No.1675313[Last 50 Posts]
Not trying to be an enlightened centrist here, but it has always seemed odd to me how people on the right and left fetishize the concept of a militia taking down a conventional army, when reality has shown the opposite result every time, I come from a shitty third world nation that is barely held together most of the time, and my country has experienced numerous rebellions by Islamists, ethnic nationalists, and communists, and every time they have failed. This is because a "well-armed and well-funded militia" is no match for a well-armed, better-trained army with superior logistics and structure. Of course, in the event of a total collapse, a militia could potentially become the only proper authority for a region or if faced with an entirely incompetent and corrupt army. However, in most cases, a real army always prevails over militias. I don't know how people fell for this meme really, Eve Marx bought into this up and advocated for workers' militias, which ultimately proved to be a massive waste of time and loss of life for everyone involved, the Spanish Republicans insisted on using them in the Spanish civil war and they were a massive hinderance that lost way too many battles, and thoughts of forming an actual army was "Stalinism" and a betrayal of the revolution.
No.1675314
they just like guns and/or are anarchos
No.1675317
>>1675313Most unrealistic part about this image is the idea that anyone of those militants are actually aware of how to aim properly.
No.1675321
>>1675319I think mentioned that, there can be exceptions like if you have a state which is absolutely near collapse already or has a border police army(which are the armies for most post-colonial nations) but even in the latter, it can defeat most insurgent groups.
>>1675314I can't say anything for the current thinkers, but I believe that thinkers in the previous generations were just native and uninformed.
No.1675330
>Spanish Republicans insisted on using them in the Spanish civil war and they were a massive hinderance that lost way too many battles
The workers' militias were the only reason the coup turned into a civil war in the first place, the state was completely powerless to stop it otherwise. They gave the state time to regroup and in return for their efforts they got crushed by their own "allies".
No.1675336
>>1675321>I think mentioned that, there can be exceptions like if you have a state which is absolutely near collapse already or has a border police army(which are the armies for most post-colonial nations) but even in the latter, it can defeat most insurgent groups.Now you're just moving the goalposts. Taliban weren't fighting the Afghan Army (which ran away) but the US Army (which also ran away). As far as I know, the US government/state did not collapse in 2021.
Anyway,
*blocks your path*
No.1675341
>>1675336>but the US Army (which also ran away).22 long years of trying to ourlast a foreign enemy in a nation(and losing every major battle engaged with them) is exactly what I'm talking about, that's not militias beating a convential army, that's an insurgency.
No.1675363
>>1675341>that's an insurgency.lol give it a rest
No.1675444
>>1675336what was the NVA then in your opinion?
No.1675493
>>1675313Washington hated militias/minutemen because they were undisciplined and were losing to many battles. The minutemen actions in the battles resulted in Washington in creating the continental army, which were professionally trained troops.
No.1675500
>>1675493>In his letter, Washington wrote, “I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.” Washington added, “In confidence I tell you that I never was in such an unhappy, divided state since I was born.”>Just as the British had discovered the difficulties of waging war with obstreperous Yankees for soldiers during the Seven Years’ War, Washington, the Virginia planter-soldier, was unimpressed upon meeting his supposed army outside Boston upon his appointment as commander in chief of Continental forces in 1775. Just as the British had, he saw “stupidity” among the enlisted men, who were used to the easy familiarity of being commanded by neighbors in local militias with elected officers. Washington promptly insisted that the officers behave with decorum and the enlisted men with deference. Although he enjoyed some success with this original army, the New Englanders went home to their farms at the end of 1775, and Washington had to start fresh with new recruits in 1776.>Washington fought an uphill battle for military order until Friedrich, Freiherr von Steuben arrived at General Washington’s encampment at Valley Forge on February 23, 1778. The Prussian military officer commenced training soldiers in close-order drill, instilling new confidence and discipline in the demoralized Continental Army. No.1675501
>>1675313>but it has always seemed odd to me how people on the right and left fetishize the concept of a militia taking down a conventional army, when reality has shown the opposite result every time, I come from a shitty third world nation that is barely held together most of the time, and my country has experienced numerous rebellions by Islamists, ethnic nationalists, and communists, and every time they have failed.I have also thought the same thing. Especially when you extend history to before the capitalist mode of production and look at the track record of peasants rebellions: The vast majority of armed insurrections are utterly
crushedSort this table by result:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts No.1675506
>>1675501Well yeah, unorganized and untrained people aren't going to beat a resolute enemy well trained, better equipped and better organized. look at Haitian Dominican war as an example of a pure structureless force facing a smaller enemy that nonetheless is organized, One of the big reasons why Haiti suffered so poorly with the dominicans was because they had no real generals. anyone with actual militarily training was dead, a number of Haitian officers had been trained in French and American armies who then trained the former slaves into a fighting force. Four decades later, most of these officers were dead or very old, and the army's only experience was to suppress rebellions. Foreign observers noted the army that had too many officers, "generals" who were actually civilians with no military training, like General Damien Delva (a wealthy tribunal clerk). The troops were gives guns and uniforms but ignored discipline and tactics. It was an army that could stop a small rebellion, but had more trouble battling a resolute enemy: its men would rather be at home growing food for their families than fighting the Panyols.
No.1675532
>>1675500>Just as the British had, he saw “stupidity” among the enlisted men, who were used to the easy familiarity of being commanded by neighbors in local militias with elected officers. Washington promptly insisted that the officers behave with decorum and the enlisted men with deference.Go figure, an aristo slaver couldn't stand not being given the proper respect
No.1675538
>>1675501That's actually quite a lot of victories and partial victories for a "doomed strategy"
No.1675552
This is why protracted peoples war was a genuinely crucial theoretical contribution. Not even a maoist and its not like the strategy is particular to maoists, whats important is the recognition that asymmetric insurgent warfare is very rarely ever won by military formations alone, but with extensive political struggle among the masses and building strategic collaboration with whatever social elements can be leveraged to your benefit
No.1675561
Militias have limited uses, neither wholly "useless" nor singlehandedly gonna win wars. As
>>1675330 stated, the workers' militias were instrumental in transforming a would-be coup into an actual civil war, though their inefficiencies were highlighted as the war progressed (people joining Anarchist militias and then leaving after a week because of boredom, for example) and I believe an important aspect of revolutionary strategy is to gradually transform the militia into a professionalized army.
I heard Bad Empanada, who has a few decent takes, tried justifying the edgelord stuff he's said about troops by saying you don't actually need a split in the army to win a revolution, which I vehemently disagree with. There's a night and day difference between civilians with guns and a well-trained and motivated army. Your average marine, for example, goes through brutal training ranging from live fire exercises, to marching uphill with a 50+ pound kit in the heat and in the cold. It's not uncommon for marines to pass out from heat stroke or sustain serious injuries because of their training. A Civilian militia, even one that's relatively in shape, just isn't on the same level. Its why guerilla tactics are mostly based around hit and run and drawing the enemy into ambushes over engaging in pitched battles. Even trained men can break under constant artillery bombardment; the force rattling their brain cage and chattering their teeth. A less trained militia may face even greater problems.
However, I think militias also have a pretty important role to play in starting revolutions. The catalyst for a lot of revolutions is usually armed civilians seizing an urban center, which facilitates a crack in the military as your individual troop usually doesn't want to fire on his own people (exceptions include militaries that exist mostly as internal police forces for nations). In that extremely fragile situation, militias have the most important role and need to be disciplined enough to seize momentum. A Vanguard Party is critical for this, because groups of angry people without direction just devolve into a riot. A core of organizers are needed to direct anger: seizing public transport, police stations, government buildings, and so on. After this task is complete and the military starts to break up, then the militia should be gradually phased out in favor of professionalized troops. Conscription should be instituted, and the most dedicated militiamen should be incorporated into the regular army as officers.
No.1675576
>>1675336>Taliban weren't fighting the Afghan Army (which ran away) but the US Army (which also ran away)nah they were mostly fighting ana
No.1675592
>>1675444check'd.
Viet Cong and NVA are two different things. Former is the guerrilla/army that operated in S. Vietnam (and Cambodia, Laos), while NVA was the North Vietnamese Army, officially People's Army of Vietnam.
>>1675576Nope. ANA was supposed to take over while US exited. US officials predicted that they have a month to evacuate, but ANA didn't even fight, they immediately surrendered and collapsed, that's why the Taliban were able to regain control over Afghanistan so quickly and rush Kabul.
ANA was Americans trying to will a national army into existence. All their weapons ended up in Taliban hands. They tried the same in Iraq, with similar results, weapons ending up in hands of ISIS.
No.1675600
The 19th century United States employed wide-reaching direct democratic practices alongside its slave-owning aristocracy and burgeoning bourgeoisie. Industrial development inevitably destroyed the former two and gave absolute power to the latter, but the ruling class decided build a national mythology out of this class compromise that was never coming back and kept appealing to democracy even when that had nothing to do with reality.
The left loves the genuineness and mass character of these long-gone democratic institutions and the right loves that they were used to enforce brutal racist violence. It has something everyone and it's drilled into USians' heads from the moment they are born.
No.1675608
>>1675604
is this actually true though
No.1675610
>>1675319US military in Afghanistan was massively corrupt and incompetent and never able to set up a government that didn't rely completely on warlord fiefdoms and was only there for the poppy fields and the war was lost when they voluntarily withdrew
No.1675629
>>1675610Did the US army stop being a modern army.in Afghanistan? Their planes or night vision goggles didn't work?
Militia can defeat a regular army. Proven by Viet Cong, Taliban, Yugoslav partisans, Cuban revolutionaries, and so on.
No.1675655
What differentiates a militia from an army, in your eyes? The decentralization? The smaller size? Can one form an army without controlling the state?
This isn't disagreement, I'm just trying to get an idea of your position.
>However, in most cases, a real army always prevails over militias.
<"Fails 80% of the time, every time!"
No.1675661
>>1675652>That's an awfully low rate of success, As opposed to what, though?
No.1675678
>>1675629Militia can
tire out a regular army until they withdraw, not defeat them. Insurgencies always suffer heavy losses compared to counter-insurgencies. Insurgencies only win because counter-insurgencies withdraw because their genocidal occupation becomes unprofitable. If they were concerned with total dominance instead of profitability, they would simply continue counter insurgency until there was no insurgents left. But because their behavior is dictated by the need for profit, they withdraw. For example, in the 2001-2021 US-Afghanistan war, coalition occupiers only lost about 3000 troops. Taliban lost 52,000. Afghan security forces lost 66,000. The majority of deaths were therefore Afghan deaths, whether they sided with the occupation or the taliban. What this means is, occupiers simply get as many locals killed as possible. Then when the occupiers withdraw, the locals declare victory… even though their standard of living is much much lower and their population has been decimated and their surplus resources have been destroyed… these kinds of victories are always pyrrhic victories. Especially for the women and children in the country.
No.1675679
>>1675341You can shuffle words around all you want but the prerequisite for a larger scale organised military like the ones you think we need are local militias that grow into them.
No.1675772
>a militia cannot defeat an enemy that is better supplied better organised better disciplined and has no major weaknesses
What's next? Water is wet? Of course it can't. Anyone who is a serious marxist knows that revolution is only possible when the state is weak. They aren't meant to overthrow a stable state. And even in a civil war the end result is never a given.
I'm not sure what your point is. Should we just not have guns and armed people? You say "make a Stalinist army" but how do you do that before taking state power by force?
No.1675777
>>1675678The Viet Cong defeated the Viet South. The Cubans defeated Batista. The Taliban defeated the us backed government. The Yugoslav army beat the nazi collaborateurs.
You can say
>They didn't beat their backing occupying state they just retreatedBut that's all you need. The Bolsheviks didn't need to defeat the London and Paris and Berlin banks and capitalists, they just needed to kick them out. The Viet Cong, Taliban and Cuban's didn't need to defeat the Americans, just to kick them out.
>But it's a pyrric victory, the people come out poorerThe parties involved either didn't start the war or made their country much better after. Vietnam and Afghanistan were invaded by the USA, their fight was self defence. Should they just roll over and die? The Cubans kicked out Batista and ended serfdom and near slavery, and created a high standard of living out of nothing. Should they just have let Batista rule?
No.1675804
>>1675777>The parties involved either didn't start the war or made their country much better after. Vietnam and Afghanistan were invaded by the USA, their fight was self defence. Should they just roll over and die? No. of course not. I'm just pointing out that if the occupiers simply decide to never retreat, you end up with a situation like the United States, where the indigenous are all but extinct.
No.1675807
>>1675804I mean it's hardly like the indigenous would be better off if they fought back less lol.
No.1675820
>>1675313Militias are really only good for protracted and mostly defensive wars. They've proven themselves, time and again, to be basically worthless at offense. I think the image of these militias beating proper armies is inspiring because people like to think of the militias as something like "people's armies," but they ignore that these victories mostly came as a result of grinding a proper army down and were backed by a proper army of their own.
No.1675884
>>1675655was in a para-military sanctioned defense force in my nation(the mujahid forces) so for me it's proper structure and funding.
No.1675893
>>1675777>Viet Cong defeated the Viet SouthThe NVA did
>The Cubans defeated BatistaThat strategy in Bolivia proved to be a massive failure
No.1676191
>>1676130
other then Poland and Myanmar, where else has this happened.
No.1676195
>>1675957Bad empenada is a retarded edgelord.
Mao explicitly constantly incorporated former warlords (who did sometimes collaborate with the imperialists) and KMT army functionaries and especially soldiers into the red army to great succes.
He is an unread hack who made hating white people (while being a white australian living the expat life in south america) his whole identity.
No.1676207
>>1675957I don't usually call people 'trolls' but that's just what this guy is, he should just be ignored, leave him to his sexpat ways
No.1677679
>>1675957During the Left SR uprising Lenin made the wise choice to use the Latvian Riflemen(a former Imperial Russian Army military formation) to suppress them, rather then risk the revolution, how would he try to justify that.
No.1677711
>>1677697not Christian friend ,I'm from Pakistan and all our poltica factions bought into this delusion and failed.
No.1677869
>>1677697Fatsocs, no how could this happen.
No.1679305
>>1675313I mean there are many examples of a Army that has superior equipment and training being defeated by a force that is Inferior to it in everyway such as the NVA/Viet Cong during the Vietnam war and the Taliban during the war in Afghanistan.
The main reason/s why these groups won are multiple, the first and what i think is the most important one is the will to fight on, both the Vietnam war and the Afghanistan war lasted multiple decades and while it may have been impossible to defeat the occupying army by force of arms it certain was not impossible to demoralise said occupying force and make them pay an extortionate cost for there continued occupation of Territory.
