I pride myself as being a historian rather than a history buff. So this subject may be a little more complex than the wha if's we normally deal with. In 1939 Gremany kicked off WW2 by occupying countries starting with Poland and ending with a good part of Russia. France became famous for their resistence movement and Russia /Ukraine for the partisans and guearilla (?) warfare. In 1944 the US and Great Britain came through and liberated western Europe then proceeded to conquer and occupy western Germany while Russia did the same for Eastern Europe and East Germany. Both Germany and Italy were occpied by allied forces at the end of the war while new governments were established. The US also did the same in Japan. SO now to the meat. There was basically NO RESISTENCE to the occupying forces. Comparative History time... in 1991 the liberation of Kuwait. In 2003 the occupation of Iraq. There was no resistence n KUwait while Coalition forces remained in force there. Similar to western European countries like France , Belgium, Netherlands. In Iraq we see considerable resistence and guearilla operations. So thoughts about this. Wide open thread here. My wonderment is comparatively speaking Germany and Iraq was the overthrow of an extremely repressive government. So why was/is there so much resistencein Iraq and not Germany. Oh, I feel events that took place a year ago qualify as History.

The difference is probably, foreign forces under the UN banner were invited to deal with ejecting Iraqi forces, from Kuwait whereas the occupation of Iraq itself was not by invitation and was not with UN blessings.

Interesting topic.
Cheers
Peter
:-)

That's the easy part. The hard part is...there was no noticable resistance in Italy, Germany or Japan at the end of WW2 to the years of occupation which followed.. yet so much the past year in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Interesting approach. Religion could very be one of the defining characteristics, however, the resistence I feel is at a ground roots, low end level beyond the "oi issue". The common people in Iraq are resentful and are the ones doing the actual resisting. Why is this so different from what happened in the axis countries at the end of WW2? There are major religious differences in Japan vs US.

From what has been reported on the news, a lot of the resistance/insurgency in Iraq is being backed by foreign terrorists and that the majority of Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone. There are still many Iraqis who led lives of privilege and power when Saddam was in power and they are resisting, but many people in outlying areas are getting better services and care now than they were before and are happy with the help they are getting from coalition nations.
Also, there was some limited anti-occupation violence in Germany carried out by die-hard Nazis, especially Hitler Youth, in the last couple of months of the war and for a short while afterward. Most attacks were carried out against those who cooperated with the occupation forces, but there were some attacks against the occupiers as well. This activity died off when others turned in the resisters or they saw that there was limited support for their actions. Charles Whiting wrote a book about this called something like "Werewolves" or "Hitler's Werewolves."
The main difference I see is that no one went to Germany, Italy, or Japan to fight against the occupiers after the war, whereas foreigners are going to Iraq to keep on fighting even though many, if not most, people want the fighting to end.

I believe initially it was all Iraqi based, you may have pinpointed the problem however. The Iraqui resistence end has diminished and the foreign terrorists have come in and escalated the overall guerilla activities. That puts a intesresting slant on it. And, I do remember something about the "werewolves" of Germany, but I heard it more as an overall plan for resistence/guerilla activity than actual events, I've never encountered anything in my readings about this activity. I am familiar with Odessa.

I knew you wouldn't let me off the hook.
I've been mulling this complex question over and have reached the conclusion there is no single answer.
I have some possible ideas to add to the valid points already raised though...

At the time of the war years, the vast majority of the people of most European countries were of indigenous stock...i.e. let's say, 95% of Germans for example, were German by birth from German parents and they of German parents etc, so all where from the same culture, irrespective off religion or political leanings...i.e. mind set and tradition.
Whereas, taking Iraq for example, it is an "artificial country", being formed by the British who decided the borders irrespective of cultural mix. So you have Sunni and Shiite moslems, Kurds and Marsh Arabs etc, plus within each group there are many different tribes each striving to be top dog.
This multi layered cultural mix is bound to have friction, because none are totally Iraqi in a Nationalistic way . Therefore whilst some are very much behind the moves to install democracy, others are vehmenently opposed to it, as the balance of power is still undecided, with factions from each group trying to become the dominant one, hoping to rule the country to their liking and not for the good of all Iraqis.
So the reult is as we see.
The same can be said of Afghanistan, and nearer home, in what was Yugoslavia.

