Why did most of Europe just lay down for Germany at the start of WWII?

Great Debates
61

Originally Posted by Susanann
IF Swiss had been attacked by Germany, I, for one, certainly would not want to be in the Nazi military or German police back in WW2 assigned to arrest armed Swiss citizens .

Yes. Being strong, armed, and willing and able to resist completely without surrendering made the Swiss VERY tough. Too tough for Hitler’s armies. The Swiss people remained free during WW2 because they were tough… too tough.

If every European had the mindset, and the will, of the Swiss and the Russians, then Hitler would have been crushed.

62

Susanann dramatically overestimates the ability of lightly armed civilians to resist heavily armed trained soldiers. However, she is correct that Switzerland’s long history of having essentially their entire male population militarized, along with its terrain that neutralizes much of the modernization of 1930s and 1940s military technology made it a “nut not worth cracking.”

If the Nazis had pushed for Switzerland, they would have had Switzerland. The Swiss avoided occupation because they were in fact seen as being harder to subjugated than would be worth while. They also politically acquiesced to a lot of what the Nazis wanted from them, so much of the benefit to be had from invading was given up without the need for invasion.

I also think a big part of the reason no one stood up to Hitler early on is because much of the international community had more or less come to view the Treaty of Versailles as being unjust in regards to Germany.

Wilhelm II definitely made Germany essentially a pariah in Europe, and left them in a situation in which they had this super-tight alliance with Austria that also tied them in to all kinds of ethnic and nationalist conflicts in the Balkans. This eventually lead to a massive war, and because of years of pissing off the rest of the international community Germany got a very harsh peace. It’s understandable given the attitudes and the situation at the time. However, very quickly many people even outside of Germany started to realize that the super-harsh terms of the peace treaty really weren’t in the best interests of the Europe as a whole.

When Hitler started rebuilding the military in violation of Versailles and remilitarizing parts of Germany that were supposed to be demilitarized by the treaty, most people just saw it as adjusting for the overly harsh terms of the peace treaty. Germany was seen as a great power and great powers were entitled to have a military, not many people were willing to invade Germany (even though they easily could have when Hitler began rearmament) and incur all the costs of an occupation just to deny another sovereign state its rights as a sovereign state.

63

Originally Posted by Susanann
After you are arrested and after you are disarmed and after you are put into a concentration camp, then it is too late to try to resist. People who choose to resist at such a late date, is where the word “dumb” comes from.

Not really, not unless you were dumb as a fencepost. The German government never had a reputation of benevolence to the Jews. D - U - M - B

Not unlike a criminal who breaks into your home or who kidnaps and abducts you and takes you into his basement…it would be VERY stupid, and naive, to think while the criminal is tying you up that his intentions will be good for your fate.

The Jews in Isreal today are under no such false illusions as to what others might do to them if the Isreal were to choose to become defenseless.

64

Let’s all keep responding to Susannan and maybe she’ll see reason.

65

That may be true “if” Switzerland and Russia were the only 2 countries who refused to surrender to Hitler. Still, any victory over Russia and Switzerland, countries who fought you to the bitter end, could only happen with tremendous casualties to the German Army.

Moreover, if France, Belgium, Denmark, Luxemberg, Poland, Checkoslovakia, et al, as well as all 10 million Jews scattered throughout Europe, had all been willing to completely resist and to fight without surrender, then it would have been game over for Hitler, and an invasion of Switzerland would never take place.

Bottom line: Hitler never conquered the “2” European countries who would not surrender.

(There is also a tiny little country in SE Asia called Vietnam, who in the 20th century fought the French, the Chinese, the Cambodians, the Japanese, and the Americans, but who never surrendered and was never conquered.)

66

Except there’s kind of a difference between knowing that a government considers you second class citizens and knowing that they’re rounding you up to work and live in horrifying conditions or simply be killed. Certainly, some Jews got out before they couldn’t. But that doesn’t mean that even those who escaped knew in advance the depths to which the Nazis would sink.

Sure. And when he’s tying you up, and pointing his gun at you, you may well be thinking “Shit, this guy is going to rob my house, and if I don’t do as he says he’ll shoot me”. Not “This guy is going to tie me up, kidnap me, and take me to his basement”.

When the alternative is getting shot there and then, as, indeed, Jews were, it takes a vast amount of certainty that something worse than being shot awaits you to make you think of fighting back there and then. I can’t speak for you, but if someone offered me immediate death or a mystery option, I think i’d pretty much go with the mystery option - even if I knew that this person hated me, it would be difficult to imagine or accept that they had worse plans for me.

Because, by and large, those who seek to do Israel or Jews harm are quite open about what they would do if Israel suddenly became defenceless. Nor are they under immediate threat of death to do so. Plus, of course, the Holocaust has happened now, and that kinda sets a standard that didn’t exist before it occurred.

67

2?

68

Most of the countries that were under German occupation did have at least some partisan resistance. But, Susanann, I think you overestimate, maybe, if that’s the right word, the willingness of people in an occupied country to resist occupation, even in a population that is armed, which the majority of Europeans weren’t. If you do what you suggest, and shoot a policeman who comes to your door, you’re signing your death warrant, and most people want to live.

69

How come the US didn’t do anything about the Nazis until after our own ox was gored at Pearl Harbor? Whose idea was that?

70

Oh whatever. :rolleyes:

Replace Israel or Alabama with Iraq or Afghanistan. What do you think happens to those citizens who shoot at American troops? They bring an entire well-armed, well trained mechanized infantry platoon down on them.

