the french resistance were considered terrorist by the germans and the germans destroyed a whole village in france (can't remember the name), sounds familiar though, don't it???
2006-07-28 01:36:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by mad john 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Not exactly. If you look at today's "terrorist organizations," they have no affiliation with a specific nation. In WWII, it was other countries fighting the Nazis. If anything, Hitler would have been a terrorist if it weren't for being the dictator of the country. Had he only been the leader of the Nazi party, then he would have been a perfect example of a terrorist. Also...remember the saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." The French and Dutch resistance during WWII would be considered freedom fighters to the Allies. I'm not sure if they would have been called "terrorists" by the Axis powers or not, I wasn't there. It's rather difficult to label someone in such a way if they are not known to be a member of a terrorist organization.
2006-07-28 08:41:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by bluejacket8j 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
That’s an interesting question.
Resistance (or partisan) movements were already considered terrorist organizations in those days. As a matter of fact, the Red Army special departments (NKVD) often referred to partisan activities as “terrorist actions”. The Germans often used the same terms or equivalencies.
Although I do not condone terrorist activities in a peace context, war-based resistance/partisan activities are often a different matter. Resistance to Hitler, as you stated in your question, was found in occupied countries and targeted Wehrmacht and Feldgendarmerie units or war-supporting infrastructures. The label of “terrorist” was therefore a questions of perspective: for the population of the occupied territory a partisan/terrorist was really just a freedom fighter and his/her actions were often supported and celebrated by his/her countrymen. From an occupier perspective, the action was of course of terrorist nature and to be punished most severely. This last perspective is also somewhat supported by the Geneva Convention which states that people who fight out-of-uniform and/or do not belong to a recognized army/unit are not recognized as legitimate belligerents and have therefore no war-rights. Immediate execution was therefore the norm for any captured partisan/terrorist and this would most probably have been applied by the western allies too, had the occasion presented itself. I find that the Geneva Convention does support the perspective of calling any form of resistance “terrorist activities” but we have to keep in mind that the treatment of populations within Wehrmacht-occupied territories was also quite far from the convention’s stated requirements. Perhaps this last state of affair balances out, somewhat, the tag that we should apply to resistance activities.
Terrorism, then and now, is more a question of perspective than a clear and applicable definition. Resistance to a known and recognized evil is highly commendable, but that evil has to be recognized and agreed upon by everyone, I believe, before we can steer clear of the “terrorist” tag.
2006-07-28 08:52:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by Zierra 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, they would. Remember, a terrorist is always the other guy. When Jews bombed the King David Hotel, the British condemned them as terrorists. When the Palestinians do the same to them, the Israelis call THEM terrorists. I'm sure the Nicaraguans though the Contras were terrorists. We were the only ones calling them "freedom fighters"...
2006-07-28 09:16:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by Immortal Blade 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The resistant movements would be considered as terrorist acts by Hitler.
The same is true today. America thinks Al-Quaeda is terrorists, Al-Quaeda thinks Americans are terrorists.
Same with Israel and Lebanon.
2006-07-28 08:38:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by Me1982 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No But one can say that like Hitler all terrorist want to abolish Israel and all Jews would be wiped off the face of the earth . AND as it seems to me many of you terrorist defenders in here would like to see the same by your stupid question that defend the terrorist. Just what the hell did Israel the Jews do to some of you all that Like Hitler you would gas an kill 6,000,000 of them if you could. Israel will never stand for that kind of whole sell murder again call them stupid if you like but they are smart enough to learn from their mistakes.
2006-07-28 08:44:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, terrorist are marked those who are not a part of national army. Terrorist fight for their rights but because they have no power in their hands they use extreme approaches which I don't approve. But I do understand their frustration. World is divided into strong vs. weak. If the strong one is not wise and do not listen the weak one, than those who are weak rebel in maybe even extreme ways. It was like that in a history as well.
Maybe Native indians in America were terrorist.
2006-07-28 08:38:20
·
answer #7
·
answered by nelli 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Terrorism is defined not defined by action, but by the amount of power behind it and more importantly if that action is successful. For example, it may be provacative, but not much of an exageration to say, America is founded on terrorism. Just ask the 1770s British what they thought of Paul Revere's midnite ride, might sound an awful lot like George's ramblings on Osama.
2006-07-28 08:48:19
·
answer #8
·
answered by Fred-B I 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
The resistance fighters in WWII attacked German military targets. They did not send suicide bombers into cafes to kill civilians. Islamic militants purposely kill civilians, hide in the crowds of people so that for troops to shoot back they are forced into firing into civilian areas. They are no more than cowards, who hide behind women and children. If you hide a murderer in your house don't whine when the police kick in the door. Also you will be charged for harboring a fugitive and also go to jail. As you should
2006-07-28 08:41:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by mark g 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
NO... one big difference that Liberals always ignore.
WW2 resistant movements did not randomly murdered German soldiers and civilians.
They also didn't cut people's head off and celebrated in the name of God, and take pride in Murdering.
2006-07-28 08:41:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by American Superman 3
·
0⤊
0⤋