Did the resistance in WW2 matter?

[Yoda Power]

Resistance fighters in WW2 are often applauded in pop culture and by many people. Most famous is perhaps the French resistance, but all occupied countries have some romanticism going on about their resistance to the nazi/fascist occupation, to the best of my knowledge. However, I can only think of one country that liberated itself from occupation during the war (Yugoslavia).

So my questions are: Did the resistance matter? Would it change the outcome of the war in any way if they had not been there? Were some resistance movements important and others not?

Please enlighten me.

Discuss!

 

[Kyriakos]

No they weren't. Neither did any country standing against the axis, btw. Denmark helped the war effort as much as Yugo or Greece.

 

[red_elk]

In USSR, the partisan movement was quite formidable force. There were hundreds of thousands people and they were able to perform significant operations, such as disrupting German railroad communication during initial stage of major Soviet offensives, or even liberating and holding enclaves in German rear. Some large detachments, such as Kovpak's 1-st Ukrainian partisan division did thousands kilometers long raids against German forces, including even raids in Romania and Poland.

 

[Domen]

Denmark helped the war effort as much as Yugo or Greece.

Yes. But Yugo and Greece at least killed more Krauts. It didn't matter for the war effort, but did matter for the Krauts.

 

[Yoda Power]

In USSR, the partisan movement was quite formidable force. There were hundreds of thousands people and they were able to perform significant operations, such as disrupting German railroad communication during initial stage of major Soviet offensives, or even liberating and holding enclaves in German rear. Some large detachments, such as Kovpak's 1-st Ukrainian partisan division did thousands kilometers long raids against German forces, including even raids in Romania and Poland.

Did they make a difference? Was it easier for the Soviet army to win over the Germans because of it?

 

[red_elk]

I'm sure they did. The movement received strong support from the Soviet leadership, it was provided with resources and trained specialists. And the scale of major operations speaks for itself:

Operation Rails War, August 3 - September 15, 1943. A major operation of partisan formations against the railroad transportation and communications intended to disrupt the German reinforcements and supplies for the Battle of Kursk and later the Battle of Smolensk.[21][22] It involved concentrated actions by more than 100,000 partisan fighters from Belarus, the Leningrad Oblast, the Kalinin Oblast, the Smolensk Oblast, the Oryol Oblast and Ukraine within an area 1000 km along the front and 750 km wide. Reportedly, more than 230,000 rails were destroyed, along with many bridges, trains and other railroad infrastructure. The operation seriously incapacitated German logistics and was instrumental in the Soviet victory in Kursk battle.

Operation Concerto, September 19 - November 1, 1943. "Concerto"[23][24] was a major operation of partisan formations against the railroad communications intended to disrupt the German reinforcements and supplies for the Battle of the Dnieper and on the direction of the Soviet offensive in the Smolensk and Homel directions. Partisans from Belarus, Karelia, the Kalinin Oblast, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and the Crimea participated in the operations. The area of the operation was 900 km along the front (excluding Karelia and Crimea) and 400 km wide. Despite bad weather that only permitted the airlift of less than a half of the planned supplies, the operation lead to a 35-40% decrease in the railroad capacity in the area of operations. This was critical for the success of Soviet military operations in the autumn of 1943. In Belarus alone the partisans claimed the destruction of more than 90,000 rails along with 1,061 trains, 72 railroad bridges and 58 Axis garrisons. According to the Soviet historiography, Axis losses totaled more than 53,000 soldiers.

Operation Bagration, June 22-August 19, 1944. Belarusian partisans took major part in the Operation Bagration. They were often considered the fifth front (along with the 1st Baltic Front, 1st Belorussian Front, 2nd Belorussian Front and 3rd Belorussian Front). Upwards of 300,000 partisans took part in the operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_resistance_during_World_War_II#Partisan_operations

 

[Domen]

And here some data on achievements of the Polish Resistance - or rather just the main part of it, the Home Army (apart from the Home Army, there were also few other major resistance organizations, but not as large as the Home Army, as well as many small and improvised resistance groups):

But I'm not sure how much this mattered for the war effort as a whole. Compared to the enormous scale of the Eastern Front.

 

[Yoda Power]

I'm sure they did. The movement received strong support from the Soviet leadership, it was provided with resources and trained specialists. And the scale of major operations speaks for itself:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_resistance_during_World_War_II#Partisan_operations

 

[Louis XXIV]

I know the Dutch resistance helped provide escape routes for downed allied pilots and I suspect the French resistance did the same. They could help provide intelligence about troop movements, etc.

Certainly, the focus has been on daring raids and sabotage, but that's not all they did. These other things, while probably not enough to change the result of a war, still mattered to the people involved.

