4 More Years!

[assoholic]

,,in recent history the only two Guerilla Wars to be defeated were by the Americans in the Phillipines after the Spanish American War and the British in Burma.
Marines actually published a hand guide to fighting a succesful geurella war. It was totally ignored in Nam and once again in Iraq. You cannot defeat a Guerilla army with conventioal methods.
The problem is that in the guide it talks about placing a few marines in every village/town/city. That takes alot of guts to do.
As well I might add taking Nam as an example they could have put a few marines in every single hamlet in Vietnam and still not reached the totals they did, so it is numerically possible.
That way the marines and the locals bound, instead of just comeing into a place and blowing the place up.

 

[onthebottom]

uhhh Tom - there is no sex in purgatory - a Catholic thing


bbk

Old joke alert:

Tompeepin dies and goes to hell, he looks a bit disappointed so the devil goes over and says "what’s wrong you'll love it here" TP says "I doubt it"

the devil says "do you like drugs"
TP "yes"
devil " that's great cause on Monday all we do is drugs, heroin, cocaine what ever you like, do as much as you like and hey - you're dead so what can happen"
TP "great"

devil "do you like to drink?"
TP " as much as the next guy"
devil " great, we drink all day on Tuesday, we get the best stuff and you know what - no hangover because you're dead" TP "whoa"

devil "do you like to smoke"
TP "I've been know to drag the occasional Cuban from time to time"
devil "great, guess what we do on Wednesdays"
TP "I might just like it down here"
devil " I told you so"

devil " are you gay"
TP "no"
devil "you may not like Thursdays"

OTB

 

[tompeepin]

Old joke alert:

devil " are you gay"
TP "no"
devil "you may not like Thursdays"

OTB

What do ya mean? I love fudge packing Thursdays! I just hate salad tossing Fridays.

But you left out the most important part. What day do I get to bang the smokin' chicks with the "hot pussies"? Saturday and Sunday, right? Oh yeah! Muff divin' here I cum ...

 

[someone]

Really? How much success did they have against the Germans? They caused more civilians to be killed in retaliation than they killed German soldiers.
Bad examples. The Germans didn't go anywhere.

My understanding was that they tied up a lot of german troops that would otherwise have been on the front lines. Thus, the fact that the "Germans didn't go anywhere" was the sucess.

 

[Ranger68]

,,in recent history the only two Guerilla Wars to be defeated were by the Americans in the Phillipines after the Spanish American War and the British in Burma.
Marines actually published a hand guide to fighting a succesful geurella war. It was totally ignored in Nam and once again in Iraq. You cannot defeat a Guerilla army with conventioal methods.
The problem is that in the guide it talks about placing a few marines in every village/town/city. That takes alot of guts to do.
As well I might add taking Nam as an example they could have put a few marines in every single hamlet in Vietnam and still not reached the totals they did, so it is numerically possible.
That way the marines and the locals bound, instead of just comeing into a place and blowing the place up.

No guerilla actions in any of the Nazi occupied countries of World War II did much of anything to discomfit them, including Greece and Yugoslavia, which you mentioned. It took the arrival of the Soviets to drive them out of the Balkans.

I think you'd actually be harder pressed to show examples where guerilla armies have *succesfully driven out* invaders. Viet Nam and Afghanistan are good examples, for different reasons.

Your contention that you cannot defeat a guerilla army with conventional means is circular - what you really mean to say is that it's difficult to achieve *conventional* victory against an *unconventional* foe.

The history of guerilla and partisan activity is a very black one. Extremely little good has ever come of such deeds.

 

[Ranger68]

Really, last I heard, they left (at least for a while)!

They were driven out by the arrival of Soviet and Allied forces at their doorstep.

Last I heard .....

 

[Ranger68]

My understanding was that they tied up a lot of german troops that would otherwise have been on the front lines. Thus, the fact that the "Germans didn't go anywhere" was the sucess.

In fact, this is totally wrong. Even in Yugoslavia, which is usually held up as the shining example of the kind of chaos that can be raised by partisan and guerilla insurgency behind the lines, the Germans only ever committed ONE front-line division which would otherwise have seen combat action on the eastern or western front. The units used to put down the uprisings were "ethnic" security units of practically no value anywhere else but putting down civil disorder in a brutal manner. A total of twenty divisions were employed by the Germans in this manner in ALL OCCUPIED COUNTRIES during WWII.

