It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Post-War Iraq Vs. Post-War Germany

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   
This bring to light something we should all take into account, and keep in mind when reflecting on the 'no plan to win the peace'




WW II Flashback: 'Terrorists' Kill 1,000 Americans in Postwar Germany

The president declared victory over a year ago, but terrorists continue to pick off U.S. troops and even American civilians at the rate of three per day.

The maniacal dictator may be long gone, but his hard-core followers continue to wreak havoc across the land, with the interim government seemingly powerless to stop the mayhem.

Back home, the press takes an increasingly pessimistic tone, with some of the most prominent news organs pronouncing the U.S.'s postwar strategy an abject failure.Iraq 2004? Not exactly.

Try Germany 1946, in the first year after World War II.

What was post war Germany like?



Another Link...........

Post-War Iraq Vs. Post-War Germany

I think a lot of what people call "lack of planning" in Iraq is really just "lack of perspective". What we're doing there is worthwhile, but it's not easy or simple. No matter how you slice it, it's bloody, dangerous, and dirty work....just like it was in Germany after after WW2...

"Try Germany 1946, in the first year after World War II.

To hear the liberals tell the story, once the Allies conquered the Nazis, they stayed conquered - with American forces treated like the liberators they were.

But according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North, not every conquered German welcomed the American occupation with open arms.

On Monday North detailed the little-known truth about the post-World War II U.S. experience to ABC radio host Sean Hannity:

"From May 8, 1945 until June 1946, over a thousand Americans and their dependents were killed by German terrorists," he explained, while discussing his new book, "War Stories II: Heroism in the Pacific."

So, how did the U.S. eventually quell the violence?

"General Eisenhower went to [interim German leader] Konrad Adenauer, the guy we hand-picked to run the new government," said North. "And he told him, 'You either stop this or we'll get a new guy to run this country.'"

Adenauer prompty contacted the Wermacht and told them to take care of the problem at all costs, using former SS troops if necessary.

"It wasn't pretty," said North. "There were no trials - nobody was brought before tribunals or anything like that. The German army just went out and took care of it. And the killing stopped."

Is what we're going in Iraq worth it even if it isn't easy? Well, was Germany worth it? Was Japan? Was helping South Korea rebuild after Korea War? I say "yes," and I strongly suspect that 20 years from now, once the fighting is over and Iraq is a Democratic country, a lot of the naysayers today will have a very different perspective on whether it was worth it than they do today...



Another Link



[edit on 16-11-2004 by edsinger]




posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Ed,

As the war in Iraq being the right thing to do is all another debate in itself I completely agree with all you have posted.

There was much protest in the United States before the US entered World War II but that is not dwelled on anymore for it is now realized that stopping Hitler was worth al the costs.

Iraq will be a Democratic style of state if you like it or not, no matter the cost for we are there and we must stay and finish the job.

Everyone needs to take in account that Germany was bombed out, the germans will to fight was broken and plus there were major allies (at the time at least) like Russia in germany and others and there still where that many US death there.

I hope all goes well and History looks back and says that the US did the right thing.

Later,

Reason



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Thats a good point, I just wanted to let people know this is not our first rodeo and we will win, it will even get more nasty I am afraid. Thing is these peacenicks, would have avoided WWII if they could have.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Ed, I see that your mood says "thirsty". I will buy you a beer ANYTIME my friend...you are a GREAT AMERICAN! Now stop that pesky habit of yours...you know...taking the words tight out of my mouth.




posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
But according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North, not every conquered German welcomed the American occupation with open arms.


In other news, Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North says that we should sell weapons to the Iraqi insugents to release hostages before they behead them, and then use that money to fund a war against Iran or North Korea.



War historian my arse!



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme


War historian my arse!


Have you ever seen him? the Troops love him and he has access that would make the information you get look like the National Inquirer.

This is no joke!



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Every time I think of Oliver North I think of Mafia.

That guy is super doooper well conected.

He definetly is in the know.

He took one for the team with his jail time and I'm sure he has been more than compensated.

Later,

Reason



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

"General Eisenhower went to [interim German leader] Konrad Adenauer, the guy we hand-picked to run the new government," said North. "And he told him, 'You either stop this or we'll get a new guy to run this country.'"


"It wasn't pretty," said North. "There were no trials - nobody was brought before tribunals or anything like that. The German army just went out and took care of it. And the killing stopped."

I strongly suspect that 20 years from now, once the fighting is over and Iraq is a Democratic country, a lot of the naysayers today will have a very different perspective on whether it was worth it than they do today...





That first quote should serve as evidence that Democracy is an illusion.....

The second is typical North the hawk propoganda ... Good stuff!
Agree he is in the know... gotta love a guy who can take one for the 'team'.

The third is kinda comical, imo ... Iraq was already a democracy once and let it slip away ... It will happen again ..
Decades of occupation could not keep a democracy there....

The only way to make them one today is to abuse her citizens enough over decades of occupation as to make them submit man .. That aint kewl in my book.

We should face the fact they do not want a Western democracy,
Ask them what they would like(VIA A VOTE) and then let them have it ....
If this is truly an attempt at liberating the Iraqi people then that is the right and the just thing to do.

Anything else amounts to fraud ....



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 06:33 AM
link   


"It wasn't pretty," said North. "There were no trials - nobody was brought before tribunals or anything like that. The German army just went out and took care of it. And the killing stopped."

