Nobody was like, “Mwahaha, now we will devide Germany into two countries as punishment for doing WWII.” The Soviets had occupied the eastern half and the rest of the Allies had occupied the western half and so it was divided along those lines (what else were they going to do, start WWIII over it?). It wasn’t because Germany “deserved” it, if anything, the country was treated generously for fear of it going to the other side, and there was an understanding that the harsh conditions imposed after WWI only contributed to Hitler’s rise to power in the first place.
In Germany the shortage of food was an acute problem. […] the average kilocalorie intake per day was estimated to be 1,080, […] millions of people are slowly starving.
Germany received many offers from Western European nations to trade food for desperately needed coal and steel. […]. Denmark offered 150 tons of lard a month; Turkey offered hazelnuts; Norway offered fish and fish oil; Sweden offered considerable amounts of fats. However, the Allies disallowed the Germans to trade.
So “generous” is a bit relative here. Germany was not subject to the most extreme plans for de-industrialisation, which some had planned. But at the same time there was definitely planned hardship, which had no reasonable explanation based on security.
No, not really. How many years of malnutrition (and much worse) did British colonies like India experience? As far as unconditionally surrendering after starting the deadliest conflict in human history goes, that’s very light.
If someone punches me in the face, that’s cruel. If we’ve both stepped into a boxing ring, it’s not really cruel. If a country is subjected to three years of malnutrition under a foreign occupation, that’s cruel, if they do that after the country was forced into unconditional surrender after starting the deadliest conflict in human history (and then give them billions of dollars in 1950s money to help them rebuild), I don’t really call that cruel, I call that light and merciful.
Like what other historical precedents are you using as a standard for what could be expected? It was less cruel than the Japanese occupation, for example.
I mean, the punishment was the occupation by forces which won the war. Americans and Russians had to control Germany for some time, as their current government could not continue for obvious reasons. The cruel part was giving control of half of the country to Soviets. BTW, worse was doing the same to Poland, which was victim, not the aggressor in this war, and other countries in similar situation.
Nobody “gave” half the country to the Soviets. The Soviets had the territory because they took it during the war. I’m not sure what you think should’ve happened, should the US have attacked the USSR immediately after the war over Poland and East Germany and started WWIII?
It was something Patton advocated for but that basically nobody wanted. Everyone had just finished fighting the deadliest conflict in human history and nobody was especially eager to add “so far” to that by starting another one. It was something only the craziest and most aggressive hawks would consider.
Nobody was like, “Mwahaha, now we will devide Germany into two countries as punishment for doing WWII.” The Soviets had occupied the eastern half and the rest of the Allies had occupied the western half and so it was divided along those lines (what else were they going to do, start WWIII over it?). It wasn’t because Germany “deserved” it, if anything, the country was treated generously for fear of it going to the other side, and there was an understanding that the harsh conditions imposed after WWI only contributed to Hitler’s rise to power in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_plans_for_German_industry_after_World_War_II#Economic_consequences Quote:
So “generous” is a bit relative here. Germany was not subject to the most extreme plans for de-industrialisation, which some had planned. But at the same time there was definitely planned hardship, which had no reasonable explanation based on security.
Those conditions lasted for like three years before the Marshall Plan went into effect.
So 3 years of malnutrition is not cruel?
No, not really. How many years of malnutrition (and much worse) did British colonies like India experience? As far as unconditionally surrendering after starting the deadliest conflict in human history goes, that’s very light.
yeah, but thats not really saying that it isnt cruel.
If someone punches me in the face, that’s cruel. If we’ve both stepped into a boxing ring, it’s not really cruel. If a country is subjected to three years of malnutrition under a foreign occupation, that’s cruel, if they do that after the country was forced into unconditional surrender after starting the deadliest conflict in human history (and then give them billions of dollars in 1950s money to help them rebuild), I don’t really call that cruel, I call that light and merciful.
Like what other historical precedents are you using as a standard for what could be expected? It was less cruel than the Japanese occupation, for example.
Of course, you are right.
I mean, the punishment was the occupation by forces which won the war. Americans and Russians had to control Germany for some time, as their current government could not continue for obvious reasons. The cruel part was giving control of half of the country to Soviets. BTW, worse was doing the same to Poland, which was victim, not the aggressor in this war, and other countries in similar situation.
Nobody “gave” half the country to the Soviets. The Soviets had the territory because they took it during the war. I’m not sure what you think should’ve happened, should the US have attacked the USSR immediately after the war over Poland and East Germany and started WWIII?
I’m sure that was a war plan at that time, to attach the su
It was something Patton advocated for but that basically nobody wanted. Everyone had just finished fighting the deadliest conflict in human history and nobody was especially eager to add “so far” to that by starting another one. It was something only the craziest and most aggressive hawks would consider.