The Second reason was the effective utilization of Terrain in waging a long term, protracted, Insurgent war against said occupying force, with both the NVA and Viet Cong utilizing the thick Jungles of Vietnam to great effect, hiding away military supply depots and workshops while being able to strike out against Occupation forces Patrols with large scale insurgent actions (E.G. ambushes, boobytraps, ect)
And the third and Final reason being the successful use of limited resources to acquire or construct the military equipment needed to arm Militants, this was done successfully by both groups to a great degree with most Vietcong units by the end of the war utilizing mostly American manufactured equipment acquired from intimidating ARVN Firebase commanders into handing over massive amounts of military grade equipment.
No.1679537
>>1679305>NVA/Viet Cong during the Vietnam war and the Taliban during the war in Afghanistan.They were victories with unnecessary bloodshed, I respect the Vietnamese people for fighting against all the odds and having insane will but losing so many men when they could have preventable is a tragedy and I hope no people or nation ever have to go through.
No.1679903
>>1675313Well regulated (organized) militia should have the same equipment as conventional armies. They are specifically being forbidden this to be _weaker_ than the army, on purpose. Heck, even common policefags have much better equipment with their full-auto AR-15s. No shit that it's an uphill battle under these conditions.
>>1675500There wouldn't be any revolution at all if _first_ crucial battles would not have been won by the militia. Washington and other American aristocrats like Franklin (basically a British bureaucrat) didn't even want a revolution, they overtaken it when they saw it was being successful. Washington's Continental Army with its European (Prussian) tactics was a peak retardation btw, the Americans were winning _because_ they were instinctively using modern tactics and were _not_ fighting in lines - they were shooting the British from cover like if they were hunting (red) ducks. This uyghur hardly even won a single battle, "strategic commander" my ass.
No.1680156
>>1679903He's severely over-rated but he was a good general, Washington's best work was his ability to both micromanage and then macro when he had trusted officers.
A perfect example was when Washington first took over Continental Army and arrived at their base camp in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Kids are taught that there already was an army, which was far from the case, because it wasn't an army, it was a gaggle of people who had no proper training, know how to handle a musket efficiently, no hygiene or even basic structure. Washington had to rebuild the entire army from scratch and his first tasks were all administrative tasks. Teaching his officers how to fill out reports, how to count men, how to properly purchase supplies and manage tools, where to dig the latrines in, where to prepare food, where to burn waste in the camp, all of these are basic things that Washington had to teach.
There was also the fact that the Continental Army was just all the various state militias who have their own command styles and way of doing things and Washington needed to stitch together a common culture between them all and get them to overcome their interstate rivalries. He managed to whip the army into shape and maintain discipline even through the harsh first year.
No.1680541
>>1675313Militias made a lot more sense in Marx's time, I mean they weren't THAT different from the army, because marching in line and shooting straight was more or less all there is in terms of tactics and technology.
This all rapidly changed in 20th century ofc. You can't win a conventional war without combined arms and you need an army structure for that.
No.1680553
this kills the militias
>>1675336>le Vietnamese militia memeread a book, please
No.1680577
>>1679903>Well regulated (organized) militia should have the same equipment as conventional armies.Ah yes, militia with strategic bombers and a tank armada aka an army.
No.1680586
>>1680577they are just advocating for The People's Bomb, comrade. give them some time
No.1680696
>>1680577You forgot about intercontinental ballistic missiles and aircraft carriers - just as good for funneling money into the pockets of politicians' friends and just as useless for our purpose. All this shit is for (potential) wars between states.
No.1680700
>>1680696>just as uselessYes, all weapons are useless, should've just hugged Hitler
No.1680704
>>1680700Like all good generals you are talking how a previous war was won. This statist thinking can get you killed in a real world.
No.1680712
>>1680553I don't know man, they specifically mention the weakness of hierarchical structures to small scale changes:
<This formalism has been used [3] to show that although central control and hierarchy create large-scale coordination, they limit the complexity of a system at smaller scales (See Figure 1b), which makes the system unable to function effectively in environments with complexity at many scales, referred to as “complex” environments. Sound like a susceptibility of a state army to local militias. Also, we specifically do not want a "disordered system" (which they say are not stable), we want a "spontaneous order".
No.1680722
>>1675313I reject your entire thesis completely. Firstly, militia rebellions are always successful in furthering the dialectic progression of a capitalist state. Even when leftist militias are defeated in battle, they further discussion on the issues they fought towards such as the case with John Brown and Thomas Müntzer. Furthermore, every great paradigm shift towards the improvement of proletariat material conditions have occurred directly or indirectly through the employment of organic rebellions which eventually developed militias. Absolutely zero improvements to the proletariats material conditions have ever been institutionalized under monarchist or bourgeois process. The heuristic application of peaceful protest and democratic process is only aesthetic in efficacy. It's just a way to express a grievance without rocking the boat, and by design these processes never lead to sufficiently popular reform. If you actually want to see positive change that conflicts with the material interests of billionaires is through visceral threat to their power. The issue is that voting in elections poses no threat to their power whatsoever. The bourgeois control the national parties, legislation, judicial, and media through their wealth. Voting for Bernie Sanders poses no threat to their longevity, and actually just provides them the opportunity to sabotage the work that grassroots activists did for causes in his platform so that they can say "See! People hate the idea of making enough money to survive!" The great Western reformist presidents arose from the direct threat of militias and revolution. Abraham Lincoln pursued abolition, because militias were killing slave owners and raiding military outposts. FDR pursued the New Deal, because militant working class organizations were developing and the U.S.S.R was offering a competing ideology.
Militias are not the idealist solution to sufficiently popular reform. Democratic process is idealism.
No.1680785
>>1680712yes anon it serves both as a critique both of excessive horizontalism as well as excessive verticalism. tbh Leninists overcorrect a lot of the time
No.1681598
>>1680541>CastroTrained by a former Spanish Military Officer
>MaoEffectively used former KMT officers
>Ho Chi MihnArmy was trained by the US and latter Soviets.
No.1684267
>>1680541but they didn't, in Marx's times they failed even more often.
No.1690553
>>1680722those militias were killed you Idiot.
No.1726139
What are some good drill books that are still relevant today?
Roger's Rules of Ranging comes to mind.
Militias need to be drilled and although formations have changed they're still used on the modern battlefield.
Don't get me wrong. Militias are poorly trained light infantry. Best to stick with skirmishes and hit and run tactics.
No.1726185
>>1675313Well, militias in Europe are impossible. At most you could have terrorist groups. But those tend to be nationalist. You could have a shock force with batons, sticks, and pellets guns to defend protests. But the the hope would be for a a large part of the army to become sympathetic to communists. Which is also impossible with the professional armies of Europe. But a conscription in the case of a large war could tilt the odds. I wouldn't be suprised if it happened in Ukraine in 2024 or 2025.
No.1726189
>>1690553>those militias were killed you IdiotWhat's your point?
No.1726190
>>1726180The Islamic concept of martyrdom.
No.1726191
>>1726185what about nations with conscription?
No.1726192
>>1726185>Well, militias in Europe are impossible.Why do you say this? Difficulty of obtaining armaments?
No.1726216
>>1726190That one isn't cucked you saying?
No.1726217
>>1726191I'm talking about mass conscriptionif a war happens.
>>1726192>Difficulty of obtaining armaments?Yes. Only sources are foreign glowies and raids on police and military offices.
No.1726447
>>1675313One could assume there is centralisation of armies into high tech professional armies until you look what is happening in Ukraine. Infantry and artillery dominate the landscape with drones being utilized for fire control.
No.1726450
>>1726185>Well, militias in Europe are impossibleI have never read anything as retarded as this. Plenty of European countries have conscripted armies where whole population is or was military trained.
No.1726562
>>1679903>Washington and other American aristocrats like Franklin (basically a British bureaucrat) didn't even want a revolution,none of them were aristocrats, just large landowners at best with pretensions to gentry. Franklin was even less so because he made his money in printing, even if he passed himself off as a gentleman.
>Washington's Continental Army with its European (Prussian) tactics was a peak retardation btwYes, to the extent that Washington ever attempted to head off the British alone without any other allies. But that wasn't the point. The point was to create the nucleus of a national army in order to attract political support from the French and unify the war effort among the competing states. Being the General of the Continental Army was more of a political task than a military one (if we disregard the fact that war-making is inherently a political game)
No.1726699
>>1726450And where do you suppose the arms and equipment for such a militia would come from
No.1726749
>>1726216only if they have a chance of winning, when they are against actual forces that they have no chance of winning against, it becomes exactly that, cause what else can you do.
No.1727930
There are cultural factors as well, like the reason Che failed in Congo was was because the Congolese were completely retarded when it came to warfare, as they refused to dig trenches or carry heavy loads, considering it effeminate. Bolivia, on the other hand Bolivia was his own damm fault.
No.1727938
>>1727930> Bolivia, on the other hand Bolivia was his own damm faultHow so? He was betraved by the Bolivian Communist Party.
No.1728523
>>1727938Che fell into the trap of assuming that simply by showing up, people would come to see his guerrillas as the liberation from the imperialists versus external troublemakers. His lack of understanding of the Bolivian indigenous people and social order arguably did much to cement his status as something best reported to the government (regardless of how bad the government might be) as a means of quieting things down. Meanwhile, the foreign counter-insurgents were limited to non-combat roles, with Green Berets being brought in to train locally recruited Bolivian soldiers into a ranger company who actually went out into the field to track down the guerrillas.
No.1728878
>>1675313>the concept of a militia taking down a conventional army, when reality has shown the opposite result every timeThis is demonstrably untrue though? Basically every revolution of the 20th century was at least in part fought asymmetrically between a conventional military and guerilla/militia forces, and many of those obviously succeeded. Hell, many "Islamist" forces in the 21st century have seen success like this.
In the revolution you make do with what you have. What kind of conventional army are you hoping to raise in a scenario where the state will already be striking at anything that moves. At least at the crucial beginning stages you will need an unconventional force posted in strategic points who are able to punch up above their weight. In the end stages, when you're consolidating your victory and overwhelming the enemy, it might be correct to form a more conventional military structure. But you can't pretend that asymmetrical warfare has been a failing strategy over the last 100 years. That's the kind of willful ignorance I'd expect from someone who's only ever read works covering the late 19th and early 20th centuries, not someone with any real analysis of the modern day.
No.1728896
Now study the actual history of warfare. A skilled guerrilla force of disciplined irregulars (i.e a militia) can overcome a larger, ostensibly better armed conventional force and has done on multiple occasions.
> Peninsular War
> American Revolutionary War
> Vietnam War
> Chinese Civil War
> Both Afghanistan wars (vs Soviets and then vs American)
> Irish Civil War
> Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine
> Cuban Revolution
> Algerian War
Etc
No.1728975
>>1728896here we go again. every time someone makes a claim for successful militias, they list a bunch of examples where most, if not all, had standing armies.
No.1729179
>>1728975Only the first 4 he listed had the support of conventional armies. Plus he could've listed the Haitian revolution.
No.1730141
>>1729168
Yeah, third-worldist fucks are all upper class people from their own nations, who are either all LARPers or fail miserably even by militia standards.
No.1730148
>>1730141Also, Third Worldists and Fatsocs try to explain why the First World proletariat weren't successful WAS because they're comfortable in their position in the supply chain. When in reality, it comes down to the difference between strong and weak states
Example, Leftist revolutionaries in Imperial Russia at the end of WW1 faced a military that had been gutted by Imperial Germany for years and would make a much easier opponent than let's say, this is not the case for modern America, where even a relatively moderate movement like Occupy Wall Street quickly had the NYPD trucking people into their camp and getting infiltrated, To use another example, Venezuela, in 1992 then Colonel Hugo Chavez was able to organize over 2300 soldiers to almost succeed in a coup against the Venezuelan government.
In the United States this would not happen due to the overwhelming capture of the United States military by politically rightwing actors. An actual leftist would never make it to Colonel let alone General and even if they did, if they attempted a coup against the United States Government, they would most likely be detected while organizing their soldiers and that's assuming they could find any soldiers to follow their orders.
TL;DR: Proletariat in Western Europe and the United States don't instigate leftist revolutions not because they're parasites fat off the blood of third world workers but because organizing a leftist revolution in a country with a strong government with a united military and competent surveillance infrastructure is Nightmare Difficulty compared to some weak South American or Asian government that can be seriously challenged by organized peasants with AK 47s.
No.1730250
>>1729168
>White people
stopped reading
No.1731225
>>1729190reminder
>There he shared a cell with Le Monde journalist Remy Roure and Captain Charles de Gaulle, who reported that he played his violin, spouted nihilist) beliefs and spoke against Jews, whom he called dogs who "spread their fleas throughout the world".[9] Roure, under the pseudonym of Pierre Fervacque, wrote about his encounter with Tukhachevsky. In a certain conversation, Tukhachevsky said he hated jews for bringing christianity and the "morality of capital" to Russia.[10] Roure then asked Tukhachevsky if he was a socialist, and he replied:>Socialist? Certainly not! What a need for classification you have! Besides, the great socialists are Jews and the socialist doctrine is a branch of universal christianity. I laugh at money, and whether the land is divided up or not is all one to me. No.1732625
>>1731225Also, if Stalin hadn't taken power, either Tukhachevsky or some other former Tsarist officer would have ended up taking staging some Military coup. there is basically no scenario in which the old Bolsheviks would have held onto power, and this new former Tsarist military government, despite having military knowledge, would either have stayed neutral or even possibly allied with the Nazis. That's why Stalinism was ultimately a good thing that god intended.
No.1732628
>>1732625but muh heckin red napoleonorino!!1!!!!!!
No.1732670
>>1731225Why should i care what he said before becoming a bolshevik when he was a 20 year old soldier? He was a based genius and a committed communist, unlike the nazi-stalinoids who framed and killed him.
No.1732709
>>1732670What you should care about, if not for Stalin, either him or someone near his level, like Blokhin or Budyonny, would have overthrown the old Bolsheviks. These guys might have ended the Soviet Union outright and been more cordial with the Axis powers. It was a divine thing that Stalin took power when he did; otherwise, one of these guys would have
No.1734157
In Spain militias were a meme because they were mostly made up of anarchists that refused to take orders and had 0 discipline. During the siege of the alcázar de Toledo for example people from Madrid would jump on trucks and go to the fortress just to shoot a rifle at it once (I shit you not), and then returned to the city and claimed they had participated in the siege. In Aragon militias from Barcelona refused to attack when ordered to in coordination with other units from the regular army, retreated under the slightest pressure, and had to make some sort of hippie commune assembly to take any decision. These people ran most of the industries in the Llobregat basin btw (one of the largest industrial areas controled by the Republicans), and ran all of them in this fashion. Obviously the government got tired of their bullshit and took them out eventually, but by then the damage had already been done and it was too late. The point is militias and irregular formations can play a role in warfare as long as they are somewhat disciplined and integrated in the command structure, otherwise they are a liability most of the time (unless operating in the enemy rear).
