Resistance, guerilla warfare and terrorism

[Razgovory]

Something that has been bothering me lately.  It's about resistance movements in the past and present.  When I was younger I thought of resistance movements like the French Resistance, who were depicted as brave heroes fighting the Nazis.  In the aftermath of the Iraq war, I got a different impression.  Sure the Iraqi insurgents would attack US soldiers (typically ineffectively), but they seemed to do the most damage murdering and terrorizing the civilian population.  Civilians who had no choice in what they were doing, who were simply stuck between the US forces and the insurgents.  It occurred to me that these attacks had the purpose of enforcing political loyalty in the populace through terror. Ignoring the issue of occupation and whether it was just or not, that sort of behavior seems difficult to defend (though I'm certain there are plenty of people who do defend it).

What I wondered, were other "resistance heroes", like those in Europe fighting the Nazis engaging in similar activities.  Are these tactics an integral competent of asymmetrical warfare?

[DGuller]

Almost certainly true, especially in the East.  Civilians marked as collaborators are almost always marked for death, no matter where.  That said, I doubt that partisans need to attack civilians in areas where there is already a powerful sentiment against the occupiers.

[Razgovory]

Almost certainly true, especially in the East.  Civilians marked as collaborators are almost always marked for death, no matter where.  That said, I doubt that partisans need to attack civilians in areas where there is already a powerful sentiment against the occupiers.

It would seem that civilians have no choice in the matter.  After all, they have to work.  Mail men must delivery their packages, grocers sell their food, etc.

[Josquius]

In Iraq the thing wasn't so much "Occupiers out, old regime back" as with most resistance movements but instead "Occupiers are obviously leaving sometime but hopefully ASAP, we should be the new government, not those other guys!".
A bit of a different situation to resistance movements in an ongoing war ala France in WW2.

There wasn't too much in the way of civilian attacks in western WW2 resistance. Not compared to Iraq anyway. They did mostly stick to quite solidly German targets, not much in the way of bombing random markets and the like.
But then yeah, that really sucks for those civilians who happen to work in industries that help the war effort and so find themselves around valid military targets- dockers, railway men and the like.

[DGuller]

Almost certainly true, especially in the East.  Civilians marked as collaborators are almost always marked for death, no matter where.  That said, I doubt that partisans need to attack civilians in areas where there is already a powerful sentiment against the occupiers.

It would seem that civilians have no choice in the matter.  After all, they have to work.  Mail men must delivery their packages, grocers sell their food, etc.

Soldiers who are drafted and sent to the front don't have an embarrassment of riches either when it comes to choices.

[Admiral Yi]

Most European WWII resistance groups didn't have any access to enemy civilian populations.  Post war ideological combattants in contrast did.  North Koreans and Viet Cong happily killed the hell out of class enemies and running dog lackeys.

[DGuller]

Most European WWII resistance groups didn't have any access to enemy civilian populations.  Post war ideological combattants in contrast did.  North Koreans and Viet Cong happily killed the hell out of class enemies and running dog lackeys.

I think Raz was talking about own population under occupation.  It's not like Iraqi suicide bombers have bombed American civilians, with some minor exceptions.

As for the enemy civilians during WWII, you don't have to even look at partisans.  Allies readily and deliberately bombed entire cities.  Likewise, there are stories out there about Germans targeting unarmed civilian population as well.

[Viking]

The issue Raz is missing here is that the main difference is that in on case the French Resistance cared more for french civilian lives than the germans; but meanwhile both sides agreed to a certain code of war. In the case of Iraq US occupation forces were more concerned with loss of human life than the insurgents and the insurgents operated with a code of ethics far outside any comprehend-able view of legitimate means of fighting.

[Malthus]

Most "resistence movements" in Western Europe during WW2 were quite marginal. They could be complete 'good guys' because they didn't really do all that much - most of their activities were either to serve the Allies with espionage and the like or to sustain civilian morale through primarlily symbolic activities.

The reason is pretty simple: Western Europe generally lacks the sort of landscape in which large-scale guerilla movements can survive. The few times actual uprisings were attempted the Nazis had little difficulty in crushing them. 

In contrast, in places where active guerilla movements were established, like Yugoslavia, they tended to be thoroughly unpleasant.

Hence, in Western Europe an exaggerated respect for the humanity of resistance movements has lingered - because by and large they *were* humane. What they were not, was very significant or active outside of espionage and morale. It is very difficult if not impossible to run an active guerilla movement humanely. I can't think of any examples off the top.

[Barrister]

The issue Raz is missing here is that the main difference is that in on case the French Resistance cared more for french civilian lives than the germans; but meanwhile both sides agreed to a certain code of war. In the case of Iraq US occupation forces were more concerned with loss of human life than the insurgents and the insurgents operated with a code of ethics far outside any comprehend-able view of legitimate means of fighting.

The French Resistance is an example of a resistance movement that wasn't so indiscriminate, sure (but then again the size of the French Resistance is likely vastly over-stated).

But the east is what gets trickier.

