How effectivly could an armed population resist genocide?

Status
Not open for further replies.
RE:

WT asked in an earlier post "What is Chicago doing to prepare for a nuke attack?"

I'll tell you what chicago is doing to prepare....nothing....King Dick and his village idiot Rod are only interested in a state wide AWB.....And me being only 30+ miles away means I'll be lucky to be vaporized. But seeing as immediate erradication only happens up to 10 miles out, I'll most likely just get a somewhat damaged home, bad burns or rad poisioning...
 
Ironically, those who hide behind the First Amendment, and attack us who stand by the Second, are in for a big surprise when the Second is invalidated, because the First will be right after it, and there will be some extremely pissed unarmed media types being led to the showers...
Click to expand...

Don't forget the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and so on. When you mess with one, it won;t be long before they all crumble.
 
Fudgie:

First, I'm a fat, lazy sissy accustomed to modern comforts, who doesn't blame anyone else for the same condition. That said, you're right, of course, except for one minor and one critical distinction. I will argue that the 20th Century raised the bar. Your French example describes occupation, not genocide. Occupation in Europe up to that time wasn't particularly rare, followed by a treaty and return to BAU. I don't think those French men and women could conceive of mass exterminations on the Nazi scale. The recent Armenian example or pogroms in eastern Europe weren't, I don't believe, very widely publicized.

Fast forward, and we have the Stalin's purges, the Holocaust, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan, and all the others I omitted. And all the complacent people you describe. Plus 9/11, Madrid, Beslan, etc. So, compliance seemed like a much safer alternative then than it does now.

When will the water boil the frog? I don't know. And no, the image of me shaking, cold, wet, and hungry in a bombed out building, trying to make myself as small as possible isn't as appealing as sitting here at my desk, or home with wife, television, and beer. But they both sound better than shuffling on my new paper shoes into that cattle car.
 
The American Indians, for the most part, found it impossible to conceive of a unified force against them. They expected to win one battle and then go home and live in peace. Their own culture was just so de-centralized that they could not imagine that all the various army forces were under one command: the US Govt.

For instance, the Nez Perce believed that once they had won a battle in Idaho and escaped into Montana, that they could live in peace among the settlers and the Army there. Of course, they were wrong and nearly got wiped out at Big Hole for their complacency.

If the tribes had united in a concerted and prolonged campaign against the US, then history might have been written very differently.


As for me, I would just as soon die on my feet as to die on my knees.
None of us get out of this world alive, anyway.
 
One of the main things that struck me about the Holocaust was how well the Germans were at keeping the whole thing secret. No one seemed to know what would happen after being herded onto a train car, so they assumed that they wouldn't be hurt because they had no actual proof of their oppressors' murderous intentions.

To my mind, this speaks to accurate intel info being probably just as important as being armed and willing. Had the info in the form of photographs, film, and written firsthand accounts gotten out to the Jews in the first few months or year of Hitler's regime, it's likely that many more would have actively resisted.

In this regard, I think having still and video cameras is practically as important as having a rifle. I contend that turning cameras on big brother and shining the light of truth on acts of oppression can, in and of itself, have a huge effect.

Though, to be completely honest, I don't know of any situation where this has happened, or the concept even studied.
 
When your butt is puckered up so much you couldn't pull out a needle with a tractor, has been for weeks, and you still have to go out and about doing your job well identified for those who don't like you, you begin to realise the effectiveness of guerilla warfare...

Guys like that poster simply do not understand much of anything, nor do they ever wish to.
 
There are people, probably more than one realizes, that don't believe ANYTHING is worth dying over---any cause or principle, that is.
Click to expand...

How sad and wretched such creatures are... and how dangerous to free and honorable people. The test of a man is not how he acts when all is well and everyone is looking. The true test is how he acts when he has little to lose and no one is looking.
 
Sadshooter: You're right---I was really not thinking of genocide, as you noted, but defeat and occupation.

We all have to die sometime, and if you know the bastards are going to kill you anyway, well that would seem to make coming to a decision to strike a blow a bit easier. Even so, it's hard to predict what anybody would do in a particular situation, especially an extremely adverse one.

Look at the people being captured and horribly killed in Iraq. Some people might say--"Hey they should have fought like crazy when they were attacked. . " (You could make the case that those insurgensts are committing genoicde on Westeners/Coalition Forces/Non-Muslims)

Like I said, everyone likes to think of what they'd do, but until YOUR door is busted down at 3 am, and hooded guys with AK's are screaming at you. . . you just don't know until it happens to you. Not everyone's Rambo.
 
How well can armed civilians resist a tyranny?

Ask the Bielski brothers, who organized a partisan group:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0066210747/qid=1095960214/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-5799053-9340955

or ask the Swiss, who have had a true militia system for hundreds of years and were able to mobilize 850,000 (out of a population of 4.3 million), the vast majority of whom were essentially civilians with guns:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0306813254/qid=1095960378/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-5799053-9340955
 
Like I said, everyone likes to think of what they'd do, but until YOUR door is busted down at 3 am, and hooded guys with AK's are screaming at you. . . you just don't know until it happens to you. Not everyone's Rambo.
Click to expand...
Actually for me fear is a greater motivator than anger. I'm much more likely to employ deadly force if I'm scared ?????l3$$ than if I'm angry.
 
You have to distinguish between two categories of genocide.

One case is where an enemy occupying army sweeps into your country, say, Poland in 1939. In this case, the army stays on basically secure bases, and does not bring along its families etc. It's very hard to resist genocide by such an army as the Nazis or Japanese in WW2 etc, even if you are fairly well armed. Even so, you will make the occupying army pay dearly for their genocide, and this may in time and a number of countries wear them down until they are defeated overall. (Think of the total number of partisan attacks against the Germans in Greece, Yugoslavia, Russia etc. It adds up to serious military significance.)

The other case is self-genocide, where a govt turns tyrant and tries to murder a part of its own population. This is where an armed population is crucial, and even may be the paramount factor. In this case, the "occupying army" (including cops, bureaucrats, politicians etc) lives among the population, with its families etc. They must travel down public roads to get to work etc. The armed population can really put the hurt on such a government turned tyrant, even to the point where it's too painful to continue a tyrannical policy.

The tyrants and junior tyrants want to live freely, and not hide in bunkers on closed bases. They want to play golf and go fishing.

They don't want to be picked off one by one by patriotic members of the "Ten Million Deer Rifle Army."

bookcover.jpg
 
There are so many logical fallacies that are inherent in your opponent's statements that it is hard to deal with them on an intellectual basis. Their mindset is one of defeatism and therefore no argument will be able to pierce their self fulfilling prophecy.

Having said that I will preach to the chior.

One MAJOR flaw in their argument is that they see the average American with his 12 guage duck gun against a government with 'Armored cars and tanks and jeeps and rigs of every size'. Not to mention satellites, nukes, and whatnot.

Problem is that they fail to se that this would be an INTERNAL struggle. This means that the rebels would be 'infiltrated' throughout our entire society, government, military, and infrastructure. This would give the rebels access to either destroy or steal a significant amount of the superior forces goods or support structure.

Think about it.

If our government decided one day that anyone with a small collection of National Geographic Magazines was now a criminal and needed to be locked up or killed, and began a program of doing so... what would happen? Throughout our society there are people who are silly enough to keep back issues of NationalG... or they have friends or family who have National Geographic. Nobody knows who they are for sure and nobody knows who might support NationalG subversives.

Think of all the people you personally know and then think of what just one out of 10 could do at their job to make the biggest mess possible for the government. Truck drivers, power plant operations staff, water treatment plant workers, cleaning ladies in government buildings, the list is as endless as is the imagination. Additionally, there are people IN government who own National Geographic, there are kids in the military who do not want grandpa shot because he owns NG. etc etc. See where I am going? Even a tiny portion of the people in government and / or with access to dangerous or critical items to our infrastructure could make one hell of a mess... and if done right nobody would suspect them leaving open the possibility for them to continue to sabotage or otherwise screw up the works.

