Suicide bombers as resistance tactic in WW2

AdA · Jun 11, 2012

Suicide bombers are an effective tool of terror organisations since Hizbollah popularised them in Lebanon in the 80s. Given the odds facing WW2 resistance fighters in Nazi occupied countries, how effective would the use of suicide bombers have been? I'm talking of the whole range, from walk ins with explosive vests blowing themselves in a german filled restaurant in Prague to explosive loaded trucks being driven against german held buildings in Paris. What would be the effect on german morale? Would the allies be willing to support such actions (airdroping suicide vests for example) and would some countries be more willing to use this technique than others?
I'm not trying to validate suicide bombers in any way, just wondering about the implications of it's general use in occupied Europe.

Super Missile · Jun 11, 2012

What you need to remember, is that the Germans would retaliate immediately. I believe the rule was 1 German killed = 10 French/Belgian/Dutch killed. That will surely be taken into consideration.

The Red · Jun 11, 2012

AdA said:
Suicide bombers are an effective tool of terror organisations since Hizbollah popularised them in Lebanon in the 80s.

The partisans in occupied Europe were far more successful than Hizbollah has ever been.

Snake Featherston · Jun 11, 2012

Japan used them in WWII, it didn't work as I remember it very well. I mean it horrified the USA, yes, but that just led to the atomic bombings.

King Thomas · Jun 11, 2012

It could easily discredit the resistance movement.

Kome · Jun 11, 2012

The Red said:
The partisans in occupied Europe were far more successful than Hizbollah has ever been.

Well the Partisans in the east really pull the collective average up. And then you have the Dutch, who's only major accomplishment was killing a 70 year old Dutch colonel.

AdA · Jun 11, 2012

Lebanon

The Red said:
The partisans in occupied Europe were far more successful than Hizbollah has ever been.

Who do you think kicked Israel out of Lebanon? The Syrians? The UN? Apart from, maybe, the Yugoslavs, Hizbollah was more successful than any WW2 resistance movement.

The Red · Jun 11, 2012

Kome said:
Well the Partisans in the east really pull the collective average up. And then you have the Dutch, who's only major accomplishment was killing a 70 year old Dutch colonel.

And hiding hundreds of thousands of people from Nazi oppression, and launching the first general strike against the Nazis in occupied Europe. Not too bad when you consider the scale of collaboration in the Netherlands and the initially light German occupation of 'fellow aryans'.

AdA · Jun 11, 2012

Kill germans they did...

Super Missile said:
What you need to remember, is that the Germans would retaliate immediately. I believe the rule was 1 German killed = 10 French/Belgian/Dutch killed. That will surely be taken into consideration.

The resistance movement did kill Germans, just not very efficiently. Suicide bombing would probably lead to more german deaths for each dead resistance fighter than conventional guerrilla tactics. Reprisal killings are only effective up to a point. If the resistance keeps up the fighting reprisals will lead to a mass insurrection, and the Germans didn't have the manpower to face one. I was thinking more of Poland and occupied Russia, along with Yuguslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc with maybe the French joining in later and not very enthusiastically. The Italians in the Balkans would make prime targets, and I wonder what they be the impact of an Albanian old lady walking into an Italian barracks to d laundry and blowing herself up along with a few dozen soldiers...

Danth · Jun 11, 2012

Most resistance fighters in ww2 knew that on day they would be free while in lebanon they didn't know that and thought hell if this is the end I might as well take a few of them with me

AdA · Jun 11, 2012

Totally different context

Snake Featherston said:
Japan used them in WWII, it didn't work as I remember it very well. I mean it horrified the USA, yes, but that just led to the atomic bombings.

Kamikaze are just missiles after the initial shock. For an occupying force, suicide bombers are your worst nightmare. After a while, everybody can be a walking landmine, and the stress level piles up. The Germans had it too easy in westhern Europe. If the guy next to you on that French cafe might be wearing an explosive vest your croissant will taste a lot less delightful...

The Red · Jun 11, 2012

AdA said:
Who do you think kicked Israel out of Lebanon? The Syrians? The UN?

