You don’t understand. Susanann thinks every single Jew in Europe was John Wayne - or, more exactly, made John Wayne look like Peewee Herman.
Franco wouldn’t even ally with Germany, formally, and got off, if we are counting those who didn’t surrender.
Not only that, but for decades their attitude was described as “fanatical” and not in a complimentary sense at all.
As described earlier, there were two distinct phases: one of the prewar appeasement and concessions, which was largely on account of many of the countries being (or feeling) either materially or politically unready to go to the brink over Germany’s demands; the other of the early-war quick victories, which to a great measure involved nations being clearly defeated/overrun on the battlefield (Belgium, Poland, France) or having no real chance to fight (Denmark).
It’s easy in hindsight to convince yourself that the only logical position vis-a-vis the Nazis was to fight to the last drop of blood if need be with cobblestones and sharp sticks wielded by old men and little girls, but in the 1939-41 time frame it was still plausible for many in Europe (AND in America… remember, much of the public did not want anything with it until we got attacked) to believe this would be a case of simple conquest-as-usual, where armies fight, one of them wins, the other loses, and the general population just has to live with the outcome, as had been since the fall of Rome.
Also, many European powers DID have large nominal reserves of former conscripts, but were unprepared to do a quick remobilization to full strength. As to armed citizenry, let’s not conflate things: Switzerland followed a model closer to a true universal militia - the citizens would have been trained, and would be keeping a standard-issue weapon at home. That concept would have been alien to most of the rest of Europe and even the US had given up on it in practice if not in theory decades earlier.
As to the effectiveness of just ordinary citizens starting out with the weaponry available to a civilian household and not previously organized as a militia, *eventually *resistances/insurgencies can make occupiers/tyrants pay a steep price, but often seem to do little to stop the initial takeover (e.g. Iraq).
The Finns are truly bad ass, and very humble about it.
I would have liked to have seen how the US would have faired with if the Panzer Gruppen came rollin’ over Time Square! [/fix]
I think an underlying subtext of this thread is that certain people are trying to rationalize their sense of militancy by focusing on a historical episode where–as they see it–a lack of militancy led to disaster.
But back in 1939, no one believed that anyone could be as evil as the Nazis turned out to be. Nowadays, some people can’t believe that anyone else can not be as evil as the Nazis.
I see what you did there.
Killing wasn’t indiscriminate, but retaliation was excessive. And don’t underestimate the power or terrorism for subduing the people’s willpower.
removed.
Not everyone in a resistance movement is a shooter, a logistical base has to be established and people are needed to supply , bunk or simply just to look the otherway, while the shooters or the saboteurs are going about their business.
You do what you have to , to get by and survive. What you don’t do is to actively co-operate and go above and beyond to help the occupiers. The reverse is also true, you do document the folks who are being helpful to the occupiers, so that they can be brought to justice after the liberation.
I figure you are going to use common sense, but thought I would mention this for the other people that might be the first to bring out the guns or bury them. Some really helpful people are probably going to give the occupiers credit card data, on who bought ammunition from gunstores for the past several years, if they dont already have it on a database of their own already, the same with all manner of weapon related items like oil etc.
They come to a door with a list, they already know you have at least one weapon in your possesion, you may as well just give it to them.
For the record, I dont envision this ever happening in the states, that it can be in part or whole , occupied by a foreign goverment.
Declan
For the record, the way to hurt an occupier is to hit him in the logistics. It’s also remarkably safer than shooting people. Start a nice big fire on the railroad. Use the ties that are already there.
Take out a bridge. Sink a boat in a harbor. Unbolt a crane that’d be used for unloading cargo.
Do any of those, and your work will be ten times that of a movie hero.
This is the question I raised in an old thread, “Rebellion impossible in modern US?” Has mechanized warfare, with armor and ground attack aircraft, essentially restored a knights-vs-peasants status quo? Maybe if an insurgency possessed huge numbers of anti-tank rockets and shoulder launched SAMs and was willing to lose 20 guerrillas for each enemy vehicle destroyed, then the insurgents could win by sheer numbers. But RPG-7s and Stingers aren’t the sort of thing that people keep in their attic, or can cobble together in workshop.
The most militarily effective thing a person can do against an enemy invader is to fight in a regular army. By the time it comes down to an insurgency, the defenders have to hope the invaders can be made to give up and aren’t willing to pursue a policy of outright genocide.
Not so much in the US where the military is a voluntary army of the people.
The Wiki entry speaks mostly about their King Arthur-esq code of chivalry but in ye olden days, knights were members of the nobility who had enough wealth to afford horses and armor and nice weapons. I don’t know that their role was so much to “protect the weak” as it was to “police and defend their feudal lord’s domain”.
But otherwise, you are correct. Modern mechanized and information age warfare has created a sharp divide between “modern armies” and what amounts to very expensive targets and museum pieces. But as you can see in Iraq and Afghanistan, why get into a firefight with an army with tanks and helicopters when you can just leave a remote controlled bomb by the side of the road?
What’s your experience with the military? What’s your experience with comparing combat effectiveness of trained, well armed, and experienced soldiers with those of untrained, poorly armed civilians?
Do you have specific information?
I can tell you that in most wars of the 20th century between powerful state militaries and poorly armed dissidents, the state forces often inflict casualties at a rate of 10 to 1. Your dream-like Jewish super warriors killing an entire squad is a fantasy. Based on historical evidence, them even being able to get a 1:1 ratio against trained, armed soldiers is against the evidence of virtually every war of the 20th century between such differently capable belligerents.
My Googling suggests Germany’s Jewish population in 1933 was around 550,000. Assuming a much more realistic number of 1 in every 4 able bodied Jew* being able to kill a single German soldier, it actually doesn’t appear that if they fought to the last soul they’d have been able to stop Hitler. Especially since, in a State that elected a mass murdering anti semite, the Jews actively resisting in that way would probably result in a mass pogrom in which German civilians engaged in killing many of their Jewish neighbors. (Such pogroms are certainly nothing close to unprecedented.) Also note what I said above about “able bodied”, some significant portion of any population is going to be very young, very old, or otherwise totally unfit for any sort of combatant role. Even being super optimistic you’re looking at say, 400,000 Jews against a German population total of like 60 million before all the conquests.
100 to 1 would be closer to the truth. In the case of an urban, separated population like German Jews who would have been fighting back as individuals, perhaps a thousand to one.
Susanann apears to think World War II was just like a video game.
Yeah, 10:1 is envelope math and it depends on how you count things. I was also really only thinking about the specific conflicts I’m familiar with so I don’t want it to be misconstrued that I’ve done any sort of exhaustive research.
I know that in the Philippine-American War they suffered about 5x the military dead as we did, so they died at a 5:1 ratio. Of course, they suffered some vast number of civilian dead and I don’t know how you calculate that in (some numbers as high as 1 million dead civilians.)
Even relatively trained and well armed fighting forces have faired very, very badly against superior military forces. The North Vietnamese army ate KIAs at a rate of 20:1 to the United States. (And they won the war–which is somewhat beside the point since I’m just comparing raw effectiveness in trading x number of bodies for y number of bodies.)
On Iwo Jima the Japanese adopted Susanann’s strategy. And I don’t mean Japanese civilians, I mean heavily entrenched soldiers trained by one of the more powerful and advanced countries on the planet at the time. The Japanese hoped to kill at least one or two Americans for every dead. The Japanese leader took controversial actions (like not defending at the water line) that actually probably made the island much harder to take, by all accounts the Japanese fought bravely, were well commanded, and all things considered did an all around amazing job.
Note this, they had 18500 or so men and were being invaded by 70,000. They had no air force to speak of in the theater of operations, their enemy had complete naval supremacy.
Virtually the entirety of the 18500 died, and they took with them 6800 Americans. The Japanese, trained, professional soldiers, with modern weapons and probably the most entrenched fortifications you could imagine, managed to take out 0.36 of the invaders for every 1 of themselves. That’s a professional military against a professional military, with an entrenched, fortified defensive position.
Another important thing to point out is how easy it is to talk about fighting to the bitter end on a message board. I’m willing to bet most of the posters here are currently fairly comfortable, if you’re in winter climate right now I bet you have your furnace running. I bet you have food in your house or can go to any $3.00 burger or pizza joint in a pinch.
Combat effectiveness goes down in bitter, debilitating cold, it goes down when you’ve been malnourished for months on end and perhaps have actually entered periods of dramatic starvation during that time.
A superior military force always has the option of not going up against an entrenched opponent. There were many people, especially higher ups in the Navy, who advocated starving Japan to end WWII. The logic went that if they were really serious about fighting to the last man and woman, we could drastically reduce their overall population’s ability to fight by just continuing the blockades for awhile longer. Obviously you couldn’t starve all of Japan to death, but maybe in a year’s time several million would have died and many of those left would have been extremely poor defenders due to extremely poor health.
I don’t see it as a knight and peasants situation. It took decades of training to master the military skills of being a medieval knight and it took a huge allocation of resources to support a knight in a village agrarian economy. So you had a situation where you had a small group holding a monopoly on military power.
The same factors do not exist now. You can learn the skills of being a professional soldiers in a matter of a few months - armies turn civilians into soldiers all the time. So the monoply on technical skills has disappeared.
But the other end of the monopoly has grown even narrower. The economic basis of an army can no longer be built on counties - it now takes the resources of a nation to equip a modern army.
So you have no modern equivalent of knights. The military professionals need the state to provide them with the tools of their trade. But the state doesn’t necessarily need the military professionals to use those tools. The state could train replacement soldiers but the soldiers can’t build replacement equipment.
If I was seeking a historical analogue, I’d go with the age of absolutism when a king like Louis XIV controlled the army and the state. The army itself was just regiments of soldiers who had been drilled into order. So the people had no power because they couldn’t form military units that could stand up to the army. And the soldiers themselves had no political power because they could be replaced if needed.
Most successful rebellions have involved the regular military of the state in question. Usually if a people are being extremely misruled you will have such a high rate of disaffected persons that it draws in large segments of the military. Importantly not just citizens who also happen to be in the military, but also entire units joining to fight against the government.
Agreed with your post, although just for clarification I wasn’t thinking of “knights vs. peasants” in terms of caste or the military forces owning their own resources. I was thinking more of armored forces having a hundred-to-one (or greater) force advantage per unit over foot soldiers. The analogy I was thinking of was of a group of men-at-arms with halberds and billhooks trying to take on a knight in plate armor mounted on a destrier. Certainly it could be done, the same way that tanks can be taken out with rocket-propelled grenades; but not easily and not without a large disparity of casualties.
No, no, no. Uncoordinated civilians firing small arms out the windows of their homes is the best way to deal with invading armies. It’s especially effective against air strikes and artillery barrages.
Good post Dissonance, made me lol