What's overlooked is the FACT of brutal retaliation by these security forces against non-partisan civilians. In essence, the civilians were punished for transgressions of a small number of partisan warriors. One should consider whether the "tying down" of a scant number of brutal security divisions was worth the outright slaughter of thousands of civilians who would otherwise have survived Nazi occupation.

 

[Drunken Master]

In fact, this is totally wrong. Even in Yugoslavia, which is usually held up as the shining example of the kind of chaos that can be raised by partisan and guerilla insurgency behind the lines, the Germans only ever committed ONE front-line division which would otherwise have seen combat action on the eastern or western front. The units used to put down the uprisings were "ethnic" security units of practically no value anywhere else but putting down civil disorder in a brutal manner. A total of twenty divisions were employed by the Germans in this manner in ALL OCCUPIED COUNTRIES during WWII.

What's overlooked is the FACT of brutal retaliation by these security forces against non-partisan civilians. In essence, the civilians were punished for transgressions of a small number of partisan warriors. One should consider whether the "tying down" of a scant number of brutal security divisions was worth the outright slaughter of thousands of civilians who would otherwise have survived Nazi occupation.

I agree with all this, but at the same time let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that these divisions would have been lying idle - they would have found other victims elsewhere. And the invasion of Russia demonstrates the SS rear-guard needed precious little provocation for brutality.

 

[Ranger68]

Well, most of these divisions were PUT TOGETHER to deal with insurgencies in the Balkans. There were already plenty of other security units in occupied territories in other countries. These divisions were cobbled together on an ad hoc basis as security necessitated. Many of these men would otherwise not have even been under arms in the "German army".

There is little doubt among many modern military historians that TENS OF THOUSANDS of civilians paid the price for partisan activity against the Nazis. To argue that a similar number of civilians would have been killed anyway is, I think, disingenuous.

 

[someone]

You may be right about Yugoslavia as this is pretty far outside my area of expertise. However, I would think that many of the officers would have been Germans who would have otherwise been in front line units.

I think you'd actually be harder pressed to show examples where guerilla armies have *succesfully driven out* invaders. Viet Nam and Afghanistan are good examples, for different reasons.

How would you respond to Ireland as an example? Admittedly, terrorism is not exactly the same as a guerilla army but it is also true that the distinction is not completely clear. They did manage to get the British out (or at least make staying not worth the cost)

 

[Ranger68]

I think Ireland is more like, say, India - colonial holdings that the ex-masters couldn't justify holding onto. It's not like they weren't there for a thousand years or so - that is, I think someone would be hard-pressed to say that the guerilla insurgency in Ireland finally pushed out the Brits.

And, with regards to your first comment, most of the officers of those security units wouldn't have held down positions in combat units of any kind - they weren't fit to serve in regular units of the Wehrmacht.

 

[assoholic]

..first off I was wrong it was the Brittish in Malaysia. Second , Kenya , the Congo , all the wars of Liberation against Colonial masters includeing Nam.
When the entire people are united against a foriegn occupier, using conventional methods of attack, armour supported by infantry and air exct, will not work. As Faluja has once more demonstrated. All thery really did was kill a few, blow up the city and enerage hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's.
As the insurgents actually kidnapped some of Allawis relatives and will execute them.
I am hardly an expert but once again the US military is starting to look silly with all their big pronouncements, then coming back with 10 bodies.Shades of Nam all over again.

 

[Ranger68]

First off, I don't think these wars of liberation were necessarily successful unto themselves - the old colonial masters were ridding themselves of holdings all over the world, with or without bloodshed. In which of these countries were conventional forces defeated regularly, either tactically or strategically? (Just as an example, in Viet Nam, the Americans were practically never defeated tactically, but strategically lost the war.)

And, just so we're on the same page, we're not talking about the *Americans* as the old colonial masters in Viet Nam, right? It was the French - who'd already been defeated.

