Partisan activity in Europe a violation of International law
Cockade is an acceptable emblem of the "soldier". Also during Winter War numerous Finnish soldiers had only minimum military clothing: cockade, belt and white winter suit (without any markings)!! Because they didn't fought naked they used their own civilian clothes. Also arm band is an acceptable emblem.oleg wrote:how about partsians who had red star on their hats?
If there is nothing which differs soldiers/fighters from civilians then they are illegal gunmen/women. Note: it doesn't matter if they are armed or not, partisipating in any military activity or combat somehow (for example scouting) is the same.
SS camouflage suit is anyway a "military uniform" and there are rank plates on collar flaps which indicate the wearer of these is a soldier. It also tells the position of the wearer because all armed groups must have a leader who is in charge.Orok wrote:where is the distinctive insignia on the much vaunted and still much loved SS camouflage uniforms? Didn't they try to be as indistinctive as possible, so from a distance the whole unit would be invisible, let alone some insignia on the uniform?
The meaning of these rules is to separate civilians from soldiers because civilians should be protected despite of their nationality. But civilians may not be involved in any actions of soldiers in any way or they lose that "protection" and become illegal fighters.
Harri,Harri wrote:SS camouflage suit is anyway a "military uniform" and there are rank plates on collar flaps which indicate the wearer of these is a soldier. It also tells the position of the wearer because all armed groups must have a leader who is in charge.Orok wrote:where is the distinctive insignia on the much vaunted and still much loved SS camouflage uniforms? Didn't they try to be as indistinctive as possible, so from a distance the whole unit would be invisible, let alone some insignia on the uniform?
The meaning of these rules is to separate civilians from soldiers because civilians should be protected despite of their nationality. But civilians may not be involved in any actions of soldiers in any way or they lose that "protection" and become illegal fighters.
I know all these rudimetary details of the SS uniform and the purposes of the law. I just have difficulty following panzermahn's logic in his post, and wanted to show the the faulty reasoning in his arguments. But thank you anyway for your info.
Best Regards!
- Beppo Schmidt
- Member
- Posts: 4324
- Joined: 14 May 2003, 03:05
- Location: Ohio, USA
- Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
Well Germans fairly often amused themselves by carving out big red stars on the back of captured Partisans and recon troops … maybe that is what Panzermhan had in mind…Allen Milcic wrote:I'm curious...using this logic, at what distance was, for example, the Wehrmacht emblem visible? What about the "U" on the Ustasa hats? Was there any armed forces anywhere during WW2 that had "a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance" that was larger and more prominent than a Soviet or Yugoslav Partizan's red star?? Maybe they should have worn glowing neon signs that read "I'm a Partizan"?? I also note that Yugoslav Partizans wore uniforms as they became available. I hardly think that guerillas early on in the war had manufacturing plants and supply depots for uniforms and insignia.panzermahn wrote:please read the article 1 of Hague Conventionhow about partsians who had red star on their hats?
Unless, you fitted every soldier's rifle with sniper scope, i guess the red start would not be recognizable from a distance due to the small size of it..To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance
Allen/
Yes and No, we only have the rights that society gives us. That we have "god given rights" is a fundamental flaw in peoples thinking, because it is society which determines those rights.Beppo Schmidt wrote:Sorry, but I don't see how it made a difference if it violated international law or not. When an invading force enters and brutally subjugates your country, you don't have the right to fight back?
Do you have the right to fight back an invader? If you win then society exonerates you. If you loose then the victor gets to determine what your rights are. Like it or not, Might is Right.
laughable
I know Panzermahn and Colonel Steelfist egg you guys on but some of your replies would be hilarious if they were not filled w/such hypocracy.
In regards to Beppo's post, "Sorry, but I don't see how it made a difference if it violated international law or not. When an invading force enters and brutally subjugates your country, you don't have the right to fight back?
So I guess the people blowing up our boys in Iraq right now are justified in their actions?