 

[Winner]

Did it win the war? No. Did it tie hundreds of thousands of German soldiers in occupation and security duties and waste a lot of German resources that would otherwise be used directly on the battlefield? Yes. The impact on German morale cannot be underestimated, too.

Sometimes though, one might wonder whether the resistance did more damage to the Nazis than to the local population. I know a few places in (Moravian) Wallachia where people are a bit ambiguous about all that "partisan" business. I.e. they did the sabotage, but innocent villagers got shot in reprisals. And when they refused to take part in fear of reprisals, the partisans shot them themselves. Big heroes.

As for the high profile hits, such as the killing of Heydrich by the Czech resistance - thousands of people were shot in revenge. So I hope it was worth it...

 

[Dachs]

In the Soviet Union, partisan forces were large and coordinated directly with the regular Red Army. Partisans had tangible battlefield and operational impact there and greatly eased the army's task. It's pretty easy to argue that Soviet partisans did matter.

Elsewhere, it's decidedly murkier. Like Winner mentioned, partisans everywhere were a double-edged sword, but outside the USSR (and maybe northern France + the Low Countries in 1944) there was no way to tangibly measure the battlefield effect that they did have. Greek partisans, for instance, were extremely active and played a significant role in the liberation of Greece, but they also kicked off the country's civil war in late 1944 and helped to stall the Allied drive in the Balkans, too. It's well and good to talk about "tying down Axis troops", but the value of such third- and fourth-line units on the battlefield is questionable anyway.

 

[dutchfire]

Well, there is places like Corsica too.

 

[Domen]

outside the USSR (and maybe northern France + the Low Countries in 1944) there was no way to tangibly measure the battlefield effect that they did have.

There was also in some other places.

Yugoslavian partisans liberated their country with only little help from the Red Army (and of course with help of vast equipment supplies from the Allies). In Poland partisans are also credited with liberating some towns & small cities - either alone, or in cooperation with the Red Army or with Soviet partisans.

Yugoslavia had the largest armed resistance movement of WW2. Here is a good website (vojska.net):

Here a very detailed chronology of WW2 in the Balkans:

http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/battles-and-operations/

By the end of WW2 Tito's partisans were so well equipped that they were practically a regular army.

Combats against regular Axis forces in Yugoslavia lasted until 15-16.05.1945 and against Axis Croatians (NDH) until 25.05.1945.

In April and May 1945 Yugoslavian partisans for example destroyed SS Division "Prinz Eugen" on their own.

I don't think any other partisans of WW2 can be credited with destroying a German division in battle.

According to the Soviet historiography, Axis losses totaled more than 53,000 soldiers.

Which is almost certainly exaggerated (as all figures concerning enemy losses usually are).

When it comes to the Balkans - here the Germans lost in combat vs. partisans (KIA, MIA, WIA) - according to their own data, not enemy data - 93,000 soldiers during the period 01.01.1942 - 20.04.1945, but we can suspect that the German casualty reports from 1945 (34,500 reported combat losses) are underestimated, as they had problems with accurate reporting at that time, due to catastrophic defeats. So losses for 1945 were most probably greater.

And as can be seen, losses were reported only until 20 April 1945 - so all losses from May (including destruction of "Prinz Eugen") are not here yet.

In case of Yugoslavian resistance, until August 1944 they were partisans, while since September 1944 they acted more like regular army.

Since November 1944 Yugoslavian resistance movement included - for example - one armoured brigade. Later 2nd one was fielded.

Yugoslavian partisans also had a casualty reporting system - they reported 622,000 losses (KIA, MIA, WIA) for 1942 - 1945.

==================================

Wikipedia about "Prinz Eugen" is a bit less dramatic than I've read elsewhere - it writes not about destruction, but surrender:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_SS_Volunteer_Mountain_Division_Prinz_Eugen#1945

In January 1945, the division was again in action against the Yugoslav army at Otok and Vukovar. In February it took part in Operation Wehrwolf against Yugoslav bridgehead in the Virovitica area.

The retreat from Bosnia continued and Prinz Eugen retreated through the NDH in April 1945. On 10 May, the division retreated towards Celje in Slovenia where it surrendered on 11May to Yugoslav forces.

But they forgot to mention, that after capitulation most of SS prisoners were killed or died in Yugoslav captivity.

So "Prinz Eugen" still had to suffer very high losses in May 1945, even if actual combat losses were small.

 

[Kyriakos]

And yet Prinz Eugen returned with a vengeance in the 90s :/

 

[Agent327]

In the Soviet Union, partisan forces were large and coordinated directly with the regular Red Army.

