Chapter 8. Xinjiang: in support the required course. Guerrilla warfare in North-West China in 1945 - 1949. From the early 1930s to the end of the 1940s, the USSR state security agencies carried out special operations in the north-west of China - in the province of Xinjiang, also called Eastern

PARTISAAN OATH The calendar pages are flying off quickly. For more than a month, Lieutenant Karasev has been in the Ugodsko-Zavodsky district. Through the efforts of him and his comrades from the district party committee, the 48th fighter battalion gradually began to acquire all the necessary qualities of a combat

GUERILLA REVENGE November winds blew through the forest. The yellow leaves danced in circles. The ground, covered with snow and bound by a light frost, thawed by the middle of the day and looked into the cloudy sky as small dark puddles. Early on a November morning, I returned from Moscow,

The war is over. Long live the war! Thanks to brilliant diplomacy, Stalin achieved his goal at the Tehran Conference. As was said, after Stalingrad and Battle of Kursk Germany's fate was sealed, but the German military showed such professionalism that

WHAT IS NEP Chairman of Donchek Fedor Mikhailovich Zyavkin spoke about NEP. And although much of what he said was well known, Polonsky listened to him with the feeling of a man making an important discovery. The young security officer seemed to be looking at life anew, and she

Chapter 26 War with the whole world - war without end Several years ago, sad events took place when two explosions occurred in the Moscow metro at the Lubyanka and Park Kultury stations. The result of this bloody terrorist attack, as reported in those days, was terrible: forty people

Guerrilla warfare concept

Guerrilla warfare is called independent actions light detachments separate from the army, sent to the rear and flanks of the enemy, with the aim of cutting off the army from the sources of its provisions and recruitment. The goal of guerrilla warfare is to inflict direct material or other damage on one's opponent wherever possible and by all means. available means. Isolated incidents of violence during war do not qualify as guerrilla warfare.

Ernesto Che Guevara (Cuban revolutionary), and in our country Denis Vasilyevich Davydov, twice Hero, are considered major experts in guerrilla warfare and its organizers. Soviet Union Sidor Artemyevich Kovpak.

D.V. Davydov wrote: “Guerrilla warfare consists neither of ... burning one or two barns, nor of disrupting pickets, nor of delivering direct blows to the main forces of the enemy. It embraces and crosses the entire length of the routes, from the rear of the opposing army to that expanse of land that is designated to supply it with troops... It exposes it to the blows of its army, exhausted, hungry, disarmed and deprived of the saving bonds of subordination. This is guerrilla warfare in the full sense of the word!”

Che Guevara believed that guerrilla warfare is a struggle of the masses, folk struggle; the partisan detachment, as an armed core, is the combat vanguard of the people, its main strength The fact is that it relies on the population.

During the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945), partisan warfare became a truly national movement. It was generated by the just nature of the war, the desire to defend the honor and independence of the Motherland. That is why in the program of combating the Nazi invaders such an important place was given to the partisan movement in enemy-occupied areas. Behind enemy lines, partisan detachments and sabotage groups were created, bridges were blown up, telegraph and telephone communications enemy, warehouses were set on fire. In fact, unbearable conditions were created for the enemy and all his accomplices, and all their activities were disrupted.

Soviet people who found themselves in territory occupied by the enemy, as well as military personnel of the Red Army and Navy who were surrounded, began to fight the Nazi occupiers. They tried their best to help Soviet troops who fought at the front resisted the Nazis. And already these first actions against Hitlerism bore the character of a guerrilla war.

In a special resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks dated July 18, 1941, “On the organization of struggle behind enemy lines,” the country’s leadership called on the republican, regional, regional and district party organizations to lead the organization of partisan formations and underground, “to help in every possible way the creation of mounted and foot partisans detachments, sabotage destruction groups, expand the network of our Bolshevik underground organizations in the occupied territory to direct all actions against the fascist occupiers."