David Thompson's post, "CHAPTER I.--On the Qualifications of Belligerents Article 1 The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:
Because it doesn't SPECIFICALLY say "partisan", "Militia" doesn't apply? In your opinion it doesn't...in the rest of the "non-hairsplitting" world, it just may.
To other individuals questioning just how big and/or visible they should be distiguished (markings to identify partisans), I believe the German's stated that if the FFI wore some sort of armband and fought conventionally instead of sniping at solitary soldiers, etc they would be accorded the rights given to a combat soldier/prisoner of war under the Geneva convention.
I know I am setting myself up for the 'pile on' of all you like minded individuals but after sitting back and reading some of the crap you guys regurgitate, I had to say something.
I would like to put up for consideration changing the name of this section from "Axis History Forum Index -> Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes"
to
"If you have a different opinion (i.e. that the allied combat soldier (with the exception of the German "camp system") was no better or worse than the German counterpart)...don't even bother" forum.[/i]
In regards to Beppo's post, "Sorry, but I don't see how it made a difference if it violated international law or not. When an invading force enters and brutally subjugates your country, you don't have the right to fight back?
So I guess the people blowing up our boys in Iraq right now are justified in their actions?
David Thompson's post, "CHAPTER I.--On the Qualifications of Belligerents Article 1 The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:
Because it doesn't SPECIFICALLY say "partisan", "Militia" doesn't apply? In your opinion it doesn't...in the rest of the "non-hairsplitting" world, it just may.
To other individuals questioning just how big and/or visible they should be distiguished (markings to identify partisans), I believe the German's stated that if the FFI wore some sort of armband and fought conventionally instead of sniping at solitary soldiers, etc they would be accorded the rights given to a combat soldier/prisoner of war under the Geneva convention.
I know I am setting myself up for the 'pile on' of all you like minded individuals but after sitting back and reading some of the crap you guys regurgitate, I had to say something.
I would like to put up for consideration changing the name of this section from "Axis History Forum Index -> Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes"
to
"If you have a different opinion (i.e. that the allied combat soldier (with the exception of the German "camp system") was no better or worse than the German counterpart)...don't even bother" forum.[/i]
Re: laughable
fknorr wrote:I know Panzermahn and Colonel Steelfist egg you guys on but some of your replies would be hilarious if they were not filled w/such hypocracy.
In regards to Beppo's post, "Sorry, but I don't see how it made a difference if it violated international law or not. When an invading force enters and brutally subjugates your country, you don't have the right to fight back?
So I guess the people blowing up our boys in Iraq right now are justified in their actions?
David Thompson's post, "CHAPTER I.--On the Qualifications of Belligerents Article 1 The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:
Because it doesn't SPECIFICALLY say "partisan", "Militia" doesn't apply? In your opinion it doesn't...in the rest of the "non-hairsplitting" world, it just may.
To other individuals questioning just how big and/or visible they should be distiguished (markings to identify partisans), I believe the German's stated that if the FFI wore some sort of armband and fought conventionally instead of sniping at solitary soldiers, etc they would be accorded the rights given to a combat soldier/prisoner of war under the Geneva convention.
I know I am setting myself up for the 'pile on' of all you like minded individuals but after sitting back and reading some of the crap you guys regurgitate, I had to say something.
I would like to put up for consideration changing the name of this section from "Axis History Forum Index -> Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes"
to
"If you have a different opinion (i.e. that the allied combat soldier (with the exception of the German "camp system") was no better or worse than the German counterpart)...don't even bother" forum.[/i]
Um, Dude, just a hint: Most people around here at least take the time to introduce themselves before attempting to insult members of the boards.
um dude, you are one of the offenders...
and
I did not intentionally offend anyone...just pointing out the flaws in certain folks' arguments and the propensity of the few to toss out all logic to perpetuate 50 year old lies and 1/2 truths.
I apologize if I came off a tad harsh but it seems as if any actual discussion here is quashed by folks with the single mindset that the allies were (reasonably) lilly-white, that anyone whose opinion varies is an apologist, revisionist, liar or neo-nazi.
