Talk:Guerrilla warfare: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:43, 14 July 2005

Latest revision as of 16:08, 10 August 2025

(324 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{afd-merged-from|Insurgency weapons and tactics|Insurgency weapons and tactics|4 December 2024}}

{{todo}}

{{Skip to talk}}

{{Talk header|search=no}}

{{Round in circles|search=yes}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|Science=yes

<!-- B-Class checklist -->

<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->

|B-Class-1= yes

<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->

|B-Class-2= yes

<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->

|B-Class-3= yes

<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->

|B-Class-4= yes

<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->

|B-Class-5= yes}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 1

|minthreadsleft = 5

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:Guerrilla warfare/Archive %(counter)d

}}

== Removed AAA remarks ==

I just deleted a sentence which asserts that the AAA (''Alianza Anticomunista Argentina'') a group with government links born in 1974, ''supressed'' [[Montoneros]] and leftist ERP (''[[Ejército Revolucionario del Pueblo]]'') guerrillas . The counter-terror of AAA was limited to selective assassinations of supporters and affiliated politicians, without facing these organizations in open combat, as the Army and other security forces did. The guerrilla in Argentina was actually defeated after the [[National Reorganization Process|military dictatorship]] overthrew the constitutional government in 1976.

[[User:DagosNavy|DagosNavy]] 03:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

== Anti-Soviet resistance during WW2 ==

{{onlinesource2005|section=July 1-10

This article fails to mention that there were also anti-soviet resistance movements in eastern europe , and also in Chechnya during WW2.The whole reistance wasnt just against axist nations.Ukrainian insurgent army for example was pretty much active against soviet forces , but it also fought against axis. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/90.191.39.41|90.191.39.41]] ([[User talk:90.191.39.41#top|talk]]) 22:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)</small>

|title=Guerrilla war and Iraq's future

|org=Kompas (Indonesia)

|date=July 5, 2005

|url=no url}}

== George washington and the American revolution ==

== General Discussion==

I have thought consistently that George Washington and his later tactics in the American revolution were guerrilla tactics and should be added as an early example of such tactics, as he tried to avoid direct confrontation with the British army and tried to tire them out, while also gaining support from foreign nations such as France. The political unrest against the British could be considered as completion of the political wing of guerrilla warfare. Could we add this as an example? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.72.95.76|99.72.95.76]] ([[User talk:99.72.95.76|talk]]) 23:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

What about activities of Lawrence, T.E. on Arabian peninsula during WWI? Just because he became a media star does not change the fact that the Arab Revolt against the Turks was assymetric and relied on hit-and-run and dispersal tactics to succeed. Also, note that Lawrence himself was an accomplished theorist of guerrilla war: see his article on the subject in the Brittanica of 1938.

I don't remember a "liberation war against France". Considering the number of times France and Spain have forged and broken alliances, could we get something specific? I'm guessing we're talking Bourbons or maybe Bonapartes, but I'm shaky between 1815 and WWI. [[User:JHK|JHK]]

----

[[:Vietnam|Vietnam]] was ''not'' a guerrilla war? Hmmm. Must have missed something during those two years I was there! I think it would be just a tad more accurate to say that guerrilla warfare was the norm in many parts of Vietnam rigiht up until the withdrawal of US Forces. [[User:F. Lee Horn|F. Lee Horn]]

----

I'm copying something that I read from Gwyne Dyer's book "War".

According to him, Vietnam seemed like a guerilla war because the North

Vietnamese seemed to appear and disappear in the jungle. According to him however it was not a guerilla war because after 1965, most of the Communist units in Vietnam were regular units of the North Vietnamese

Army using largely conventional tactics, supply and troop organization.

----

Even when we were under fire from a concealed unit, it was still relatively easy to tell the difference between North Vietnamese regulars and VC (rate and volume of fire, type of weapons used, duration of contact, etc). Even in the Central Highlands, units of the United States Army still came under fire from what we considered to be Viet Cong right up until I left Country in SEP '69. I'm sure Mr. Dyer is a good writer, but if your paraphrase of his book is accurate, I'm probably never going to agree with him. [[User:F. Lee Horn|F. Lee Horn]]

----

BTW, guerilla warfare was known centuries before XIX century. It was just called differently, in Polish eg. wojna szarpana, podjazdowa, partyzancka (from: partia, that is small unit of army). I think that shouldbe reflected in article, what do you think? [[User:szopen|szopen]]

----

As far as whether Vietnam was a guerilla war or not, I think we might be arguing definitions, and

I rewrote the paragraph a bit. In 1963, the Vietnam War was definitely a guerrilla war. In 1973,

it definitely was not largely because the VC had be decimated by then.

