
>by 1924
I was talking about 1917, not years later when Lenin left.
Gabriel Jenkins
Response included here >It most definitely is.
You began this argument stating 'Germany Must Perish' was only German propaganda, it isn't, as it was written by a jew living in the US at the time. You've failed in your initial argument you brought up.
Landon Martin
>Lenin left.
died*
Julian Davis
>Yes you have, and lied for that matter, without acknowledging it, since the very beginning.
No, I haven't. You have perenially, and probably deliberately misunderstood what I have said. Please, point to some posts of mine that I have "backtracked", and I will set you straight.
>Which was what I was talking about.
Since you were talking about "ethnic cleansing of Germans", and no such removal programs existed in the Пoвoлжcкиe нeмцы, you are, once again, full of shit.
>Way to flip-flop in the same sentence.
No, it's general economic repression and suspension of liberties that we have in the west but were not particularly popular out East. They were not "Ethnic cleansing", which, to quote the UN definition, is
>rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.
un.org
This did not happen in the Пoвoлжcкиe нeмцы.
>Only you didn't, in this context. Thanks for tacitly admitting to your own ignorance, as I claimed you were being earlier.
No, that is exactly what I claimed from the beginning. >Nobody ever heard of Kaufman until then, he was a pseudonym made up by your favorite "people". That's why you see the Germans talk about it but never the Allies.
>Provided the text in the same post, thanks for proving you're retarded. You also fail at doing adequate levels of research on the point in question.
When someone claims a given text is propaganda, they are not saying that the propaganda lies do not themselves exist. That's why I go on to say (but you curiously omit to quote)
>I am contesting that it was written as anything other than a false flag by the Goebbels propaganda ministry.
Learn to read.
Isaiah Bell
>Hahahaha, yes you have, in fact, you've been contesting anything about the author, let alone the books existence.
Yes, Kaufman, the author of "Germany Must Perish" is an invention of the Goebbels propaganda ministry. So far you have offered nothing to contest this. The closest you've come to is the existence of a completely different (German) guy named Kaufman.
>Provided the text in the same post
The text is irrelevant when it's Goebbels propaganda.
>I'll repeat myself; the link you provided demonstrating that German industry was untouched
Learn to read. I never claimed that "German industry was untouched". Rather, I claimed that there was no POST WAR (That is, after 1945) plan to destroy German infrastructure or the economy.
>was biased because it showed German growth over a period that including a peak in wartime industry in the 1940s, the country dividing after WW2 changing the stats somewhat, and the followup Marshall plan which does not prove the point you made
It entirely proves the point I made you fucking retard.
My point: America was not trying to destroy German infrastructure, in fact, they were trying to build it up AFTER (Not during) the war.
You:This somehow doesn't count because of the Marhsall plan and destruction during the war! IT's totally not like pouring billions of dollars into an economy is a sign you want to build it up.
>The point I brought up about it stating that it was 'rejected' does not imply that said actions didn't take place,
The plan being rejected is not a sign that it didn't happen? Whatever stormtard.
>because Operation Paperclip and destruction of Germany's industry happened
Paperclip was a tiny, tiny flybite, more important for intelligence gathering than anything else. The destruction of German industry DURING the war does not imply a plan to destroy German industry AFTER the war, a point that evades you, probably because your English teacher neglected to tell you about the words dealing with time.
Brandon Bennett
>De-industrialization did take place, just not a complete or absolute kind where Germany was left in the stone age, if that clarifies my point.
Then why did German industry get BIGGER after the war than it was before or during it, in large part because of direct capital injections? It's almost like de-industrialization did not in fact take place.
>More than 1,000 scientists + engineers + technicians is not 'a few scientists.'
So now you don't understand demography.
>The point was that they considered the Morgenthau plan at all, imbecile, and they did somewhat carry out what it advocated.
More baseless assertions of yours, the second clause being actually contradicted by the Marshall plan.
>The existence of the Marshall Plan in no way subtracts from that point either
Yes it does. Unless you somehow think that the plan is to pull away all German industry only to build it back up again simultaneously, the two are in fact in opposition. Neither, of course, has any fucking thing to do with your claim of a "threat of ethnic annihilation" you mentioned all the way back in the beginning. >Okay, so if you didn't mean it that way, why claim immediately afterwards that its only German propaganda, when it clearly wasn't?
Because it was German propaganda. That's why it's known in Germany, was talked about in Germany, was first officially recognized in Germany, and you have quotes from Goebbels like how "Few Americans have ever heard of a prominent fellow-citizen named Kaufman. In Germany every child has known of him for a long time."
Joseph Sullivan
>No, I did address what you stated, you have moved away from the point about whether or not the author existed,
No, you have once again misunderstood what I'm saying. Kaufman, the author of Germany must Perish, is an invention of the Goebbels propaganda ministry. The fact that other people had the same name is irrelevant.
>I was talking about 1917, not years later when Lenin left.
And to support this you have? Oh that's right, nothing.
>You began this argument stating 'Germany Must Perish' was only German propaganda, it isn't, as it was written by a jew living in the US at the time.
It is German propaganda, written under an assumed name by an agent of Goebbels. That the assumed name happened to fit a "Jew" (You have no proof of that either), is a bizarre coincidence, but nothing more.
> You've failed in your initial argument you brought up.
Actually, that's the second argument. (Not that I can expect close reading comprehension out of you). My initial argument is that there was no threat of "complete ethnic annihilation" towards the German people as an explanation as to why an insurgency never developed in occupied Germany. Once again, you have completely failed to figure out order of posts. YOU brought up the false flag of "Germany must Perish." But alas, I have to be heading home, and can spend no more time educating other people as to the idiocy of stormfaggotry. Toodles.
Joshua Long
Germans are just cattle waiting for someone to rule them. They've been conditioned to obey without question by thousands of years of strict laws with harsh punishments, and the constant warring, reconquering, and creation and dissolution of Germanic kingdoms has desensitized them to who holds their leash.
Juan Hughes
Hello, it is I, Mr. Kaufman. I'd just like to say that I did indeed declare that Germany should perish, and I did so out of my own volition.