I can understand that in this PC world any hint of siding w/our fomer enemies is constued as 'evil'. I can see both sides, have read enough of both to know that GI Joe was the same as Lanser Hans and VERY few on both sides actually deviated from the norm (in war).
Some here paint with a very large brush and if you notice that only a few regulars actually contribute and/or contribute very long it is because there is no normal discourse, only the few shouting down the manyw ith the same old tired BS.
and
I did not intentionally offend anyone...just pointing out the flaws in certain folks' arguments and the propensity of the few to toss out all logic to perpetuate 50 year old lies and 1/2 truths.
I apologize if I came off a tad harsh but it seems as if any actual discussion here is quashed by folks with the single mindset that the allies were (reasonably) lilly-white, that anyone whose opinion varies is an apologist, revisionist, liar or neo-nazi.
I can understand that in this PC world any hint of siding w/our fomer enemies is constued as 'evil'. I can see both sides, have read enough of both to know that GI Joe was the same as Lanser Hans and VERY few on both sides actually deviated from the norm (in war).
Some here paint with a very large brush and if you notice that only a few regulars actually contribute and/or contribute very long it is because there is no normal discourse, only the few shouting down the manyw ith the same old tired BS.
- Beppo Schmidt
- Member
- Posts: 4324
- Joined: 14 May 2003, 03:05
- Location: Ohio, USA
If you include me in the "offenders" with this supposed attitude, you obviously haven't read many of my posts or you would know I agree with everything you just said. The average German soldier- including my grandfather- was little if any different from his Allied counterpart.I can understand that in this PC world any hint of siding w/our fomer enemies is constued as 'evil'. I can see both sides, have read enough of both to know that GI Joe was the same as Lanser Hans and VERY few on both sides actually deviated from the norm (in war).
- Juha Tompuri
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 11562
- Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
- Location: Mylsä
Soviet partisan achievements at Lokka village, Finland 14th July 1944David Thompson wrote:Well, so far in this discussion we have partisan activity, but no violations of international law -- just groups of people who cannot claim protection as uniformed belligerents under the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, or under the Geneva Convention of 1929.
- Attachments
-
- The tombstone of some of the victims of the partisan visit to the Lokka village 14th July 1944
Pic from "Neuvostoliiton partisaanien tuhoiskut siviilikyliin 1941-44" by Tyyne Martikainen - partisan3.2.JPG (41.16 KiB) Viewed 1806 times
- The tombstone of some of the victims of the partisan visit to the Lokka village 14th July 1944
-
- The burned dead victims of the partisan visit being carried to the back of a lorry. The soldier at the left carrying Siiri H Kumpulainen.
Pic from "Partisaanien Uhrit" by Ville Tikkanen - partisan2.jpg (43.98 KiB) Viewed 1808 times
- The burned dead victims of the partisan visit being carried to the back of a lorry. The soldier at the left carrying Siiri H Kumpulainen.
-
- Lokka village after the partisan visit
Pic from "Partisaanisodan Siviiliuhrit" by Tyyne Martikainen - partisan1.1.JPG (36.05 KiB) Viewed 1807 times
- Lokka village after the partisan visit
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
fknorr -- You wrote:
You seem to have missed my point entirely, which is that there are certain conditions to be fulfilled before the Hague Convention applies. To think that the word "partisan" needed to be included is a grotesque and implausible misunderstanding which, I am happy to see, was reached only by you.
You also said:
David Thompson's post, "CHAPTER I.--On the Qualifications of Belligerents Article 1 The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:
Because it doesn't SPECIFICALLY say "partisan", "Militia" doesn't apply? In your opinion it doesn't...in the rest of the "non-hairsplitting" world, it just may.
You seem to have missed my point entirely, which is that there are certain conditions to be fulfilled before the Hague Convention applies. To think that the word "partisan" needed to be included is a grotesque and implausible misunderstanding which, I am happy to see, was reached only by you.
You also said:
Yes, our readers are usually perceptive.it seems as if any actual discussion here is quashed by folks with the single mindset that the allies were (reasonably) lilly-white, that anyone whose opinion varies is an apologist, revisionist, liar or neo-nazi.
- Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia