Guerilla warfare as complement to conventional warfare

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,890
Portugal
#13
Presumably a terrorist is 'one who spreads terror.' Which easily fits guerilla. but I'm not entirely surely how long the word 'terrorist' has been in existence.
Neither do I, probably is a late 19th or 20th century designation. The African guerrilla fighters in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea, in the 60’s were called “terrorists” by the Estado Novo and the Portuguese military. And “turras” as short. Probably this begun because UPA really spread the terror with the first attacks to the farms in 1961, torturing and killing indiscriminately both European and Africans, to a point that the organization had to change its name to FLNA.

What designations gave the Germans to the resistance movements during WWII? Or the Austrians to the Serbian movements in Bosnia?
 
Oct 2013
13,528
Europix
#15
Presumably a terrorist is 'one who spreads terror.' Which easily fits guerilla. but I'm not entirely surely how long the word 'terrorist' has been in existence.
I'd say it's a false definition because of it's vagueness.

Red Army in the WWII would be then a terrorist army. Civilians were terrorised by them coming.

Brititish and Americans in WWII would be then also terrorists. They spread terror on half of Europe with their bombing.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2011
76
Croatia
#16
They are better known as a stay behind army. Every nation fearing imminent invasion has put some sort of similar plan together. In more modern times, the tactic is part of the Australian armed forces standard battle doctrine.
Thanks. Was not familiar with that term.

Yougoslavia's partisans. It was practically/almost conventional army fighting a guerilla until August/September 1944, when it "took it into open".

Armies fighting what we call today guerilla was extremely common in the Balkans, Central and Eastern Europe. Small entities, facing empires able to raise huge professional armies ... guerilla was the first choice.

I never made a survey, but I would say that Ottomans had more difficult in their conquest of Balkans with guerilla warfare than with "conventional" warfare.
Yeah. That is another example. Ban Derenčin actually lost Battle of Krbava because he refused to ambush Ottomans and chose to face them in the open field. Other bans of Croatia were much more successful in using guerilla approach.
 
Jun 2013
439
Connecticut
#17
From what we see in the world, guerilla warfare in this century is the ONLY type of real warfare.
99.9% of the wars today are some sort of internal coflict. That type of war unfolds as guerilla war. Conventional warfare is quite obsolete.
Look at the Middle East wars. Their internal conflicts. A goat hearder with an AK47 or a shopkeeper with an IED or RPG do a damn good job of leeping conventional military at bay.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,843
Sydney
#19
Yes , the line between guerilla and bandit is very tenuous
usually they see themselves as Guerilla , their enemy see them as bandits
civilians opinions depend on their proximity and the amount of support they demand or take
 
Jul 2016
8,460
USA
#20
From what we see in the world, guerilla warfare in this century is the ONLY type of real warfare.
99.9% of the wars today are some sort of internal coflict. That type of war unfolds as guerilla war. Conventional warfare is quite obsolete.
Look at the Middle East wars. Their internal conflicts. A goat hearder with an AK47 or a shopkeeper with an IED or RPG do a damn good job of leeping conventional military at bay.
Not remotely obsolete. The 2001 invasion of the Taliban's Afghanistan and 2003 invasion of Saddam's Iraq were both nation state vs nation state conflicts. The Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 was a nation state conflict, as was the Russian invasion of Crimea, Ukraine in 2014.

Its tough to do and only a few nations on the planet actually have the realistic capabilities anymore to do it, plus international pressure, especially from the major powers on the UN security council largely prevents it, which is the only reasons why it doesn't happen more.

Guerrilla warfare is not conducted by nation state actors against others, it can really only occur after a nation state has been taken over by another power and is afterwards attempting to govern/occupy it, usually through a proxy "puppet" govt. The resistance against that governing/occupation force and the puppet govt creates a rebellion where the insurgents are either fighting from the shadows (Phase 1-2, like Iraq 2003-2010), or more openly holding ground with near fixed lines (modern Syria or Donbass Ukraine).
 

Similar History Discussions