Then there is the weapons fallacy...

Your opponent also thinks Mr. Duck hunter will always be armed with that piddly little shotgun. Ever heard the quote "In combat a handgun is good only good for fighting your way to a rifle."? The same is true for Elmer Fudd and his duck gun. Imagine that he had some number 2 buck and decided he wanted that M16 on the back of the local paroling soldier.... Then with his bloody but working M16 maybe he wants that M60 machinegun in the back of a truck someplace... Maybe a few of his buddies who had similar ideas were able to get grenades and a few other things.. maybe some uniforms... getting control of some light artty or a truckload of god knows what might happen etc etc etc.

In short taking better weapons using the little pea shooter is a lot more possible than if you had nothing at all to begin with.

Your opponent also fails to realize also that many of us ARE or WERE the government. We know how it works because we are or were it. That means that ex-military men will know how things are done, what the weaknesses are in a convoy or at the local guard armory etc etc. This puts us in a far superior position to the Vietnamese and the Afghans were against the US and USSR respectively in that we have a million 'turncoats' on our side who used to be part of the enemy. They are trained and have an understanding far beyond the normal guerilla did.

Speaking of training.... How many benchresters, IDPA folks, and other honed and disciplined shooters are out there? Many will not have the tactical or combat knowledge but they damned well will have enough knowledge of HOW to shoot and make hits that with even a slight amount of tutoring from ex-green beret/sf types they could mount at least a semi-effective harassment campaign. Hell even deer hunters know a bit about cammo and lying in wait. Not every dorko with a deer rifle that can make hits at 500 yards will be a sniper, but god knows there will be a lot more long range casualties for support troops than there would be in most other areas of the world.

The government of Japan declined to invade the US mainland because in the words of one of their people, "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass". They were NOT referring to our large military (it was a joke at the beginning of hostilities). No they were referring to Ma and Pa Kettle and their privately owned arms. Even the Empire of Japan realized that trying to take over a well armed populace was going to be an expensive proposition.

Are small arms a panacea against tyranny? No. Certainly not. They really are just a deterrent - but a darned significant one. Small arms do NOT alone have the power to overcome the US military but they do make it harder for tyrants and genocidally bent groups in that it makes it so costly in terms of lives and resources that the return is not worth the tyranny. (Why bother being a tyrant when you already peaceably tax us out of 50 percent of our money anyhow?)

Think about how the police or military go up against someone with a weapon.. even if its just to kill him (military). It requires more than one person to make sure the outcome does not result in dead cops or soldiers. Costly. Multiply that by 100k or a million and you'd have quite a project taking on the US population.

Back to reality...

Having said all this I DESPISE the idea of such actions. I LOATHE the thought of Americans attempting to subjugate other Americans and the bloodshed of inter-American bloodshed. ALL that we have built over 200 years will be in jeopardy and likely be destroyed by such an action. The hope is that those who would be tyrants understand this as well and do not want their families to starve either.

This is one reason that we really ALL must be active politically not just for our 2nd ammend rights but indeed for all of them. When we see others politically oppressed we need to change the policies in a peaceful way before the government repressions build on themselves enough to make tyranny thinkable.

Charles
 
One thing people ignore in the battle against the native Americans is that the government reconized the fact that they wer losing to the enemy. They wipe out a village, but also lost many patrols in looking for them. By the native Americans living spread out like they did, a massive organized military strike just doesn't work. The decision to wipe out the buffalo, which provided food, clothing, shelter, and tools, was the decisive factor in winning the war. Destroy any military's supply line and you will defeat them.
 
I've just read a major book on the theory of genocide. The author from MIT makes the point that genocides don't start when:

1. The population at risk can resist reasonably well
2. They can flee or the oppressor can easily deport them.

Thus, an armed population is not at risk for a Holocaust, Armenian, Rwanda style event.

Also, there are some terrible historical misconceptions floating around in the RBKA world.

The Japanese had zero plans ever to invade the USA. They were not deterred by our armed populace as they weren't interested. The quote about guns behind blades of grass wasn't ever part of their planning. I've read some scholarly historical books on their plans and invasion was never one of them.

The Swiss - the Swiss avoided Nazi invasion by two major factors before their militia:

1. They cooperated fairly substantially with the Nazis. Maybe they were stuck but they did. There was never any need to invade.

2. They made it clear that they would destroy crucial Alpine tunnels if invaded. That would have been more damaging to the war effort. Why invade when they gave the Axis access to those transportation resources?

They had no significant air force or armor. They planned to withdraw to an Alpine redoubt. They had a problem with Nazi sympathizers in their own military structure that would have gone Quisling on them.

Their resistance could have been overcome. The first two factors were more important than the militia according to military scholarship.
 
When it comes to civilian resistance the idea isnt so much to "defeat" the enemy so much as to make the endevour too costly to be worth their while.

The fact is that in the modern world the technology gap between civilians and the military has become pretty extreme (much more so than in 1776) and no civilian militia is going to stand for long against a well equipped and supported army. However with the right organization the civilian militia can make themselves into enough of a nuisance that the enemy ends up paying too much in the form of men, money, and materials to be worth the objective.

Take the Holocaust for example. Hitler had a war looming on the horizon and needed everything that could be put into it in order to prevent defeat. Exterminating the Jews was certainly important to him but, in the face of losing his entire nation it becomes a secondary concern. Had the Jews put up a significant fight the effort to exterminate them could well have required enough resources to threaten the war effort. WHich would have either shortened the war (and shortened the length of the Holocaust) or made the Germans give up on the idea untill after the war. Either way the Jews wouldnt have had a decisive victory per se but, they would have been better off in the end had they put up more of a fight.
 
No one has mentioned that, as long as the Government is seen to govern by the consent of the (armed) people, armed revolt is unlikely to become necessary.
Click to expand...
Never forget this. It is only because you are armed that you, ultimately, cannot be ignored. An armed populations reaction to the decrees of the ruling elites must always be considered.

As the political noose tightens, the armed citizenry must be taken more and more seriously. An armed population is the perfect political deterrent to tyranny and staves off violence. The founding fathers understood this. Those with new-found freedom tend to understand it much more vividly than those who are generations from revolution and their prior liberation.

The 2nd Amendment renders talk of boots-on-the-ground battle-effectiveness almost unnecessary. Keep your guns and don't let the gov't ever forget that you have them and will ultimately fight to keep them, and you will never have to fight to keep them outside of the political system.

- Gabe
 
No one has mentioned that, as long as the Government is seen to govern by the consent of the (armed) people, armed revolt is unlikely to become necessary.
Click to expand...
Never forget this. It is only because you are armed that you, ultimately, cannot be ignored. An armed populations reaction to the decrees of the ruling elites must always be considered.

As the political noose tightens, the armed citizenry must be taken more and more seriously. An armed population is the perfect political deterrent to tyranny and staves off violence. The founding fathers understood this. Those with new-found freedom tend to understand it much more vividly than those who are generations from revolution and their prior liberation.

The 2nd Amendment renders talk of boots-on-the-ground battle-effectiveness almost unnecessary. Keep your guns and don't let the gov't ever forget that you have them and will ultimately fight to keep them, and you will never have to fight to keep them outside of the political system.

- Gabe
 
No one has mentioned that, as long as the Government is seen to govern by the consent of the (armed) people, armed revolt is unlikely to become necessary.
Click to expand...
Never forget this. It is only because you are armed that you, ultimately, cannot be ignored. An armed populations reaction to the decrees of the ruling elites must always be considered.

As the political noose tightens, the armed citizenry must be taken more and more seriously. An armed population is the perfect political deterrent to tyranny and staves off violence. The founding fathers understood this. Those with new-found freedom tend to understand it much more vividly than those who are generations from revolution and their prior liberation.