The struggle of the Soviet people against Nazi invaders on the temporarily occupied territory of the Soviet Union became an integral part of the Great Patriotic War. It acquired a nationwide character, becoming a qualitatively new phenomenon in the history of the struggle against foreign invaders. The most important of its manifestations was the partisan movement behind enemy lines. Thanks to the actions of the partisans, the German fascist invaders developed a constant sense of danger and threat in their rear, which had a significant moral impact on the Nazis. And this was a real danger, because fighting The partisans caused enormous damage to enemy personnel and equipment.

I invite readers to answer the questions themselves:

1. What is the purpose of guerrilla warfare?

2. Can a guerrilla war be waged by one person?

3. Why is guerrilla warfare of a nationwide nature?

4. Give examples (known from history courses) of organizing guerrilla warfare in our country?

5. Give the names of the most famous Russian partisans.

6. Can you prove that the movie Avatar depicts guerrilla warfare?

To be continued.

The question of partisan actions is of great interest to our party and the working masses. We have already touched upon this issue in passing several times and now intend to proceed to the more comprehensive presentation of our views that we have promised*.

Start over. What basic requirements must every Marxist make when considering the question of forms of struggle? Firstly, Marxism differs from all primitive forms of socialism in that it does not associate movements with any one specific form of struggle. He recognizes the most various shapes struggle, and does not “invent” them, but only generalizes, organizes, and gives consciousness to those forms of struggle of revolutionary classes that arise by themselves in the course of the movement. Undoubtedly hostile to all abstract formulas, all doctrinaire recipes, Marxism requires careful attention to the ongoing mass a struggle that, with the development of the movement, with the growing consciousness of the masses, with the aggravation of economic and political crises, gives rise to ever new and ever more varied methods of defense and attack. Therefore, Marxism certainly does not renounce any form of struggle. Marxism in no case

* See Works, 5th ed., volume 13, p. 365. Ed.

2 V. I. LENIN

is not limited to possible and existing only at the moment forms of struggle, recognizing inevitability new, unknown to the figures of this period, forms of struggle against changes in this social situation. Marxism in this regard studies, so to speak, mass practice, far from pretensions learn masses to forms of struggle invented by armchair “systematists.” We know, said Kautsky, for example, when considering the forms of social revolution, that the coming crisis will bring us new forms of struggle, which we cannot foresee now.

Secondly, Marxism absolutely demands historical consideration of the issue of forms of struggle. To pose this question outside of a historically specific situation means not to understand the ABCs of dialectical materialism. At various moments of economic evolution, depending on various political, national-cultural, everyday conditions, etc., various forms of struggle come to the fore, become the main forms of struggle, and in connection with this, in turn, secondary ones change , side forms struggle. To try to answer yes or no to the question about a specific means of struggle without considering in detail the specific situation of a given movement at a given stage of its development means leaving the soil of Marxism completely.

These are the two main theoretical principles which we must be guided by. History of Marxism in Western Europe gives us a wealth of examples to confirm what has been said. European Social Democracy currently considers parliamentarism and the trade union movement to be the main forms of struggle; it recognized the uprising in the past and is quite ready to recognize it, with changes in the situation, in the future - contrary to the opinion of the liberal bourgeoisie, such as the Russian Cadets 1 and the Bezzachlavtsev 2. Social democracy denied the general strike in the 70s, as a social panacea, as a means of immediately overthrowing the bourgeoisie in a non-political way - but social democracy completely

GUERILLA WAR 3

recognizes the mass political strike (especially after the Russian experience in 1905) as one of the means of struggle necessary for famous conditions. Social democracy recognized the street barricade struggle in the 40s of the 19th century, but rejected it on the basis of certain data in late XIX century - expressed complete readiness to reconsider this last view and recognize the expediency of the barricade struggle after the experience of Moscow, which, according to K. Kautsky, put forward new barricade tactics.

