Suicide bombers as resistance tactic in WW2

[AdA]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

The French knew the ALlies were coming and that it was just a matter of time.

Ergo, they have no imetus to kil lthemselves in a tactic that is anathema to the most popular and prevanent religion in the country.

Most of the Western countries were big time catholic or lutheran and both faiths class any form of suicide as a mortal sin.

That is a pretty big hurtle to overcome.

And the Maquis would never stand for Frenchman blowing themselves up when it is easier to just sabotage the factory and leave.

In 1941 it would be a very optimistic frenchman who could be sure the Allies were comming.
Regarding the religious issue, you have to factor in the diference btw suicide and sacrifice. Not wanting to be excesively provocative, all christian religions are based on sacrifice. Catholic frenchmen would strap the explosives around their waist not thinking about suicide but about "dying for the sins" of their countryman.

[pnyckqx]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

The thing about suicide bombers is that they don't work.

They NEVER work and history does not record even one case of a goal of a movement of "Suicide bombers" ever actually happening.

The thing is if you kill every member of your resistance effort on their first mission, you won't have a very good ressistance efort.

It may be showy and spashy in a morbid sort of way, but in tactical and strategic terms it just doesn't work.

YOu can't build up a force of blooded fighters that way.

And fighting the Axis/Nazis with S.B.?

They're not going to care, they'll just have a nice reprisal-a-gogo.

So, yeah, no.

You left out the most important part --The Nazis are going to shout from the housetops what they've done in reprisals to the entire occupied area as a warning to anyone else who attempts such foolishness. They might even show films of the process to the population of the occupied regions.

Kinda hard to score a propaganda victory over a group who have no reservations about depopulating entire cities, and who have absolute control over the media.

Look at the reprisals over the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich for example.

Suicide bombers are a tool ONLY where there are an adequate number of useful idiots, it can achieve strategic objectives --i.e. take out a logistics center-- and is used against an invader who has some measure of restraint in response.

To answer your question about the Viet Cong. They didn't NEED suicide bombers. The US often unknowingly did that job with the killing of non combatants, turning the population against the US Intervention. Besides, the Iraqis and the Taliban could have taken lessons from the Viet Cong on how to create and hide IED's.

[Maponus]

You know, perhaps if we refocused the discussion to Axis resistance to the Allies.....

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by AdA

In 1941 it would be a very optimistic frenchman who could be sure the Allies were comming.
Regarding the religious issue, you have to factor in the diference btw suicide and sacrifice. Not wanting to be excesively provocative, all christian religions are based on sacrifice. Catholic frenchmen would strap the explosives around their waist not thinking about suicide but about "dying for the sins" of their countryman.

Suicide bombers do not work.

More to the point, how do you get a frenchman-or woman to use them.

More to the point how do you get any occupied European to the point of strapping a bomb to themselves and blowing themseves up in the market square when they have NO tradition of doing so.

None.

In fact, the French out of anyone have enshrined the mindset of "Live to fight another day."

Suicide bombing is the tactic of people who HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS!

The Fre4nch and the other occupied countries already have active ressistence groups visibly fighting the axist and doing damage to them.

They don't NEED suicide bombers and as we all know nesessity is the mother of invention.

On another note how effective are suicide bombers going to be when the occupiers have total control of the media and are far better at manipulating the truth and anyone else in the region?

Remember that the French know that too, France is on lockdown, the truth is whatever the Nazis say it is.

My final point, suicide boming is still suicide and what sane Frenchman is going to give the Bloody Boche the satisfaction of commiting suicide in a useless, impotent self defeating self annigilating dispay that no one is going to hear about?

[AdA]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

Suicide bombers do not work.

More to the point, how do you get a frenchman-or woman to use them.

More to the point how do you get any occupied European to the point of strapping a bomb to themselves and blowing themseves up in the market square when they have NO tradition of doing so.

None.

In fact, the French out of anyone have enshrined the mindset of "Live to fight another day."

Suicide bombing is the tactic of people who HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS!

The Fre4nch and the other occupied countries already have active ressistence groups visibly fighting the axist and doing damage to them.

They don't NEED suicide bombers and as we all know nesessity is the mother of invention.

On another note how effective are suicide bombers going to be when the occupiers have total control of the media and are far better at manipulating the truth and anyone else in the region

Remember that the French know that too, France is on lockdown, the truth is whatever the Nazis say it is.

My final point, suicide boming is still suicide and what sane Frenchman is going to give the Bloody Boche the satisfaction of commiting suicide in a useless, impotent self defeating self annigilating dispay that no one is going to hear
about?