The 2nd Amendment renders talk of boots-on-the-ground battle-effectiveness almost unnecessary. Keep your guns and don't let the gov't ever forget that you have them and will ultimately fight to keep them, and you will never have to fight to keep them outside of the political system.

- Gabe
 
Winning the war isn't the point. The point is that you and your family do not have to go quietly to the gas chamber. You do not have to die on your knees begging some government overlord for mercy that you won't get.

If you have to explain that concept to someone they are a lost cause... i.e. blissninny liberal helpless sheeple and their opinions are utterly irrelevant in the discussion of liberty.
 
The 2nd Amendment renders talk of boots-on-the-ground battle-effectiveness almost unnecessary. Keep your guns and don't let the gov't ever forget that you have them and will ultimately fight to keep them, and you will never have to fight to keep them outside of the political system.
Click to expand...
I just want to repeat that and say AMEN. Regardless of any goofy law(s) passed by any transitory government body-KEEP YOUR GUNS.
 
Veitcong (Veitnam War)
Iraqi insurgency (Iraq War 2)
La Resistance (WW2 France)
Everyone in Afganistan (War on Terrorism, USSR's invasion)
US militia forces (Revolution, 1812, Civil war)
Contras (several south and central american wars)
Russian Partisans (WW2, Eastern front)
The zapatistas (Right now in southern Mexico)
Most Sierra Lion forces (Sierra Lion civil war)
Sparta's arming of the Helots (Persian War)
Sparta's women and old men (after first Spartain defeat in 500 years)

I mean... if you really thought about this, you could make a list a mile long. There has been successful armed resistance by irregular forces thousands of times in world history... Though it seems that unsuccessful is far more common... ;-)
 
Checkout

Jewish Partisans

I saw a show on PBS a year or so ago late one night about the Jewish Partisans during WWII. I think the documentary was called "Resistance: Untold Stories Of Jewish Partisans" They were something else. The one point that stood out to me from the whole show was the reason the majority of the Jews didn't fight back. They interviewed one of the female partisans. She stated, in the interview, that there were two main reasons the Jews didn't resist in mass: first, the crushing despair brought on by the fact that they had no guns to fight the Nazis with, and second, the hope that the Americans would come and rescue them soon. They went so far as to harshy discourage the younger Jews from joining the partisans for fear of Nazi reprisals (Sounds kindof like not making the Rapist mad so he won't hurt you more while waiting for the cops to arrive and save you) Guns were so prized that unarmed (I'm sure they had clubs, knives, etc..) partizans would ambush Small German partols or sentries just to get their guns.

One old Partisan described the feeling he had when He finally had a gun to attack the Nazi's with. (paraphrasing) "I wish I could write on all the bullets- this bullet came from a Jew, you were killed by a Jew. No longer was I an animal being chased, I was a man, I could fight back."

There were something like 30,000 Jewish Partisans living in subteranean shelters deep in the woods. They rescued thousands of other Jews, and engaged in serious guerrilla warfar and sabotage on the Nazis.
 
I think there is one other thing that wasn't mentioned specifically. Any army is only as good as its supply lines.

During WWII the sabotage of various transportation by partisans was probably more harmful to the German army than the direct confrontations. It only takes a guy and a wrench to derail a train... Of course, an armed lookout makes the guy with the wrench more successful. Forget the tanks. It's the supply trucks and gas tankers that make the best targets.

Anybody know how well a deer rifle does against a truck tire?:neener:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Neo-Luddite
  • Locked
Poland marks ghetto uprising anniversary (Chicago Tribune)
Replies
0
Views
332
Neo-Luddite
Neo-Luddite
W
  • Locked
Recommend Good Books on Genocide
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Sam Cade
S
W
  • Locked
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising,April,1943:Last Surviving Commander Remembers
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
Rachen
R
H
  • Locked
Associated Press finally gets one right...
Replies
3
Views
466
Lebe
L
I
  • Locked
Violent Jewish Resistance to the Holocaust (very long)
Replies
21
Views
641
matis
M
Back
Top