Having established the general principles of Marxism, let us move on to the Russian revolution. Let's remember historical development forms of struggle put forward by it. First, economic strikes of workers (1896-1900), then political demonstrations, workers and students (1901-1902), peasant riots (1902), the beginning of mass political strikes in various combinations with demonstrations (Rostov 1902, summer strikes 1903, January 9 1905), all-Russian political strike with local cases of barricade struggle (October 1905), mass barricade struggle and armed uprising (1905, December), parliamentary peace struggle (April - June 1906), military partial uprisings (June 1905 - July 1906) , partial peasant uprisings (autumn 1905 - autumn 1906).

This was the state of affairs by the fall of 1906 from the point of view of forms of struggle in general. The “response” form of struggle of the autocracy is the Black Hundred pogrom, starting from Chisinau in the spring of 1903 and ending with Sedlec in the fall of 1906 3 . During this entire period, the organization of the Black Hundred pogrom and beating of Jews, students, revolutionaries, class-conscious workers is increasingly progressing and improving, combining the violence of the Black Hundred army with the violence of the bribed mob, reaching the use of artillery in villages and cities, merging with punitive expeditions, punitive trains, and so on. Further.

4 V. I. LENIN

This is the main background of the picture. Against this background, what emerges, undoubtedly as something private, secondary, incidental, is the phenomenon to the study and assessment of which this article is devoted. What is this phenomenon? what are its forms? its reasons? time of occurrence and extent of spread? its significance in the general course of the revolution? his attitude towards the struggle of the working class organized and led by social democracy? These are the questions to which we must now move from outlining the general background of the picture.

The phenomenon we are interested in is armed struggle. It is led by individuals and small groups of individuals. Partly they belong to revolutionary organizations, partly (in some areas of Russia more partly) do not belong to any revolutionary organization. Armed struggle pursues two various goals that are needed strictly distinguish one from another; - namely, this struggle is aimed, firstly, at killing individuals, superiors and subordinates of the military police service; - secondly, to confiscate funds from both the government and private individuals. The confiscated funds are partly used for the party, partly specifically for arming and preparing the uprising, partly for the maintenance of persons leading the struggle we characterize. Large expropriations (Caucasian at more than 200 thousand rubles, Moscow 875 thousand rubles) 4 went specifically to the revolutionary parties in the first place, - small expropriations go primarily, and sometimes entirely, to support the “expropriators”. This form of struggle undoubtedly became widely developed and widespread only in 1906, i.e. after the December uprising. The aggravation of the political crisis to the point of armed struggle and in particular the aggravation of poverty, hunger strike and unemployment in villages and cities played a major role among the reasons that caused the described struggle. As a priority and even exceptional form of social struggle, this form of struggle was adopted by the trampless elements of the population, the lumpen and the anarchists.

GUERILLA WAR 5

hist groups. Martial law, the mobilization of new troops, the Black Hundred pogroms (Sedlce), and courts-martial should be considered as a “response” form of struggle on the part of the autocracy.

The usual assessment of the struggle under consideration boils down to the following: it is anarchism, Blanquism 5 , the old terror, the actions of individuals isolated from the masses, demoralizing the workers, alienating large sections of the population from them, disorganizing the movement, harming the revolution. Examples confirming this assessment can easily be found from events reported every day in newspapers.

But are these examples conclusive? To check this, let's take an area with the largest development of the considered form of struggle - Latvian region. This is how the newspaper “Novoe Vremya” 6 (dated September 9 and 12) complains about the activities of the Latvian Social Democracy. Latvian Social Democratic workers' party(part of the RSDLP) correctly publishes its newspaper in 30,000 copies 7. The official department publishes lists of spies, the destruction of which is the duty of every honest person. Those who assist the police are declared “opponents of the revolution” and are subject to execution, also answering with their property. Money for the Social-Democratic Party order the population to transfer only upon presentation of a stamped receipt. In the latest party report, among 48,000 rubles. Income for the year is listed as 5,600 rubles. from the Libau branch for weapons obtained through expropriation. - “New Time” is tearing up and rushing, of course, against this “revolutionary legislation”, this “formidable government”.