No.1742695
>>1742687win or lose, I'm predicting Ukraine have a similar affect as the Afghan-War, in that we'll have thousands of foreign fighters who are trained and most importantly made contacts with each other, and then they'll have the means train fighter in their own nations, it'll have a massive effect, in Algeria these fighters managed to cause a whole civil war. and every Islamic terrorist groups till the 2010's could be directly traced to the afghan war.
No.1742713
>>1742695Yeah, im expexting rightoid insurgencies to start popping up by 2025 across Europe. All the major Atomwaffen types are already fighting in ukraine and when the war ends, they'll have weapons, networks and backing.
No.1742784
>>1742713hell there are even fighters from South-America, both right and left leaning. I think even a few members of FARC also volunteered.
No.1743435
I think it's just the issue of popuiar narratives, and everyone likes to portray themselves as underdogs. People have a fetish for the idea of a popular uprising overthrowing the government, and it's going to get a lot of people killed. The Americans are perhaps the worst case of it. The American Revolution, regardless of how you feel about it, was secretly military overrated. Now, Washington, by all metrics, was a competent general who knew his strengths and what his troops lacked. However, Britain was simultaneously involved in five separate continent-spanning wars, and the US was financially supported by the wealthiest men in the colonies and the French Kingdom, who funded and trained the Continental Army. (Here's a fun fact: there were actually more French soldiers at Yorktown than American ones.) Again, Washington and the other Continental generals were not incompetent; they fought the war with calculated strategy, which ultimately paid off. But it wasn't a life-or-death struggle. There were no massacres or forced looting and pillaging. As always, the Americans had the advantage due to geography. The same thing happened with a lot of other revolutions. I recently watched a podcast where one of the hosts talked about how the people of Vietnam, men, women, teenagers, and the elderly collectively defeated the strongest army in the world, and it proved the effectiveness of people's war. I absolutely don't want to diminish the struggle and strength of the Vietnamese people as a whole and what they managed to accomplish, but that's not how the war happened. The US's goal was to maintain South Vietnam as a buffer state to limit the spread of communism. More South Vietnamese died in battle than American GI's, and yes, plenty of informal rag-tag militia soldiers from the south and north participated, but the decisive battles were done by the NVA.
No.1743787
>>1675804>occupiers simply decide to never retreatdipshit how long can an occupying force hold one teritory? how do you justify to mothers and fathers to send their children into a place where for 100 years they have been getting killed over and over and over or worse coming back useless husks of men?
all revolutions win by breaking the will of the occupier since a revoulitonary will is unbreakable thats the whole fucking point of PPW
No.1743791
>>1743787>all revolutions win by breaking the will of the occupier since a revoulitonary will is unbreakable thats the whole fucking point of PPWwhen has that ever happened though?
No.1744676
>>1743787childish delusional
No.1744691
>>1743777I used to argue with people like this, but I quickly realized it’s pointless. There is no future where the 2% of the population that is indigenous and the 13% that is black in America rises up, takes over the whole country, and gets to dictate terms to the majority. It’s a pathetic, feverish fantasy, and I suspect deep down Third Worldists and Fatsocs know this
They know this is a political dead end yet have morphed their displeasure from their own personal failure to understand the proletarian class into a new extreme and unrealistic political line, often revolving around biological essentialism, in the hopes they meek out some meager modicum of attention from any passerby therefor maintaining a minute shred of relevancy.
No.1747985
>>1743791>when has that ever happened though?afghanistan,cuba(the occupying force in this case was the american economic interests holding the batista government in power),vietnam,cyprus,ireland,haiti and many more
No.1747986
>>1744676>childish delusionalyou are a fat amerikkkan who belives in a bolshevik style revolution in the united SStates
No.1748032
>>1676195>who made hating white peopleAhh, so that's the real reason for your post, I see.
No.1748166
>>1747985>afghanistan>cubacivil wars between incompetent armies(that had no foundations) vs a motivated insurgnet group
>vietnam,cyprus,ireland,haitinow these have some merit, I don't know about the others but Hati was a result of a military general essentially co-opting the relief effort sent by the French revolutionaries to become the established power on the Island, then using as the American the advantage of geography to maintain defenses, but you can't call that an army
look at Haitian Dominican war as an example of a pure structureless force facing a smaller enemy that nonetheless is organized, One of the big reasons why Haiti suffered so poorly with the dominicans was because they had no real generals. anyone with actual militarily training was dead, a number of Haitian officers had been trained in French and American armies who then trained the former slaves into a fighting force. Four decades later, most of these officers were dead or very old, and the army's only experience was to suppress rebellions. Foreign observers noted the army that had too many officers, "generals" who were actually civilians with no military training, like General Damien Delva (a wealthy tribunal clerk). The troops were gives guns and uniforms but ignored discipline and tactics. It was an army that could stop a small rebellion, but had more trouble battling a resolute enemy: its men would rather be at home growing food for their families than fighting the Panyols.
No.1749946
>>1742821By the end of it, most KMT officers defected to Mao as well. Total Chiang Kai-shek Humiliation
No.1749955
You don't understand the socio-economic differences between then and now.
In the mid-19th century, economies were far more localized and decentralized. You had local banks, with little input from the federal government or other banks. Your food almost certainly came either from within your own state, or a surrounding state. Any guns and ammunition that were produced were similarly either local or regional. You were more likely to be self-employed, or employed by a local or regional company.
Flashforward to today, and your food comes from a continent away. Your guns come from one little factory in some distant state. Your bank networks with the big banks - namely Bank of America, Visa, and Mastercard - and anything those big banks don't like your local bank isn't allowed to touch. Your employer is statistically some multi-national corporation, and you likely work a desk job in some cubicle or as a sales clerk. What farmers exist are reliant on either large conglomerates or on the globalized economy - either to purchase seed and fertilizer, or to sell.
All of this makes rebellion hard. If you cannot understand this, or just want to remain in denial of it, you will just get picked off by some FBI goon who tricks you into some incriminating statement. Your bank will disown you. Your employer will disown you. The courts will eat you alive, and you will be rendered a felon. That's what you get by pretending all is the same as it was two centuries ago.
Actual change will require far more subtle and deliberate action - namely political organization.
No.1752889
>>1749955yeah okay fucking retard
No.1754033
There's a big issue with the left regarding, they think since racists deemed certain races inferior that means they have to defend all cultures, so one the biggest herders for African development is the concept of African tine, There wasnt't a pressure to do things in a short-term timeframe there. In other parts of the world, Asians, Arabs Euros (and white North Americans) are known to be fastidious about timeliness, and a big part of that probably stems from 1000 generations of "you will literally fucking die if you mismanage your food supply ahead of the dead of winter". This likely spills over to the business and governmental world as well, with seasonal taxes, firm timeframes in legal contracts with punishment for violating them, etc.
In Robert Young Pelton's documentary about the Nuer white army in South Sudan is pretty interesting because he was out in the bush with these guys, and said, it might seem concerning to be in the middle of nowhere without any food or way of getting food, but food is in fact everywhere there if you're a good enough shot. They just pull over, shoot some animals and have bush meat for dinner.
No.1754040
>>1754033Do you think people in warmer climates don't understand time or something? Yeah we don't have winter, but we still have harvest cycles, seasonal storms, etc that if mishandled can also result in death. Time value, just like money-form is universal, even if some climates are more salient to it (i.e the colder climate as you mention) than others. With some African ethnicities i think the case here is the fact that they never undergo the settled feudal mode of production, many of these tribes were literal hunter gatherers and nomad foragers before colonization, which meant time value has not been properly drilled into them.
No.1754046
>>1754040except my people were also tribals and never developed this bad, In his times in Africa(during UN Peacekeeping missions) There's a weird dynamic he saw every time, where the men expect the women to do everything, not just the housework but also the actual "guy" stuff like labor and field work. My uncle is from Pakistan and we are pretty sexist, but even he was surprised by how much hardship they put their women through. I don't know what led to this, but they've developed a culture where the act of labor and working for oneself is considered feminine
No.1754050
>>1675313>>1675319It's rock-paper-scissors.
Local army beats local militia.
Foreign army beats local army.
Local militia beats foreign army.
No.1754051
>>1754050That is the most Agent Kochinskiite way to view actual conflict and war, that's now hot to works.
No.1754531
>>1754046It took a handful to Cubans to win Angola's independence.
No.1754542
>>1754050That's fucking stupis but i kinda like to fund a stategy game with this premise just to see the amount of Internet dweller who will start to spew this bullshit unironically.
No.1755302
lol op
the proletariat shall be armed, attempts to disarm should be met with force if necessary
No.1755341
>>1755302That's not the discussion.
No.1756780
Well Marx's own views of capitalism and social and historical development were nuanced than the few symbols and stereotypes about world communist revolution. Him and Engels seemed to think it would happen first in the most developed countries although that was also complicated by later events. What you saw in African bush wars is a whole lot of modern guns meeting tribal societies which wages warfare in that way + a handful of rather ruthless leaders plucked from those countries and educated in Western and Soviet schools who could launch start-up civil wars with a few hundred guys and a few million dollars. Kind of like if space aliens teleported some of us into a flying saucer and sent us back to wage war with each other and we could equip with ray guns and flying saucers.
One reason why I think mercenaries like Executive Outcomes were so effective in the 90s is because many of them were South African who were born on the continent and understood the "terrain" so to speak as opposed to imposing a more developed Western-style (or Eastern style) method on African conditions.
No.1756787
>>1755349So how do you feel that the Right today is the one that wants extremely lax or even practically no gun or firearm restrictions
No.1756827
>>1756812>everyone on the [opposite] side is a monolith. They R da same person!Then I guess every hard Maga Trumper who literally believes they should be able to own belt fed machine guns for home defense is secretly a leftist because only leftists support gun rights
Get it through your skull, some people X, some people Y. There are leftists who like guns, there are lefties that want to ban guns, there are righties who like guns, there are righties who don’t
However no one is blind that there are political ideologies for a reason. They are umbrellas with common threads, and I will say that if we look at the current socio-political-cultural-economic situation in the West, the Right is the one that generally wants more open guns
I’ve said before today your average “leftist” or at least the masses of youth that larp or identify as them, are basically just edgy liberals
No.1756872
>>1756827you look like a pretzel with how much you're twisting yourself into knots trying to justify your stupidity
leftism really doesn't care about guns except as a channel for power
if rightoids are making them more open and available, good, it's useful
now stop being a dumbass
No.1757514
>>1757473waow hot opinion
No.1757777
>>1757627>buying a gun means never having to physically exert yourselfyeah the revolution is going to go really well
No.1758613
>>1755298Yes, this is the obvious solution. The way a society fights reflects their structure.You can't just lump a bunch of random guys together and expect them to fight for a nebulous concept like nationalism. Where is the motivation? Especially not after you just killed or deposed all the Baʿathists which were the ones espousing said nationalism. It'll be like ordering a group of feudal lords from randomly picked places in medieval Europe to go fight for the good of the continent. There's a n order to these things. Modern-style Nationalism came about from a slow process of evolution and required the dominance of a single proto-state actor that worked hard to create a nation. How are you going to create a nation without a shared culture or language? How are you going to create a national army without the same? You will have to do what the nationalist countries did years ago, decide on a single culture and language and ruthlessly suppress everything else. Only then can you actually begin to create a national army. Of course as an alternative an ideology or religion can cross such boundaries, but that's not really an option.
No.1758675
>>1758613>It'll be like ordering a group of feudal lords from randomly picked places in medieval Europe to go fight for the good of the continent.Isn't that what the Crusades were?
No.1759664
>>1758675yes and their success rate varied drastically.
No.1762370
>>1762369Next offensive was when Dostum did a heel turn and joined Hekmatyar at new years 1994
>Junbish get wracked by defections due to everyone hating Hekmatyar but they were the largest faction so they continued their planned offensive>make a massive push in downtown Kabul and almost manage to capture the presidential palace but their attack is blunted by Jamiat airpower>Dostum and his generals decide to try to counter the Jamiat airforce>they launch a maximum effort airstrike against Bagram AFB and manage to crater the runway.>this puts the Jamiat airforce out of action for a few days but they repair it with matting and are able to return the favour by attacking logistics supporting the Junbish offensive including blowing up Hetmatyar's arms dump in the Bala Hissur.>The head of the Jamiat airforce (who trained as a cosmonaut in the USSR) decides to repair the Kabul air defense grid leading to an early warning radar and an SA-3 battery being made operational.>this immediately leads to several Junbish aircraft being shot down including a Mig-21 getting hit by an SA-3, a dogfight which led to the shootdown of a Junbish Su-33M3 and worst of all the head of the Junbish airforce was shot down while performing a bombing mission north of Kabul by a Jamiat Mig-21bis doing a ground controlled intercept and smoking him with an AA-2 Atoll>The offensive in central Kabul ran out of steam but despite the heavy aircraft losses Junbish still had 32 tactical aircraft, 100 pilots and 22,000 bombs left. No.1762371
>>1762370The partnership between Massoud and Mullah Omar was ended when the Talibs struck a deal with Whadat where the Taliban would occupy the front between them and Jamiat positions to create a neutral buffer between them. Massoud was less than impressed by the Jihadi peacekeeping force blocking his chance to boot another enemy out of Kabul and decided to just attack Whadat through the Taliban. On March 11th, 1995 Massoud's T-55s punched through the Taliban frontline and started rolling down beautiful European style boulevard of the Darulaman Road supported by Mi-35 attack helicopters and extremely heavy airstrikes from Jamiat Su-22s. They rolled past the fortified blocking points of the former Soviet and Polish embassies which fell without a shot to Whadat defectors who didn't want to ally with insane radical sunnis (who proved smart since the Taliban went full ISIS on Afghani Shia later). They kept going all the way to the Darulaman palace at the outskirts of Kabul where they dug in hull down while their supporting infantry mopped up the last Whadat and Taliban resistance in the city. the Taliban and Whadat responded with asshurt and erratic MLRS fire against the city centre trying to kill and terrorize civilians. The next day the Jamiat troops had regrouped and launched a new combined arms attack on the military base they had previously handed to the Taliban. The rocket arty spam ended when they captured the base plus all the enemy MLRS stationed there plus a bonus of some Whadat Scud launchers that were being prepared to fire on Kabul.
