the ghetto uprising failed - no survivors

RIP

warsaw ghetto I should say

(The later Warsaw uprising didn't fear much better either to be fair)

That's one sub population though. We need to be specific about what we are talking about. What do you mean by the arbitrary 'non-organised society'? What do you have in mind?

No clue, you the anarchist

So, you're basing it on an impression. That's not a very honest characterisation.

that wasn't really a war. That was state genocide

conducted by the occupiers

@DessertBeagle Yeah, as a means of conducting warfare

it was not warfare

it was genocide

My idea of anarchism is not restricted to borders and subpopulations.

@Deleted User Ok, explain what kind of society, that could still be described as anarchistic, would ever be able to withstand a modern state's genocidal whim?

But I would understand how a nationalist could be habituated to always think in these terms.

@DessertBeagle I don't see how the two are necesairly incompatibe

@Deleted User (I'm not a nationalist)

@Deleted User (unless by nationalist you mean a non-anarchist)

I don't know. I don't live in a fantasy world. I think in terms of here and now. Anarchism is an action nowadays against power structures. I'm not sure how a modern state would genocide people who are embedded all around the world.

warfare in the western world has always been subject to unstated rules, and the goal is not necessarily the extermination of the 'enemy' population. Once you get into that territory, it's genocide.

@Apollo'sJest Apologies, what is your politics?

@DessertBeagle Ok, but the entire point of Hitler's version of (eastern) warfare was germanisation or repalcement of the local population. That was the entire policy - that's why operation Barbarossa included entire divisions of mass executioners following the tank offenssive. To murder the locals. The German government did not want the population that it saw as a hasse, it wanted the land.

your point being?

@Deleted User I'm a bit of a wirdo... The short version is: republican (in the classical, non US sense) that most other contemporary repblicans would call a monarchist.

@DessertBeagle My point being genocide was part of the military strategy

they drove people off their land through terrorism and violence. They weren't trying to murder all Poles as you stated, simply to take their territory. That is known these days as 'ethnic cleansing'

which is seperate from genocide, as practiced against the Jews, where the goal is the mass execution of an entire group

although admittedly the lines can be blurry

@DessertBeagle I see the point for distinguishing between the exact concepts, but I also see the point of applying a wholistic method of analysis by which I mean: at the time international conflic used all of those methods you listed above to achieve the geopolitical goal it hgad in mind. Thus I argue that the concept of war, that is open and larg scale international conflict using all means necessary, was "enriched" at the time. Just as during WWI it got "enriched" by the application of large scale chemical weapons.

The difference is that chemical weapons were a tactical novelty while genocide and so forth was a strategic novelty

So to answer your charge. Anarchy is not a border or population. It exists everywhere. Maybe is concentrated pockets at times, but never for very long - this is not the goal. The primary concern is action against statism, property, rights etc. which are everywhere.

@Deleted User So you don't have long term political goals?

I think that's unrealistic. Like I said, I am mainly concerned with the present, not lofty ideals.

@Deleted User So what is the goal than? The realistic one.

@Deleted User Wait, you are anti rights?

Just actions.

@Deleted User Acting for actng's sake?

'Natural right' is a spook.

So what about personal freedoms?

Afterall, you do want to liberate the workers, as you claim.

but WW2 was not the beginning of genocide and ethnic cleansing, those have long historical precedent. While they saw use in that conflict, I reject the notion that WW2 saw those tactics somehow enshrined ('enriched') in the western way of war. Look at the many conflicts the US has engaged in since then where these were not part of the overall strategy.
Back to your earlier point of 'extermination based total war', well in the end the nation who used that strategy lost to a multinational coalition. So I would say that we haven't seen that used successfully in warfare in centuries. However, it has often been used in modern times successfully against a populace by their own government (Armenian genocide, russian pogroms, etc..)