Category: PURE BLOG

The British record of terrorism, resistance, and guerrilla warfare

British agents have, at various times in history, acted in ways that align with the roles of terrorists, resistance fighters, and guerrillas, depending on the context and perspective. These actions often reflect the complexity of political violence and the fluidity of these labels.

British Agents as Resistance Fighters

During World War II, British agents working for the Special Operations Executive (SOE) supported resistance movements across Europe. They engaged in sabotage, espionage, and guerrilla tactics against Nazi forces. The SOE trained and supplied local resistance fighters in occupied countries such as France, Norway, and Greece. Their activities included blowing up railway lines, disrupting supply chains, and assassinating key figures in the Nazi regime.

For example, Violette Szabo, a British SOE agent, worked with the French Resistance to disrupt German operations. The British government framed these activities as legitimate acts of resistance against tyranny, but the Nazis often labelled them as terrorism.

British Agents as Guerrillas

During the Malayan Emergency (1948–1960), British forces and agents employed guerrilla tactics in their counterinsurgency operations against communist fighters. The British organised local forces, such as the Malay Regiment, and used jungle warfare to combat the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA). While this was a counter-guerrilla campaign, British operatives adopted tactics similar to those used by guerrillas, including ambushes and small-unit operations.

Additionally, during the Boer War (1899–1902), British agents and soldiers faced guerrilla warfare from the Boers and sometimes mirrored these tactics in their efforts to suppress resistance.

British Agents as Terrorists

While less openly acknowledged, some actions carried out by British agents or aligned forces have been viewed as terrorism by their opponents. For instance, during the colonial period, British forces and proxies occasionally used violence against civilians to suppress dissent or intimidate populations. Examples include reprisals during the Irish War of Independence (1919–1921), where British auxiliary forces like the Black and Tans committed acts widely criticised as terroristic, such as the burning of Cork and summary executions.

Similarly, during the Kenyan Mau Mau Uprising (1952–1960), British forces engaged in widespread violence, including torture and killings, against suspected rebels. While the British government justified these actions as counter-terrorism, critics argue that they involved terrorising local populations.

Blurring the Lines

The perspective on whether these actions constituted terrorism, resistance, or guerrilla warfare often depends on the observer. British agents operating in occupied Europe during World War II were widely celebrated as heroes, while similar tactics used by colonial forces in Kenya or Ireland are more controversial. Labels like terrorist or freedom fighter often reflect the political narratives of the time rather than clear distinctions in tactics or intent.

British agents have therefore, at different times, acted as resistance fighters, guerrillas, and—by some definitions—terrorists, which illustrates the complex and often subjective nature of these roles in conflict.

The terms terrorist, resistance fighter, and guerrilla describe distinct roles in conflict, although they often overlap. These distinctions depend on tactics, objectives, and political framing. Adding complexity, there are also solitary domestic killers who act independently but leave behind political manifestos. Understanding these categories requires a nuanced approach.

A terrorist uses violence or the threat of violence to create fear, usually targeting civilians or non-combatants, to achieve political, ideological, or religious aims. Tactics include bombings, assassinations, or hostage-taking, often designed for maximum psychological and public impact. The term is highly politicised and contentious. States and organisations label groups as terrorists when their actions threaten their interests. For instance, one group’s “freedom fighter” may be another’s “terrorist,” depending on who controls the narrative. What unites all definitions is the aim to use fear as a tool of coercion.

A resistance fighter, by contrast, opposes an occupying power, authoritarian regime, or invading force, often portrayed as defending their homeland. Their methods include sabotage, intelligence-gathering, and armed conflict, generally aimed at military or government targets rather than civilians. Resistance fighters are often seen positively within their communities, but external observers may label them as terrorists if civilians are harmed. For example, the French Resistance during World War II used sabotage and espionage against Nazi occupiers, aligning their efforts with Allied military objectives.

A guerrilla is a combatant engaging in irregular warfare, using mobile and flexible tactics like ambushes, sabotage, and hit-and-run attacks. Guerrillas generally avoid direct confrontation with larger, conventional forces. While resistance fighters and guerrillas share some tactics, guerrillas often operate in broader insurgencies or as part of political movements. The Viet Cong in the Vietnam War exemplify guerrilla warfare, blending with local populations and attacking supply lines. Guerrillas may target civilians, blurring the lines with terrorism.

Adding further complexity is the solitary domestic killer who targets civilians, often driven by unresolved grievances. These individuals act alone but sometimes leave behind manifestos explaining their actions, blending personal rage with political or ideological motivations. Their targets may include children in schools, politicians, or members of specific groups, chosen for symbolic impact. Such acts often overlap with lone-actor terrorism, hate crimes, or mass murders, depending on intent and context.

When these acts are explicitly intended to instil fear or promote an ideology, they are often classified as lone-actor terrorism. Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in Norway in 2011, left a detailed manifesto promoting far-right ideology, making his actions clearly ideological. However, some killings, such as school shootings, may have political overtones but are better understood as mass murders driven by personal grievances. If the act targets a specific racial, religious, or gendered group, it may be classified as a hate crime, such as the Charleston church shooting in 2015.

Ultimately, the distinctions between these categories often depend on perspective. While governments may label opponents as terrorists, supporters may view them as freedom fighters or guerrillas. Similarly, solitary killers with political manifestos straddle the line between lone terrorism and personal pathology. These terms reflect not only actions but also the narratives constructed around them, making their classification inherently political and subjective.