To call this activity of the Latvian Social-Democrats anarchism, Blanquism, terrorism. no one will dare. But why? Because here clear the connection between a new form of struggle and the uprising that took place in December and which is brewing again. When applied to all of Russia, this connection is not so clearly visible, but it exists. Spreading

6 V. I. LENIN

The “partisan” struggle precisely after December, its connection with the aggravation of not only the economic, but also the political crisis, is undeniable. Old Russian terrorism was the work of an intellectual conspirator; now he is waging a partisan fight, according to general rule, a blue-collar militant or just an unemployed worker. Blanquism and anarchism easily come to mind for people prone to stereotypes, but in the situation of uprising, so clear in the Latvian region, the unsuitability of these memorized labels is striking.

The example of the Latvians clearly shows the complete incorrectness, unscientific, unhistorical nature of our usual analysis of partisan warfare, regardless of the situation of the uprising. We must take this situation into account, think about the features of the intermediate period between major acts of uprising, we must understand what forms of struggle are inevitably generated in this case, and not get away with a memorized selection of words that are the same for both the cadet and the new time: anarchism, robbery, tramping!

They say: partisan actions disorganize our work. Let us apply this reasoning to the situation after December 1905, to the era of Black Hundred pogroms and martial law. What disorganizes the movement more in such era: lack of resistance or organized partisan struggle? Compare central Russia with its western outskirts, with Poland and the Latvian region. There is no doubt that partisan warfare is much more widespread and highly developed on the western outskirts. And it is also certain that the revolutionary movement in general, the Social-Democrats. movement in particular more disorganized in central Russia than in its western outskirts. Of course, it does not occur to us to conclude from this that the Polish and Latvian Social-Democrats. traffic is less disorganized thanks to guerrilla warfare. No. It only follows from this that guerrilla warfare is not to blame for the disorganization of the Social-Democrats. labor movement in Russia in 1906.

Here they often refer to the peculiarities of national conditions. But this link shows especially clearly

GUERILLA WAR 7

weakness of walking argumentation. If it’s a matter of national conditions, then it’s not a matter of anarchism, Blanquism, terrorism - the sins of all Russia and even specifically Russian ones - but of something else. Take it apart for something else specifically, gentlemen! You will see then that national oppression or antagonism does not explain anything, for they have always been on the western outskirts, and only this one gave birth to partisan struggle. historical period. There are many places where there is national oppression and antagonism, but there is no partisan struggle, which sometimes develops without any national oppression. A specific analysis of the issue will show that the issue is not national oppression, but the conditions of the uprising. Guerrilla struggle is an inevitable form of struggle at a time when the mass movement has actually reached the point of uprising and when there are more or less large intervals between the “big battles” in the civil war.

It is not partisan actions that disorganize the movement, but the weakness of the party, which cannot pick up these actions. That is why the usual anathemas among us Russians against partisan actions are combined with secret, random, unorganized partisan actions that really disorganize the party. Powerless to understand what historical conditions give rise to this struggle, we are powerless to paralyze its bad sides. But the struggle continues nonetheless. It is caused by powerful economic and political reasons. We are unable to eliminate these causes and eliminate this struggle. Our complaints about the partisan struggle are complaints about our party weakness in the uprising.

What we said about disorganization also applies to demoralization. It is not guerrilla warfare that demoralizes, but disorganization, disorderliness, non-partisanship of partisan actions. From this most undoubted Condemnations and curses against partisan uprisings do not relieve us one bit from demoralization, for these condemnations and curses are absolutely powerless to stop the phenomenon caused by deep economic and political reasons. They will object: if we

8 V. I. LENIN

are powerless to stop an abnormal and demoralizing phenomenon, then this is not an argument for transition parties to abnormal and demoralizing means of struggle. But such an objection would be purely liberal-bourgeois, and not Marxist, because to consider at all An abnormal and demoralizing civil war or guerrilla war, as one of its forms, a Marxist cannot. The Marxist stands on the basis of the class struggle, not the social world. In certain periods of acute economic and political crises, class struggle develops into direct civil war, i.e., armed struggle between two parts of the people. In such periods the Marxist must stand on the point of view of the civil war. Any moral condemnation of it is completely unacceptable from the point of view of Marxism.

