Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Fair enough. In that sense I agree. However, even in war, I thought it helpful to have a more holistic point of view.
Did the resistance in WW2 matter?
- Thread starter Yoda Power
- Start date
The thing is that Nazis couldn't afford to delegate massive amount of troops to completely crush the resistance. In case of the Eastern front that amount had to be really massive, tens of divisions. And the fact that they probably could do it anyway, doesn't mean the partisan movement was unimportant. Likewise, they perhaps could gather enough forces to capture Leningrad or even Moscow in 1941, at the cost of collapse on all the other fronts and eventually losing war anyway. Which doesn't mean holding Leningrad and Moscow was uniportant for the USSR.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Dachs nailed it here, but I do have to note the standard being applied to irregular troops in this thread, most regular military units don't pass. Can anyone point to something smaller than an army group, that isn't an atomic bomb that really altered the outcome of the war?
Yoda Power
✫✫✫✫✫✫✫
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 13,870
No. But it's not important either. What I'm trying to figure out is whether or not the resistance movements deserve all the claim to fame they get. Louis made some good points on why they should still be applauded even if they didn't matter, but that is not so much the point of this discussion.
EnglishEdward
Deity
The major achievement of the resistance is not in what they themselves achieved,
(and can list) but in what they prevented the Germans from achieving (and listing).
For instance the Germans would very have liked to have used the industrial resources
(factories, workers and skilled technicians) of their conquered European countries
at home in their own countries to build artillery, tanks and planes etc gainst the
soviets; but, due to resistance sabotage, they were largely *unable to do so and
instead resorted to the much less efficient alternative of conscripting foreign
workers to work in german factories.
* There are exceptions, there was a Czeck tank factory they got armoured vehicles
out of by shooting a few workers, but they got little out of France or Poland.
The presence of partisans/resistance also discouraged soldiers from volunteering to go
and fight for the Germans, because the partisans knew where their families lived.
Bit like a game of Civ really, if your captured cities stay in revolt and unhappy,
they don't produce things.
(and can list) but in what they prevented the Germans from achieving (and listing).
For instance the Germans would very have liked to have used the industrial resources
(factories, workers and skilled technicians) of their conquered European countries
at home in their own countries to build artillery, tanks and planes etc gainst the
soviets; but, due to resistance sabotage, they were largely *unable to do so and
instead resorted to the much less efficient alternative of conscripting foreign
workers to work in german factories.
* There are exceptions, there was a Czeck tank factory they got armoured vehicles
out of by shooting a few workers, but they got little out of France or Poland.
The presence of partisans/resistance also discouraged soldiers from volunteering to go
and fight for the Germans, because the partisans knew where their families lived.
Bit like a game of Civ really, if your captured cities stay in revolt and unhappy,
they don't produce things.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Define "outcome".
Who won, who lost?
Who won, and how/when they achieved that victory?
What post-war world resulted from the conflict?
In what positions individual countries found themselves in the post-war world?
All three of these could be argued for as beign the "outcome" of the war. The implication of the resistance and their importance to each of them, though, is widely varied.
Would the Allies have won without the resistance? There's a very strong case for that - there's a strong case that the Axis comitted strategic suicide and the Allies would have needed something beyond epic fail to actually lose the war. Would victory have happened as early as it did, with the casualties level it did, and without needing to nuke Germany, without the resistance? The case's more interesting. Would the post-war world have been as we know it without the resistance? Highly unlikely.
Who won, who lost?
Who won, and how/when they achieved that victory?
What post-war world resulted from the conflict?
In what positions individual countries found themselves in the post-war world?
All three of these could be argued for as beign the "outcome" of the war. The implication of the resistance and their importance to each of them, though, is widely varied.
Would the Allies have won without the resistance? There's a very strong case for that - there's a strong case that the Axis comitted strategic suicide and the Allies would have needed something beyond epic fail to actually lose the war. Would victory have happened as early as it did, with the casualties level it did, and without needing to nuke Germany, without the resistance? The case's more interesting. Would the post-war world have been as we know it without the resistance? Highly unlikely.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
This is actually a really good point. If we define the "outcome of the war" beyond a binary win/lose state, the resistance movements played a huge role shaping the outcome of the postwar world, especially in Yugoslavia, Greece, Korea, China, Italy etc.
Similar threads