----

"In the 1960s and 1970s, Latin America had a number of urban guerilla movements whose strategy was to destablize democratic regimes and provoke a counter-reaction by the military." But the guerilla fighters would in all probability deny that these regimes were democratic (and often they weren't really)! Could this be rewritten more along the lines of NPOV? --[[user:danielcboyer|Daniel C. Boyer]]

----

The most proper usage is "guerrilla fighter," not "guerrilla," even though the latter is very commonly used. --[[user:danielcboyer|Daniel C. Boyer]]

----

[[ETA]] is not what I think of when I hear [[guerrilla]]. Maybe I don't understand the proper English meaning, but I think that guerrilla implies [[countryside]], [[jungle (terrain)|jungle]] or generally out-of-cities fighting. ETA acts mainly in cities. I don't know if it could be called an "urban guerrilla" (a concept, by the way, that's not mentioned in the article). -- [[User:Error|Error]]

: Not really. Guerrilla fighting is a style or set of tactics which can be used in any terrain. You could argue that guerrilla tactics are better suited for terrains that limit the enemy's line of sight (such as jungle or urban) but that is not a requirement. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] 18:58, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

----

With urban guerrilla warfare, the guerrillas tend to use the appropiate camoflage (civilian clothing) and hide within the civilian population, instead of hiding out in the jungle. Urban guerrilla warfare is a technically accurate definition for some of the ETA's activities and the Provisional IRA's violence against the British security forces (regular Army, Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Ulster Constabulary) in cities like Belfast and Derry. The IRA wore civilian clothes, kept the identity of members secret and hid within the civilian population with the help of civilian sympathisers who did anything from provide weapons and safe hoses right down to not reporting IRA activities to the authorities.[[User:Kingal86|Kingal86]] 19:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi! If you can find a source stating that Washington used guerilla tactics, you're welcome to add that to the article. Otherwise, it's [[WP:NOR|original research]].[[User:Birdsinthewindow|Birdsinthewindow]] ([[User talk:Birdsinthewindow|talk]]) 01:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

== Spelling ==

== US Militia ==

I'm not a native-speaker in english.. but i believe Guerrilla iss spelled G-U-E-R-I-L-L-A ... the title contains one '''r''' too much. if this is correct please change it! thanks! -- [[User:Pit|pit]] 16:28 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

a section should highlight a permanent guerrilla force: 10 USC Ch. 12: THE MILITIA From Title 10—ARMED FORCES

:Looks like it is spelled both ways with Google showing twice as many hits for two r's. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 16:37 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:: ok. looks like there is a redirect from the one-'''r'''-version. but thanks anyway! -- [[User:Pit|pit]] 17:16 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:I think the bit about "_US-backed_ right-wing dictatorships" needs to be balanced with "Cuban-backed left-wing guerrilla groups" - I know Cuba, and probably the Soviet Union, tended to be linked to these movements. However I'm uncertain of which specific groups they supported, if they supported the vast majority of Marxist rebels or not. If someone knows and could modify that section a bit that'd be great. [[User:Trey Stone|Trey Stone]] 07:47, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

==Not recognised as unlawful combatants==

(b) The classes of the militia are—

One could argue that while internment was in place that the British Government recognised that a state of conflict existed in Northern Ireland. But as they ran the the Internment camps with a recognised hierarchy like a POW camp one could also argue that they saw the enemy as combatants. The ending of internment ended that de-facto recognition and all future prisoners were to be teated as common criminals. [[Bobby Sands]] and the other [[1981 Irish Hunger Strike|hunger strikers]] hoped that they could force the British Government to recognise them as political prisoners/POWs. They did not succeed in getting that recognition (although they did get modification to rules under which all prisoners in NI were held) so the British Government never saw the pepople they called terrorists in Northern Ireland as unlawful combatants (from an armed conflict) they saw them as criminals arrested in a policing action (as did and does the government of the Irish Republic).