In the era of civil war, the ideal of the party of the proletariat is warring party. This is absolutely undeniable. We fully admit that from the point of view of the civil war it is possible to prove and prove impracticality various forms of civil war at one time or another. Criticism of various forms of civil war from the point of view military expediency we fully recognize and unconditionally agree that the decisive vote in like this the issue belongs to social-democratic practitioners. each individual locality. But in the name of the principles of Marxism, we unconditionally demand that the analysis of the conditions of the civil war should not be dismissed with hackneyed and cliched phrases about anarchism, Blanquism, terrorism, that senseless methods of guerrilla action used by such and such a Pepes organization 8 at such and such a moment should not be put forward as bogeyman on the question of the Social-Democratic participation itself. in guerrilla warfare in general.

References to the disorganization of the movement by guerrilla warfare must be taken critically. Any a new form of struggle, associated with new dangers and new victims, will inevitably “disorganize” those unprepared for this new form organization struggle. Our old circles of propagandists were disorganized by the transition to agitation. Our committees are disorganized

GUERILLA WAR 9

there was a subsequent transition to demonstrations. All sorts of things military action in any war it introduces a certain disorganization into the ranks of the combatants. It cannot be concluded from this that we should not fight. From this we must deduce that it follows learn fight. That's all.

When I see Social Democrats proudly and smugly declaring: we are not anarchists, not thieves, not robbers, we are above this, we reject guerrilla warfare, then I ask myself: do these people understand what they are saying? Throughout the country there are armed skirmishes and fights between the Black Hundred government and the population. This phenomenon is absolutely inevitable at this stage of development of the revolution. The population is spontaneous, unorganized - and that is why often in unsuccessful and bad forms - also reacts to this phenomenon with armed clashes and attacks. I understand that, due to the weakness and unpreparedness of our organization, we can refuse the party leadership in this area and at this moment this spontaneous struggle. I understand that this issue must be resolved by local practitioners, and that reworking weak and unprepared organizations is not an easy task. But when I see in a theoretician or publicist of Social Democracy not a feeling of sadness about this lack of preparation, but a proud complacency and narcissistically admiring repetition of phrases memorized in early youth about anarchism, Blanquism, terrorism, then I feel offended for the humiliation of the most revolutionary doctrine in the world .

They say: guerrilla warfare brings the class-conscious proletariat closer to the degenerate drunkards and tramps. It's right. But it only follows from this that the party of the proletariat can never consider guerrilla warfare the only or even the main means of struggle; that this means must be subordinated to others, must be proportionate to the main means of struggle, ennobled by the educational and organizing influence of socialism. And without this last conditions All, absolutely all means of struggle in bourgeois society bring the proletariat closer to various

10 V. I. LENIN

non-proletarian strata above or below him and, being left to the spontaneous course of things, are worn out, perverted, prostituted. Strikes, left to the spontaneous course of things, are distorted into “Alliances” - agreements between workers and employers against consumers. Parliament is being turned into a brothel, where a gang of bourgeois politicians sell wholesale and retail “people's freedom,” “liberalism,” “democracy,” republicanism, anti-clericalism, socialism and all other marketable goods. The newspaper is being perverted into a public procurer, into an instrument of corruption of the masses, of crude flattery to the base instincts of the crowd, etc., etc. Social democracy does not know universal remedies struggles, such as would fence off the proletariat with a Chinese wall from the strata standing a little above or a little below it. Social democracy in different eras applies various means, always furnishing their application strictly certain ideological and organizational conditions*.

