WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

1.3K

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

Einsatzgruppen were anti-partisan units. Jews/partisans were attacking and sabotaging German supply lines.

[–] 1 pt (edited )

Awesome, found a pretty good article (and site) with those search terms.

http://www.wearswar.com/2021/10/09/anti-partisan-warfare/

[–] 1 pt

As context, prior to and during Barbarossa the USSR had the largest army in the world, with more tanks than the rest of the world combined. They had many offensive plans, but no defensive ones. So the main Soviet strategy consisted of their army fighting die-in-place battles while the NKVD stripped the countryside of any available food and tools but leaving the peasants behind. They wanted to leave the burden of feeding them on the German army, which was itself strapped for resources, so they were deliberately starving to death their own civilians for the purpose of demonizing their enemy. And it worked.

[–] 1 pt

If the gas chambers are bullshit it would follow the predecessor to them was too. Did Nazi Death Squads never exist in any fashion?

[–] 0 pt

>In January 1943 Hitler declared that the Geneva Convention and the traditional rules of chivalry did not apply in anti-partisan activity.

Poor guy waited 18 months to declare that. Partisan warfare is terrorism, because sufferings and casualties mainly lie upon civilians. But fucking commies gave no shit about civilians.

[–] 0 pt

>Partisan warfare is terrorism, because sufferings and casualties mainly lie upon civilians.

Regular army opposition to an invading force may not be possible or phesible, so local opposition needs to keel over and wait for better times to come by eventually?

Freedom fighters, terrorists, partisans or illegal combattants; the definition surely depends on the POV and the end may justify the means.

"Terrorism".. is that blowing up a army barrack? Is that ambushing and murdering patrolling opposition soldiers? Is it sabotaging supplylines?

Point of view..