sabotage in WWII

[raf]

heres one for you and there will no doubt be different views.

there's alot of factors of why Germany lost the war.

Battle of britain
Hitler turning east
the russian winter
The U.S

etc

but on a scale how would you rate the effect of sabotarge i think it was a major factor as although Germany conquered most of Europe it created resistance groups in most countrys

the telemark raid set them back 10 years and the amount of armour they must have lost due to de-rail ment must have been great.

is it true that Germany was out produced in Tanks by russia and aircraft by britain during the war

could this have been due to resistance groups in norway/poland etc

[von Poop]

I never really feel the resistance achieved much. Despite certain succesful acts of sabotage the military or strategic impact was usually very small. I suspect they caused more trouble for their own people than benefit, debate certainly continued amongst the British CIGS as to whether they were worth supporting at all, but who could blame occupied people for resisting? I feel the myth of the resistance was largely created post-war to salve France's feelings of inadequacy about Occupation.

Military Sabotage a different thing though, don't really know enough about telemark to comment on it's ultimate value but the raid on St. Nazaire strikes me as a most successful demonstration of small(ish) unit sabotage. A lot of these raids seem to have more to do with national morale and prestige at a time when victory seemed a long way off rather than any genuine strategic value.

[Owen]

I think Resistance Groups also caused alot of heartache to their own population in the form of reprisals.
Lidice, Czechoslovakia and Oradour-sur-Gland, France for example.

I'm not trying to do them down, as they were very brave men and women.

[plant-pilot]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

I never really feel the resistance achieved much. Despite certain succesful acts of sabotage the military or strategic impact was usually very small. I suspect they caused more trouble for their own people than benefit, debate certainly continued amongst the British CIGS as to whether they were worth supporting at all, but who could blame occupied people for resisting? I feel the myth of the resistance was largely created post-war to salve France's feelings of inadequacy about Occupation.

Military Sabotage a different thing though, don't really know enough about telemark to comment on it's ultimate value but the raid on St. Nazaire strikes me as a most successful demonstration of small(ish) unit sabotage. A lot of these raids seem to have more to do with national morale and prestige at a time when victory seemed a long way off rather than any genuine strategic value.

I agree. The major instances of effective sabotage were usually performed by commando units from the forces in allied territory, if possibly assisted by members of the local resistance. The tactical and strategic effect of these raids can possibly be brought into question, but the moral value cannot.

The main effect of the resistance in most countries was to ensure that the Germans didn't feel too safe while in the rear areas, and ensure that troops were used to guard much of the infrastructure in these areas. Let us not forget that the troops used to guard these areas were not front line troops, lessening the effect of the resistance to the actual war effort even more.

The intelligence value of the information passed back to the allies may have been very good, but this was tempered with the fact that no matter how good it was it was always treated with suspision by the handlers who had to collate it. They classed it as an unreliable source. This reduced its usefulness, which is a shame as the gathering and transmission of the intelligence cost many good lives.

[lancesergeant]

I think the Yugoslavs for all their infighting gave a good account for themselves. Reprisals may have worked on some of the population, but Tito's troops were for the best living in the hills. The Germans knew what would happen if they caught out or isolated especially at night and knew the partisans would take no prisoners. If the German soldier was captured he was good as dead, if not shot on the spot. Reprisals though they took place had little effect in these instances. When the Chetnks surrended to the Allies they can't have given thought to what would happen when they were returned handed over to a Tito run/ruled Yugoslavia.

As concerns SOE, I find it hard to believe that the Dutch resistance was compromised and still valuable agents were parachuted in only to captured as soon as they hit the ground and no one thought to check. A Dutchman under German duress was sending messages deliberately making errors to draw attention that something was wrong. At this end it didn't even raise the slightest suspicion. With the likes of that incompetence costing brave men and women's lives, it is small wonder in my opinion that the contributions of the brave agents in occupied Europe didn't the full credit and support they needed.

[von Poop]

Originally Posted by lancesergeant

I think the Yugoslavs for all their infighting gave a good account for themselves.

I completely agree. Forgot about them. A 'partisan' movement that definitely had real Military Impact.
Mind you the Handschar probably hindered the Germans quite succesfully as well..and they were part of the army.

[Herroberst]

Not sure about Sabotarge, But Sabotage was an vital tactic used by both sides in WWII. From Partisan, Underground, Marquis, and Special Forces sabotage provided an important fifth column action to hinder a countries ability to wage war by tying down assets that could be used at the Front.

[spidge]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

I never really feel the resistance achieved much.

Sadly it was not the deed in itself, it was the knowing by the enemy that any target or infrastructure could be sabotaged and effectively resulted in huge manpower requirements to protect those areas.

[laufer]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

I never really feel the resistance achieved much. Despite certain succesful acts of sabotage the military or strategic impact was usually very small. I suspect they caused more trouble for their own people than benefit, debate certainly continued amongst the British CIGS as to whether they were worth supporting at all, but who could blame occupied people for resisting? I feel the myth of the resistance was largely created post-war to salve France's feelings of inadequacy about Occupation.

Military Sabotage a different thing though, don't really know enough about telemark to comment on it's ultimate value but the raid on St. Nazaire strikes me as a most successful demonstration of small(ish) unit sabotage. A lot of these raids seem to have more to do with national morale and prestige at a time when victory seemed a long way off rather than any genuine strategic value.

Terror that was a part of German antipartisan strategy was a major question for all responsible underground movements. But I wouldn’t be so skeptic about an impact of sabotage and partisan activity. Consider thousands of damaged or destroyed locomotives, platforms, trucks, engines, shells, grenades, cut communication lines, intelligence information gathered by members of resistance etc, etc. And don’t forget about precious time – something extremely important for Germany.

[von Poop]

Originally Posted by Spidge

Sadly it was not the deed in itself, it was the knowing by the enemy that any target or infrastructure could be sabotaged and effectively resulted in huge manpower requirements to protect those areas.

Trouble is it was only post '43 with the introduction of the STO in France (which swelled resistance numbers far more than any ideological wish to fight Germany) that this was really the case. Up until then the appropriate Garrison deployed for policing any occupied area was quite capable of dealing with most resistance without the need for any real drain on 'frontline quality' troops.