Partisans, terrorists?

[Hans_Rudel]

The Soviet Partisans gained government support in and around the Battle of Kursk. Before this occurred, when the Partisans weren't controlled by Moscow, would they be considered a terrorist organization or would they be seen more as 'Freedom Fighters'?

To the Soviet and German Government Pre-1943, would the Soviet Partisans be seen as a form of terrorist organization?

[Christoph Awender]

Hello!

Don´t you think this depends absolutely on who defines it?

\Christoph

[Hans_Rudel]

Hello!

Don´t you think this depends absolutely on who defines it?

\Christoph

Yes, definitely. I guess a person from Palestine would have a different view of a 'terrorist' then a person say from Israel.

Okay, so why don't you just answer the question from the viewpoint in which you understand the word 'terrorist' to mean? So really, it’s your own personal opinion.

Were the Partisans a terrorist group before they had any connection with Stalin's government?

[Whisper]

From my point of view the difference is who theire target is. If they attack the invading forces, armed soldiers, i wouldnt define them as terrorist. Attacking and Killing unarmed civilists is an act of terror.

[Christoph Awender]

In my personal oppinion no matter how terrorists are defined "officially" no one who fights against a invading power in his country is a terrorist.

\Christoph

[Oleg Grigoryev]

The Soviet Partisans gained government support in and around the Battle of Kursk.

where did you get that???????? Partsizan (pro-Soviet partisan that is)movement was alway supported by the Soviet Governmnet.

[Hans_Rudel]

The Soviet Partisans gained government support in and around the Battle of Kursk.

where did you get that???????? Partsizan (pro-Soviet partisan that is)movement was alway supported by the Soviet Governmnet.

Before Kursk, it is my understanding that Stalin never really supplies the Partisan activity; he never used it in unison with military operations before Kursk.

I thought that after either 1942 or 43; the Partisan organization came under direct control of Stavka. I thought that Pre-Stalingrad, the Partisan was not commanded by the Soviet government; rather it had its own form of hierarchy inside each individual sight of resistance.

From what I've read, I have the understanding that Stalin never really had control of the Partisan Activity until after Stalingrad and never really understood and used it to its full military use. I could be wrong but that is how I understand it.

[Oleg Grigoryev]

you understood wrong http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... s&n=507846

[Hans_Rudel]

Okay, I guess I was wrong. Wasn't it Stalin in July of 1941 that encouraged Partisan movement in a radio broadcast? Don't know how I forgot that!

Anyway, isn't it true that after Stalingrad, the Soviets government took a more active role in the partisan movement by constantly supplying the forces? And wasn't Kursk that first battle in which Stavka coordinated a joint operation between the Soviet Army and Partisan force? Wasn't Kursk really the first time in which the Soviet High Command really utilized the partisan movement to disrupt German supplies for a future operation?

[Oleg Grigoryev]

It was matter of having resources and organization –not of willingness to accept the movement. Prior to 1939 Partisan movement was part of Soviet defense strategies with well build hidden bases, stashes o weapons and trained cadres trained during the peace time. After 1939 the new ones were not organized. Consequently the whole partisan movement had to be rebuild form the ground up.

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/archi ... rts16.html

[Hans_Rudel]

It was matter of having resources and organization –not of willingness to accept the movement. Prior to 1939 Partisan movement was part of Soviet defense strategies with well build hidden bases, stashes o weapons and trained cadres trained during the peace time. After 1939 the new ones were not organized. Consequently the whole partisan movement had to be rebuild form the ground up.

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/archi ... rts16.html

Thanks for the information; I never realized the Partisan organization was a fighting force before Barbarossa began.

[Germania]

In my personal oppinion no matter how terrorists are defined "officially" no one who fights against a invading power in his country is a terrorist.

\Christoph

Then a german who bomb an US camp in Germany today isn´t an terrorist? Fictive question?

[Eugene (J. Baker)]

No he is. Until start of war.

[Christoph Awender]

In my personal oppinion no matter how terrorists are defined "officially" no one who fights against a invading power in his country is a terrorist.

\Christoph

Then a german who bomb an US camp in Germany today isn´t an terrorist? Fictive question?

I guess you germans don´t see the americans as an invading power any more. But I am sure you know what I meant with my original statement... surely not a situation like germany today.

\Christoph

[kmk24]

Partisans attacked 9/24/1942 small village of Viiksimo. There were no finnish troops prensent in that village. they killed 8 civilians.

Smirnov went with 53 men, 17 of them were send to main road. when group that he command attacked Yliluiron village. 12 finnish soldiers were guarding it, partisans had no problems takeing the village. Civilians were beaten, robed, and most of them were killed. The meaning of Soviet partisans was especially attack civilian population, to spread fear

my own poor translation from, Hitlerin Sota Pohjoisessa ( Hitler's Arctic War) by Chris Mann and Chirster Jörgensen.

Terrorists.

Kai