Sarge, you're taking this on the emotional, not rational field.
The purpose is to force an escalation of resistance. France is, like I've said al along, the most difficult place for it. The more you go East, the easier it gets.
Even in an occupied country you can spread the message.
Doesn't the image of a French woman sacrificing her life for her country ring a bell? Joan of Arc burning to rekindle the flames of French resistance?
A coffee shop full of Germans blows up. Rumour as it it was a young woman with a explosive filled outfit. Most will shake their heads in disbelief. Some will start shooting. Once the shoting starts, the Nazis PR machine being what it was, it will turn to a full blown bloody insurrection in no time.
And let me give you another extreme example. The plot to kill Hitler. They left a bomb and went away. Hitler survived. If they had used a suicide bomber Hitler would have been dead.
In the ancient cult of the assassins the assassin was never meant to survive. That's what made them so scary.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by AdA

Sarge, you're taking this on the emotional, not rational field.
The purpose is to force an escalation of resistance. France is, like I've said al along, the most difficult place for it. The more you go East, the easier it gets.
Even in an occupied country you can spread the message.
Doesn't the image of a French woman sacrificing her life for her country ring a bell? Joan of Arc burning to rekindle the flames of French resistance?
A coffee shop full of Germans blows up. Rumour as it it was a young woman with a explosive filled outfit. Most will shake their heads in disbelief. Some will start shooting. Once the shoting starts, the Nazis PR machine being what it was, it will turn to a full blown bloody insurrection in no time.
And let me give you another extreme example. The plot to kill Hitler. They left a bomb and went away. Hitler survived. If they had used a suicide bomber Hitler would have been dead.
In the ancient cult of the assassins the assassin was never meant to survive. That's what made them so scary.

If I am the one taking this on the emotional, why do you keep using hyper emotional key words and cue words and splashy emotional imagry?

I am talking pragmatically and tactically and strategically, not emotionally.

My point is that armed ressistance WORKS and in france and elswhere has already been shown to work against the Nazis, I reffer ytou to the Maquis, and the Armja Krajowa in France andPoland respecivly.

Both were well known at the time and very demonstrably effective against the Nazis.

The resistance did not need to be radicalized, it was already active and a going concern.

In many cases it was being supported by the allies in material and personelle.

Even in Germany there was an armed resistance against the Nazis. it wasn't much but it was there.

Any allied airman shot down in many cases had a ticket to ride out of occupied zones via these active underground groups.

So, once again, explain WHY they need to use a tactic of futility when,

A) the conflict is already radicalised

B) allied aid is already coming in.

And

C)a live resistance fight working and fighting sure beats a dead dude eating it in a pone time display no one wil lever hear about.

ANd do try and refrain from using those splashy and emotionally charged imagries you seem to like so much.

[Podveleska Utoka]

"Fellahs the bottom line on Suicide bombers is that tacticvally, they are pretty much useless, strategically, they are again pretty much useless, and even propaganda-wise and in terms of guerilla warfare, once again they are useless and even self defeating.

Once again I ask is there one person on this board that can name me one cqase in whitch suicide bombers/fighters led directly and by definition to their own side's victory?" SergeantHeretic

You cant look at suicide bombers as an army on its own, loking from a merely military perspective, they are a weapon just like any other, and your question is same as asking when did purely airforce win a war. Or Tanks?
War is an intricate business, and a blody one. Suicide Bombers are desperate men, who usualy lost everything to someone and want revenge. They are seeked out and recruited by terorists. I also dont see your point of them being useless (militarily). Suicide bomber is a man, and how many people he takes with him depends on the bomb, but he is never going to take less than 10 people with him. Apart from killing civilians and the cowardice of such an action, it is a great weapon cause you take 10 guys "enemies" with loss of one man. I ask you, when would taliban of today be able to take 10 marines with him?

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by Podveleska Utoka

"Fellahs the bottom line on Suicide bombers is that tacticvally, they are pretty much useless, strategically, they are again pretty much useless, and even propaganda-wise and in terms of guerilla warfare, once again they are useless and even self defeating.

Once again I ask is there one person on this board that can name me one cqase in whitch suicide bombers/fighters led directly and by definition to their own side's victory?" SergeantHeretic

You cant look at suicide bombers as an army on its own, loking from a merely military perspective, they are a weapon just like any other, and your question is same as asking when did purely airforce win a war. Or Tanks?
War is an intricate business, and a blody one. Suicide Bombers are desperate men, who usualy lost everything to someone and want revenge. They are seeked out and recruited by terorists. I also dont see your point of them being useless (militarily). Suicide bomber is a man, and how many people he takes with him depends on the bomb, but he is never going to take less than 10 people with him. Apart from killing civilians and the cowardice of such an action, it is a great weapon cause you take 10 guys "enemies" with loss of one man. I ask you, when would taliban of today be able to take 10 marines with him?