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

Likewise the Spanish government has never recognised that they are in a state of conflict with the organisations which they call terrorist, so the people they call terrorists are not unlawfull combatants. [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 09:39, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

It may be true that the British government never recognised a state of conflict, legal or illegal, in Northern Ireland. However that doesn't change the fact that there was a conflict (or at least an insurgency) in Northern Ireland, hence all the references to "peace" (the opposite). The conflict in Northern Ireland could be seen as a complex civil war with three or even four sides: the British security forces (the regular Army, Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Ulster Constabulary) the IRA, the Loyalist paramilitaries and the Irish security forces (the Gardai and Army). Another note: the terms terrorist and unlawful combatant are in effect synonyms, since terrorism is often defined as unlawful political violence.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim

[[User:Kingal86|Kingal86]] 19:26, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Childish Gambino seems to refer to the militia, in his song, "this is America":

==IRA and ETA failed==

Guns in my area (word, my area)

I got the strap (ayy, ayy)

I gotta carry 'em

Yeah, yeah, I'ma go into this (ugh)

Yeah, yeah, this is guerrilla (woo) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2001:579:800C:10:7841:C1AB:C02A:8CA7|2001:579:800C:10:7841:C1AB:C02A:8CA7]] ([[User talk:2001:579:800C:10:7841:C1AB:C02A:8CA7#top|talk]]) 19:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Proposed merge of [[Strategy and tactics of guerrilla warfare]] into [[Guerrilla warfare]] ==

I have reverted the edits by [[User:Kingal86]] because:

# For most of the campaing, most of ETA have never said that they want part of France. If they had the French government would not have tolerated ETA activists on RR in France for so many years.

# The ETA campaign is ongoing so it is premature to list it as a failure.

# The IRA (like ETA) puts out an extreme position (as did the British Government) but in reality the IRA was willing to compromise, as was the British Government. The whole point of the Good Friday agreement is that both sides could say to their respective constituents that they had won. If one says that the IRA failed one would have to say that the British failed. But equally one can say that if the British won the war so to did the IRA. If the [[Good Friday Agreement]] is an IRA surrender document, why are the [[Democratic Unionist Party]] so against the agreement?

# It is arguable that the Loyalist paramilitaries have waged anything but a terrorist war. Unless one recognises the IRA as a legitimate army (Catch 22), then the Loyalist paramilitaries targeted no one but civilians, which would usually be called terrorism.

[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 09:50, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[[Strategy and tactics of guerrilla warfare]] is clearly a subtopic of [[Guerrilla warfare]]. As it is, much of the article is a [[WP:COATRACK]] of successive editors' favorite personal examples of guerrilla warfare, without reference to sources that would demonstrate its [[WP:DUE]]ness to the general topic. The more relevant elements could be incorporated into the main article. _signed,[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] ^{[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]} 16:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The IRA is not a legitimate army in my opininon, and the British and Irish government's opinion, and many others' opinions (Unionists, Republicans and neither). But its armed members are still not civilians. They are unlawful combatants. And surely if the Nicaraguan [[Contras]] can be called guerrillas for the purposes of this section (even though they mostly targeted civilians, killing many, many more than the IRA, Loyalist paramilitaries and British security forces combined in Northern Ireland) then so can IRA and Loyalist paramilitary members.

I guess you're right that the ETA campaign shouldn't be listed as a failure. I still think the Provisional IRA's campaign (of guerrilla warfare against the British security forces, sectarian violence against Protestants and brutal terrorism against British civilians) could be seen as a failure based on its initial objective: an end to British rule, the re-unification of Ireland and a socialist republic. So surely some mention should be made in this article to this failure.

I know Loyalist paramilitaries murdered Catholic civilians and assassinated unarmed IRA and Sinn Fein members. But surely they must have also attacked armed IRA members. Such acts could be considered guerrilla warfare against the IRA. Presumably the aim of all these attacks was to end the IRA insurgency, which they did not.