Actually partizans often emerged spontaneously and were therefore mistrusted by Soviet command (read: Stalin). Coordination only developed over time, extending Soviet control over what was essentially a non-Soviet phenomenon.

 

[Dachs]

There was also in some other places.

Yugoslavian partisans liberated their country with only little help from the Red Army (and of course with help of vast equipment supplies from the Allies). In Poland partisans are also credited with liberating some towns & small cities - either alone, or in cooperation with the Red Army or with Soviet partisans.

Yugoslavia had the largest armed resistance movement of WW2. Here is a good website (vojska.net):

Yugoslavia's an interesting case. The Germans and Italians suffered losses there, and the partisans were large and managed to liberate a great deal of the country relatively unassisted, yes. You're right. That's very impressive and a testament to the organizational, political, and military skills of the partisans and their leaders; the entire movement is an engrossing case study and virtually unique in the war in what it accomplished. But how much did Yugoslavia matter to the overall conduct of the war? I think that the Balkans in general were something of a sideshow. The outcome of the fighting there relied on the way things were going with the main armies, not the other way around.

The way I read the original question, I wouldn't have brought up the Yugoslav partisans as an example of a group that "mattered", at least in terms of the overall conduct of the war and tangible accomplishments. But that's not an attempt to minimize the extreme local success those partisans enjoyed.

Actually partizans often emerged spontaneously and were therefore mistrusted by Soviet command (read: Stalin). Coordination only developed over time, extending Soviet control over what was essentially a non-Soviet phenomenon.

Nowhere did I say that the Red Army created the partisans in the USSR, or that the relations between them and the Soviet leadership were universally amicable and cooperative, or that coordination between irregular and regular forces was perfect. Please discuss something that I did say, not what you would have liked me to say.

 

[Agent327]

Actually that is exactly what I did. Do not presume what I would have 'liked' you to say. I like to keep statements accompanied by the facts, no more.

Partizans, in fact, were awarded the same measure of distrust as those Red Army soldiers that were taken captive and managed to survive the prison camps (they were treated as traitors on return, not having died fighting the enemy). However, since in year 1 of the Great Patriotic War military losses were disastrous and communication below par (early T-34s lacked even radio equipment), Stalin had little choice but to accept partizan movements springing up behind enemy lines. It was only gradually that some coordination and control could be established and partizans were able to tie down German units in numbers; Stalin was a shrewd man and the partizan military effect was undeniable. But he never trusted anyone he couldn't control.

Sometimes though, one might wonder whether the resistance did more damage to the Nazis than to the local population. I know a few places in (Moravian) Wallachia where people are a bit ambiguous about all that "partisan" business. I.e. they did the sabotage, but innocent villagers got shot in reprisals. And when they refused to take part in fear of reprisals, the partisans shot them themselves. Big heroes.

As for the high profile hits, such as the killing of Heydrich by the Czech resistance - thousands of people were shot in revenge. So I hope it was worth it...

Morally speaking that evens out nicely with allied bombings of German civilian centers. But I'm sure it is much wiser to stand idly by while millions are led to their slaughter and complain about the stench when another batch of Jews is being burnt if the wind is unfavourable. And that total lack for the value of human lives must be attributed to acts of the resistance.

 

[Wastl]

In the grand theme of things they were completely irrelevant. If the Nazis really cared they would have delegated massive amounts of troops and wiped out even the best organised partisans, but there were far more important things to worry about, like keeping the Eastern front alive. You can always take out every little piece of resistance once you have won the war, burn down an entire country if needed, but it's not really worth trying while there is a huge army pushing you back at the frontlines.

Yugoslav and Greek partisans were probably the most effective, tied up some troops, took back control over some areas, but even they didn't matter. Their fate rested entirely on who would win the war, and that was decided by Germany and Soviets/Americans/British, anyone else was just a minor contributor. Have Germany somehow win the far and the partisans on the Balkan are gone on short notice, with maybe very few going into hiding to fight another day.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't think you have to have changed the course of the war to be relevant. I brought up the example of helping smuggle downed pilots to safety. That probably saved lives. That's not irrelevant even if it isn't determinative.

 

[Dachs]

I don't think you have to have changed the course of the war to be relevant. I brought up the example of helping smuggle downed pilots to safety. That probably saved lives. That's not irrelevant even if it isn't determinative.

If you study history at all, you ought to be operating under the axiom that every individual human's story is intrinsically important.

But that wasn't the question in the OP. Yoda asked, specifically, "Would it change the outcome of the war in any way if they had not been there?" The things that people do are obviously important to them. We should be taking that as a given. Words like "important" and "matter" aren't, therefore, being used in that way. They're being used in relation to the overall course of the war. Which side wins and which side loses. Things like that.