Just an idea.

Cheers
Peter

Very interesting question Blaster. Also some very good answers here. Here is my take on the questions. Italy, they never really wanted to be in the war in the first place, hence when given the chance to get out they took it and got out. Japan would quite probably have been much more likely to engage in resistance movements had not the Emperor taken the step of telling his people to give up. If the Emperor had ordered the Japanese people to resist Japan could very easily have resembled Iraq, or even worse. One great debate about post WWII Japan is if the Emperor should have been treated as a war criminal. While from a justice, or revenge, standpoint he probably should have been tried and convicted as a war criminal the fact that he wasn't, and was left free to keep the Japanese people in line, probably was the single greatest factor preventing the Japanese from fighting the occupying forces. For Germany I can only think that two factors were acting on the German people. One is that the Nazi regime was so evil, and so hated by the end, that there was no popular movement to preserve it at the time. The other factor might be the German people's ingrained obedience. They were so used to obeying orders, and the government after Hitler ordered them not to resist, that they just obeyed.

Iraq is a much harder question. From our, western, point of view we can't see why these people would actively resist the allied forces who were there to remove a sadistic dictator and free the Iraqi people. I think the one major factor that sets Iraq apart from Germany in this case is religion. While the religion in Japan declared that the Japanese people obey the head of their religion, the Emperor, in Iraq religion is telling some people, both Iraqis and others from outside Iraq, to resist.

Halfyank, I had the same take on the Japanese as you. The emperor said stop and that was the end of it. Knowing the Germans as I do, their blind obedience to orders is a reasonable assumption, I also think that because they were whipped and whipped badly that they felt resistence was futile. I really think Flitzer has a handle on what the problem is. And funny thing is, this is just what occured in Germany at the end of the First World War. Chaos and confusion as each group vies for power, except this time they all are focused on one hate group.....the occupiers. There was no occupation forces in Germany by the mid 20's. Some great responses guys, thanks a ton. I'm not writing a thesis or anything, but if I were I sure would have some truely great input. Of course other guys please continue to post. PLease! PLease! PLease! I really would like to see more thoughts on this.

I believe that in Iraq you are viewing a group trying to stop the spread of western-style democracy into the middle east. The initial resistance was by those that had been in powere under Saddam, and were trying to regain power, or at least keep out democracy (where they would then be in danger of going on trial for their own lives). Much of this resistance has been smashed and with Saddam captured, and his sons dead, there is not much to rally around.

Terrorists are flocking to Iraq to try and defeat the US-led coaltion by causing a continual casuality list and force the US withdrawal. If the US administration changes in the 2004 elections, they could win! Currently, Iraq is the only arena where they can readily create havoc for teh coalition and stop the spread of democracy. The terrorists were smashed in Afghanistan, although a low-level problem still exists, and they haven't been able, so far, since SEP 2001, to get at the USA, so Iraq is it.

Jeff

From 1944 To 1948 Baltic partisans (Estonia, Latvia, And Lithuania)were very effective against Soviet forces. But after that became less effective becuase of losses.After the West refused to intervene in the Hungarian uprising of October 1956. Most of the partisans accepted the Soviet Amnesty of 1955 and returned to their homes. There were reported isolated incidents of guerrilla activity as late as 1978. There was an uprising in Poznan Poland in October 1956. In the 1980's Solidarity change the Polish government.
brian

I believe Czechoslavakia also had a revolt in the 50's and Hungary was semi-successful in breaking away, but I was inferring to resistence being immediate as in comparison to what has occured in Iraq. I was unaware there was resistence in The Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania starting in 44. I just thought that was remnents of German forces that had been bypassed for a while. Thanks for the input.

Resistance would mostly come from foreign terrorist (but they'd call themselves freedom fighters) groups. It seems the fatwa/jihad issued by Bin Laden against the US is still in place.

It seemed that these resistance groups are content in "chipping away" at coalition forces with their hit and run tactics, not bothering to go all-out. It seemed like a tactic similar to Vietnam. They might be trying to convince the public, it's a war they have no business in. Trying to make them quit on their own accord.

Question: would an immediate coalition withdrawal do the Iraqis any good?