Yep - Afghanistan and Viet Nam. And there are good reasons for both, aside from "guerilla warfare trumps conventional warfare". I'm not sure there are any more good examples. There are plenty of COUNTER-examples, though.

Again, I don't think ANY of those "wars of Liberation against Colonial masters" were examples of guerilla armies defeating conventional armies.

I'm not sure what Fallujah has demonstrated - I don't think anybody does, yet. But, just so you're caught up, the Americans are on the verge of driving the vast majority of the already combatant insurgents out.

The US will withdraw from Iraq. It's hard to call what the US did from Viet Nam "withdrawal".

 

[Peeping Tom]

I urge you to keep in mind that Vietnam was nothing about colonial masters. Vietnam was a Cold War battle fought using various proxies and, by necessity, there was a fine line which crossing may have precipitated a nuclear shambles. Thus, the ROE and expectations / accomplishments are of a different order and more complicated to assess.

For all the hoopalah raised by the left in their absurd Vietnam comparisons, realize this: America won Vietnam. America won when the wall came down - this event was the end result, the realized totality of decades of proxy and other forms of warfare.

And, just so we're on the same page, we're not talking about the *Americans* as the old colonial masters in Viet Nam, right? It was the French - who'd already been defeated.

 

[Peeping Tom]

Yes. I know someone who was involved. The method was to conscript in region A and then deploy in region B, where there was plenty of mutual hatreds. That was a brilliant strategy, evil unfortunately, but savagely brilliant.

The units used to put down the uprisings were "ethnic" security units of practically no value anywhere else but putting down civil disorder in a brutal manner. A total of twenty divisions were employed by the Germans in this manner in ALL OCCUPIED COUNTRIES during WWII.

What's overlooked is the FACT of brutal retaliation by these security forces against non-partisan civilians. In essence, the civilians were punished for transgressions of a small number of partisan warriors. One should consider whether the "tying down" of a scant number of brutal security divisions was worth the outright slaughter of thousands of civilians who would otherwise have survived Nazi occupation. [/B]

 

[Asterix]

I'm not sure what Fallujah has demonstrated - I don't think anybody does, yet. But, just so you're caught up, the Americans are on the verge of driving the vast majority of the already combatant insurgents out.

To evidently fight another day. I'm a little surprised the US didn't make more of an effort to isolate the insurgents, and apparently let many of them slip out the back door, but maybe it does make sense. With the Iraqi election looming, the sceptic in me sees this as somewhat more of a political operation than a military one. If the US had chosen to seal the city completely off, and taken the insurgents street by street, it would have been a bloody mess, and a possible public relations disaster.

 

[danmand]

I urge you to keep in mind that Vietnam was nothing about colonial masters. Vietnam was a Cold War battle fought using various proxies and, by necessity, there was a fine line which crossing may have precipitated a nuclear shambles. Thus, the ROE and expectations / accomplishments are of a different order and more complicated to assess.

For all the hoopalah raised by the left in their absurd Vietnam comparisons, realize this: America won Vietnam. America won when the wall came down - this event was the end result, the realized totality of decades of proxy and other forms of warfare.

I am so relieved, that the US won the war in Vietnam (without being involved, because it was fought by proxy).

And I suppose that Germany won the 2nd world war, because it really was a war against the spread of communism.

Jeeeeez

 

[danmand]

Here we go again:

1. The US lost the war in Vietnam. Period.

2. The war in Vietnam was not a proxy war for anybody. The US was there in numbers, and the vietcong/north vietnamese were not proxies of anybody. They were vietnamese throwing out an invader like they did the french.

3. Actually, the nazis were serious about fighting the soviets, and could not understand why Britain and the US could not see that. They effectively foresaw the coming conflict between the soviets and the west, and many of them fought that war too on the western side.

This is a flush, BB

 

[danmand]

Neo-nazi propaganda!

You just managed, against all odds, to out-idiotize yourself again. To the moon, BB, to the moon.

PS: "The rise and fall of the third Reich" is a good first book for you to read.

 

[Peace4u]

This is going to be a bad 4 years for the United States,could be a disaster.Tough times are ahead unless you are extremely rich.Bush has no kindness toward those that are disadvantaged.