[Mazhi]

Do dead partizans count as military or civilians deaths?

What, are you joking?

[Il Duce]

These figures conclude how the axis powers know how to open a can of whoop arse upon its enemies.

[QatzelOk]

These figures conclude how the axis powers know how to open a can of whoop arse upon its enemies.

I'm not sure if "the football game" is the best metaphor for understanding mechanical death.

[Il Duce]

ok, ok... although i sound insensitive to the deaths of WW2, i feel it was a terrible waste of life.

[Smilin' Dave]

The Shock Doctrine is as old as tyranny.

Shock doctrine is generally applied internally by the state, rather externally by other nations. The cost to the other nation for such a direct involvement wouldn't have the same profit margin and certainly wouldn't constitute a good short term investment. Further in the case of WWII, the original participants all ended with a net loss.

Since you have in past been completely unable to prove, or even define, a conspiracy by non-participants to start WWII, I think your current thesis is without grounds.

[Doomhammer]

These figures conclude how the axis powers know how to open a can of whoop arse upon its enemies.

Also proves how utterly useless the Italians were.

[Thunderhawk]

What, are you joking?

Im serious. Do para military deaths count as military or civlian?
What about the thousands of police Germany sent to, and died in, its new possessions?

These figures conclude how the axis powers know how to open a can of whoop arse upon its enemies.

Untill they ran across an opponant who was as well prepared for battle over them (USA over Germany, USSR over Japan), as the axis members were over their initial targets.

[QatzelOk]

Shock doctrine is generally applied internally by the state, rather externally by other nations.

It's applied to any population that is subservient to an elite. If the elite is an international one, then they can apply a shock internationally.

The cost to the other nation for such a direct involvement wouldn't have the same profit margin and certainly wouldn't constitute a good short term investment.

You're thinking inside the box of national borders here. Again. International elites play nations against one another and profit handsomely. The longest standing international elites are in banking and industry. Arms making and finance.

Further in the case of WWII, the original participants all ended with a net loss.

Here again, you're talking about nation states. You seem unable to understand the role of international elites in creating warfare that is VERY profitable for them.

Look at Haliburton and Exxon today. They stand to profit a great deal from Middle East wars without investing very much of their own money. They just need a few mercenaries (private security) and then they can use their connections (in finance/media/arms industry) to get various nations to send troops. The nations gain nothing for these troops being sent. It's taxation without representation, and it's how the Shock Doctrine can be applied internationally. By leveraging national armies by using financial and military-industrial extortion.

"Attack Iraq or we'll destroy your economy and get Puppet Government X to attack your country."

There have been international elites as long as there has been colonialism and central banking.

[Mazhi]

Do para military deaths count as military or civlian?

Well, guerilla deaths are military deaths, of course. You don't think, for example, Vietnamese guerillas were military?

[Smilin' Dave]

You're thinking inside the box of national borders here. Again. International elites play nations against one another and profit handsomely. The longest standing international elites are in banking and industry. Arms making and finance.

Show me how this approach of yours explains the start of WWII, and we'll talk. Identifiying exactly who the 'international elite' are would be a good start.

Until then, you are just creating unprovable conspiracy theories to hang your ideology off.

[Thunderhawk]

Well, guerilla deaths are military deaths, of course. You don't think, for example, Vietnamese guerillas were military?

guerilla warfare is a tactic.
Soldier and partisans can be practitioners.

Generally speaking, captured soldiers were interred in POW camps while partisans were shot.

[Mazhi]

So what's your point? That partisans aren't soldiers? What sort of strange definition of "soldier" do you have then? A soldier has a bigger gun? Partisan, by definion, is someone who practices guerilla warfare, whichever Army they're enlisted in.

guerrilla: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment

Partisan and guerilla is practically the same thing.

[Okonkwo]

Partisan and guerilla is practically the same thing.

Guerilla activities tend to be directed against the own state, while partisan activity has happened as part of a greater war and has always been directed at an occupying, foreign force.

[Thunderhawk]

So what's your point? That partisans aren't soldiers? What sort of strange definition of "soldier" do you have then? A soldier has a bigger gun?

Geneva convention (or was it "agreement" or "pact" ?), amoung other things.
Generally, soldiers doing their duty are not held accountable to the same standards as their officiers nor like civilians.

Partisan, by definion, is someone who practices guerilla warfare, whichever Army they're enlisted in.

No.
Partisans use guerilla warfare because its their best option. Well armed and trained partisans can and have gone toe to toe in a conventional manner.

guerrilla: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment

Irregular does not mean non-official, it means they are irregular. Partisans are often irregular, and so are special forces.

[Mazhi]

Official in what sense? If we look at the Yugoslav Partisan Resistance, they were officially recognized as the military force of the Allied Yugoslavia at the Tehran Conference in 1943. How much more "official" should they have been? And as I have mentioned before, in 1944 they grew into an army of almost 1 million men who fought in conventional battles. So, if your logic is correct, the partisans who died before 1943 are somehow not soldiers, while the ones that died after the official recognicion were soldiers? A soldier is defined by a piece of paper?

What about the battles that occured from 1941 to 1943 in Yugoslavia? They were not fought by soldiers?

Generally, soldiers doing their duty are not held accountable to the same standards as their officiers nor like civilians.

Umm..do you think the Nazis really cared much about that? Why would they send innocent people into concentration camps, execute innocent hostages that they randomly chose from the civilian population and move 100s of thousands of people out of the country by force then? What sort of standards were those?

But anyway, why such an obsession with formality?

Guerilla activities tend to be directed against the own state, while partisan activity has happened as part of a greater war and has always been directed at an occupying, foreign force.

But you do agree that any armed person who fights in a war is a soldier? Or are you like Thunderhawk and think that if it's not on paper, then it can't be true?

[Thunderhawk]

Mazhi, the Yugoslav partisans, right along with Soviet, Polish and Greek partisans, would be at the other end of the spectrum from the German occupation police IMO.

Being classified as a soldier or civilian doesnt really matter from the taking up arms POV, a dead fighter is a dead fighter, but it does matter for the statistic.

Does a Czech civilian who gets enraged and punches a German colonist, and then get killed by German occupational police, count as a military or civilian death? What about the various bandit forces that were killed by military forces? If it was a Yugoslav rather then a Czech, would the same standard apply?

Is the same standard applied through out?