Why of course, how careless of me. Everyone remembers the fierce civilian resistance to Sherman’smarch from Atlanta to Charleston.
How could I have forgotten?
Indeed when the tanks are in your street you realise the futility of buying that extra ammo for the Uzi. You put it in a box in the garden and hope that next week you can go back to work, that there will be pampers at Wallmart.
Well, you might.
Believe it or not, but I’d be perfectly ready to fight for my country.
Yes, I know. Dirty word: ‘patriotism’. But if some group was trying to steal my freedom and all the good and decent things I love so dearly, I’d fight.
I don’t even need my government to rouse me for that.
We’re talking big war here and would you ‘take pot shots’ at the enemy.
Could you be roused to join the army for some war?
Would you die for Balkenende in Iran or someplace?
In case of an actual invasion would you do, what exactly? Throw bricks?
Join the resistance?
For the if some group was trying to steal my freedom and all the good and decent things I love so dearly, I’d fight. bit.
Are you fighting now then against the resurgence of religion? Islam or Christian
As fat, sassy and comfortable as most of the reeeeaaaaallly lazy people in this have gotten, if there were an actual invasion or attack on this country, I pity the invader. Ain’t nobody gonna take my VCR/DVD player away.
I get what you are sayingbeergeek279, but most folks would be up in arms if the cable TV went out for more than 20 minutes.
Why would you think that? I’d shoot at something else than pots.
Not for Balkenende, no.
Oh yes. I’m not one of those cowardly politicians.
In my own way, yes.
I think a number of posters here are excessively contemptuous of the American people here.
Sure, there would be the usual Quislings and cowards, and there’d be the opportunists who’d side with whoever looked like they were winning. But I think we could count on fierce guerrilla resistance in the unlikely event a foreign army ever managed to occupy any significant portion of the United States. The Pentagon wargames the unlikeliest kinds of scenarios, and partial or total occupation of the US is one of them. There are indeed plans for organizing behind-the-lines resistance in such an event.
Apparently you also forgot the last Confederate general to surrender, Stand Watie, a Cherokee who conducted a guerrilla war for quite some time after Lee surrendered. Southerners resisted the Union occupation for years after Appomattox. The original Ku Klux Klan was formed for this purpose. I would even go so far as to say that Southerners successfully conducted an insurgency to restore white supremacy. And of course there were the insurgencies in Kansas and Missouri before Fort Sumter. If there was relatively little resistance by civilians to Sherman’s army during the March to the Sea, there were still plenty of civilian resurgencies elsewhere. I think you’re cherry picking here.
Even if americans nowadays care more about themselves than back in WII… I hardly see them as laying back and not bothering about an invading army. Just the amount of guns in the US would make for a tentative insurgency quite easily. The invaders would have to have some kind of “friendly” ideology to certain groups to avoid a lot of resistance… wierd scenario.
Most countries of a certain size would put up some civilian resistance... Americans certainly would... just like Iraqi sunnis and some Shia have.
Now if the OP means sending millions of grunts to a foreign country... that is much harder to envision... but like many mentioned you don't need a lot of grunts nowadays. I doubt the US army would manage getting enough volunteers.Maybe but all of the incidents you speak of were after the large US army of the Civil War had been disbanded and its members had gone back to farming. There was little in the way of civilian resistance during the siege of Vicksburg or in any of the actions in and around the battles around Washington, Richmond or in the Shenandoah Valley.
Can you come up with any examples at all of civilians spontaneously organizing themselves to confront an invading army en masse? My guess would be that such incidents would be extremely rare, if they’ve ever happened at all. I’m not aware of any examples, and my reading in history has been broad enough that I’m fairly sure I’d know of some if there were any significant number. Sabotage and hit-and-run guerrilla tactics are best suited for civilian resistance; head-on confrontations with regular troops would be suicidal idiocy. If you aren’t going to allow insurgencies to count as civilian resistance to an invasion, what are you going to allow?
(Stand Watie, by the way, was still fighting when “the large US army of the Civil Wat” had not yet been disbanded. Nor was he the only guerrilla leader around in the final years of the war.)
Barring being “softened up” by massive nuclear strikes, I would venture to say that the United States in the 21st century could possibly be the first country in history where it could be said that a conventional foreign invasion would be impossible to mount and sustain.
Of course if political reality were totally suspended and everyone ganged up on us, it could happen…but I don’t see the Canadians and Mexicans coordinating an invasion with the Chinese anytime soon.
An invading army would find a well armed, well educated populace with motivation to spare. You could pick out 1000 people at random and find military and engineering training, people who know explosives and communications, and many other skills that could be employed against an invading force.
Well the claims about civilian resistance in this thread are along the lines of “almost everybody else would be taking pot-shots at the invaders from behind buildings and such (Zsofia); I envision a massive convoy of pickup trucks, guerilla warfare and massive sabotage campaigns(lissa).”
There is a large misunderstanding here of the logistics and discipline required to inflict serious damage on a well run military organizations for an extended period of time. The Iraq resistance is troublesome and damned dangerous to individual soldiers and an occasional supply convoy, but is not in any way a real threat to the US forces in that country.
And Stand Watie and his group were not a bunch of civilians taking up arms but were the continuation of a military group that had organization, discipline and techniques learned from years of combat.
And yet you think that from such sordid and unenlightened (yet simple - remember people were simpler back then!) roots - we have somehow evolved into an enlightened, kinder and gentler (yet cynical and distrusting of the government) society?
Sorry, I don’t buy it. The sneering elitist attitude towards prior generations (who made sacrifices to ensure that we won WWII, for one example) is the equivalent of the sneering elitist attitude of Blues Staters towards Red Staters. Some people really do value their families and are willing to pay the price to ensure that their kids have a decent future.
Agreed. They would also find people who are armed and supplied, given the high rate of gun ownership throughout the country.
You’re buying to romantic mythology, I’m afraid. People at the time weren’t some sort of angelic beings – they groused as much as humans before or since about mundane inconveniences. They would have groused a lot more if they’d known how much of it was mere political theater.
Puh-leeze. If it is “sneering and elitist” to point out that prior generations were wrong, not merely “different”, in a plethora of ways, then I wear the labels as a badge of honor.
Wouldn’t that be exactly what the Special Forces would be used for in the case of an invasion of the US? Nowadays they’re used for training indigenous forces in unconventional warfare in other parts of the world, but in this case, they’d be more or less undercover and training our own people in the same techniques.
I never said people were “simpler” back then. Times may change, but people never do.
Nor do I think we’re particularly more “enlightened, kinder or gentler” today. We still have prejudices-- hate and violence still seethes within the human heart. We just have different socially approved directions in which to point it.
Hey, you’re the one who made the statement about people back then having greater “clarity of moral values.” I just pointed out that this is utter and complete bunk.
Call that “sneering” if you want to, but I think you might want to take a closer look at that arc of history to which you were referring. Anyone who actually had a clear grasp of history would not make such a statement.
I don’t think anyone past, present, or future, foreign or domestic, has/had “greater clarity of moral values.” That sort of nostalgia or grass-is-greener mentality is completely bogus.
What the blue fuck does that have to do with anything?
After WWII settlede into a steady routine there was plenty of grousing and bickering. I lived in a farming community. Farmers got extra fuel for their vehicles, and plenty of tires and other supplies since agriculture was an essential war industry. Farmers also could get continued deferments from the military draft if their help on the family farm was deemed essential. All of this resulted in a lot of resentment in the towns around the area.