[[User:Kingal86|Kingal86]] 18:54, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:This article is careful to narrow what part of the IRA campaign could be considered guerrilla ''attacks such as the IRA carried out on British soldiers at Warrenpoint'''. The reason why I put in so many links around the name calling in the same paragraph was because before I did that the section was involved in an edit war. If you look at treaty which came out of the the Anglo-Irish war, as the IRA did not achieve all of their goals by your current argument, one would have to argue that the IRA lost. This would look very odd given the current status of Southern Ireland. Yet at the time many members of the IRA thought that they had lost.

:You say "''The IRA is not a legitimate army in my opininon''" the you say they are "''unlawful combatants''" Since the end of internment the British Government would not agree with you, because they can only be unlawful combatants if there is at the very least an armed conflict in progress, something that the British government has always denied. Therefore if an IRA gunman arrested by the security forces, he was tried in an ordinary criminal court as a criminal. Before (s)he was tried he was not held as a POW, which is what should have been done if he was a combatant who's status was unknown. Therefore if he was killed armed "on active service" by the British soldier or by a protestant gunman he was a civilian. [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 20:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Did the Army use self-defence laws to justify killing IRA gunmen and bombers if they denied

an armed conflict was taking place?

: Yes. [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 17:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because under the laws and customs of war it is legal for lawful combatants to kill armed enemy combatants (including unlawful combatants), however if ordinary laws of self-defence were used there must have many more restrictions on the Army's rules of engagement in Northern Ireland. [[User:Kingal86|Kingal86]] 15:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

;If you want another example of Spanish guerrillas failing, take the [[maquis]] after the [[Spanish Civil War]]. -- [[User:Error|Error]] 23:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

==pronouns==

I removed "''although Loyalist armed groups were often referred to collectively as "Loyalist paramilitaries" rather than "Loyalist terrorist organisations". ''" because if the paragraph goes that way we will end up with "'',they call the IRA, PIRA and...''". It will end up being an alphabet soup with no extra clarity. The point of the sentence is not if a member of the governments miss out the pronoun "terrorist" (which they often do), it is that they never include the pronoun "guerrilla" and rarely if ever use more neutral terms like "gunmen".[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 08:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

==Che Guevara==

I think che guevara's contributions to guerrilla's in latin america should be mention, also the Fidel Castro's guerrilla movement "26 de julio" also should be mentioned.

and actual colombian "guerrillas" FARC and ELN should be mentioned(although they have right now the size of an army an are recognized as such),

if we have a concense in this i will add all these things to the section.

--[[User:Gotten|Gotten]] 20:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

== American Revolution ==

On the list of successful guerilla wars, does the American Revolution not fit the protocol? The fact that the regular army was, at best, non-dependable and as small as 15,000 at some times during the war, and also considering that the war could not have been won without the various, almost autonomous militias that used many of what we call guerilla tactics make it seem to me that it was, at least in part, a successful guerilla campaign.

:That is what we were taught in grade school; the Americans won because they shot from cover, behind trees, [[French and Indian Wars|Indian-style]], and so had an advantage over the British and the mercenaries who were trained to shoot in volleys under the command and control of a central agency, in the open, in disciplined ranks of soldiers (the [[Thin Red Line]]). Thus the war of the American Revolution could be considered a [[war of attrition]], in a test of [[political will]] of the Kingdom, which automatically guaranteed an eventual victory for the [[partisan]]s, as an invading force has problems of supply, as compared to the partisans, who are at home. In the case of the American colonists, manufacture of their own equipment was the only option and an entire class of manufacturers and artisans evolved in the preceding century and a half (1600-1750), which provided the equipment and technology with which they fought. After the decline of the policy of [[mercantilism]], which forced the indigenous manufacture by the colonists (everything from buildings, chairs, etc, to guns), a policy of supply of natural resources to the mother country has remained to this day. However globalization of the control of natural resources and the knowledge and technology of the planet are changing the game. Stay tuned. [[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] 9 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)

== Guerrilla does not equal asymmetric warfare ==

In both the [[irregular military]] article and here, it's been said that guerrillas use [[asymmetric warfare]]. This isn't quite right. Asymmetric warfare applies to both sides of a war, not just the one with irregular forces. For example, what the US is doing in Iraq follows the doctrine of asymmetric warfare. Unless someone makes a counter-claim, I'm going to fix both articles. --[[User:A D Monroe III|A D Monroe III]] 02:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)