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.
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.