The Taliban had been practically rolled all the way back to Kandahar and were mighty fucked off about it. They blamed Baba Mazari because of his men defecting to the enemy and put him under arrest to be sent to the Taliban capital of Kandahar for trial (execution). In the helicopter ride their Mazari grabbed the rifle of one of his guards and the gunfire caused the helicopter to crash and kill everyone.
His men recovered his body, build a beautifully crafted coffin covered in Koranic verses and carried it on foot like a modern Shia martyr/saint through the mountain passes between Kabul and Hazarajat that were still very much in winter and covered in snow. That mountain road is/was widely considered impossible to pass through in winter due to the 10 feet snow drifts, bandits and vicious wolves that have grown portly on dead russians (even the legendary Babur had to wait out the snows) and in a funeral attended by crowds of thousands buried his body as an honoured martyr in Bamian (capital of Hazarajat and the Whadat territory.)
No.1762687
>>1762369>>1762370>>1762371Interesting effortposts anon, and appreciated. What's the provenance of the narrative?
No.1763688
The most destructive example of what a small group can do in a major city is perhaps best shown in the Mumbai Terror Attacks.
>guy who orchestrated much of the operation was a Pakistani ISI agent>attackers are all you young guys, and they have spent the last 2+ years training and being indoctrinated>attackers make their way into the country from Pakistan by hijacking an Indian fishing boat and murdering the crew>the attackers split up and hail taxis. They secretly place small bombs in those taxis and in random spots around the city before linking up again>all the attackers are equipped with assault rifles, grenades, and a cell phone or satellite phone so their boss (who is not on scene) can give them orders>the bombs serve as a distraction while they storm the hotel>once the attack commences the boss starts telling them where emergency services are going and where to find more victimsIn just 3 days, 10 men not only killed 175+ people but also brought a major metropolitan city to a standstill with the chaos they caused. The attacks led to mass looting and riots, and it took weeks for the city to reestablish law and order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks# No.1763841
>>1757347>>1763711>>1757627They're right, and /leftypol/ being a bunch of crypto fascists on the fitness question will not change anything.
Also post
>Bodies>A time stamped image of you and your fitness equipmentI assume you have a lot to show for things if you claim to support physical fitness this much.
No.1763865
>>1763841>I assume you have a lot to show for things if you claim to support physical fitness this muchGet a real jobs ffs.
Unless youre a roider tupe gym shit is for bobo office fags
No.1763983
>>1763841>They're right, and /leftypol/ being a bunch of crypto fascists on the fitness questionThis has to be bait.
No.1763991
>>1763987The red army was the People's millitia
No.1763994
>>1763991>Militsiya (Russian: милиция, IPA: [mʲɪˈlʲitsɨjə]) was the name of the police forces in the Soviet Union (until 1991) and in several Eastern Bloc countries (1945–1992), as well as in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia (1945–1992).
>The name militsiya as applied to police forces originates from a Russian Provisional Government decree dated April 17, 1917, and from early Soviet history: both the Provisional Government and the Bolsheviks intended to associate their new law-enforcement authority with the self-organisation of the people and to distinguish it from the czarist police. Not the milizya nor the red army were actual militias but they should have been.
No.1763995
>>1763994Red army was a millitia.
In September 1917, Vladimir Lenin wrote: "There is only one way to prevent the restoration of the police, and that is to create a people's militia and to fuse it with the army (the standing army to be replaced by the arming of the entire people)."
No.1764023
>>1763995Real militiaism has never been tried.
No.1764030
>>1763996Been reading g this after dgg'ing
>>1763995, quite Interesting. Thought the part at the end of thst passage was interesting:
>Unless women are brought to take an independent part not only in political life generally, but also in daily and universal public service, it is no use talking about full and stable democracy, let alone socialism. And such "police" functions as care of the sick and of homeless children, food inspection, etc., will never be satisfactorily discharged until women are on an equal footing with men, not merely nominally but in reality. No.1764301
>>1763987The gigachad here would backstab soyjak and employ chinletjak to do it for him.
No.1764836
>>1764301real chads respect each other as men, regardless of ideology.
No.1764873
>>1763987>>1764301 The anti-4chan-convert bait fished one out!
No.1765122
>>1727930This is a hole that they've so deeply dug themselves into that it will take multiple generations to fix, because fixing stupid requires not just making schools, but creating a society IN WHICH it is natural for good quality education to exist. It's a self perpeturating cycle. Poverty, greed, corruption, and ethnic violence inevitably destroy any attempt at making life better. I read a good textbook in an African history class called "The Problem with Africa," and that's the tldr. Western aid always fails, as does military support and training host nation armies, because you can't suddenly fix a lifetime of poverty and retardation and neglect with a 9 week boot camp and a bunch of money. Third world militaries are products of the societies that create them, just as first world ones are.
the first step is to go with the flow rather than against. Instead of forcing national identities on Africans, they must be allowed to operate within the social order they find most natural. Militias and city states and collections of tribes organized into loose confederation is the way because nothing else works outside of totalitarianism.
No.1765448
>>1755298There's also an example of non-Arab Islamic nations with proper Armies(Turkey and Iran) Turkey basically learned extremely well to larp as an european nation, you can still see a lot of shit which makes arabs terrible at war such as sectarian violence, but with most of them achieving the concept of nation they can compensate with that, it helps they have secularist elements which will work as antibodies to islamic inherent retardation.
Iran is a special case because being shiites it meant they probably didn't fall to ash'ari, instead they were in the process of becoming westerners but the fucking clerics hijacked the entire system, the reality of total war led to a merger of state apparatus and the appointed clergy, the ayatollah and friends act more like a modern totalitarian secular party than a religious organization, and the pressure put upon them is something similar to what 19th-20th european countries went through when trying to outdick each other.
The strongest force both nations have is a huge sense of nationalism, this often bring enough cohesion to compensate for horrible cultural background.
No.1765503
>>1757347Fitness guy was kinda larp but has a good point, some form of exercise is good just to fucking take care of yourself
Also some disabled people can and do workout, a bit ableist to assume that they can't
Again these are just fuckers on twitter so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No.1765528
>>1757627I don't understand people that never shut up about a revolution but never think in practical terms about it. In a revolution you have to fight, so you need to have training and conditioning -as much as your age and health allows. This is not difficult, so what gives? I feel like these people think of "the revolution" as a magical day akin to the day of judgment for the religious folk. The day will just come, capitalism will be solved and they won't actually have to do anything, they'll just be rewarded for their faith.
No.1771054
>>1771030Right wingers have Dunning Kruger effect which makes them confidently talk about shit they understand poorly, but that's enough to impress people like that guy I guess.
No.1771061
>>1771030I'm more curious as to why you think shoving the opinions (that are barely relevant to the topic) of random nobodies in our faces is a good idea. Go the fuck outside.
No.1771074
>>1771030>tweet<200 views literally who at thatLmao. Just reply to him faggot I know you have an account there.
No.1772499
>>1756780>>1765122The reverse can also be true(not always though) and no better case then with post-war Germany,
The Soviets and Allies were shocked that there wasn't any significant post-occupation resistance movement. I remembered reading that they were preparing for many years of insurgency and guerrilla warfare, considering how much of the German population had been well trained in warfare, but there wasn't any major guerrilla movement.
Dan Carlin referred to armed Germans as a race of robots. There's a diary entry from early 1945, written by a German officer, somewhere in a history book I read. In this entry, he describes how it was hopeless for the Reich government to try and wage guerrilla warfare because Germans were a people that placed a predominant cultural emphasis on obeying orders, and were not a nation of partisans carrying out isolated hit-and-runs that they would have to plan themselves without a central state telling them what to do. There's another account from a Canadian infantryman where he describes Germans as fantastic conventional soldiers when they've got a competent superior officer to listen to, but they just sort of shut down when there weren't any orders to carry out. I think this sums up why there weren't 500,000 German troops sniping at Soviet occupation forces well into the 1950s.
But this behavior makes sense in the context of German militarist culture. No more concrete instructions to fulfill means no more will to fight. The second-to-last order German troops ever received from Der Fuhrer was to resist in Berlin all the way to the perimeter around the Reichstag, so they did. Their last major order they received from an authority figure was to surrender, so they did
No.1772501
>>1772499Nice racial determinism but don't you think that it's more likely that by the end of WW2 most Germans realised that the war sucked, they lost decisively and resisting was pointless?
No.1772504
>>1772501pointing out that a people, who had a specific cultural tradition(in this case, organized militarism) were prone to certain behaviors isn't racialism.
No.1772515
>>1772499This goes completely against actual military history(not the 'muh cool tanks' wankery) but serious academic discussion on doctrines and training. The German army pioneered the whole idea of giving lower-level commanders more initiative to act without explicit orders or instructions. In fact, people like Rommel were often criticized for kind of just going off and doing their own thing when it was completely uncalled for or overly risky to do so. Most allied and soviet officers, when not high on their own supply, admit that the Germans had better structure that they implemented all around. despite having a technological and resource disadvantage,
I guess German society as a whole was very subservient, but the German army actively encouraged independent action and initiative from its junior officers. In my view, the most realistic interpretation is that the Nazis didn't expect the Allies to be willing to go through so many of their own soldiers to obliterate them, and rather waited for too long for negotiation attempts (which never came). After that realization, it was pure chaos. There were so many issues with them, but you don't have to make up evopsych bullshit.
No.1772632
What I've heard is that Germany is like a protocol nation. Everything revolves around protocol. The myth of German efficiency is debunked, but the civil service is reputedly one of the most efficient and well-organized in the world.
>>1772515You are referring to the doctrine of "Auftragstaktik," which formed the foundation of the German command structure. German commanders were typically assigned missions rather than given specific orders. They had the freedom to carry out these missions as they deemed appropriate. It is more precise to say that Germans require a mission to operate rather than stating that they need orders
No.1772645
>>1728896ignoring ideology and politics, the American Revolution is very militarily overrated. It's portrays in the American popular indignation as "the real Americans, as underdogs who defeated the world's greatest superpower through American spirt." However, this narrative conveniently ignores crucial facts. For instance, Britain was simultaneously involved in five separate continent-spanning wars, and the US was financially supported by the wealthiest men in the colonies and the French Kingdom, who funded and trained the Continental Army. (Here's a fun fact: there were actually more French soldiers at Yorktown than American ones.) Regardless of anyone's opinion on then, Washington and the other Continental generals were not incompetent; they fought the war with calculated strategy, which ultimately paid off. But let's be clear, it wasn't a life-or-death struggle. There were no massacres or forced looting and pillaging. As always, the Americans had the advantage due to geography.
No.1772787
>>1772632>>1772515It's a moot point I think, since Auftragstaktik was adopted to some degree by virtually every major power either before or shortly after WW2. Ironically over the course of the war the Soviets became more proficient with it than the Germans. As the war progressed and battle separated competent Red Army commanders from the buffoons, Stavka generally placed more confidence in proven lower level officers to carry out missions at their own discretion. Meanwhile Hitler developed paranoia about the army undermining him and started demanding rigid adherence to increasingly nonsensical orders, and the Wehrmacht became far more centralized than it had been at the start.
>>1772499Tbh I think the general (though not complete) lack of German resistance to Allied occupation post-war had a lot to do with the overwhelming exhaustion and apathy of the population (remember that the Nazis never enjoyed majority support), and the fact that postwar governments in both East and West built on substantial pre-existing political foundations. In the West they simply gave all the old Nazis (minus the top brass) their jobs back, and in the East they resurrected the German socialist movement which had gone underground but had substantial roots in the country.
>There's another account from a Canadian infantryman where he describes Germans as fantastic conventional soldiers when they've got a competent superior officer to listen to, but they just sort of shut down when there weren't any orders to carry out.That was probably a result of late-war German troops being poorly trained due to severe manpower shortages.
No.1772813
>>1772787>remember that the Nazis never enjoyed majority supportnot majority, but still significat, but it was always around 30-40%-ish, but once they were in power, most people went along with it.
>That was probably a result of late-war German troops being poorly trained due to severe manpower shortages.That's more likely.
No.1772815
>>1772813>but once they were in power, most people went along with itSure, but there's a big difference between going along with something, or even voting for the Nazi party, and suicidal resistance in pursuit of an obviously lost cause. The Gestapo produced regular reports on German public opinion for the Nazi government and these show that already by 1934 there was widespread apathy towards Hitler's government. Not enough opposition to inspire serious resistance, but certainly not an attitude that is conducive to fanatical resistance.
No.1773337
>>1772815Yeah, but that was only when shit really hit the fan, and you had three superpowers invading you in a total war. So obviously not supporting Nazism. My point is that Nazism isn't special per se. regardless of ideology, as long as the basic needs of the majority of the population are being met, people are fine with whatever system is in charge.
No.1774008
>>1773337>as long as the basic needs of the majority of the population are being met, people are fine with whatever system is in charge.I've heard this argument often, does anybody have a deboonk?
No.1774019
>>1774008>does anybody have a deboonk?No because it's true. The costs of active resistance to any state are always dire, which means that people need a very strong motivation to risk this. If you're in a position to live a fairly ordinary life and not subjected to intolerable misery, then 99% of the time you aren't going to risk the consequences of rebellion for the slim chances of success.
No.1774105
>>1774095>A state has to be in a condition of complete near collapse (Tsarist Russia), or that state was at a level of incompetence where it was just good enough to run along but folded as soon as it met any competent military resistance (Cuba), for a successful revolution to happen.That's a good assessment. Even states which are horribly run, rule over desperately poor and miserable populations, and suppress dissent with horrific terror more often than not are able to survive. They need to either already be in a state of collapse or be so massively unpopular that they just dissolve under the slightest pressure.
No.1775752
>>1774596>The Spartacist uprising was poorly organized and extremely premature - the German proletariat largely did not support a maximalist program in January 1919. The opinions of the masses demonstrably moved to the left as the instability in the country continued between 1919-1923, but by then the left's strongest leaders had been killed and the Social Democrats had consolidated their regime with the help of the military and right-wing paramilitaries.>On that subject, a more direct cause was that the right wing of the Social Democratic Party, led by Friedrich Ebert and Gustav Noske, had gained ascendancy in the wake of the outbreak of World War I and the split with the anti-war left. This faction was dominated by Bernstein-Kautskyite opportunists who were convinced that socialism could be achieved through gradualist political reform within the framework of bourgeois parliamentarianism. The SPD thus gladly accepted the poison chalice consciously handed to them by the German military at the end of the war - with the German military comprehensively defeated in the field, and its economy in a death spiral, the reactionary aristocrats who dominated the military establishment wanted the Social Democrats to be the ones signing their names to the highly punitive peace treaty. This was the origin of the "stab-in-the-back" myth of the "November criminals" that drove the political right in Germany throughout the Weimar period. Even worse, the Social Democrats actively collaborated with the reactionary right to suppress the communist left by unleashing the army and the reactionary Freikorps paramilitary groups against them, which were far better armed than the Spartacists. This bloodletting created an irreconcilable schism between the Social Democrats and Communists that had fatal consequences for both groups 14 years later.>Lenin himself lamented what happened during the revolutionary wave of 1917-1922, writing that while in Russia the political conditions for the establishment of socialism existed and the economic conditions did not, in Germany the opposite was true where the economic conditions existed but the political conditions were lacking. The Bolsheviks had in large part carried out their revolution in anticipation of revolution also taking hold in Germany. In Russia in 1917 the conditions were very, very different compared to what took place in Germany between 1918-1923. For one, in tsarist Russia, industry was very limited compared to Germany but was highly modern, and concentrated in certain urban centers in the western part of the country; the Russian proletariat grew exponentially over the course of the war, packed into overcrowded and highly impoverished districts in Petrograd and Moscow, turning these cities into powder kegs waiting to explode. Petrograd did ignite and explode in February 1917, as the war continuously worsened the crisis of inflation and pushed up the cost of living to the point the proletariat could no longer tolerate it, and had no other political recourse than violent revolution due to the sclerotic tsarist autocracy. Throughout 1917, the political parties that emerged after February, including the Bolsheviks, were very much tailing the spontaneous radicalization and organization of the proletariat of Petrograd. The Bolsheviks, as the only party practicing revolutionary defeatism (as opposed to revolutionary defensism), saw their support grow extremely rapidly over the course of the year as the dysfunctional Provisional Government continued the disastrous war effort, completely failed to resolve the worsening economic crisis, and actively collaborated with the bourgeoisie to suppress the energy and demands of the radicalized proletariat. This very nearly culminated in an uprising in July 1917, but the Bolsheviks hesitated at the precipice; the resultant crackdown diffused radical enthusiasm and nearly resulted in the complete suppression of the Bolsheviks. The radical enthusiasm recovered between July and October as conditions continued to worsen and the right attempted its own farcical abortive coup in September (the Kornilov Affair); but the key development on the left during this period was that Lenin realized how badly the Bolsheviks were tailing the masses and began indefatigably haranguing for the Bolsheviks to seize power. His personal intervention was the key factor in throwing the Bolsheviks to the left and overthrowing the Provisional Government in order to put into place a dictatorship of the proletariat. This in turn precipitated the ruinous civil war during which the bourgeoisie, aristocracy, and reactionary right were physically annihilated (along with, unfortunately, the proletariat that had made the revolution, but that's another story).>In Germany, the monarchy ceased to exist in the November Revolution, and the highly-organized SPD, dominated by its opportunist right wing, stepped into the gap. They actively collaborated with the far right to suppress the left. A key contrast between Germany and Russia is that Germany hosted a highly developed and entrenched trade union movement with strong connections to the moderate SPD; in Russia, due to tsarist repression, no trade union movement existed, and had to be organized spontaneously after the overthrow of the monarchy - as such, it quickly became dominated by radicalism. In Russia, the masses were more radical than the political parties from the start and became even more radicalized over time; in Germany, they were much more complacent, dominated by moderates for some time, and as they radicalized over time were easily repressed by a far more developed national security apparatus managed by the moderate SPD and reactionary military working together.>The SPD opportunists completely failed to understand the centrality of class struggle as the motor of history. Leninist ideology placed this aspect of Marxism back in central focus, with its fixation on the dichotomy between the state as a bourgeois or proletarian dictatorship. The Social Democrats did not dismantle the bourgeois dictatorship in Germany. Instead, they empowered the bourgeoisie. From the beginning of the Weimar Republic, the reactionary German bourgeoisie and aristocracy sought to marginalize the Social Democrats from participation in government. Beginning with the collapse of the "grand coalition" in 1928, the reactionary right began actively sabotaging and undermining the republic at the behest of President Hindenburg. With the onset of the Depression, the centrist, liberal bourgeois parties saw their legitimacy and popular support completely vanish and the masses as a whole polarize toward extremes like the Communists and Nazis. An anti-republic majority formed in parliament, paralyzing government - Hindenburg and his camarilla of reactionary generals and politicians began ruling by degree. In mid-1932, Chancellor von Papen (appointed by Hindenburg) launched his Preussenschlag, a constitutional coup that dissolved the state government of the state of Prussia, which had long been the steadfast stronghold of the SPD; this was a key turning point, as it meant control of the Prussian police (the largest police force in Germany) left the control of SPD and passed into control of the reactionary right. The conservatives and reactionaries then sought to exploit the mass appeal of the Nazi Party to ride through the crisis, resulting in the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor (and passing control of the Prussian police to Goering). This backfired spectacularly as the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire as an excuse to consolidate absolute power in the hands of Hitler, with the assent of all the liberal parties, and suppress the communist left and trade unions by force. The schism created by the SPD's actions in 1918-1919, combined with dogmatic Comintern "Third Period" policies, forestalled the formation of a "popular front" between SPD and KPD to resist the Nazis. As a result, both were suppressed by force and the Nazis finalized their seizure of power. No.1776018
>>1775972Mark Rudd, a member of the W.U(and the only who wasn't a humanities major) has given some interviews about it that are pretty interesting because he said they were retarded. In their case, basically what happened is they were a group of students at Columbia University who were part of SDS which was the big left-wing student group in the U.S. at the time. They had spent several years doing their own left-wing student groups and having meetings and building a protest group, and then suddenly there's a wave of people who join in 1968 as the Vietnam War is running hot, and they paralyzed the university with building occupations. Thousands of students were participating. It was a big thing.
They were good at organizing the students, but they were also the dogs that happened to catch the car, because they had been doing political organizing on campus at the right time, which automatically made them the leaders when this wave of politicization occurred among the student body. And then they learned all the wrong lessons from that and misrecognized the source of their power. Instead, they thought… there's going to be a revolution…. and we'll be the leaders…. and they were also enthralled by Che Guevara. They were exposed to writings about urban guerrillas by the French left-wing journalist Régis Debray (who later became a Catholic conservative funny enough). But this was all wrong and they just were too deep in their own sauce.
It's not like they were soldiers either or knew anything about warfare, and again the deadliest thing they did was blow themselves up one time.
No.1777209
>>1754542At least it would compete with HOI4 every nation is an imperialist blob shit
No.1777618
>>1777115>>1775972This was a global phenomenon too. In the U.S. and in Western Europe, these people were trying to act like rebels in third-world countries where that was widespread, but most of those groups have disappeared or made peace like the FARC. In Mexico in the 60s/70s, there were left-wing insurgent groups of college students who went rogue and carried out company-sized attacks on the Mexican army… there was a notable case in the 60s where the insurgents screwed it up and got annihilated.
No.1777627
>>1776018>who later became a Catholic conservative funny enoughNot that unique at all, 60s Marxist-to-reactionary conservative was a relatively common ideological trajectory in the Cold War, several prominent socialist theorists made that journey, including the most prominent and authoritative historian on the subject of American antebellum slavery in the South, Eugene Genovese, who went from being a dyed in the wool communist to a dyed in the wool neo-Confederate in his later years.
No.1777641
>>1777115AFAIK there was a lot of these groups at the time in the USA, with Vietnam, the American leftisthabit of aping Europe and latam in a spectacular way, the black Liberation movement, the student movement, etc.
I can't remember the statistic but across the USA there was many bombs going off during this period.
No.1778226
>>1777641There's a good book on the time period regarding US groups, called "Days of Rage" by Bryan Burrough. Most of the black groups from urban communities devolved into criminal organizations, while the upper-class white groups from universities ended up LARPing most of the time. There's a funny anecdote about radical lesbian feminists walking around with knives, doing a LARP about how they'd castrate men in front of the university campus and then being escorted out by security, and then taking that as a "win" about how men are so totally afraid of them, just believing in delusion
No.1778454
>>1778226>radical lesbian feminists walking around with knives, doing a LARP about how they'd castrate men in front of the university campus and then being escorted out by security, and then taking that as a "win" about how men are so totally afraid of them, just believing in delusionReminds me of "Take Back the Night," a similar type of protest organized in the UK by British feminists. While it aimed at a noble goal of stopping violence against women, they approached it by holding signs about beating up men, but choosing the safest and poshest streets imaginable. They mistook people's annoyance as fear and believed they posed actual threats to anyone.
No.1779904
>>1772499>>1765122There are also certain personality/morality types that supersede cultural baggage. The two best examples, in my opinion, are Cromwell and Omar al-Mukhtar. Both were men whose military careers only started at a much later age. At most, Mukhtar would have had some basic experience in horseriding and Cromwell may have been part of some local militia, but neither saw active combat. However, they both became led premier fighting force in their respective nations. Both of them structured their armies based on religious zeal, but also strict religious discipline. They were completely obedient and focused on formation. Cromwell performed simple maneuvers that required less "military prowess" and more discipline. Larger strategy and tactics were derived from the likes of Leven, and his contributions were mostly driving his troops' faith and ensuring that his men were led by those of meritocracy over nobility/political status. Cromwell had raised troops (later called Ironsides) of 'picked men, well drilled, well equipped, well horsed, well paid'. Instead of using the traditional tactics of the day, displayed with aplomb by his Royalist adversary Prince Rupert of the Rhine, which used horse as a kind of mobile infantry, Cromwell instead used his disciplined troops as a 'battering ram. At Marston Moor, it was the repeated charges of Cromwell's horse that turned the battle from defeat to victory.
No.1780612
Even Trotsky understood this
>Trotsky's success with the Red Army wasn't as a general as such, he was not directing the battles. It was more a question of organization, getting the Red Army up to a standard where it could pose a threat to the Whites. The initial phases of the civil war had been fought on a relatively small scale and that could be carried by the militias and relatively small units like the Latvian Riflemen. As the conflict continued and the Whites got organised, the Bolsheviks needed to put together a larger force. That meant conscription, marshalling their forces and so forth.
>Trotsky's prior political work gave him some background in organising under pressure and with mixed resources. His skill and understanding of the use of propaganda etc. probably helped contribute to Red Army morale too (though he wasn't alone in this area). The armoured trains used during the civil war often had an attached Agitprop (agitation and propaganda) unit for this purpose.
>Trotsky's support for former Tsarist officers makes sense in light of his not taking a field command role. He was willing to acknowledge his own (and his fellow Bolsheviks) lack of qualification (and also noting that elected officers were not a great idea) and hence left field command to the 'experts' essentially.
>Many joined by their own volition. Eight thousand ex-Tsarist officers responded to the Bolshevik government's call in February and March 1918, when negotiations between the Bolsheviks and the Central Powers broke down at Brest-Litovsk. They volunteered because they were patriotic and wanted to keep fighting Germany, and felt that the Red Army was the only force organized enough to do it. They also joined because the only other alternative for many officers was a life of poverty on the streets, as the collapse of the army had left them without pensions and placed them under a cloud of suspicion. Joining up gave them status and shielded them form persecution. Few openly sympathized with the revolution, let alone joined the Communist Party, but by and large they maintained their apolitical attitude: they wanted a job and to fight the Germans, and joining the Red Army allowed them to do both.
>The ex-Imperial officers were termed "military specialists", similar to how members of the bourgeoisie were employed later in the Soviet Union as technical specialists, etc. Former Tsarist officers were always paired up with two political commissars, who approved his orders and watched for signs of unreliability. This actually became a trope in Soviet movies about the Russian Civil War - a grizzled, aristocratic ex-Tsarist officer will have to work together with a zealous young communist commissar, they will learn to get along and fight the reactionaries, .
>75,000 ex-Imperial officers were employed as such during the Russian Civil War, including 775 generals and 1,726 members of the old Imperial General Staff. Ex-Tsarist officers made up 85% of the commanders of fronts, 82% of the commanders of armies, and 70% of divisional commanders.
>So, how did they maintain their loyalty? Well, the commissars could have them executed, but more importantly, their families were held accountable under the idea of "collective responsibility". An ex-Imperial officer who failed or switched sides could have his family imprisoned or executed. This policy worked pretty well, and very few Tsarist officers in the Red Army defected to the Whites. This is also, again, because they lacked much political consciousness. Even when the White Armies were at their peak, they didn't have many volunteers from the officer class, who did not really care enough about reversing the revolution to enlist en masse. Also, the few that did defect sides were usually treated very poorly by the Whites. The Chief-of-Staff of the Red forces at Ufa, in Siberia, for example, defected to Admiral Kolchak's White Army in 1918, together with his whole staff. Not only did they make an amazing escape through the Red lines, they brought loads of valuable information. Yet Kolchaks' officers criticized him as a traitor for ever serving with the Reds in the first place, and came close to having him shot!
Sources:
Peter Kenez, Civil War in South Russia
Richard Pipes, Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime
Jonathon Smele, Civil War in Siberia: the Anti-Bolshevik Government of Admiral Kolchak
No.1780667
>>1763987based American model posse comitatus enjoyer
No.1780681
>>1679903the only thing Washington was good at was retreating constantly (thus turning it into a guerilla war)
No.1781052
>>1780612interesting, a similar thing happened during the Iran-Iraq war, where former officers who were Shah loyalists volunteered to fight for the sake of there nation against Iraq,
>The eight-year bloody Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) stands out as the longest conventional military conflict in the twentieth century. By its end, the conflict had killed or wounded more than one million people on both sides. >The Iraqi invasion began in the backdrop of the massive purges of the “loyalist” Iranian military after the revolution. Iran’s new rulers had an overall distrust of the Shah-era members of the military, especially the “Shah’s pilots.” Just months before the war, there was a failed coup attempt in July 1980 by Iranian air force officers, along with other branches of the Artesh. Reports indicate that in its aftermath, an estimated two thousand to four thousand military personnel, including pilots and senior air force commanders, were dismissed from service, imprisoned, or executed. Deprived of experienced personnel, commanders of the Artesh—who included a number of colonels and majors—were pushed up to replace more senior officers. For example, Colonel Javad Fakouri, then commander of the air force, was in his post for less than a year while also serving as the minister for national defense. The overall situation had left the Iranian military extremely vulnerable to the Iraqi invasion. Some would later argue that this is partly why Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in the first place.>The breakdown in military discipline was astonishing. Colonel (Ret.) Manouchehr Shiraghayi, an F-4 Phantom II pilot, stationed at Bushehr Sixth Tactical Air Base (TAB) wrote in his memoirs, “NCOs had formed councils to run the base. Some days they ordered NCOs not to wear uniforms.” As a young first lieutenant, Shiraghayi had to seek permission from these councils to have guests in his residence. No one could have ignored the negative impact on personnel morale. Similarly, Brigadier General (Ret.) Alireza Namaki, then a Captain in the Sixth TAB, recalls that: “Homafars were often on strike. The day Iraq attacked, I was coming back from a meeting with some of them who had been protesting again.”
>Despite the organizational collapse of the Iranian military and the departure of American military advisors at the onset of the revolution, the Islamic Republic Iranian Air Force (IRIAF) displayed remarkable performance during the first year of the war. In fact, the IRIAF managed to quickly respond to Iraqi attacks on Iranian air bases on the same day of the Iraqi invasion of Iran. The Third and Sixth TABs launched Operation Revenge within a few hours of the Iraqi attack. Accordingly, eight Iranian F-4 Phantoms from Hamedan and Bushehr attacked two air bases in Iraq. Iran lost one Phantom, marking the first Iranian combat casualties. Brigadier General (Ret.) Rouholdin Aboutalebi, then a junior officer in Shiraz Seventh TAB, remembers: “I put on my flight suit as I was running in the street, wearing my boots.” He hailed a colleague and he was airborne in less than six hours for a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) mission. Similarly, General Namaki recalls that, “When the war started, we all became united in defending our motherland.”
>While the IRIAF slowed down the Iraqi divisions, Iranian ground forces were slow to mobilize. Instead of permitting volunteers to join the ranks of the Artesh, a new organization, the Basij, was established, which was placed under the IRGC command. After losing most of its senior commanders, many of its officers, and experienced NCOs, the Iranian army was not in any shape to mount offensive operations. Hence, it fought a defensive war. Many of the revolutionaries still comment on the army’s absence, claiming that it was only the IRGC and volunteers who were there to meet Iraqis on the ground. However, the Artesh had deployed all of their available units. Few remember that, in the immediate aftermath of the 1979 revolution, the provisional government had reduced the duration of the draft from twenty-four months to twelve months, cutting the army’s strength even further by sending home many trained soldiers.>Meanwhile, in the early days of the conflict, lack of ground support threatened some IRIAF air bases. In less than eight days, Iraqi divisions manage to encircle the Vahdati Air Base belonging to the fourth TAB in Dezful. Colonel Bahman Forghani, the de-facto commander of the base, called President Abolhassan Banisadr, who was then the commander in chief of Iranian armed forces, requesting assistance. Forghani was told to hold off the enemy for forty-eight hours. He launched all available F-5 Tigers against advancing Iraqi column in Khuzestan province. “Whenever [the] Iraqis established a bridge over Karkheh River, we bomb[ed] it and then strafed their advancing units.” Iranian pilots conducted 378 sorties in one day, losing five F-5 Tigers to enemy fire. Iraqis were never able to cross the River Karkheh. The IRIAF’s vigilance denied Iraq the strategic success it needed to sever the southwestern province from the rest of Iran in order to claim it as an Arab territory, as promised by Saddam. “Our pilots stopped the enemy by sacrificing themselves and their aircraft,” Colonel (Ret.) Forghani told me.so yeah, you need people who know what they are fucking doing and can't rely on Idealism and revolutionary zeal alone to win battles, shocker I know
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansour_Sattari No.1782645
The more I learn about the axis powers, the less and less likely their victory seemed likely for them, especially Japan
No.1785548
In 1955 Michael Roberts gave a lecture at the University of Belfast entitled "The Military Revolution of 1560-1660." A year later he published an article of the same name Roberts discusses four major changes in the art and manner of European warfare. First, he believes that there has been a change in warfare tactics, caused by technological innovations in the field of armaments of early modern armies that started by replacing pikemen with musketeers, that is, by replacing the decisive role of sword and pike in the battle with rifle. Second - changes in the size of the army, that is, its rapid increase in the size of the army that, according to some historians, during the early modern age grow up to ten times larger than in earlier periods. The third change occurs in the strategy - the increase of the army size necessarily brings a change of strategy so that the new large army can be maximally utilized on the battlefield. Roberts finally states that these changes created a new art of war whose skill inevitably affected European political and social development. Namely, from 1560 to 1660, during the military revolution, formations with deep lines of soldiers armed with handguns were created, and Roberts noticed that around 1600 there was a bipolar division in Europe - into countries that use the achievements of the military revolution and countries that are practically clients who depend on such states. The change of armament led to the creation of thick formations, 9 to 12 rows deep, which decrease over time - Swedish King Gustav Adolf will go farthest and eventually reduced the thickness of the rows to only 3 rows in the 17th century. Roberts further states that the key importance in the military revolution is precisely in the infantry - the superiority of the infantry is the most important innovation and an indication of changes in the military revolution. All of this has had the effect of increasing administration in the ruling elites and increasing the importance of educating and drilling soldiers.
No.1791183
When the Oct 7 attacks first happened, my father, an ex-Major in the Pakistan Army, was the first person I saw who predicted that this would end badly for the Palestinians. He pointed out that they do not have the military capability. Military capability is not just about expensive weapons (otherwise, the Saudis wouldn't have gotten their butts kicked in Yemen). It also includes cultural aspects and material conditions. Now, I've never been in the army, but I was part of a state paramilitary squad that my father made me join. Although it wasn't as rigorous as most actual military training, my father still stated that I was better than most Arab forces that he had trained and worked with abroad. Later, he clarified his points regarding Palestine, He emphasized that there is no point in fighting a war you will lose. It's not brave; it's foolish. The only options are to surrender or run away.
No.1792833
>>1791183He also explained that most Arabs lack the "culture" for proper militaries
His historical expiation is that the Arab and Muslim world relied too much on "slave armies" and thus never developed a proper structure or culture that suits modern milarites, and he has some experience working and training Gulf state milarites, in his opinion he said they had up-to date modern equipment but the soldiers and officers were the worst he had ever seen
no discipline, no morale, constant backstabbing and trying to get out of duty, he stated this is why ISIS and Israel managed to defeat Arab states so many times and that without the USA, Iran and Russia would have conquered the entire Middle East.
No.1793465
The Taliban beat the US with vastly less resources and in spite of the virtue-signalling, It showed American is beatable, all other US invasions will be a repeat of Kabul.
No.1793507
>>1675629>>1675629Militia defeated a regular army by outlasting them and taking 10 to 1 K:D ratios, or even worse. Don’t delude yourself about militia advantages; it’s all about a willingness to be slaughtered.
No.1793509
>>1675957What a retard. The CPC encouraged defections from the KMT the entire fucking time, and made use of defected Imperial Japanese Army troops. This is Trump-tier level idiocy.
No.1793605
>>1793465The taliban "beat" America because there was nothing left to destroy in their shithole. This is like Germany saying it won WW2 because occupation forces left their country after unification
No.1793607
>>1793605America managed to impose a new government on Germany which has continued to this day, obviously not the same as Afghanistan. Stop coping.
No.1793608
>>1793607That's not what's being said here though.
No.1793609
>>1793608The Taliban is still there, and America is all gone, that smells like a loss to me
No.1793817
>>1793605I mean getting material support from Pakistan probably helped too.
No.1794118
>>1793605>The taliban "beat" America because there was nothing left to destroy in their shithole.Burgoid cope. The Taliban beat America because they had greater strategic resilience, i.e. they could keep fighting indefinitely (as long as the ISI gibs kept flowing at least) and the Americans could not. This is why they say that guerillas win as long as they don't lose, all they have to do is survive and outlast the occupier.
>This is like Germany saying it won WW2 because occupation forces left their country after unificationBut they didn't leave, US troops are still there. Same with Japan.
No.1794127
>>1793605They beat America because the regime America set up was just a military alliance of ethnic northerners called the Northern Alliance. The "IRA" and "Taliban" are simply two military alliances made up of ethnic tribal warlords, one mostly made up of Tajiks and the other Pashtuns. They have more loyalty to concepts that fit the tribal stage of development's material conditions, like clan feuds/alliances or what the warlord in the next valley is up to. Soldiers occupying the south were either Northern Alliance troops who had no connection to the area or were locals who had no reason not to immediately switch sides to their brethren. The US just fed the Northern Alliance government weapons and funds and didn't keep track of where they went, just like in Cuckraine. This led to soldiers being drugged out of their minds and commanders selling weapons and fuel at the local markets. Their army was mostly imaginary and visiting State Department bureaucrats were shown a false image of it and didn't care to look too closely. This is why they folded instantly when the Taliban made their move.
America knew their puppet government was going to collapse, they just hoped it would happen in a couple years when people mostly forgot about Afghanistan, just like Vietnam, instead of the utter humiliation they got.
No.1794171
The side that controls the factories is likely more important than all the argument over militias versus armies.
No.1797017
>>1794171>The side that controls the factories is likely more important than all the argument over militias versus armiesanother braindead take from a trot
just stay quiet please
No.1797370
>>1780612>This actually became a trope in Soviet movies about the Russian Civil War - a grizzled, aristocratic ex-Tsarist officer will have to work together with a zealous young communist commissar, they will learn to get along and fight the reactionaries, .bro where tf do I find the the soviet buddy cop movies ? I'll post some if I find any
No.1798022
>>1797312This idea is always retarded. You look at historical civilizational collapses and you'll always find an overabundance of Hard Men who thinks that the solution to literally anything is killing everyone that opposes you and install military rule. This mentality is an attempt to avoid class analysis by propping up moralism instead.
No.1798030
>>1798022>This mentality is an attempt to avoid class analysis by propping up moralism instead.Yes. So why do u retards on this site always disputing it instead of recognising it as nonsense instantly and disregarding it?
No.1798139
>>1798012Female warriors existed here and there (usually as a desperation tactic or occasionally a tomboy who wanted to fight) but I agree, I don’t understand the fixation liberals have with the idea of women warriors being commonplace or normal in the grand scheme of history
The problem is you make the argument that no women participated in combat. Which is not true as in all history there have been women that have participated in combat, usually out of desperation and necessity for a groups survival. So you will have people that list outliers, which there are a lot of and you will spend your time reasoning with their role in said conflict which is arguing against the point you are trying to make. The truth is, women in the history of warfare are so few they don't really deserve any representation for any reason other than a political agenda or feminist agenda.
Like I looked into wikipedia's list of females who participated in wars. There were dozens listed. 99% were just women technically in charge of a castle/fort/keep while their husbands were at war while it came under siege. They almost certainly just told the garrison commander to deal with it.
There was one woman who killed a man with a hatchet when her town was invaded, but she was wasn't a soldier or anything. They made a statue of her because it was so unusual. And that's it.
No.1798144
>>1798139>There was one woman who killed a man with a hatchet when her town was invaded, but she was wasn't a soldier or anything. <They made a statue of her Very based all round.
No.1806687
>>1805343Watched this.
Very surface level but nothing was incorrect or anything. Spot on just pretty basic, stuff most people here will know.
No.1808128
According to my father, who is a Muslim the current standards of all militaries originated from Western Europe and have proven to be the superior model in all aspects. Some nations like Turkey and Iran had to adopt these standards either from scratch, while those in South Korea and South Asia had to adopt these standards due to imposition by foreign powers who needed an effective army. Most nations around the world are essentially implementing armies without the necessary cultural and institutional foundations for a proper military, as is the case in the Arab world. On the day of the first attacks, my father was the first person I heard saying, "The Palestinians end up being slaughtered" because he knew what was going to happen.
No.1808159
>>1805343>>1806687Bunch of flaws in this video. Cuck doesn't really understand military doctrine very well and he butchers it a few times. Che never opposed urban warfare and any US military officer would tell you an urban environment is excellent for a waging a guerrilla war. This is not why the Western "urban guerrilla" failed. Its because they never had the support base or manpower to wage a guerrilla war against the state and used foolish tactics taken from action movies. Actual guerrilla movements put a lot of effort into organizing in urban slums and ghettos, building an alternate shadow government, and using violence to keep the government forces out. None of the Western student radicals were ever interested in doing that. They just wanted to get high, get laid, and blow shit up.
The whole "terrorism doesn't work" thing is nonsense. If it didn't work nobody would do it. Its not that terrorism doesn't work, its a matter of scale. How brutal and extreme are the terrorists willing to go. Guys like Imad Mughniyah and Bin Laden realized you need to kill a lot of people to get a state to budge. Western leftist terrorists would never go do something like the Beirut Barracks bombing or 9/11. They'll shoot someone here or there, assassinate someone etc. They were never willing to do mass casualty attacks on civilians at scale which is exactly the type of attack that destabilizes a state. Not saying its a good strategy or we should praise it, but it does have actual strategic effect.
No.1808166
>>1808159care to give any example of urban guerrilla movements that were actually successful.
No.1808173
>>1808159GLADIO, the recent attack, and 9/11 incident didn't really make the perpetrators very warmly received by the populace though, in fact quite the opposite happened and people wanted harsher crackdowns in the aftermath. Leftists however seek to become popular with the ordinary people, which these silly stunts don't accomplish. Not to mention the guerilla has to deliver suitable improvements, to have constructiveness, to the local QoL, like lowered crime and land redistribution and community benefit services, or the sympathetics will decrease over time and forget the purpose.
No.1808174
>>1675313muke unironically has a really good video breaking down how militias take on state armies, mainly towards the end:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RxgUVsksckg No.1808181
>>1808159Eh. Those are opinions.
What really matters here is the history and I didn't see any glaring mistakes.
A lot seems to be Wikipedia skimming but that's okay, they're actually not bad articles
because I wrote or contributed to many of the related pages.
No.1808227
>>1808166The FLN operated in urban environments. The Vietcong ran whole sections of Saigon. You had the partisan movement in occupied France, the communist partisans in Italy etc. Look at the Iraq war, most of the combat was against urban guerrillas. ISIS massive offensives in 2014 were all in urban environments. The Hezbollah insurgency against Israel in the 80s and 90s was mostly urban. The 2006 Lebanon war. Any sane military historian will tell you that the idea that guerrilla war is only a rural phenomenon is a myth. Urban environments are excellent theaters for guerrilla operations.
>>1808173Well, Al-Qaeda wasn't aiming to be popular with Americans. The difference is that leftistsa are populists and today's terrorists aren't. Leftists were never willing to go to the same extreme lengths as jihadists today are. Jihadists have no problem killing innocent people because, like Adorno, they see ordinary people as sheep who are about as bad as the enemy. AQ's violence did make them popular enough with people in the Middle East to sustain a guerrilla campaign against the West. Fringe following but big enough to cause problems. Al-Qaeda in 2001 was little more than 200 people. Today they have thousands of members in different branches across multiple countries. They couldn't have achieved that with out 9/11. It was a recruitment boon for them.