The Knesset.

AdA said:
Hizbollah was more successful than any WW2 resistance movement.

The Warsaw Uprising alone, in the space of a few months, killed far more Germans then Hezbollah have Israelis in 30 years.

Snake Featherston · Jun 11, 2012

AdA said:
Kamikaze are just missiles after the initial shock. For an occupying force, suicide bombers are your worst nightmare. After a while, everybody can be a walking landmine, and the stress level piles up. The Germans had it too easy in westhern Europe. If the guy next to you on that French cafe might be wearing an explosive vest your croissant will taste a lot less delightful...

They had it easy because relative to their savage behavior in the East they were generally easy. It's no coincidence that France started smoldering when the Nazis began seeking for Westarbeiters the way they'd been doing with Ostarbeiters.

AdA said:
Who do you think kicked Israel out of Lebanon? The Syrians? The UN? Apart from, maybe, the Yugoslavs, Hizbollah was more successful than any WW2 resistance movement.

On the contrary, the Soviet partisan movements were masterful auxiliaries to regular armies, which is exactly what irregular warfare is meant to do. It's not meant as a warfighting tool in its own right, it's meant to bolster the combat power of a regular, conventional military.

AdA · Jun 11, 2012

Lebanon, again

Danth said:
Most resistance fighters in ww2 knew that on day they would be free while in lebanon they didn't know that and thought hell if this is the end I might as well take a few of them with me

The people who fight for Hizbollah think they are free now and don't care much what we think of their lifestyle. Polish freedom fighters of WW2 had to wait until 1989 to feel that way...
fighting dirty rather than being liberated means you can choose the terms of your liberation.

AdA · Jun 11, 2012

The Red said:
The Knesset.

The Warsaw Uprising alone, in the space of a few months, killed far more Germans then Hezbollah have Israelis in 30 years.

Israelis give up easily, is that what you're trying to say?

AdA · Jun 11, 2012

Snake Featherston said:
They had it easy because relative to their savage behavior in the East they were generally easy. It's no coincidence that France started smoldering when the Nazis began seeking for Westarbeiters the way they'd been doing with Ostarbeiters.

On the contrary, the Soviet partisan movements were masterful auxiliaries to regular armies, which is exactly what irregular warfare is meant to do. It's not meant as a warfighting tool in its own right, it's meant to bolster the combat power of a regular, conventional military.

They were. But still had to be liberated by the Red Army. Hizbolah won without having to wait for a Syrian Army to "liberate" Lebanon.

SergeantHeretic · Jun 11, 2012

The thing about suicide bombers

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.

AdA · Jun 11, 2012

Snake Featherston said:
They had it easy because relative to their savage behavior in the East they were generally easy. It's no coincidence that France started smoldering when the Nazis began seeking for Westarbeiters the way they'd been doing with Ostarbeiters.

The US treated the Iraquis as fairly as could be expected under the circumstances and still got suicide bombed. Some countries are nicer to invade then others, I guess. But a few hardliner French with a few tons of explosives could have turned that around in short notice.

LOTLOF · Jun 11, 2012

You know it's interesting.

When people we admire or sympathize with use these sorts of tactics they are 'freedom fighters' and their actions are 'heroic.' If some French or Polish women walked into a German facility in 1943 and blew themselves up they would be martyrs. Same if some Afghans sacrificed themselves against the Soviets in 1982.

When people we hate or oppose use these tactics they are 'terrorists' and their actions are 'fanatical.'

It's good to remember that one country's freedom fighters are another's terrorists. It really does matter which side of the line you're on.

dduff442 · Jun 11, 2012

Even the Western European resistance movements were invaluable because they reminded the Germans that they had neither peace nor rest anywhere outside their own borders. A spell on the Adriatic coast of Yugoslavia was no longer a nice break in the sun once Tito's forces were in full swing.

The moral impact of partisan actions was immense. So was the human burden on the occupied countries, cause for great reservations in London about arming and supplying the resistance.