The forms of struggle in the Russian revolution are extremely diverse compared to the bourgeois revolutions of Europe. Kautsky partly predicted this when he said in 1902 that the future revolution (he added: with the exception of Maybe perhaps Russia) will be not so much a struggle between the people and the government, but rather a struggle between two parts of the people. In Russia

* Bolshevikov Social-Democrats often accused of a frivolous and biased attitude towards partisan actions. It is therefore worth recalling that in the draft resolution on partisan actions (No. 2 of Party News 9 and Lenin’s report on the 10th Congress) Part Bolsheviks, which defends them, nominated following conditions their confessions: “exes” of private property were not allowed at all; “Exes” of state property were not recommended, but only were allowed under condition batch control and circulation of funds for the needs of the uprising. Guerrilla actions in the form of terror recommended against government rapists and active Black Hundreds, but under the following conditions: 1) take into account the mood of the broad masses; 2) take into account the labor traffic conditions of the given area; 3) take care that the forces of the proletariat are not wasted in vain. The practical difference from this draft resolution, which was adopted at the Unification Congress, is exclusively the fact that “exes” of state property are not allowed.

GUERILLA WAR 11

and we see, undoubtedly, a broader development of this second struggle than in the bourgeois revolutions of the West. The enemies of our revolution among the people are few in number, but they are becoming more and more organized as the struggle intensifies and receive the support of the reactionary sections of the bourgeoisie. It is completely natural and inevitable, therefore, that in such era, in the era of nationwide political strikes, insurrection will not be able to result in the old form of individual acts limited to a very short period of time and a very small area. It is completely natural and inevitable that the uprising takes on higher and more complex forms of a long civil war covering the entire country, that is, an armed struggle between two parts of the people. Such a war cannot be imagined otherwise than as a series of few, separated by relatively large periods of time, major battles and a mass of small skirmishes during these intervals. If this is so - and this is undoubtedly so - then Social Democracy must certainly set as its task the creation of organizations that would be most capable of leading the masses and. in these major battles and, if possible, in these minor skirmishes. Social democracy, in an era of class struggle that has intensified to the point of civil war, must set as its task not only participation, but also a leading role in this civil war. Social democracy must educate and prepare its organizations to truly act as belligerent, not missing a single opportunity to cause damage to enemy forces.

This is a difficult task, there are no words. It cannot be solved immediately. Just as the entire people is re-educated and learns in the struggle during the civil war, so our organizations must be educated, must be rebuilt on the basis of experience in order to meet this task.

We have not the slightest pretension to impose on the practitioners some form of concocted struggle, or even to decide from the office

12 V. I. LENIN

the question of the role of certain forms of guerrilla warfare in the general course of the civil war in Russia. We are far from thinking of seeing a question in a specific assessment of certain partisan actions. directions in social democracy. But we see our task as helping, to the best of our ability, the right theoretical assessment of new forms of struggle put forward by life; - is to fight mercilessly against stereotypes and prejudices that prevent class-conscious workers from correctly posing a new and difficult question and correctly approaching its resolution.

Published according to the text of the newspaper “Proletary”

Guerrilla movement was important factor in achieving victory over Nazi Germany and its allies. It unfolded throughout the occupied territory and had a scale and effectiveness unprecedented in history. During the war, over 1 million partisans and an army of thousands of underground fighters operated behind enemy lines. They were actively supported by tens of millions of patriots. Workers, peasants and intellectuals, people of different ages, men and women, representatives of various nationalities of the USSR and some other countries took part in the partisan movement. Partisans and underground fighters destroyed, wounded and captured about 1 million fascists and their accomplices, disabled over 4 thousand tanks and armored vehicles, destroyed and damaged 1,600 railways. bridges, carried out over 20 thousand railway accidents. echelons.

The partisan movement was directed by the Central Committee of the Communist Party and developed under the direct leadership of local party organizations operating behind enemy lines. On June 29, 1941, the Party Central Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR sent a directive to party and Soviet organizations in areas that were threatened by enemy invasion. In it, along with the general tasks of the Sov. people in the war contained a program for the deployment of partisan actions. On July 18, 1941, the Central Committee adopted a special resolution “0b organizing the fight in the rear of German troops,” which supplemented the directive of June 29. These documents gave instructions on the preparation of the partisan underground, the organization, recruitment and arming of partisan detachments, and the tasks of the partisan movement were determined. Already in the fall of 1941, 10 underground regional committees, over 260 district committees, city committees, district committees and other bodies began working in the occupied territory, a large number of primary party organizations and groups. In the fall of 1943, 24 regional committees, over 370 district committees, city committees, district committees and other bodies operated behind enemy lines.

