So what? They still won (although the concessions they had to make led to the assassination of Michael Collins and the Irish Civil War). Look, if you want to exclude the establishment of the Irish Free State from the list of “successful guerilla campaigns,” whether because it involved conventional forces or for some other reason, that’s fine with me. My main point in this thread in any case has been that guerilla warfare is often not successful, and even when it is it is often arguable whether a “guerilla force” was the actual victor (as in this case and others), and to what extent the movement was “successful” in achieving its original goals (as in this case and others). In the case of Ireland, clandestine/terrorist/guerilla warfare by the IRA and/or splinter groups and other factions has failed in the objective of unifying Ireland over the course of more than 80 years, and can hardly be considered successful. (It may have achieved other, more limited objectives in some cases.)
Actually, they do appear to be winning (but by a different method).
The IRA (Catholic) population of Northern Ireland is reproducing faster than the Ulster (Protestant) population, and as they grow up, becoming a larger & larger part of the voting polulation. There have been projections saying that they will probably reach a voting majority within this century, and then could vote to joint the Irish Free State. (Though there are economic reasons why voters might choose not to do this, and possibly Britain would oppose it.)
Of course, I don’t think “breeding lots of children, and raising them up until voting age” is generally considered a common guerilla war tactic, so this may be irrelevant to your original question.
Chill, I was just speculating. The War of Independence was fought and won using guerilla tactics wasn’t it? But after that Irish Republicanism over the past century has seemed to have had most of its success when not venturing into guerilla warfare.
Having a few relatives who supposedly were a part of the IRA (and one relative murdered by them) I had a bit of interest in the subject.
t-bonham@scc.net, I wonder how many in the Republic would want Northern Ireland as part of the Republic given the costs of running the Province. Perhaps the EU would be called upon to fund a rebalance of the country.
Do guerillas finded by outside countries count?
If so, you can include:
Vietnam v the French
Vietnam v the US
Afghanistan v the USSR
The OP would need to define success.
In the XIX and XXth century, Spain went through as many as 6 Carlista wars (the Carlista side of my family counts 6, so I count 6; some historians count 4). The first 5 were mostly guerrillas; in the last they were integrated with the rest of the National side into a serious army.
The only one that was won from a military point of view (Madrid surrendered) was this last, but in the other 5 those goals not directly related with changing the ruler were actually closer to being achieved than in war#6.
So, mind definning success for me? My Carlista ancestors might also be interested.
In both cases it was something approaching an actual army (the Viet Minh- which had an actual army- in The Colony of French IndoChina v The Republic of France and the North Vietnamese Army in The People’s Republic of North Vietnam v The Republic of Vietnam, the United States Of America, and Ors), that won the conflict, as opposed to the common myth of “Coolies with AK-47s Beating America” often espoused in popular culture.
No-one’s ever really managed to “conquer” Afghanistan since the invention of Firearms- hell, if the British couldn’t do it, the Russians didn’t have a chance. The thing is, I don’t think there was a coherent Guerrilla force- it was a group of numerous militias, guerrillas, and shit-stirrers all working independently towards the same goal, with some backing from people who wanted to see the Russians look very silly indeed…
Oh well … I thought it was a good question 
china examples - tibet, mongolia, manchuria and the uigers of xinjiang.
baluchistan - a province of pakistan. massive failure that resulted in afganistan refugees largely taking over the baluchistan homeland. circa 1970’s
nomadic cultures can not conduct guerilla warfare against a modern army. the modern army can destroy the herds and starvation ensues with nowhere to support guerillas.
example clos r to home would be native americans. little hazy on details but destroying the livestock subdued the navaho and others in the new mexico area
You mean the American War of Independence? No, not at all. Although American forces engaged in what amounted to guerilla warfare at some times and in some places, the war was mostly fought and won by conventional forces. See the posts by RealityChuck and Kizarvexius earlier in this thread.
The American Revolution was more terrorist action. At least until the American Army was raised.
No, the Irish one. This thread actually helped remind me how much of the history I’d learned in school I’d forgotten. I guess if you don’t come from certain communities in Northern Ireland, there are specific bits of history you aren’t beaten around the head with.
I remember listeing to a radio talk show once a while ago(Diane Rehm?) and a military expert was talking about the US’s history of success in dealing with guerillas. If I remember correctly, he basically he made the point the Vietnam was the only guerilla war the US lost. He also had a list of successful tactics the US historically used to win guerilla wars. The only one I remember was ‘winning over the local population.’(which definately didn’t happen in Vietnam) I’m not sure but I think it was Max Boot, author of The Savage Wars of Peace I’m not really an expert. Just thought I’d throw that out there in case it rang a bell with someone else who could elaborate.
Agreed regarding the worm can.
But the definition is crucial here.
I could declare war against President Bush’s “reign”, take to the woods with a deer rifle, and snipe cops.
If I’m alive when he gets voted out, I won.
The [Irish] War of Independence was mainly a guerrilla war. Flying Columns and assignation were the major tactics of the war. Some people like De Valera wanted to fight in a more conventional way e.g. 1916 Rising, but this was dismissed by people like Collins as a flawed idea as there was no hope of Ireland winning in a stand up fight against the vastly superior British forces.
Guerrilla Days in Ireland is a good place to start for anyone interested in this. I was told that Uncle Ho read this book and gave translated copies to his generals. I’m not sure if that is true or not but he was definitely aware of Irish tactics and events as he was working as a dishwasher in London during this time period and commented on events like the death of Mayor of Cork, Terrence MacSwiney
So that’s why the main character in Brendan Behan’s The Quare Fellow was imprisioned!
Doh! Assassination.
IMO its a very grey area. There are very definitely different classes of “success” for guerillas… All of which can be argued as to whether it really counts as winning.
The most common is simply staying alive long enough, and inflicting enough casulties that the occupying powers are decide to leave or come to a negoiated settlement. Of course a negotiated settlement does not automatically mean the Guerillas/Terrorists won (the Northern Irish conflict ended in a negotiated settlement but seeing as it didn’t result in a unified Ireland, you’d be hard pushed to describe it as a win for the IRA). Most (though not all) of the anti-colonial struggles fall into this cataegory.
Similar but subtly different are the cases where the occupying power undeniable defeated the guerillas, but damaged their own reputation so much in the process they were forced to withdraw due to public opinion (Battle of Algeirs being the classic example).
There are also cases when the guerillas clearly defeated to occupiers tactically. But in these most of these cases to do this they had to abandon purely guerilla tactics and field a traditional army (Vietnamese against the French, being a case in point). I’d say the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans was a case of this, the Arabs never field a traditional army, yet clearly defeated the Ottomans in some fairly large battles such as Aqaba.
There was no big battle at Aqaba… the Arabs crossed the desert and attacked the town from behind, and the small Turkish garrison was so surprised they surrendered after hardly firing a shot.
You’ll need to state what your definitions of ‘guerillas’, ‘army’ and ‘something approaching an actual army’ are.
Again you need to give some definitions. Guerilla forces are often not ‘coherent’. Of course they can operate independently (helps with security).