[Jacob]

What I wondered, were other "resistance heroes", like those in Europe fighting the Nazis engaging in similar activities.  Are these tactics an integral competent of asymmetrical warfare?

Yup, absolutely.

A big concern of the various resistance movements during world war II was liquidating collaborators. However, I think in many cases the resistance myth, even at the time, had it that most of the local population was opposed to the occupiers even if they were fairly passive, so the temptation to go for average civillians was relatively low I believe. But I don't think there were any compunctions about terrorizing civillians who were seen as collaborators.

[grumbler]

Most "resistence movements" in Western Europe during WW2 were quite marginal. They could be complete 'good guys' because they didn't really do all that much - most of their activities were either to serve the Allies with espionage and the like or to sustain civilian morale through primarlily symbolic activities.

The reason is pretty simple: Western Europe generally lacks the sort of landscape in which large-scale guerilla movements can survive. The few times actual uprisings were attempted the Nazis had little difficulty in crushing them. 

In contrast, in places where active guerilla movements were established, like Yugoslavia, they tended to be thoroughly unpleasant.

Hence, in Western Europe an exaggerated respect for the humanity of resistance movements has lingered - because by and large they *were* humane. What they were not, was very significant or active outside of espionage and morale. It is very difficult if not impossible to run an active guerilla movement humanely. I can't think of any examples off the top.

The French resistance didn't have to launch attacks designed to show the incompetence of the Vichy government, either.  The areas of France where the resistance was most active was in German-administered France, and the Resistance didn't have to convince Frenchmen to hate Germans.

The Maquis did try to attack "collaborators" in a terrorist fashion in early 1941, but that campaign ended pretty quickly as the German reprisals were swift and vicious.  Plus, by June 1941, the Communists had joined the resistance, and they had a policy of suborning/blackmailing collaborators, rather than assassinating them.

The savage guerrilla/death squad movements tended to operate where the question of legitimacy was up in the air.  Terrorism under those circumstances was often justified by the argument that it showed that the other side couldn't protect its own people.

[Viking]

The issue Raz is missing here is that the main difference is that in on case the French Resistance cared more for french civilian lives than the germans; but meanwhile both sides agreed to a certain code of war. In the case of Iraq US occupation forces were more concerned with loss of human life than the insurgents and the insurgents operated with a code of ethics far outside any comprehend-able view of legitimate means of fighting.

The French Resistance is an example of a resistance movement that wasn't so indiscriminate, sure (but then again the size of the French Resistance is likely vastly over-stated).

But the east is what gets trickier.

I didn't say the Maquis were not indiscriminate, I'm saying they operated under a code of conduct accepted by both the occupiers and the occupied. Killing and threatening collaborators was acceptable to the society as a whole. The murderer knows that murder is wrong and in a sense accepts the risk, getting caught and punished is not unfair or unjust, it is merely very unfortunate.

I know the norwegian resistance best of all. Outside of the communists (evil murdering stalin loving traitors imho) the four great events of resistance

- murder of a collaborator who was about to "out" resistance members to their death
- bombing of a Todt-Org registration center getting ready for work conscription resulting in half a dozen deaths
- sinking of a ship transporting jews to Auschwitz (Max Manus)(before the jews were put on board btw)
- sinking of the ferry transporting heavy water to the nazi bomb project killing a good deal of people

Some of these fall within my definition of terrorism (the exploitation of the protection afforded to civilians to conduct acts of war and war crimes) but they fall within the idea of fair play in war as seen by both sides (though the todt-org bit certainly is in a grey area).

In iraq the resistance doesn't play by any form of rules and expediency is the only rule. Thats what happens when you get your morality from a book.

[grumbler]

Some of these fall within my definition of terrorism (the exploitation of the protection afforded to civilians to conduct acts of war and war crimes)

So long as you understand that that definition doesn't match with any of the generally accepted definitions of terrorism, you can use that as your personal definition, I suppose.  Just be careful not to use the word terrorism in conversations/posts without noting that you have this personal definition.

[Viking]

Some of these fall within my definition of terrorism (the exploitation of the protection afforded to civilians to conduct acts of war and war crimes)

So long as you understand that that definition doesn't match with any of the generally accepted definitions of terrorism, you can use that as your personal definition, I suppose.  Just be careful not to use the word terrorism in conversations/posts without noting that you have this personal definition.

1 - that is why I point out that it is my own definition of terrorism and I define it

2 - almost every definition of terrorism is either completely inconsistent with who the definer calls a terrorist or the definition is "somebody who I don't like who uses violence against civilians" (with the highly variable definitions of violence and civilians that only amoral expedience can muster).

3 - I take the crux of your point is that I should do as I did and not do something I didn't do.




Actually Masjid Nahwaz's definition of Terrorism (takes one to know one) is almost identical to mine. He defines it as a war crime carried out by a non-soldier. It's just that when people who share objectives or sympathize with the objective of terrorists (there is almost certainly a terrorist group with the same objectives you) decide that abandon expediency as a justification for violence then this is the definition they end up with. The rest of the definitions of terrorist usually include some nasty circumlocution or obfuscation so that it includes your enemies but excludes your friends.