Problem 1)
The Wehrmacht did not exist anymore. So did the SS. There was no german army in the first place to fight anyone. Disarmed, imprisioned
Problem 2)
Adenauer was a counselor in the british Occupation Zone in 1946.
Problem 3)
The Allied forces held government and would have been the ones to fight.

And since North is the only source for this:
Nice fantasy!

[edit on 17/11/04 by tsuribito]



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by tsuribito


"It wasn't pretty," said North. "There were no trials - nobody was brought before tribunals or anything like that. The German army just went out and took care of it. And the killing stopped."

Problem 1)
The Wehrmacht did not exist anymore. So did the SS. There was no german army in the first place to fight anyone. Disarmed, imprisioned
Problem 2)
Adenauer was a counselor in the british Occupation Zone in 1946.
Problem 3)
The Allied forces held government and would have been the ones to fight.

And since North is the only source for this:
Nice fantasy!




You beat me to it.

Quality my friend!

Well, well, well....once again that lying traitor North exposed as a lying fantasist yet again.

Desparate revisionism 'for the team' (FFS if that doesn't say it all
)

Pathetic.

[edit on 17-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Well first of all, North is not infallible for sure but to automatically deny his story just because it's him?


Geeezz......



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well first of all, North is not infallible for sure but to automatically deny his story just because it's him?


Geeezz......


- Oh tune in and read the facts again Ed.

North was spinning a fantasy.
He was completely wrong about what happened and the story he told is completely divorced from the truth of what happened.

Now either he is
1) a fool who doesn't know what he is talking about - but spouting his rubbish fantasies off anyway.

or

2) he is a deliberate manipulative liar who will tell any old crock to attempt to substantiate and promote his 'world view'.

As he is already a proven liar and traitor to the democratically elected government of his country....well, you call it, huh?



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
"From May 8, 1945 until June 1946, over a thousand Americans and their dependents were killed by German terrorists," he explained, while discussing his new book, "War Stories II: Heroism in the Pacific."


Truth is they were killed very soon after the surrender before the loss had yet sunk in. There was no year long insurgency, it faded very rapidly as the summer went on and didn't survive the winter.

As the summer wore on, incidents decreased and so did any evidences of formal organization for guerrilla activities. There were, it seemed, no more "Werewolves."
www.usarmygermany.com...

There is no dangerous underground operating there now although some newspapers in the United States played up such a story. The German leaders, of course, could not admit defeat and today the attitude of the people is not so much a feeling of shame and guilt as one of having been let down by their leaders.
www.foreignaffairs.org...

In the west, the Allies found that Werwolf was a fiasco. Bunkers prepared for Werwolf operations had supplies "for 10-15 days only" and the fanaticism of the Hitler Youth members they captured had entirely disappeared. They were "no more than frightened, unhappy youths." Many, when sent off by their controllers to prepare terrorist acts, had sneaked home.
Golo Mann, The History of Germany Since 1789
according to: slate.msn.com...



Originally posted by edsinger
So, how did the U.S. eventually quell the violence?

By heavily guarding the captured depos and dumps from the very beginning so that the potential enemies wouldn't be able to arm or resupply themselves. Not that there was much violence after couple of months anyway.
www.100thww2.org...
www.usarmygermany.com...


Originally posted by edsinger
"General Eisenhower went to [interim German leader] Konrad Adenauer, the guy we hand-picked to run the new government," said North. "And he told him, 'You either stop this or we'll get a new guy to run this country.

Adenauer prompty contacted the Wermacht and told them to take care of the problem at all costs, using former SS troops if necessary.


This is pure fiction. In 1945 Adenauer was nothing but a mayor of Cologne and only briefly before the british kicked him out for inefficiency. He was in no position to make calls to Wehrmacht (the army that had been already disbanded) to build secret armies from ex SS (in prison waiting for warcrime trials...). Besides Eisenhower left back to US 1945 to become army chief of staff. He didn't stay in Germany to organize secret counter-insurgent-army with ex-mayor who had his hands full with founding german christian democrat party.

Adenauer was appointed president of the Parliamentary Council (the interim leader) in fall of 1948. And when that happened Eisenhower, who had been in US since november 1945, had already resigned from the army to become the president of Columbia university. The little 'resistance' there was to be noted had disappeared years ago.

userpages.umbc.edu...
www.whitehouse.gov...
www.cnn.com...
www.age-of-the-sage.org...


Originally posted by edsinger
"It wasn't pretty," said North. "There were no trials - nobody was brought before tribunals or anything like that. The German army just went out and took care of it. And the killing stopped."

How convenient. Secret army leaving no record behind. Secretly taking out secret enemies, no witnesses, no evidence. Founded by people who shouldn't have been there... ...nobody can prove they did or didn't exist.... I think North was recalling some of his own missions...

May have some vague base in this story, but this took place before the axis complete surrender:
North of Hamburg, toward the end of April, an entrenched group of Werwolves and their SS commanders refused to surrender to two battalions of the British Eleventh Armored Division. When Admiral Karl Donitz ordered them to lay down their arms on 1 May, they still persisted. A unit of the German 8.Fallshirmjager Division was finally brought in to subdue them. The German Paras found mainly dead bodies scattered around their fortified forest den.
www.feldgrau.com...


[edit on 17-11-2004 by vibetic]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join