Defiance
The Bielski family and partisansThe people can be oppressed
by violent measures,
but they cannot be governed by them
--Leo Tolstoy, letter to Czar Nicholas II
Those who cannot remember the past
are condemned to repeat it
--George Santayana
Shall I tell you what the real evil is?
To cringe to the things that are called evils,
to surrender to them our freedom,
in defiance of which we ought to face any suffering
--Lucius Annaeus Seneca
________________
Defiance is a book (1993) and a movie (2008) based upon the lives of the Bielski partisans of World War II. The group was named after the organizers, a family of Polish Jews who rescued Jews from extermination and fought against the Nazi German occupiers and their collaborators in Poland. They saved approximately 1,200 Jewish lives.
The Bielski's story is but one of many amazing wartime stories of average people who endure while pitted against overwhelming odds, many of which are probably lost to history. Of the Bielski group, 70% were women, children, and the elderly; about 150 were shooters. The movie delivers a highly romanticized version of a dire existence, replete with the sensitive Nazi.
Ranger found the Bielski's behavior links with classic unconventional and guerrilla warfare, though their primary function was to ensure the survival of its Jewish members. His personal SF training was the result of the U.S. adopting UW/GW experience which evolved from the OSS in WW II, reflective of partisan and resistance warfare of WW II. This type of warfare was fought in all theatres in that war, and were aimed if not at destroying, then hamstringing the armies of occupation of the Axis forces.
Partisan units existed to harass, destroy and generally force the occupiers to dilute the combat power of their maneuver units by diverting them to fight the partisans. The titular use of the term is not exactly correct since the partisans existed to fight, where the Bielski unit existed primarily to save Jews; they fought only when forced to engage enemy forces.
The regular armies of the Allies provided trainers and support for Partisans which enabled the UW/GW forces to exist behind enemy lines. The Bielski unit received limited aid from the organized Soviet partisan units. Though minor, it is doubtful the Bielskis could have endured without it.
Another key point relevant to today's UW/GW scenarios is that the unit would not have survived without the active and passive support -- regardless of how meagre -- of the local population.
WW II is now 66 years old. Can such units still exist in future wars? Will Special Forces maintain their classic OSS/UW/GW orientation in future conflicts? Has Special Forces performed as UW/GW assets in the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) , or has their performance been a weak approximation of the OSS template?
The OSS types were originally organized to infiltrate enemy-occupied territory to link up with and train UW forces, then task-organizing them for actual combat operations. All UW/GW operations of significance in WW II complemented the Allied Armies' tactical plans.
Partisans were used to target specific objectives and were discouraged and disallowed from random and unfocused attacks upon the Axis forces. Although the UW/GW units were not strictly military organizations, they were compelled to operate in a military manner.
After WW II, the USSF was organized to operate with partisans and dissident groups in areas occupied by the Warsaw Pact forces. In the Republic of Vietnam, the Special Forces supported the government of Vietnam, while in Europe they opposed the governments of the Iron Curtain countries. This shows the SF -- like the sword in our unit patch -- is a double-edged weapon which will cut in both directions.
The question is, will SF retain its original function as an UW/GW force multiplier if the U.S. were to engage in a conventional ground war? Can organizations like the Bielski Partisans survive today's battlefield scenarios? Are partisan units a concept that is still within the realm of military logic?
A good story should provoke such thoughts on the relevance of its topic to the present day.
Labels: america in world war ii, belarus resistance, bielski brothers, guerrilla warfare, jewish resistance, partisanship, polish resistance, UW/GW. unconventional warfare
posted by rangeragainstwar at 7:41 AM
8 Comments:
I'd say this sort of thing has a place in any occupied territory. And as we see larger and larger mismatches in military power, it will become more and more common for a couple of Iraqis, funded by Iran, to cause superpowers to spend all of their blood and treasure.
Grant,
WTF?!
Does it matter if it's Iran or America funding the Iraqis? It's all the same bucket of crap.
I for one find Iran's interests in the area to be more legit than those of the US.
jim
I am not sure the US military will be able to conduct what we've known as "conventional ground wars" after the next 10-15 years, at least on anywhere near the scale of multi-division operations. The value of SF as a force multiplier will come into its own then, I think.
Asymmetric conflicts will be the norm (some say they have always been, throughout history) and perhaps we'll see situations where, for once, the conventional forces are there to support the UW/GW forces, not the other way around.
Example: for some reason it's thought desirable to destabilize the government of A-land, or bend it to the will of the Great Satan. One or two Expeditionary brigades are sent to adjacent B-land (if it's not possible to put them ashore in a "liberated enclave" of A-land) to provide a secure base for the SF to operate from while working with partisan bands opposed to the government of A-land to divert, harass, and otherwise soften up A-land's standing military until the government is replaced or the brigades can roll into the capital, to finish what the Green Beanies have started.
Something like this was done in Central America in the 1980s, but not to the scale it could have been, not least because it was a bipolar world then but also because it wasn't necessary to think of working this way. I think from now on it will be necessary, because the standing army cannot continue spending the way it has been accustomed to.
Brian,
i roger your military logic , EXCEPT your example violates international law.
Do we remember law??!
jim
Certainly it violates international law. But so does entering into a conventional ground war without a formal declaration of war, and when was the last time anyone made one of those?
(I am asking this seriously; I guess the Korean War might have been the last time (between the two Koreas of course; the last time the US fomally declared war would have been against Germany in 1941, right?)
I'm not speaking about the legitimacy of the funding or however all of these things work out. That's just the first modern-day example of exactly what you are talking about that sprang to my mind: A group of unconventional fighters receiving aid from an outside source and harassing an occupying power who, on paper, has superior military strength. Obviously, and I think I've made this clear, I don't support the use of force as a solution to problems except in a very limited and narrowly defined scope (fortunately simple enough for grade schoolers to understand, though - Don't start fights, but if someone hits you, defend yourself).
Wars aren't about law or freedom or mother and country. They are about interests, specifically, the interests of the ruling class. And so we destabilize all of South America and install small time dictators who we then remove and blah blah blah. I'm personally hoping for massive cuts in defense spending. I won't get it, but I can hope.
Itmurnau,
We can give Korea ,1950 a pass since this was authorized by the new UN charter concept. This legalized it, in a manner of speaking.
Since then the US has ignored the concept of declaring war , which brings us back to Korea. Altho US involvement was legitimized by the UN there was no effort by Congress to short stop the President. This started a trend that continues to today. Ironically in K and VN it was Democrats that sponsored these wars. Being strong on defense IS NOT a Republican attribute.
The invasions of Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and Afgh.,sure are spurious and beg the question--why no declaration of war, and why does the international community accept this perfidy.
jim
I meant to phrase my question more broadly - when was the last time ANY country formally declared war against another? The international community accepts this perfidy on the part of the USA because they are all part of it.
Brian
Post a Comment
<< Home