Can you please tell me one case of n actual non scummy bunch of terrorists that used or uses suicide bombers?

I mean or course, can you tell me a case of oh, say a socialist or social democracy or even Communist force that used suicide bombers and actually you know, like won?

[Podveleska Utoka]

I can say Japan but they didnt won.
As I said its an act of desperation.
If for instance al qaida had the same weapons as us and technology they wouldnt use SB. But they relatively speaking have no other choice, if they idk, buy 100 tanks how long do you think it would take US to destroy those?
Or organise for a full battle, like those of WWII, they would get burned to crisp by our air superiority. They are the ultimate underdog compared to us, hell they cant do a shit conventionaly (pardon my words)
Also it seems that you imagine an army composed entirely of SB. Hell as I said, they are just a weapon, by the terorist they arent seen as men but as a weapon/tool.
No terorist cell is composed entirely of SB, they have "regular" troops and militia which by far outnomber the SB.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by Podveleska Utoka

I can say Japan but they didnt won.
As I said its an act of desperation.
If for instance al qaida had the same weapons as us and technology they wouldnt use SB. But they relatively speaking have no other choice, if they idk, buy 100 tanks how long do you think it would take US to destroy those?
Or organise for a full battle, like those of WWII, they would get burned to crisp by our air superiority. They are the ultimate underdog compared to us, hell they cant do a shit conventionaly (pardon my words)
Also it seems that you imagine an army composed entirely of SB. Hell as I said, they are just a weapon, by the terorist they arent seen as men but as a weapon/tool.
No terorist cell is composed entirely of SB, they have "regular" troops and militia which by far outnomber the SB.

Let's try another tack, then.

In the middle East they have religious fervor and cultural traditions of SUicide "Assasisns" to explain their use of suicide bombers.

What european cultural and or religious traditions would get them to the point of the use of Suicide bombers?

Where would they even get the barest notion of putting a bomb in a harness and becoming a human delivery system for an IED?

Bear in mind, they already HAD IEDs and used them to great effect to make the Nazi's as nervous as a pimp with one whore, so given that, what is going to get them there, where do they get the idea?

[dropbearabroad]

"but he is never going to take less than 10 people with him"

That's just plain wrong. Many suicide bomb attacks have killed less than 10 people, many have been stopped before anyone was killed or even hurt. This automatic 10:1 ratio argument is incorrect. Suicide bombing attempts fail a lot of the time and there is no guarantee that a suicide bomb would have killed Hitler.

Militarily, suicide bombings won't work in WW2. The Tamil Tigers did use suicide bombings to some effect against the Indian army in Sri lanka but the situation is far too different here to use that as an argument it would work in this scenario. No matter what 'yeah but what if' scenarios you construct, the Nazis aren't going to be swayed to change their imperial ambitions, racial philosophy or outlook on how to treat the locals because they are a deluded bunch of genocidal fanatics at the best of times. If suicide bombings cause them casualties they will just crack down even more bloodily than before, their morale won't be much affected and they won't have lost anything they can't replace. For the Resistance, they lose people and public good will to little or no practical purpose, so it's a waste of limited resources. The subjugated people of France won't be suddenly inspired to rise up by suicide bombers going boom in cafes. As pointed out by others, it makes more sense for the Resistance to use the tactics they did IOTL.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by dropbearabroad

"but he is never going to take less than 10 people with him"

That's just plain wrong. Many suicide bomb attacks have killed less than 10 people, many have been stopped before anyone was killed or even hurt. This automatic 10:1 ratio argument is incorrect. Suicide bombing attempts fail a lot of the time and there is no guarantee that a suicide bomb would have killed Hitler.

Militarily, suicide bombings won't work in WW2. The Tamil Tigers did use suicide bombings to some effect against the Indian army in Sri lanka but the situation is far too different here to use that as an argument it would work in this scenario. No matter what 'yeah but what if' scenarios you construct, the Nazis aren't going to be swayed to change their imperial ambitions, racial philosophy or outlook on how to treat the locals because they are a deluded bunch of genocidal fanatics at the best of times. If suicide bombings cause them casualties they will just crack down even more bloodily than before, their morale won't be much affected and they won't have lost anything they can't replace. For the Resistance, they lose people and public good will to little or no practical purpose, so it's a waste of limited resources. The subjugated people of France won't be suddenly inspired to rise up by suicide bombers going boom in cafes. As pointed out by others, it makes more sense for the Resistance to use the tactics they did IOTL.