The organizational and mass political work of the party was aimed at creating underground organizations and partisan detachments, strengthening the leadership of the partisan movement, improving the supply of partisans, ensuring the growth of their forces and expanding the network of the anti-fascist underground.

As a result, the combat effectiveness of partisan detachments increased, their zones of action expanded and the effectiveness of the struggle increased, in which the broad masses of the population were involved, and a close relationship was established with the active army.

Guerrilla detachments or groups were organized in occupied and unoccupied territories. Their formation in unoccupied territory was combined with the training of personnel in special partisan schools.

These detachments were either left in the designated areas before being captured by the enemy, or were redeployed behind enemy lines.

In a number of cases, formations were created from military personnel in the position of desks. detachments were crossed by fighter squads created in front-line areas to fight enemy saboteurs and spies. During the war, it was practiced to send organizing groups behind enemy lines, on the basis of which partisan detachments and even large formations arose. Such groups played a particularly important role in the western regions of Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states, where, due to the rapid advance of Nazi Germany. troops, many regional and district party committees did not have time to fully organize work on the deployment of the partisan movement. In these districts, a significant part of the partisan detachments arose after their capture by the enemy. The eastern regions of Ukraine and Belarus and the western regions of the RSFSR were characterized by advance preparation for the deployment of the partisan movement.

In the Leningrad, Kalinin, Smolensk, Oryol, Moscow and Tula regions and in the Crimea, at the suggestion of the partisan bodies, fighter battalions became the base of formation. The deployment of partisan forces in the Leningrad, Kalinin, Smolensk and Oryol regions was particularly well organized, where partisan organizations created partisan detachments, their base areas and material warehouses in advance. Feature of P.d. in the Leningrad region there was active participation in it along with the local population of workers, students and employees from Leningrad. Characteristic feature P.d. in Smolensk and Oryol regions. and in Crimea, a significant number of Red Army soldiers who found themselves surrounded or escaped from captivity took part in it, which significantly increased the combat effectiveness of the P. forces.

Depending on the specific conditions, there were various forms of organization of partisan forces: small and large formations, regional (local) and non-regional. Regional detachments and formations were constantly based in one area and were responsible for protecting its population and fighting the occupiers in that area. Non-regional formations and detachments carried out missions in various regions, carrying out lengthy raids, and were essentially mobile reserves, maneuvering which the governing bodies of the P. D. concentrated their efforts on the main directions to deliver powerful attacks on the enemy’s rear.

The forms of organization of partisan forces and the methods of their actions were influenced by physical and geographical conditions. Vast forests, swamps, and mountains were the main basing areas for partisan forces. Here partisan regions and zones arose where they could be widely used various ways struggle, including open battles with the enemy. In the steppe regions, large formations operated successfully only during raids. The small detachments and groups that were constantly stationed here usually avoided open clashes with the enemy and caused damage to him mainly through sabotage.

In a number of districts in the Baltic states, Moldova, and the southern part of Western Ukraine, which only became part of the USSR in 1939-40, the Nazis managed, through bourgeois nationalists, to spread their influence over certain segments of the population. Therefore, large partisan formations could not be based in one area for a long time and acted mainly in raids. The small partisan detachments and underground organizations that existed here carried out mainly sabotage and reconnaissance actions and political work.

The heroic struggle of the Soviet people behind enemy lines is one of the most striking and unforgettable pages in the history of the Great Patriotic War.

It is guerrilla warfare, being the most active form counteracting the invaders, caused great material damage to the enemy, disorganized the enemy’s rear, provided significant assistance to the troops Soviet army on the fronts.

This struggle had a scale and effectiveness unprecedented in history.

Suffice it to say that during this time the Soviet partisans and underground fighters destroyed, wounded and captured 1.5 million Nazis, carried out more than 18 thousand train wrecks, disabled over 4 thousand fascist tanks and armored vehicles, and defeated about 3 thousand enemy garrisons , destroyed and damaged 1,600 railway bridges, and caused much other damage to the enemy.

