Difference if any between Resistance & Partisans (illegal)?
- Webdragon2013
- Member
- Posts: 72
- Joined: 24 Apr 2014, 11:37
Difference if any between Resistance & Partisans (illegal)?
To my knowledge partisan warfare is illegal under the war conventions in place during WW2.
Partisans. As in illegal combatants without uniforms who conduct illegal warfare and then hide among civilians when their deed is committed. Oftentimes as history has shown the civilians are the victims of partisan warfare as the occupier takes revenge on the civilians disproportionately.
My questions:
- What is the difference between Resistance (good) and partisans (bad)? Is there a difference?
- Is there any form of legal resistance or is it all lumped under partisan warfare and illegal?
To me legal resistance would be: A civilian who wears a clear patch/armband that says his side and attacks military of enemy, commits no atrocities, and surrenders like normal military unit when cornered.
Illegal would be: No sign whatsover, shooting at military of enemy, not surrendering when cornered and hiding among civilians.
Final question: Were the Germans justified legally and morally in reprisals against civilians in the case of ILLEGAL partisan attacks and especially atrocities (finding a comrade mutilated in worst ways)?
Thanks!
Partisans. As in illegal combatants without uniforms who conduct illegal warfare and then hide among civilians when their deed is committed. Oftentimes as history has shown the civilians are the victims of partisan warfare as the occupier takes revenge on the civilians disproportionately.
My questions:
- What is the difference between Resistance (good) and partisans (bad)? Is there a difference?
- Is there any form of legal resistance or is it all lumped under partisan warfare and illegal?
To me legal resistance would be: A civilian who wears a clear patch/armband that says his side and attacks military of enemy, commits no atrocities, and surrenders like normal military unit when cornered.
Illegal would be: No sign whatsover, shooting at military of enemy, not surrendering when cornered and hiding among civilians.
Final question: Were the Germans justified legally and morally in reprisals against civilians in the case of ILLEGAL partisan attacks and especially atrocities (finding a comrade mutilated in worst ways)?
Thanks!
Re: Difference if any between Resistance & Partisans (illega
Your defintions aren't widely accepted. Resistance forces and or Partisans can both be either legitimate combatants or not. For more details see:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp
This has also been discussed on a number of previous threads so this one may not stay open long.
As to this question:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp
This has also been discussed on a number of previous threads so this one may not stay open long.
As to this question:
Reprisals were allowed for by the conventions of the time. However due process was required and the reprisals were not suppose to be disperportunate. The German reprisals failed most if not all the time to meet those requirements. So they were not legally justified. IMO there is no moral justification for killing innocents as a reprisal for actions of others.Final question: Were the Germans justified legally and morally in reprisals against civilians in the case of ILLEGAL partisan attacks and especially atrocities
Re: Difference if any between Resistance & Partisans (illega
Moral justifications in a war ?
- Ironmachine
- Member
- Posts: 5821
- Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
- Location: Spain
Re: Difference if any between Resistance & Partisans (illega
Webdragon2013 wrote:surrenders like normal military unit when cornered
AFAIK, surrender is always optional. I can't see why you think that if someone decides to fight to the end he is qualifying as an an "illegal" combatant.
Re: Difference if any between Resistance & Partisans (illega
Partisan warfare wasn't illegal, at least in the sense atrocities were under any law: German, French or Soviet. There was no "thou shalt not be a partisan" rule. The law said a soldier couldn't be a partisan, nothing more.
But still the other side had the right to execute partisants, or impose limited reprisals.
Although reprisals were legal, first an occupant had his obligations to fulfill, like to behave himself, maintain wealth of the occupied territories, their economic structure, upheld human rights and the existing laws of the occupied territories. The aims of a war had to be limited, "raze the cities, exterminate everyone and we are done" wasn't acceptable.
So because the extermination started early, and the fundamental rules of war were broken by the Germans almost immediately (for example during the 1939 Intelligenzaktion, or the Aktion T4 in Poland), the partisans had the right to use any means they saw necessary to win the war.
But still the other side had the right to execute partisants, or impose limited reprisals.
Although reprisals were legal, first an occupant had his obligations to fulfill, like to behave himself, maintain wealth of the occupied territories, their economic structure, upheld human rights and the existing laws of the occupied territories. The aims of a war had to be limited, "raze the cities, exterminate everyone and we are done" wasn't acceptable.
So because the extermination started early, and the fundamental rules of war were broken by the Germans almost immediately (for example during the 1939 Intelligenzaktion, or the Aktion T4 in Poland), the partisans had the right to use any means they saw necessary to win the war.
Re: Difference if any between Resistance & Partisans (illega
seems complicated.. as in the American Civil War, there were 'partisans/resistance/robbers/thieves/pirates.....obviously, if they are fighting the ''bad'' guys, they are ''good''....?right?
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: Difference if any between Resistance & Partisans (illega
bronk7 -- You wrote:
You also asked:
Well, the general idea is that it shouldn't be simple. Most people think death is a pretty serious thing. That's why nations have laws about killing folks, and when it can be done. Not many people feel comfortable with the notion that they can be arbitrarily killed by somebody else. Most want to minimize the risk.seems complicated
You also asked:
Really?obviously, if they are fighting the ''bad'' guys, they are ''good''....?right?
Re: Difference if any between Resistance & Partisans (illega
There were good and bad guys, at least according to the Covenant of the League of Nations. The League had the right to declare a state as an offender/aggressor, and could introduce economic and physical sanctions against that state.
The states in dispute were required to discuss a problem in an orderly and peaceful manner, war was unacceptable. So the offenders which refused to do that were the bad guys.
According to the Hague Conventions there were soldiers, and there were the others.
The soldiers were protected by the Conventions, the others were not - they were subjected to the laws of the occupying force.
So soldiers could become POWs, partisans/resistance/robbers/thieves/pirates couldn't, and could be executed.
BTW, I think the sentence above should be: the partisans had the moral right to use any means they saw necessary. Their status didn't change, they still weren't soldiers.
This is why, some large Polish partisan units, maybe uniquely in Europe, respected the Hague Conventions and were soldiers. For example the Warsaw Uprising fighters were soldiers, and it was accepted by the Germans.
The states in dispute were required to discuss a problem in an orderly and peaceful manner, war was unacceptable. So the offenders which refused to do that were the bad guys.
According to the Hague Conventions there were soldiers, and there were the others.
The soldiers were protected by the Conventions, the others were not - they were subjected to the laws of the occupying force.
So soldiers could become POWs, partisans/resistance/robbers/thieves/pirates couldn't, and could be executed.
BTW, I think the sentence above should be: the partisans had the moral right to use any means they saw necessary. Their status didn't change, they still weren't soldiers.
This is why, some large Polish partisan units, maybe uniquely in Europe, respected the Hague Conventions and were soldiers. For example the Warsaw Uprising fighters were soldiers, and it was accepted by the Germans.
Re: Difference if any between Resistance & Partisans (illega
doesn't the Viet Cong fit the description of an illegal group? but they were fighting the ''bad'' guys<>American imperialists...??when I said complicated, I meant the labeling of which groups are ''bad'' and ''good''...
Re: Difference if any between Resistance & Partisans (illega
The Hague Conventions don't concern themselves with motives: aggressors, victims, imperialists, good guys, bad guys - all have the same rights. They don't do labeling. The UN does - by a unanimous vote. So the bad guys are those declared by the UN as bad guys.
The Hague Conventions were not applicable in Vietnam. They are the Laws of War (between states) but that war was an internal conflict of South Vietnam - there were no "Hague" soldiers there at all.
The Vietcong was indeed an illegal group - according to South Vietnamese law , and that was all, it was their own internal problem.
Paradoxically the American pilots bombing North Vietnam weren't soldiers too, maybe even they were pirates as the Communists called them. A war between states requires a declaration of war, and there was none.
But shortly after the WW2 there was a new convention signed, the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, and even insurgents (and those American pilots) were granted limited rights - but still weren't soldiers (so couldn't become POWs too).
The rights were: no execution, mutilation, torture, and no humiliating and degrading treatment. The wounded and sick had to be collected and cared for. And they had the right to fair trial.