I'm not praising it or endorsing it. All I'm saying that Al-Qaeda pioneered some organizing principals the left can but won't learn from. Plus, if terrorism didn't work people wouldn't do it. I'm not saying we should do it. Its like torture or war rape, its horrible and evil but it gets results. Leftists who embraced terrorism in the 70s were way too gun shy to be real terrorists. Their anarchist predecessors in the 19th century were far less squeamish as are the generals of the IDF today.
No.1808256
>>1808159>left wing urban guerillas failed because they didn't kill shitloads of civiliansanother banger from glownonymous
No.1808270
>>1808256>left wing urban guerillas failed because they didn't kill shitloads of civiliansThe notion that these movements of thst ers just 'failed' is liberal nonsense anyway.
Never really worrh engaging with people who makes such statements as the statements betray an admission that they're not interested in analyzing and critically examining the phenomena and movements but simply looking for a reason to discard them.
No.1808281
>>1675313Actually, in modern history it usually required extensive support from an outside nation to smash down militias. The anarchists in Spain were smashed down by the Stalinists, Angola anarchists were tag teamed by capitalist and Stalinists and other examples I'm not going to google for. You might counter and say, "they got support from X country" and yeah, the weapons have to come from somewhere.
Even today, the Philippines is struggling with a Marxist militia, the NPA. You might cope and say "but it's not a total victory" despite the fact they HAVE taken land even if the government refuses to admit it. There are islands on the Philippines that the government doesn't touch because they get sniped when they try to go there. It's still ongoing despite the government coping and claiming they "won" several times already.
No.1808333
>>1808256Nah, they just weren't ruthless and merciless enough. They were still to shy, too withdrawn, too good hearted to be real authentic terrorists. It was play terrorism.
>>1808270The left wing terrorist movements were the last real leftists. The 60s is when the left fizzled out and morphed into idpol narcissism. It was there in the militant movements too but if you look at people like Meinhoff they were trying to escape it. They saw idpol wokeness coming and threw themselves into militancy to counteract it. They were trying to galvanize and breathe life into the left with their violent actions not overthrow the state. They were trying to wake us up.
The problem with the left is just inherent to its ideology. Its always had a corrupt dysfunctional core which is why it keeps failing or becoming self-destructive.
No.1808615
>>1808270>>1808333The methods of the urban guerillas is made mostly irrelevant by the fact that they just didn't have any sort of program. Whatever methods you use, they have to be in service of something. The problem is they expected the real movement to organically spring up after some isolated incidents, disregarding the wider material conditions people were living under. Organic movements happen, but they're in response to a larger pattern of struggle that people are dealing with, rather than being inspired by some radical ideology and radical actions. Those might kick it off, but the conditions have to be ripe first. If you don't have that, you can't have this kind of organic uprising. The problem here is really to disregard the all-important work of building the movement. Most of a revolution isn't grand gestures - it's organizing.
No.1808629
>>1808281It also helps when you got backing for your militia though.
VC case in point. That wasn't just dudes in pajamas with they AKs hiding in the tunnels. That was well funded and coordinated partially through the NVA and partly through backing of major Red powers. Of course, they still won in the end, that's the ultimate point, is that you get fucked with pretty bad when your shitty little cringey ass tiki nazi militia doesn't actually have proper national backing of the masses. This shit changes dramatically when the dynamic is that the military themselves are pretty fucking sympathetic to the militias and that's where the DoD themselves know damn well it only takes a small group of disgruntled people including like one officer and a couple dudes on duty at the depot to begin smuggling out the MANPADs, then the real fireworks show begins.
That's the entirety of the point about Egypt's revolution mind you, they had the coppers on their side until they realized the soldiers arent going to gun down and brutalize the populace with the pigs. And then he fled to live in absentia and Egypt got a new government.
It all boils down to who got the guns and the bombs and do the people with guns and bombs truly have the will of the people. When you've captured enough of both your petty bourgois officer corp and its logistical supply networks means fucking nothing, because all of us in logistical supply become the us.
In case you havent noticed that is literally the whole problem with the NSA right now, they corpo'd and privatized it and third party contracted that shit out and now LEAKS EVERYWHERE. This is because basically nobody actually supports the superstructure anymore because no one's on side with the elites it's ENTIRELY held up by the forces of mutual antagonism between the leftists and the rightard nationalists, and once we bridge those gulfs with the religious and the traditionalists and the economic leftists we can begin imploding the controlled demolition of all those narcs and sociopaths up there parasitizing the masses and raping kids on private islands.
It's only a matter of time now and the elites knows this.
Let me tell you, it is only a time before MANPADs begin being smuggled out. You and I both know they have fucking gang members already in the barracks. I heard Jay Williams on YT telling this one story how this Green Beret wound up doing basically life in jail because he was selling assault rifles hijacked from supply depots to fuel his drug habit he acquired from a combat injury treated with narcs. And the judge some marine vet really layed into him about putting those guns on the streets for criminals when they both know what these weapons can do.
And all of us know fully damned well that whenever you begin truly losing the minds of the masses of the people, and you lost our heart, and we begin siding with militia, that is also often the time that these soldiers themselves begin smuggling out the fucking MANPADs and the shit we can use to detonate your fucking tanks and bring down your apaches. And NO ONE is going to narc on us and snitch on our neighbours when you're being the invading and brutalizing OPFOR so good fucking luck with that one mate.
This is actually ultimately why the neoreactionary movements always are bound to fail in like manner as to how the whole wave of LePen Nigel BoJo Bolso morons are always going to fail with their "let's build a transnational solidarity movement of antagonistic nationalistic far right fuckheads" it's because they are also doing this in a way that literally none of us in their ethnogroup are going to support that.
This is also why the right wing terrorists and racist terrorists are such useful idiots for the establishment, they're too fucking stupid to see that they're basically playing the role of the Alawites. They're effectively the same ethnogroup being used to keep others in line. This is especially priceless when you hear their "muh ZOG" narrative and realize they're too fucking stupid to realize that fat white retards are basically the golem of their enemies, and proudly so. That facade is crumbling however and it's going to be increasingly difficult to keep all this going with their need to have immigrants fulfill the vital roles of Capital in the workforce, or sponge off the labour of women, so they quite literally need useless idiots on the "left" like idpol to keep the masses divided.
This is exactly why all the feminist Mulvaney gender shit needs to be violently purged from our ranks.
Let's see if the rightards are smart enough to figure out who they need to purge from their own ranks to further their own goals of bringing down exactly who they know is truly in power, and that their alleged fellow travelers would throw them under the bus to protect those interests.
No.1808678
>>1808615Yes, but the most important factor they ignored was terrain. I mean, sure you wage a guerrilla war in rural areas but not just any rural areas. Successful guerrilla movements that operate in urban environments love slums, ghettos, the shanty towns and shit hole areas that make the hood in America look like paradise. These don't really exist in Europe, outside of Muslim ghettos, and in America they really don't exist outside of poor Indian reservations. Secondly, the population of these countries are too damn passive and unwilling to confront authority. They hate breaking the law. They are docile. The only exception is the Eric Rudolph case where he hid out in the Appalachians for ages and locals helped hide him from the feds. The Western urban guerrillas never had any military doctrine either. They just called themselves "urban guerrillas" and went on shooting and bombing sprees. There's no strategy there. Just blow stuff up and kill people.
The Red Army Faction did have a program but its one that was a bit weak. The idea being the RAF's terrorism would panic the West German government into full fascism mode and then people would see the students were right and rebel in the streets. Well they didn't do that. Bin Laden took this concept and developed it to the extreme. He realized to get the authorities to jump you have to kill a lot of people and actually attack something worthwhile. The US went full fascism mode and a decade later the Arab spring happens. Look America is in total chaos now. OBL was a cruel evil man but he understood the ruthless Machiavellian nature of politics. The RAF thought the masses are the good guys and all we need to do is wake them up. They had too much faith in the brainwashed zombies that are normalfags.
No.1808853
>>1808256that's not what he's saying though.
No.1808932
>>1808678>There's no strategy there. Just blow stuff up and kill peopleThat's untrue, the WU bombed government buildings(usually bathrooms) they never killed anyone.
No.1809058
>>1808159>>1808281>>1808678What about the Palestine then? They have overwhelmingly support from the local population, vast numbers and are willing to commit to any attack to gain victory. Yet for 80 years they've made no significant gains
No.1809066
>>1808227AQ wasn't trying to earn the support of the civilians in countries they were bombing though. Guerilla tactics only work when you have the support of substantial segments of the population, and they generally don't support people who kill them indiscriminately. AQ didn't use such tactics against the Sunni Muslims they were trying to enlist to their cause.
No.1809075
>>1808929looks disorganized af though ngl
>>1809058Part of the problem is when your local govenment oppressor is being literally funded by the superpower. It's like a tiny province of Rome's far flung fringe, only problem: that province is owned by ethnic Romans, and is a height of interest to the imperial senators. So it's not like Venezuela fending off some flabby obese effeminate boomer's kmart coup. It doesn't help having modern warfare.
Partly what this means is modernized tactics, the Palis are trying to fight what should be fifth gen asymmetric war with fucking third gen warfare tactics. Israel moreover is one of the most advanced societies technically on the planet, moreso than Swedes or Brits by a mile.
Also a lot of Jihadi ideology is just retarded, they literally got that shit from Irgun terrorists and used it back on the Zionists (I don't know how they try and claim this is like something Sunnah or any way acceptable, at that point you might as well be bombing infrastructure targets directly) rather than doing what they should be doing like blowing up damns and shit. They also need to learn how to fight electronic and information warfare. Won't go well, but having a broken Playstation to screw with or a Flipper will do a lot fucking better than a rusty AK and some unguided rockets.
None of this helps being occupied in a way that's more like being in prison, nothing in nothing gets out. Not even medical supplies and concrete. So that severely cripples you.
>>1809066If it wasn't an inside job by CIA and Mossad like I think it was that would've made 9/11 one of the most longterm brilliant attacks in history. The United States wasted trillions of dollars on two failed occupations, it cost the lives of millions and millions of believers and ultimately in a perverse roundabout way probably helped humanize Muslims more by causing a great diaspora after the reaction and invasion. This includes, hilariously enough, Muslims breaking from Biden and the Democrats, and the tradcon right welcoming them with open arms against gender ideology. Bin Laden couldn't have predicted all this, but in triggering that exact overreaction it may well have hastened the US' downfall in the similar manner to what he literally just did to the USSR, and used this on the same chucklefucks that funded him, hoping to drag down the next unbeliever materialistic superpower. It embarrassed and alienated the US. There was maybe a good two years where the world truly supported the Americans. They're now one of the most lowkey hated groups out there, nobody likes US policy, it's just the others like China and Russia are bad enough people don't stay permaenently mad at US.
I think the ultimate longterm repercussions were useful to his objective in that specific sense. However that stated, it is I suppose like how you could argue Hitler being a closet Zionist for the way he failed so spectacularly that Hitler basically made Israel happen.
If you're going to play these games you literally need to think 12 moves ahead, and that's the problem with the Palestinians, they think like one to two moves ahead and that's it. Blind rage doesn't do fucking shit but get you killed and your family detained. You have to be quiet and smart about it, and cold blooded and ruthlessly calculating.
No.1809076
>>1809075Idk how tf you figure that. AQ may be bigger than it was in 2001, but it's still a pipsqueak compared to their sworn Shiite enemies like Hezbollah, Ansarallah, and the Iraqi PMU's, none of which got as big as they did by unleashing indiscriminate violence against the people they were trying to win over. Sunni radicalism has also mostly gone back to being an instrument of the CIA, to the point where the US government explicitly regarded AQ as their proxies in Syria and elsewhere. If AQ's goal was to establish a pan-Islamic Sunni caliphate then they have failed miserably, and the biggest beneficiaries of American misadventures in the Middle East have been Iran and its Shiite allies.
No.1809132
>>1809075>>1809058This is ultimately why I'm rather pessimistic about the Palestine. I know people who genuinely believe that Israel has only about ten to fifteen years left. it is not credible to me. The Saudi leadership doesn't want to do shit, Egypt is currently facing its own problems and the only professional military force in the region, the Jordanians are too small and outnumbered to pose a significant threat to Israel
No.1809162
>>1808159see post
>>1763688 on the Mumbai terror attacks, where a few armed men managed to case just massive casualties, but actual economic issues just by being well coordinated and trained, also see the DC sniper and the hard he caused.
No.1809196
>>1809058Hamas and PIJ on the Gaza strip from the late 80s until Israel was forced to withdraw in 2005 and impose a blockade. It was the first time a Palestinian group had successfully pushed Israelis off. Its why their popularity skyrocketed. They did what Fateh and the PFLP failed to do.
>>1809066Al-Qaeda proper did. Some other Al-Qaeda groupies certainly don't care at all. Bin Laden gave strict instructions to his followers in Iraq to stop attacking Shias and Muslim civilians. Al-Zarqawi refused to follow these orders and this is where the AQ-ISIS split originated. Bin Laden had connections with pro-Iranian Shia groups in the 90s and his mother is a Shia. If you look at other AQ factions and AQ more generally, they do try to win over local population. The difference is that AQ has no interest in ruling or governing people. When AQAP took over a city in Yemen, they let the local branch of the socialist party.
>Also a lot of Jihadi ideology is just retarded, they literally got that shit from Irgun terrorists You have to distinguish between tactics and ideology. Did they get their tactics by mirroring Zionists and US forces? Yes. But is jihadi ideology retarded? What even is jihadi ideology? Jihad is just a religious action. Anyone can be a jihadist regardless of ideology. Even leftist groups in the 60s used words like jihadist to describe themselves. It isn't an ideology in and of itself. Different jihadi groups have different ideologies. There is no one overarching ideology.
>>1809076Al-Qaeda's only real stated goals is to force the US out of the Middle East. Bin Laden believed that local dictators and monarchs would always suppress people as long as their backed by the US. To achieve revolution at home you need to attack the imperialists abroad (crusaderists as AQ calls them). That's their central idea and main aim. Different members of AQ have their own political views and ideological aims that contradict each other. They're more of a loose alliance of the willing where the main aim is to topple America and its local client states. OBL and Zawahiri might have liked the idea of a global caliphate, but they didn't believe it was Al-Qaeda's job to establish it. AQ isn't some Leninist vanguard of the revolution. Its more like the Red Army Faction trying to create the material conditions which spontaneously give rise to revolution. The difference is Bin Laden was much more committed and ruthless than the RAF.
