Talk:German anti-partisan operations in World War II

Asia and the Pacific? Africa?

At present the article is a promising start but it seems to be particularly focused on Nazi Germany and the regimes directly under its sway. This makes sense because of how central it was, but this also means short shrift is given to the other major Axis powers. Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy in particular are noteworthy because they developed their own related but distinct doctrines to German practice, with Italy crushing down on Slovene and domestic anti-Fascist resistance and brutally pacifying Libya and Ethiopia, while Japan engaged in anti-partisan operations on at least as large a scale as Germany did across the Pacific Rim, slowly escalating from things such as the crushing of the Seediq rebellion to the "Three Alls" Policy. And this is not counting more minor players such as Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and so on. Perhaps it would be best if we expanded the article to address these other cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.35.122 (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

doctrines and tactics

Good start, but I am surprised that no other article already covers this. (if there is one then this needs to be merged into it before the history gets too long)

What is the focus of the article to be about? Is it to be a list of small wars, or about the doctrines and tactics used by both the Axis and the resistance movements? --PBS (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I was surprised that no other article covers this. As nobody replied to my posts on this - I posed several times at WP:MILHIST - I finally created the article. The article is a parent article for the subject listed, so it is supposed to cover doctrines and tactics used by both Axis and Allies in combating the partisans (the doctrines and tactics of partisans belong to Resistance in World War II), and it is also to create a list (that may be split off at some point) of anti-partisan operations. Possibly lists of anti-partisan units and such may be added as well (we also need a category). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Balkans

The war in Yugoslavia needs a section. --PBS (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And one for Poland, and I'd like to see something about Japanese operations in their occupied territories, too. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find enough about theaters other then SU and France to even make stub sections :( There is much about partisans themselves, but little overview of the anti-partisan (German) side. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium

There needs to be a mention of the little wars as well as the larger ones. Were the doctrines and tactics used here different that those in the rest of occupied territories of the Third Reich. --PBS (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course. But see above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Italy and the other German allies

Italy was a special case because it changed sides earlier than most other countries and so there are two parts to the Italian story, and what about the other Axis countries did they have their own doctrines and tactics. --PBS (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We should eventually have a sections with overview of Italian and Japanese policy, and perhaps those of Croatia and Slovakia as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Homeland resistance

Should there be a mention of the methods used within the Third Reich? --PBS (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

More on Werewolf? Perhaps, but remember the focus: it is on what Allies did to the Werewolf, not the other way around.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the suppression of internal resistance by the Third Reich to its opponents. --PBS (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, German resistance. Interesting point, but I think that unless the German resistance actually gave rise to violent, partisan resistance, it is outside the scope of the article (we do need an article on Nazi Germany policy towards dissidents or such). The scope of this article is not how Germans oppressed others, but what was their policy towards the partisans (this is why almost nothing from the soon-to-be-FA article on German oppression and destruction of Polish culture applies here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So it is insurgency operations which this article is targeting (not revolts in general). Does it include uprisings were the combatants were recognised as combatants (Which I believe was the status given to those captured at the end of the Warsaw Uprising -- but you would know more about that)? --PBS (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes. In the end, the recognition of WU insurgents as lawful combatants was simply a partial reversal of previous German policies (such as the Commando Order). Once the Polish section is written (its on my to do list, I just cannot find any good sources) it will certainly mention Operation Tempest and German reaction to it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hostages Trial

A study of the Hostages Trial should be included, as it shows the legality and otherwise of the German tactics. --PBS (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea: post-war view of German anti-partisan operations. PS. I added a brief mention, feel free to expand. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Commando Order

As the Germans did not recognise Commandos as regular soldiers there should be some mention of how counter Commando tactics along with the Commando Order --PBS (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, another good idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

collective punishment

"However, the Allies never considered collective punishment of the local populace to deprive partisans of potential support"

Don't know if this is true:

The tribunal also remarked that both the British Manual of Military Law and the U.S. Basic Field Manual (Rules of Land Warfare) permitted the taking of reprisals against a civilian population. (The British manual didn't mention killing, the U.S. manual included killing as a possible reprisal.) Nevertheless, the tribunal still found most of the accused guilty on count 1 of the indictment because it considered the acts committed by the German troops in excess of the rules under which the tribunal considered hostage taking and reprisal killings lawful.

— Hostages Trial

--PBS (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Axis operations against Soviet partisans

Reference should be made somewhere that from 1943(TBC), anti-partisan operations conducted by the German armed forces in the occupied Soviet Union were coordinated by Erich von dem Bach-Zalewski (HSSPF for the area of Army Group Centre) in his capacity as Chef der Bandenkampfverbande, directly subordinate to Himmler. As an HSSPF, he was able to call upon SS and Police forces in the region, as well as working with the Wehrmacht, whose contribution included frontline units, the rear area Security Divisions and the Geheime Feldpolizei (GFP).

FiftusTheSixth (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Badge

Would there be any objections to removing the image of the "Anti-Partisan Guerrilla Warfare Badge" from the article? The badge is not discussed in the article, and I find the image to be superfluous. I would like to remove it, unless there are objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Since it appears that there are no objections, I will go ahead and remove. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Šesta neprijateljska ofanziva.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Way too much reliance on ONE source.

This article relys way too much on ONE source: Daniel Marston, Carter Malkasian: Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare, Osprey Publishing, 2008

It's the first three citations listed. In fact, the over 40 citations of this book (not viewable online), are more than double all the other citations combined!

There are surely numerous substantive online articles from reliable sources that address this issue, and can be used to augment or replace the excessive use of these single-source citations.

~ Penlite (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)