The Hague Conventions were not applicable in Vietnam. They are the Laws of War (between states) but that war was an internal conflict of South Vietnam - there were no "Hague" soldiers there at all.
The Vietcong was indeed an illegal group - according to South Vietnamese law , and that was all, it was their own internal problem.
Paradoxically the American pilots bombing North Vietnam weren't soldiers too, maybe even they were pirates as the Communists called them. A war between states requires a declaration of war, and there was none.
But shortly after the WW2 there was a new convention signed, the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, and even insurgents (and those American pilots) were granted limited rights - but still weren't soldiers (so couldn't become POWs too).
The rights were: no execution, mutilation, torture, and no humiliating and degrading treatment. The wounded and sick had to be collected and cared for. And they had the right to fair trial.
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: Difference if any between Resistance & Partisans (illega
bronk7 -- You asked:
As wm. points out, the international laws on warfare change from time to time, to deal with problems which weren't apparent before, or when a number of countries decide to resolve long-standing problems.
The laws of war didn't define an "illegal group." The Hague Conventions on Land Warfare -- Convention II of 1899 and Convention IV of 1907 -- define the rights and duties of soldiers, and impose certain minimum requirements on armies which occupy conquered territories. There are a few acts prohibited there, but being a member of a resistance or partisan movement aren't included.doesn't the Viet Cong fit the description of an illegal group?
As wm. points out, the international laws on warfare change from time to time, to deal with problems which weren't apparent before, or when a number of countries decide to resolve long-standing problems.
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: Difference if any between Resistance & Partisans (illega
I know a lot of people look down on Wiki, but they have a useful description of "partisan" that points up the difference between the two, a difference I've always believed in...and agree with Wiki's definition of one as the subset of the other...
In the East, under the same definition therefore you had the large, permanently-constituted "partisan" armies behind the fronts, operating more as irregular forces and often airdropped to, both supplies and commissars, and broadly operating to Army requirements and strategies. And in the Balkans, you had a virtual "state within a state" controlled by Tito's partisans, again as a permanently-constituted field force.
"Resistance" is a broad term...but "partisan" is a much more restricted definition of resister referring specifically to military or paramilitary forces in the field. But note that it's a definition driven by what they were and what they did, rather than a definition in law.
Thus under the all-encompassing umbrella term "French Resistance" 1940-45 you had 1/ resisters embedded in the civil population in cells etc., 2/ resisters within the civil population engaged in non-military resistance e.g. union agitation/labour disruption...but also 3/ "partisans" in the form of the "permanently in the field" elements of the Maquis, including a large percentage of French Army holdouts from 1940, often in heavily-forested or mountainous locations like the Jura.A partisan is a member of an irregular military force formed to oppose control of an area by a foreign power or by an army of occupation by some kind of insurgent activity. The term can apply to the field element of resistance movements, examples of which are the civilians that opposed Nazi German or Fascist Italian rule in several countries during World War II.
In the East, under the same definition therefore you had the large, permanently-constituted "partisan" armies behind the fronts, operating more as irregular forces and often airdropped to, both supplies and commissars, and broadly operating to Army requirements and strategies. And in the Balkans, you had a virtual "state within a state" controlled by Tito's partisans, again as a permanently-constituted field force.
"Resistance" is a broad term...but "partisan" is a much more restricted definition of resister referring specifically to military or paramilitary forces in the field. But note that it's a definition driven by what they were and what they did, rather than a definition in law.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Re: Difference if any between Resistance & Partisans (illega
Dave and wm , very good points....""but being a member of a resistance or partisan movement aren't included""<>aren't included in the rights of soldiers or not at all??....
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: Difference if any between Resistance & Partisans (illega
bronk7 -- The sentence in question is:
Your question was:There are a few acts prohibited there [in the Hague Conventions on the Laws of Land Warfare], but being a member of a resistance or partisan movement aren't included.
Being a member of a resistance or partisan movement aren't included in the Hague Convention lists of prohibited acts.but being a member of a resistance or partisan movement aren't included""<>aren't included in the rights of soldiers or not at all??....
Re: Difference if any between Resistance & Partisans (illega
Dave, roger that...ty