Partisan activity in Europe a violation of International law

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Orok
Member
Posts: 1787
Joined: 11 Sep 2003 15:35
Location: USA

Post by Orok » 24 Mar 2004 17:49

And following the same logic, 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?

Best Regards!

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4229
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 24 Mar 2004 18:07

oleg wrote:how about partsians who had red star on their hats?
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 :D they used their own civilian clothes. Also arm band is an acceptable emblem.

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.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4229
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 24 Mar 2004 18:19

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?
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.

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.

User avatar
Orok
Member
Posts: 1787
Joined: 11 Sep 2003 15:35
Location: USA

Post by Orok » 24 Mar 2004 18:26

Harri wrote:
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?
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.

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,

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!

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4229
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 24 Mar 2004 19:17

I see. :wink:

User avatar
Beppo Schmidt
Member
Posts: 4324
Joined: 14 May 2003 02:05
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Beppo Schmidt » 24 Mar 2004 20:55

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?

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 24 Mar 2004 21:22

Allen Milcic wrote:
panzermahn wrote:
how about partsians who had red star on their hats?
please read the article 1 of Hague Convention
To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance
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..
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.

Allen/
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…

yabint
Member
Posts: 484
Joined: 17 Mar 2004 03:15
Location: New Zealand

Post by yabint » 24 Mar 2004 21:44

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?
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.

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.

fknorr
Banned
Posts: 189
Joined: 30 Jan 2004 21:25
Location: Pa USA

laughable

Post by fknorr » 24 Mar 2004 21:50

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]

xcalibur
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 15:12
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: laughable

Post by xcalibur » 24 Mar 2004 22:31

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.

fknorr
Banned
Posts: 189
Joined: 30 Jan 2004 21:25
Location: Pa USA

Post by fknorr » 24 Mar 2004 23:35

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.

User avatar
Beppo Schmidt
Member
Posts: 4324
Joined: 14 May 2003 02:05
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Beppo Schmidt » 24 Mar 2004 23:40

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).
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.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11531
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 24 Mar 2004 23:54

David 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.
Soviet partisan achievements at Lokka village, Finland 14th July 1944
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23579
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 24 Mar 2004 23:56

fknorr -- You wrote:
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:
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.
Yes, our readers are usually perceptive.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 25 Mar 2004 00:01


Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”