More than a million partisans and an army of thousands of underground fighters, actively supported by tens of millions of Soviet people, took part in the armed struggle behind enemy lines. This struggle was of a nationwide nature, as evidenced not only by great amount its participants, but also the composition of the partisan formations itself. In the ranks of the partisans there were workers, peasants and intellectuals - people of various ages and professions, representatives of almost all nationalities.

Through their struggle, partisans and underground fighters provided great assistance to the Soviet Army in disrupting the strategic and operational plans of the fascist command and in achieving military victories over the enemy. The actions of the partisans created unbearable conditions for the Nazis and thwarted their plans for using the human and material resources of the temporarily occupied territory. The partisans maintained high morale of the population behind enemy lines and organized them to repel the fascist invaders.

war soviet battle moscow

Protracted military conflict. Detachments in which people were united by the idea of ​​the liberation struggle fought on a par with the regular army, and in the case of a well-organized leadership, their actions were highly effective and largely decided the outcome of the battles.

Partisans of 1812

When Napoleon attacked Russia, the idea of ​​strategic guerrilla warfare arose. Then, for the first time in world history, Russian troops used a universal method of conducting military operations on enemy territory. This method was based on the organization and coordination of the rebels' actions by the regular army itself. For this purpose, trained professionals - “army partisans” - were thrown behind the front line. At this time, the detachments of Figner and Ilovaisky, as well as the detachment of Denis Davydov, who was lieutenant colonel Akhtyrsky, became famous for their military exploits

This detachment was separated from the main forces longer than others (for six weeks). The tactics of Davydov’s partisan detachment consisted in the fact that they avoided open attacks, attacked by surprise, changed directions of attacks, groped weak spots enemy. The local population helped: the peasants were guides, spies, and participated in the extermination of the French.

In the Patriotic War, the partisan movement was of particular importance. The basis for the formation of detachments and units was the local population, who were familiar with the area. In addition, it was hostile to the occupiers.

The main goal of the movement

The main task of guerrilla warfare was to isolate enemy troops from its communications. The main blow of the people's avengers was aimed at the supply lines of the enemy army. Their detachments disrupted communications, prevented the approach of reinforcements and the supply of ammunition. When the French began to retreat, their actions were aimed at destroying ferries and bridges over numerous rivers. Thanks to active actions army partisans, Napoleon lost almost half of his artillery during the retreat.

The experience of waging partisan warfare in 1812 was used in the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945). During this period, this movement was large-scale and well organized.

Period of the Great Patriotic War

The need to organize the partisan movement arose due to the fact that most of the territory of the Soviet state was captured by German troops who sought to make slaves and liquidate the population of the occupied areas. The main idea of ​​partisan warfare in the Great Patriotic War is the disorganization of the activities of the Nazi troops, causing them human and material losses. For this purpose, fighter and sabotage groups were created, and the network of underground organizations was expanded to guide all actions in the occupied territory.

The partisan movement of the Great Patriotic War was two-sided. On the one hand, the detachments were created spontaneously, from people who remained in enemy-occupied territories, and sought to protect themselves from mass fascist terror. On the other hand, this process took place in an organized manner, under leadership from above. Sabotage groups were thrown behind enemy lines or pre-organized in the territory that they were supposed to leave in the near future. To provide such detachments with ammunition and food, they first made caches with supplies, and also worked out issues of their further replenishment. In addition, issues of secrecy were worked out, the locations of detachments based in the forest were determined after the front retreated further to the east, and the provision of money and valuables was organized.

Movement leadership

In order to lead the guerrilla war and sabotage struggle, workers from among the local residents who were well acquainted with these areas were sent to the territory captured by the enemy. Very often, among the organizers and leaders, including the underground, were the leaders of Soviet and party bodies who remained in the territory occupied by the enemy.

Guerrilla warfare played a decisive role in the victory of the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany.