Captured partisans

[Sebastian Pye]

Were captured partisans classified and treated as POWs? Or were they, to use a newly invented term treated as "unlawful combatants"? And dont tell me they didnt take partisan prisoners because they did, in large numbers.

[SunLife]

"Sebastian Pye"]Were captured partisans classified and treated as POWs? Or were they, to use a newly invented term treated as "unlawful combatants"? And dont tell me they didnt take partisan prisoners because they did, in large numbers.

************************************************************

They were treated as scum and dealt with as such, usually hanged.

A quote from "Das Reich-Max Hastings" some historians suggest that in the spring of 44 at least as many Frenchmen were working actively to combat Resistence as were working with the FFI and FTP. (resitence groups)

I dont think anyone particularly likes a terrorist, whichever side you are on.

[gorbag]

Wasn't one of the Fallschirmjager's Ten Commandments to shoot any captured partisans?

[joscha]

Ä few months ago, in the old (lamented) forum, there was a lengthy post about the Fuehrerbefehl dealing with partisans and commandos.

According to that order, all partisans not wearing a properly recognized piece of uniform ((remember the Volkssturm armbands!), were to be summarily executed.

Some German commanders refused to obey this order and quietly funneled them into POW camps.

Also, remember, the Polish underground Army of the Warsaw uprising was accorded POW status.

My 1.7(US) cents. Joscha

[Noel Petroni]

Partisins were always seen as a nuisance. In my openion they were cowards. Not identifying themselves by means of a uniform and hitting in the back. They were hated for the obvious reasons and did not deserve to be treated according to the Geneva Convention.

I don't think the Geneva Convetion allowed rebels such as patisins?

Regards
Noel

[SunLife]

Partisins were always seen as a nuisance. In my openion they were cowards. Not identifying themselves by means of a uniform and hitting in the back. They were hated for the obvious reasons and did not deserve to be treated according to the Geneva Convention.

I don't think the Geneva Convetion allowed rebels such as patisins?

Regards
Noel

I can only liken them in the same vein as terrorist groups like the IRA. If this is the case, they are the scum of the earth, and certainly are not doing it to help their country.

If the Germans were subject to the same ordeals, by the same kind of people, I can well understand the dislike.

[Sebastian Pye]

Interesting, so most of them were shot? That must have been a lot of shootings! Any estimation of how many partisans were captured and then executed?

[charlie don't surf]

I just run over an essay by the german historian Christian Gerlach. He identified 55 different german anti-Partisan operations only within the region of White Russia during 1942 and July 1944 (17 in 1942, 27 in 1943, 11 in 1st half of '44).

Result: in this 55 operations, carried out by Police, Wehrmacht and SS, 135,000+ Russians were reported to be killed, the same number being "caught" or "deported" ("caught" usually ended up in execution, "deported" means sent to Germany for slave labour).

German losses as reported: approx. 1,200 men; booty in firearms: approx. 9,000.

So in other words, for every german loss in those anti-partisan operations, 112 Russian were killed, the same number "caught". The ratio of captured weapons to killed Russians is 1 firearm for 15 killed.

The kill ratios, numbers of weapons or deported people differ over the years, in essence the kill ratio went down from 1:500 in 1942 to 1:50 in the 1st half of 1944.

Again, this is only white Russia and only the 55 identified operations with all the missing data who makes the calculation pretty difficult.

But if you compare those numbers with dedicated anti-partisan operations elswhere (f.ex. France or Vietnam) you will see that Wehrmacht, SS and Police just shoot everybody they could get.
There are Operations with 500-1000 killes "Partisans" and ZERO german losses or ZERO captured firearms.

1941 is not included, because at this time there was no noteworthy partisan movement in White Russia or Russia at all.

AndyW

from: http://www.ww2forums.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi ... 7;t=000036

regards

[Santiago]

Hello,
May be i´m wrong, but...
Why do you think that they are as terrorist or scum or cowards?....

I suppose that it´s a diferent way to fight in a war.
If your territory is occupied for the enemy army you can´t enlist or participate in your army as in the case of France or Poland.
If you want to fight the enemy you must fight a guerrilla warfare.
And it´s impossible to wear an uniform in a conquest territory... well you can wear it and them the enemy shoot you in the spot.

The enemy army must deploy resources and mens to fight the partisans, and this resources and men could be used in the front. This meaning that partisans are very good to decrease the enemy army power.

Only is another way to fight in the war.
Of course if they surrender they know that they are dead.

Well.... It´s only my opinion.
Bye,

[charlie don't surf]

As I said on the ww2n.com-forum: the ununiformed american militia in the independence war should also be considered to be partisans. One should regard that in those kind of discussions.

regards

[HaEn]

As I said on the ww2n.com-forum: the ununiformed american militia in the independence war should also be considered to be partisans. One should regard that in those kind of discussions.

regards

Totally off topic. Charlie, are you retired or a kid with too much time on his hands ? You must spend an awfull lot of time at your computer, I find your postings all over the net. At 76 i even have a hard time keeping up with reading diverse fori (forums). And I DO have the time. Just curious; some of your postings are quite good; others, well . . . . . Regards HN.

[charlie don't surf]

Hi HaEn! Yes, I do have a lot of spare time- I'm a university student (history). Spare time along with broadband is a dangerous mix. That you see my posts in many different places is due to my research. I like ww2n.com because there are many nice people there.

best regards/ daniel

[SunLife]

Hello,
May be i´m wrong, but...
Why do you think that they are as terrorist or scum or cowards?....

Well.... It´s only my opinion.
Bye,

Hi Santiago.

Of course you are correct in what you say, but I dislike terrorism for what it costs the civillians, who have no choice but to be forced into the frontline, by people who, in my opinion are too cowardly to fight in uniform and would never dream of complying with the disciplines of war.

Terrorism is a cancer that the whole world dislikes, unless you are a terrorist. No honour, no creed, no ethics, no morals=scum.

Only my opinion of course.

[charlie don't surf]

SunLife, we are not talking about terrorism here but rather partisans.

regards

[Achtacht]

Charlie,

"we are not talking about terrorism here but rather partisans".

The key issue here is that the partisans wore no uniform, as such knowingly they forfeited their rigths. it allows them to strike by surprise and then retreat and hide with the civilian population. it is the method of operations of terrorists, off course all terrorist say their cause is a noble one, I guess it depends on what side you are on, nevertheless again the key issue is that they do not indentify themselves as the opposing force.

Stalin depended on them heavily and made great efforts to supply them with weapons and ammunition. They could move in the rear zone with relative ease, the same way they could have reached the Red army and wear a uniform.