Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Fearzebu t1_iw1n9wq wrote

The term has been widely used in the Second World War and in Vietnam, as well as a bit more sporadically during the global war on terror. Not remotely “archaic”


Chroderos t1_iw1nqce wrote

Yeah I’m aware of the usage in WW2 era, but it seemed to fall out of favor since then. I read today that Ukrainian special forces are in Kherson so thought this might be a confusion with activities of those groups rather than locals. Anyway, sounds like they’re probably there supporting local resistance which makes sense.


delliejonut t1_iw1o2l1 wrote

I think the use of partisan is intentional. The connotation is that partisans are good guys, like the French in WW2. If they were the "bad guys" they'd be guerrilla forces or insurgents. I prefer partisan


0x53r3n17y t1_iw2f7cf wrote

During WWI, the Germans referred to resistance as "partizanen" or "franc-tireurs" (free shooters) In occupied Belgium, the perceived existence of "partizanen" led to punitive actions on the part of the Germans: which were collectively called "The Rape of Belgium" in 1914.

Used in propaganda of the time, the plight of "brave little Belgium" was instrumental for turning the Anglo-Saxon public opinion towards sending expeditionary forces.

Being labeled a "partisan" was very much a mixed bag for the civilian population at the time. Not everyone was willing to actively resist and partisan actions often meant running a risk of endangering the population, therefore losing support among said population.

So, even today, regarding Ukraine, I'd be very careful about making statements about how resistance fighters are perceived by the local population in that particular context.


Chroderos t1_iw1ob47 wrote

Yeah that makes sense. Hadn’t really thought about “guerrilla warfare” having a negative connotation like that but it definitely could.