Soviet takes Western Europe, What kind of Recistance

[Berra]

Teh war nerd explains that geurilla war is a nasty buissnis. This was seen in a lot of wars against the colonial powers. Is it nesesarely for a guerilla movement to do theese atrocitys and could a "civilised" western Europe produce sucessful guerilla movement.

http://www.exile.ru/2006-April-07/war_nerd.html

[JLCook]

THEY most certainly didn't have much of a resistance movement, I doubt that Western Europeans would have bothered either. One needs to be passionate, fervant about an ideology in order to do that sort of thing

[MerryPrankster]

The Polish Home Army fought on against the Soviets until the late 1940s, while Ukrainian nationalists were active in various places until the early 1950s.

If the Soviets take Western Europe, their armies will likely become overextended and there'd be more opportunities for partisan mayhem.

[The Ubbergeek]

One here seems to have forgotten the Spanish Civil War here, the French resistance and all...

The western europe would have fought.

[Evil Opus]

It depends on how much of Western Europe the Soviets occupy. Probably the French and Spanish raise hell for the Soviets, and eventually they leave.

[Chengar Qordath]

What type of occupation policies the Soviets use would be a rather important factor as well. If they more or less leave the locals alone at let them go about their business guerilla resistance will be much lighter than if they impose communism, perform Stalinesque frequent executions of traitors, suspected traitors, and suspected potential traitors, then rape the horses and ride off on the women. On the other hand, a harsh occupation policy probably crushes resistance sooner than trying to make nice with the locals.

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by Chengar Qordath

What type of occupation policies the Soviets use would be a rather important factor as well. If they more or less leave the locals alone at let them go about their business guerilla resistance will be much lighter than if they impose communism, perform Stalinesque frequent executions of traitors, suspected traitors, and suspected potential traitors, then rape the horses and ride off on the women. On the other hand, a harsh occupation policy probably crushes resistance sooner than trying to make nice with the locals.

That sure worked for the Nazi's in Yugoslavia. They had to use almost as much manpower to hold the Balkans AFTER they "conquered" them as the did during the attack, despite the brutal retribution that was doled out for any attack.

Resistance is as much a function of terrain as anything else. The resistance fighter must have a place to withdraw to for rest and resupply. Without this they movement is limited is effectiveness & scope.

The current situation in Iraq is another possibility; here the resistance has at least 3 foreign states that it can withdraw to, gain supplies & recruits. and return to battle. These advantages make up for the terrain difficulties facing the insurgents.

Any large scale resistance movement must have somewhere to get properly supplied & some training done for new recruits (we do not come into the world knowing how to create IED's). The safer these areas are the stronger the resistance movement can be. An excellent example of this is the Soviet partisans, which had vast regions of wilderness to fall back into & solid supply sources.

[Earling]

Would there be some form of resistance? Definately.

However it would prove about as effective as the resistance in Eastern Europe. Events such as the Hungarian uprising, the Prague Spring and so on would likely occur, but would crushed by the Soviet armed strength.

It isn't a question of whether they can perform atrocities. Europeans have pretty much done everything in the book on the subject. The simple fact is you need favourable geography to hide armed bands from destruction and this doesn't, by and large, exist in Western Europe.

Spain could plausably have strong guerilla bands acting forever but such isn't the same as France and many other European countries. You might get a few rebels in the mountains, but the bulk of the population will be kept very firmly under the thumb incapable of anything but relatively small acts of terrorism.

Unless the Soviets go and bankrupt themselves the revenue from occupied Europe should exceed the costs meaning any occupation would last a very long time. (Well that might not be the case with Spain because the country was relatively poor and the Soviets are likely stuck in the cities, but in the case of western Germany/France it should be true.)

[Chengar Qordath]

Originally Posted by CalBear

That sure worked for the Nazi's in Yugoslavia. They had to use almost as much manpower to hold the Balkans AFTER they "conquered" them as the did during the attack, despite the brutal retribution that was doled out for any attack.

The Nazis were more stupid, thuggish, and brutal than what I would class as an effective "harsh" occupation strategy, a good example being how Britain handled the Boers or the US the Phillipines; the concentration camp. Remove the civilians, and suddenly the guerilla have nobody to help them, and no people to hide among.

[Max Sinister]

I could well imagine that a resistance will continue to fight, let's say, in the Alps, or the Norwegian mountains. Difficult terrain - mountains, jungle, even big cities - are perfect for partisans.

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by Chengar Qordath

The Nazis were more stupid, thuggish, and brutal than what I would class as an effective "harsh" occupation strategy, a good example being how Britain handled the Boers or the US the Phillipines; the concentration camp. Remove the civilians, and suddenly the guerilla have nobody to help them, and no people to hide among.

The Soviets lacked that kind of subtlety. See their actions in in Afghanistan in the 80's or in Chechnya even today. It was/is brutal to the extreme, possibly, even probably more thuggish than the Nazi's. Overall discpline of Soviet/Russian troops was/is well below the Wermacht or Waffen SS. The Nazi's were extremely cruel as a matter of policy & political indoctrination. Soviet/Russian troops were sadistic in an almost casual manner.

This has a great deal to do with how Soviet/Russian conscripts are treated, which is brutal beyond belief. If serior enlisted men in Western (or for that matter Wermacht/Waffen SS) armies, much less NCO's or Officers, treated recruits the way that Red Army recruits were abused as a matter of course, the perpetrators would spend 20 years at hard labor. This brutal treatment tends to be foisted on civilian populations under Soviet control.

The examples of Her Majesty's forces in the Boer War & American units in the Philippines are from forces that believed that they had a morally superior position and did what they saw as necessary to defeat the enemy. Once that enemy was defeated, the occupation policy of both govenments was far different. It is difficult to imagine a Soviet occupation changing into a Nation Building (albeit a directed version) as generally has been the case of 20th/21st Century U.S./U.K. activities.

[DAv]

I imagine resistance would be most prominent in Scotland, France and Spain due to the terrain of all three countries which allows for a more general partisan war.

[Grimm Reaper]

I might note that the French resistance in WWII was one step above imaginary until 1943-44 and even then of little consequence. Also, you need weapons to fight a resistance and Western Europe has a rather strict policy on weapons so unless the Soviets somehow decide not to find out where large numbers of missing soldiers are...

[The Ubbergeek]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

I might note that the French resistance in WWII was one step above imaginary until 1943-44 and even then of little consequence. Also, you need weapons to fight a resistance and Western Europe has a rather strict policy on weapons so unless the Soviets somehow decide not to find out where large numbers of missing soldiers are...

The French Resistance was stronger than thought. But nowaday with the Bushmen, it's de rigeur to sweep anything that break the 'weasels' official line about France away.

[Max Sinister]

@Grimm: I know you Americans think that all of us Euros are strictly against weapons in citizen's hands, but some countries (Switzerland, Austria, Italy, France, Sweden) have many people who own rifles because they like to hunt.

[Friendly Otter]

The French resistance really has been greatly exaggerated. They wanted heroes, after all, when the war was over, and it wouldn't have been politically correct to contradict that line. The Norwegian resistance was much more efficient, I hear, but gets no attention. Greece had some efficient resistance too.

Sweden has 279 000 registered hunters; yes, fairly many I suppose, but how do I know this? Because these weapons are registered. An occupation power would simply tell the hunters to show up and hand in their weapons and get crossed off the list, or otherwise get a visit from the grim reaper. The hunters would show up, because they're mostly married middle-class men 30-55 years old. However, I don't rule out the possibility of some resistance.


An addition to this thread: what would happen when the Russians invade and occupy Yugoslavia? Yugoslavia stood with China and was an enemy of the Soviet Union. I bet the Serbs, Croats and Muslims would love to get a chance to hone their skills against the Russians before they go to work on each other. Perhaps mountainous Yugoslavia would kill as many Russians as the rest of the occupied territories combined, until the Russians tire of them and start wiping out entire cities.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

I might note that the French resistance in WWII was one step above imaginary until 1943-44 and even then of little consequence. Also, you need weapons to fight a resistance and Western Europe has a rather strict policy on weapons so unless the Soviets somehow decide not to find out where large numbers of missing soldiers are...

Eisenhower said that on D-Day, the Resistance did the work of multiple divisions. They did lots of sabotage and attacks in the German rear, seriously interfering with the ability of the Germans to interfere with the landings.

Give credit where credit is due.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by Friendly Otter

Sweden has 279 000 registered hunters; yes, fairly many I suppose, but how do I know this? Because these weapons are registered. An occupation power would simply tell the hunters to show up and hand in their weapons and get crossed off the list, or otherwise get a visit from the grim reaper. The hunters would show up, because they're mostly married middle-class men 30-55 years old. However, I don't rule out the possibility of some resistance.

This is why gun registration is a bad thing.

IIRC the Germans got hold of gun registration lists in Czechoslovakia and France and went after gun owners.

[fhaessig]

The french resistance was neither as great and early as the french claimed immediately post-war, nor as small and late as the current anglo-saxon PC crowd is claiming.

There were resistance groups in mid-40 and the peak was in summer 43 ( NOT 44 ) after which the germans went systematically after the maquis.

Note that because of this, Eisenhower gave specific orders NOT to mobilise the maquis in support of Overlord. The one maquis which did ( in brittany ) was ordered disbanded as soon as Eisenhower found out about it ( despite mobilising 150,000 german troops, IIRC, for 10 days in mid-june 44 ).

[stevep]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

This is why gun registration is a bad thing.

IIRC the Germans got hold of gun registration lists in Czechoslovakia and France and went after gun owners.

So you would happy to have a few thousand extra deaths a year in the US to reduce the danger of a successful invasion being resisted?

Steve