Think about it like this. As much as people on this board bitch and moan about the government, at what point would you actually be willing to cross that line and actually shoot at police or soldiers? And where do you go after that (assuming you survive the encounter)? Now you’re a fugative.

I mean really. You’re the one who sounds D-U-M-B here.

71

We sent a lot of supplies, ships and whatnot to Brittain before that.

72

Well, Hitler was crushed. And the Swiss stayed “free” because it was useful to the Nazis for them to be free. Switzerland wouldn’t have been easy to occupy, but it would have happened, much as Yugoslavia was occupied. That there was a significant amount of sympathy for the Nazis in Switzerland, and a significant ethnic German population would have helped matters.

73

I’ve been convinced by Susanann. A light gun and the right attitude beats the shit out of a well-organised, well-equipped army using revolutionary tactics. Every time.

It’s just that I can’t understand why Norway fell. Norway (together with Sweden, Finland and Switzerland) has/had the highest amount of private-owned guns per capita in Europe, on par with the US. Also, those were long arms, well suited for shooting people at a distance (not handguns for shooting burglars in your own home at night), and the population was generally proficient in using those guns, since hunting is a hobby roughly as popular in Norway, Sweden and Finland as it is in rural USA. To add to that, the Norwegian terrain was and still is very well suited for guerrilla warfare (in fact, guerrilla activities were part of Norwegian military doctrine through the whole of the Cold War). Even with Norway really fulfilling Susananns requirements, they fell after a month of fighting. I guess it’s just one of those exceptions to the rule. But yeah, considering the excellent points Susanann has made, it’s just plain weird.

74

And the US Navy was involved in pretty much open anti-submarine operations against the Kriegsmarine before Pearl Harbor.

75

Switzerland avoided being occupied not from any fear of having a nation under arms; most of Germany’s enemies and Germany itself practiced universal conscription, the entire male population was militarized. There was nothing unique in Switzerland planning to put every able bodied male of military age in the field in the event of war. As you say, they acquiesced to German demands (in their defense, they had little choice being surrounded by Axis of Axis controlled nations), so there was no benefit to invading Switzerland. The major problem with invading Switzerland (aside from being pointless) wasn’t fear of Swiss resistance; it was that the Swiss would blow the rail tunnels that ran from Germany to Italy. They would take months to repair and the Italian military economy in particular such as it was would be crippled until they were repaired.

76

Yes, 2. Great Britain and the Soviet Union.

Hitler never attacked Switzerland, because it was peopled by brave, heavily armed citizens who had no scruples against trading with him on a basis highly favorable to Germany.

edit: and by way of circular definition, every country that did surrender was conquered, wasn’t it?

77

Let me know when those scary Swiss actually fight and win a war.

Anyway, why would Hitler want to invade his own bank?

78

Poland did not surrender. Poland was defeated.

I admire the fighting prowess of the Jewish people today, but Susanann is trying to apply modern thinking to a situation that was not modern. What happeneds to the Jews during WWII has changed how we look at things.

The Jewish people of Germany did not really have the ability to fight back in the way you are saying. The scenario you are describing was not possible, due to the lack of a cohesive structure of resistance. At best, you could have had what would have been the equivalent of small resistance cells, doing their best to stay hidden and striking back at the Nazi’s with sabotage and VERY limited agit-prop.

Oh wait, that’s exactly what happened.

Susanann most Jewish households didn’t have guns. Most Jewish people were law abiding citizens, with 2000 years of “life sucks, but we’ll survive” behind them to reinforce the idea that while things may be rough, and we may have to eventually leave our homes, it’s nothing we haven’t done before.

The Holocaust was new, never before had there been such a systematic and organized plan to “deal” with the “Jewish Question”. In the past, when a government as hostile to the Jews as the Nazi’s were took power, they just kicked the Jews out. Been there, done that.

By the time enough folks KNEW what was coming with the SS showed up at your door (or more likely, kicked it in at 3am to bundle your scared and confused family away) it was too late. Things had gone too far.

And the idea that Jews, from the moment the Nazi’s seized power, should have been shooting is about as sensible as the idiots here in the US deciding their going to start shooting if the cops/feds/revenooers show up on their doorstep. It doesn’t happen, and on the rare occasion it does, it goes badly for them that do. See: Ruby Ridge, Waco’s Branch Davidians and other similar examples.

79

FTR, the whole argument about whether an armed populace can defeat an army in the field is misguided. What an armed populace can, and should, do is fight an asymmetric war against an invader. The idea is to bleed the invader for however long it takes to make him decide the conquered territory is more trouble to hold than it is worth. After they pour out enough of their blood and treasure, and the war of occupation causes enough unrest in the home country, they’ll eventually declare victory and leave.
None of this is to say that being one of the armed citizens in question is going to be anything but suck in such a war. The resistance can expect to take many casualties and to “lose” every single engagement with the professional army. As long as they continue to inflict casualties and bleed the enemy of trained personnel, expensive equipment, and morale they are winning the overall conflict.
Can’t be done? Tell that to the Vietnamese and the Afghans, among others.
Before anyone jumps in to claim that my two examples listed above had outside supply and that, somehow, invalidates my point, we have never_to date_ had a one world government. Conquerors always have enemies and rivals who are happy to undermine them by supplying insurgents.

80

I can speak for myself.

IF somebody breaks into/invades my house, I will shoot them dead. Period. No need to play any hypothetical mind games or any “mystery option” games. I dont bargain with invaders.

The Swiss had the same mindset, and Hitler’s generals went elsewhere.

If Hitler had left Switzerland and Russia alone, then Hitler would probably still be in power of the rest of Europe today. The lesson is: Don’t mess with countries that will not surrender.