There is also the fact the Jean Claude detonating himself in the Al Fresco Cafe the Germans like will also kill as many French civilians as are in the blast radius of the IED.

So La Ressistence just lost some major good will points.

[Podveleska Utoka]

I dont see that religious ferwor about SB before these wars. I didnt see muslims using SB against soviets in afghanistan.
As for Europe, yeah this is not bombing but europe has a long history of gloryfication of suicide missions for instance 300 is a good example of it, they didnt have bombs, but they knew they will die and they did it anyways, just wanting to take as many persians with them.
A german oficer used the Suicide bombing firs, idk his name but its not that july 20th guy, its before, he put it in his coat when going to meet Hitler.
I am not saying that SB would work in WWII cause it wouldnt, because after an attack or two germans would retaliate and also kill any non german aproaching them.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by Podveleska Utoka

I dont see that religious ferwor about SB before these wars. I didnt see muslims using SB against soviets in afghanistan.
As for Europe, yeah this is not bombing but europe has a long history of gloryfication of suicide missions for instance 300 is a good example of it, they didnt have bombs, but they knew they will die and they did it anyways, just wanting to take as many persians with them.
A german oficer used the Suicide bombing firs, idk his name but its not that july 20th guy, its before, he put it in his coat when going to meet Hitler.
I am not saying that SB would work in WWII cause it wouldnt, because after an attack or two germans would retaliate and also kill any non german aproaching them.

None of the exambles you sighted are relevent to my question as none of the reffer directly to individuals turning themselves into mobile munitions.

The example of the 300 SPartans relates directly to military last stands, not individual acts of suicide.

And all a suicide bomber is going to do is lend creedence to the German accusation that the ressistance are TERRORISTS!

So nice job breaking it hero.

[dropbearabroad]

"There is also the fact the Jean Claude detonating himself in the Al Fresco Cafe the Germans like will also kill as many French civilians as are in the blast radius of the IED."

Agreed, even in the Middle East suicide bombings don't make the locals happy.

"As for Europe, yeah this is not bombing but europe has a long history of gloryfication of suicide missions"

Well, it's not just Europe, all societies celebrate the tradition of noble sacrifice by patriots who gave up their lives in a hopeless cause etc. But most people, even in a subjugated population, don't equate the concept of sacrificial heroism with suicide bombing.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by dropbearabroad

"There is also the fact the Jean Claude detonating himself in the Al Fresco Cafe the Germans like will also kill as many French civilians as are in the blast radius of the IED."

Agreed, even in the Middle East suicide bombings don't make the locals happy.

"As for Europe, yeah this is not bombing but europe has a long history of gloryfication of suicide missions"

Well, it's not just Europe, all societies celebrate the tradition of noble sacrifice by patriots who gave up their lives in a hopeless cause etc. But most people, even in a subjugated population, don't equate the concept of sacrificial heroism with suicide bombing.

Every act of suicide bombing I have ever heard of has been seen as a stupid, useless egomaniacal act of multiple murder by not just the west, but by the local populace.

What is the owner of the Cafe going to do when your group claims credit for blowing up his place, kiss you?

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by Podveleska Utoka

it is a great weapon cause you take 10 guys "enemies" with loss of one man.

Which doesn't do you much good if the occupying people then "execute" 10 of your people for every 1 of their own whom they lost.

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

What is the owner of the Cafe going to do when your group claims credit for blowing up his place, kiss you?

Keep on bleeding?

[SergeantHeretic]

Suicide bombing is not an act of mertydom, nor is it an act of military tactical or strategic neccesity.

It is an act of terrorism.

It always has been and it always will be.

No one and I mean NO ONE that a suicide bomber claims to be acting on behalf of will ever do anything but curse them for their act of supid selfish dumbassed murder.

[dropbearabroad]

"What is the owner of the Cafe going to do when your group claims credit for blowing up his place, kiss you?"

Well, it is France.

(Apologies for the tasteless joke)

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by dropbearabroad

"What is the owner of the Cafe going to do when your group claims credit for blowing up his place, kiss you?"

Well, it is France.

(Apologies for the tasteless joke)

Apology accepted.

"C'est la Merde, my place, my custormers, What have you done, you fools!?"