No.1809279
>>1808678>Bin Laden took this concept and developed it to the extremeNo. Bin Laden was literally CIA
Arguably the inability of the RAF to kick off a revolution or whatever you are expecting of them is not the fault of the RAF. There is about a billion reasons why there wasn't like successful worldwide revolutions that led to the construction of socialism globally, at particular points in history. Beyond the tired and debunked pessimist propaganda points and frankly bait-ish dead horse of these kind of threads, stop doing metaphysical mode of mind in general. The world cannot be broken down into discrete events and phenomena that you can point to as specific cause and effects of x and y, free from any wider context. And if you think you can establish the truth in a personal quest of collecting and repeating all the right quips and truisms then you are deluding yourself and being deluded
>>1808270this
No.1809287
>>1809196AQ's actual goal is to further American imperialism, including co-opting dissent and alienating public support locally and abroad and all that. They cannot be understood without this knowledge and fetishizing islamist "rebellion" is a fools errand. These elements are both controlled opposition and literal magical thinking idealists that want to establish some conservatard regime within a capitalist system and world. Like the German conservative revolutionaries chimping out against capitalism in wehmer germany, and like the german conservatives, they are bankrolled, organized, and made relevant by the most dominant haute bourgeoisie at the top of the capitalist system.
They are class collaborators that ultimately benefit the bourgeois imperialists. However since they are grafted onto truncated legitimate national liberation movements that their puppeteers themselves have beaten down, they are then prepared to take credit for these country's national liberation struggles, and to take control of the direction of these movements to suit ultimately goals that are conducive to bourgeois aims. At times, at least some islamists, even ones that received resources from imperialists, are in legitimate confrontation and contradiction with imperialists even the ones that armed and bankrolled them, like with Hamas arguably. However, this does not mean that there was no sense in supporting these groups and their ideological proliferation in the first place. We may see rebellion against class oppression, including imperialism, as an inevitable phenomena. But what is not inevitable is what form and qualities that rebellion will have, it's class character and goals, it's strategy and ability to negate imperialism, it's hostility towards the imperialist's aims in general. No empire can control all subjects with the barrel of a gun. There is more sophisticated strategies used for influencing and manipulating opposition and either holding onto control or influencing what comes next after the loss of control. Was say Mossad funding Hamas a mistake? I am not sure, but there is a reason why they never fund the communists.
>>1809075>If it wasn't an inside job by CIA and Mossad like I think it wasit was, obviously
No.1809290
>>1809196The communists already succeeded in repelling Israel and even direct American occupation forces in Lebanon, several times over a more than 30 year period. By the late 80s the communist powers were already in full counter revolution and not funding communists abroad, the islamists were receiving much more material and organizational support to my knowledge. That being said I would like to see some
sauce that there were not communists and leftists involved in resisting the Israelis, while perhaps the islamists receive all the attention and media coverage and institutional support, as is the case today with some ignoramuses here and on social media or whatever still claiming that the PFLP and leftists were not involved in al aqsa storm or the ongoing resistance
No.1809337
>>1809279Bin Laden was never CIA. Thats just a dumb conspiracy theory that has never been proven. CIA handlers did try to contact Bin Laden after the Battle of Jaji but he refused to have anything to do with them. Michael Schuer who headed the CIA's Bin Laden unit in the 90s said he went through the CIA's entire file on OBL and there was no proof he ever had any contact with the CIA and basically avoided them. It didn't matter anyway because Bin Laden was a minor fringe figure until Jaji. It was Jamal Khashoggi who made him famous.
The RAF had some bad strategy but I don't consider them a totally failed group. Their key flaw was not preparing bases of operation prior to guerrilla activity, so their attacks ended up being sporadic and militarily in effective. While Meinhoff was right in predicting the West German state would go full fascist, she had too much faith in ordinary Germans who are mostly a bunch of docile losers even today.
Military success is measured by the extent to which key objectives were achieved. The RAF did not achieve its major objectives but did succeed in some minor and preliminary objectives. Why? Look at low manpower, lack of base areas, lack of preparatory work, the leadership being arrested and murdered. These are all factors.
>>1809287>AQ's actual goal is to further American imperialism, including co-opting dissent and alienating public support locally and abroad and all that.Have you been living under a rock for the past 25 years? If anyone's suffering from magical thinking its the guy who thinks AQ is pro-American. The rest is just dogmatic rambling "class collaborationists" and "teh imperialists financed them." Cope. There's no actual proof of this from actual scholarly writing on Al-Qaeda and nobody here is fetishizing Islamist rebellion. Do you seriously think Bin Laden sat down with his buddies and were like "lets figure out how we can help imperialism today while pretending to be against it. lets blow up the world trade center and hit the pentagon lol our American paymasters would love us plunging their economy into a recession and killing their military personnel." If 9/11 was planned by the state, the terrorists wouldn't have hit the Pentagon or try hitting the US Capitol. Elites may be cruel and use people as pawns but they're not suicidal.
We have to accept the reality that political Islam is a force in the world. It isn't a single movement or ideology. Some Islamists have connections with the neoliberal order and some violently oppose it. Some are left leaning others are conservative reformists. That's all. It isn't one movement with a single class character or a single set of goals. Shariati and Qutb aren't the same as Mohammed Morsi or Bin Laden. Leftists suffer ideologically justified tunnel vision where they're incapable of seeing any movement's outside their own and when they do see one their instinct is to attack it rather than understand it. This is naive idealism not materialist analysis. Left vs right conflict doesn't define global politics. There are more actors out there with different motivations and different interests beyond socialism vs imperialism and the class structure of neoliberal capitalism is a lot less rigid than classic capitalism of Marx's day.
No.1809546
>>1809337And the jihadist ideology ended up losing badly, despite having significant support and financial backing from wealthy capitalists. cause they were morons who couldn't plan and didn't realize they were "winning" because most of the regional players were destabilized. Instead of trying to consolidate their gains and form a state, they ended up losing everything they had. Currently Islamists mostly exist in democratic politics in their own nations. The only two Islamist states are Afghanistan(which is more of a feudal emirate with no real influence) and Iran, which is a weird quasi-fascist irredentist mess
No.1809549
>>1808615>The methods of the urban guerillas is made mostly irrelevant by the fact that they just didn't have any sort of program. Feels = Reals posting.
No.1809556
>>1809058>What about the Palestine then?Palestine was in a better place when the PFLP and RAF and etc were active, that's just a fact.
No.1809626
>>1809546>Iran, which is a weird quasi-fascist irredentist messStill more democratic than Burgeristahn!
No.1809633
"Arming workers" means training them in the military ways and means militia. That's why DNR and LNR managed to destroy Ukrainian army in 2014
No.1809636
>>1675319Hiding in the mountains in Pakistan until the big bully get tired of your failed country and leave and asking them for foreign aid afterward isnt exactly winning.
The Vietnam fiasco would be a better case in favor of guerilla but they also had the north-vietnamese army to help them.
No.1810230
>>1809636Regarding Vietnam, the PLAF was divided into three different categories of soldiers and units which all served their own specific role. At the bottom, you have your the part-time guerrillas: The local forces. These were men and women who worked within a specific area, often their immediate hamlets, with specific tasks that did not often involve actively fighting against 'Free World' forces. This could be anything from building hidden caches to reporting intelligence. These soldiers would be equipped with whatever they could get their hands on, reflecting their often limited state of training. Above that you had the regional forces. As the name implied, these soldiers worked within larger geographical areas (but still limited) and were also part-time guerrilla soldiers. Yet they would often serve in support to the full-time guerrilla soldiers: The Main Force PLAF. The main force (often capitalized as Main Force) units consisted of full-time soldiers who were trained and organized as conventional soldiers. The Main Force units would be equipped with the latest weapons and be dressed in uniforms, with a boonie hat as headgear (and not the nón lá that none of these three types of soldiers would wear in combat). Additionally, these units would cross into different provinces away from their homes unlike local and regional forces. It was the Main Force units that most commonly engaged 'Free World' forces in active combat.
No.1813757
>>1813750People saying biased unfounded opinions about stuff they don't understand, don't care, or don't want to think about too hard. Just memes.
Not everyone is like that, but still. If you have an opinion at least try to properly argument around it.
No.1813775
>>1813750>leftistsyou mean red liberals?
No.1813973
>>1813750>>1813750>strongest military on the planetIn the pax Americana peacetime context of a couple of years ago, sure. In a sustained and unjust conflict with 90% of the worlds population hostile, not so sure.
No.1813989
>>1813973I mean I don't think any military would do great in WW3. Though you can definitely argue China's army which is twice the size of America's would do better.
No.1813998
>>1813989>>1813973 One thing your forgetting is that the Chinese(unlike a lot of people on social media) aren't retards, they are not going to a risk any war or even a proxy conflict with the US, it's the same reason they aren't going to Invade Taiwan, it's possible but a huge a waste of resources and there are far more diplomatic solutions.
No.1814013
>>1813998Imagine needing to invade their own territory
No.1814043
>>1813998the chins are thin
No.1814047
>>1813989>>1813989>I mean I don't think any military would do great in WW3.I don't think it would take WW3 to expose the US military's frailty. The geopolitical and global economic situation has changed. There are probably a few extended conflict scenarios where the US would not do well, depending on circumstances. Activating a war economy at home would be cataclysmic and would probably strengthen BRICS. Is the anglosphere really that strong if the ROW is hostile to trade or ambivalent, without even being in conflict?
No.1814063
>>1814047> Is the anglosphere really that strong if the ROW is hostile to trade or ambivalent, without even being in conflict?yes
No.1814067
>>1814047>I don't think it would take WW3 to expose the US military's frailty. It's already been exposed. It's production numbers are abysmal and its big campaign against the houthis ended in them trying to come to terms with them. It absolutely can't sustain a prolonged conflict, especially since it materially relies on the countries it intends to go to war with.
No.1814431
the overwhelmingly efficient, cutting-edge, physically and mentally trained machinery the bourgeois have as a class represented in the army has been a constant subject of debate under socialist theory. this discussion shoudlve been resolved by now: no, the proletariat, specially after the bourgeois learned about guerrilla warfare, cannot directly confront against such a mighty foe unprepared, underarmed and disorganized
but warfare is a political phenomenon. its a sliver of the wider task to undertake. not something to ignore, of course, but supported by different, more structural tasks, like, for example, building the vanguard party of the proletariat, acquiring mass support, and/or understanding the current material conditions of the society which is the subject of transformation
No.1814456
>>1814431shut up schizo
>>1814431>>1814431>building the vanguard party of the proletariat, acquiring mass support, and/or understanding the current material conditions of the society which is the subject of transformationwhat a larp marty
No.1814518
>>1814456alright smart guy, what's your totally not larp fantasy
No.1814544
>>1814518<gasoline + storefronts + warehouses = starving and desperate masses<bullets + power lines = blind and exposed masses<desperate masses+starving masses + blind masses + exposed masses = riots<riots = martial law<martial law = tyranny<tyranny = oppositionfeel free to make your own formula
No.1814570
>>1814544so literally WU and WNLF did and failed at, cause one was a joke and the other slightly more competent were immediately arrested.
No.1814571
>>1814570>WU and WNLF Who?
No.1814579
>>1814570>so literally WU and WNLF did and failed at, cause one was a joke and the other slightly more competent were immediately arrested.again, feel free to make your own formula. sitting around jerking each other off to stalins corpse seems lame
No.1814746
>>1814063>yesTo activate it's military strength in a sustained conflict where the ROW is hostile (without necessarily being involved in the conflict) would require the anglosphere imposing a full war economy which would require a full police state. It's not stable enough for that imo.
No.1814753
>>1814456organizing the working class is the first and paramount task of building socialism
>larpim an irl activist and youre a chinlet nerd who fantasizes about committing acts of terrorism
No.1814757
>>1814753>>1814753>im an irl glorified walking pop upfixed
>>1814753>youre a chinlet nerd who fantasizes about committing acts of terrorismno, the next socialist revolution begin via the 3rd sexual revolution
No.1814758
>>1814757>>im an irl glorified walking pop up>t. never leaves his house and is unaware of what political activism entails>via the 3rd sexual revolutionthankfully we have your sister for that
No.1814760
>>1814758sorry coomer your midget hand isnt a human being no matter how much u pray to it
No.1814779
>>1814760i dont even know what youre talking about now
you are a terminally online troll. i suggest redirecting your efforts to something more substantial and fulfilling beyond acting like a provocative retard on internet forums
No.1814781
What are you two talking about
No.1814783
>>1814779i dont even know what youre talking about now
you are a terminally online mole. i suggest redirecting your efforts to something more substantial and fulfilling beyond acting like a provocative red liberal on internet forums
No.1814974
>>1814783>molesays the glowie who wants to send radicalized workers to their deaths by organizing a urban guerrilla (already tried, already failed btw)
>red liberalyou lack reading comprehension. im not a pacifist
No.1826902
>>1755298Nice orientalist slop.
The Ba'athist Iraqi army mogs the PMF at every level. Even the early insurgency that BTFO'd mutts was superior to the PMF to due its ex army members.
In the ISIS war, ISOF did the heavy lifting, not the PMF.
No.1826931
a lot of anons ITT are really missing the entire fucking point of how guerrilla warfare works
yes, if you try to confront a conventional army on its own terms as a militia or guerrilla unit, you will probably lose. a guerrilla has to play to its strengths in order to win of being lightweight, fast, difficult to suppress – a multitude of snakes versus a dragon. as communications technologies have gotten more accessible and advanced, guerrilla warfare has only become a more viable strategy because it makes it significantly easier to avoid having any centralized chains of command and being able to quickly respond to changes at the periphery. John Robb wrote a whole book about this called Brave New War where he talks about how Islamic insurgents have effectively been able to optimize for their own tactics stochastically by having a diverse set of different groups all communicating with each other and adapting their strategies based on which actions work and which don't.
a conventional army is comparatively more expensive to maintain, has centralized command structures, and has less of an ability to quickly adapt to changes in the periphery. guerrillas make the strengths of the conventional army – its ability to marshal a lot of firepower at very distinct targets – into its weaknesses: they attack supply lines, assassinate officers, destroy infrastructure, cause confusion, and then they retreat back into the crowd or into the hinterlands before the enemy can even do anything about it. a guerrilla unit is never going to win against a conventional army in a head-on fight, so what the guerrillas do instead is bleed the enemy dry.
this is also where the concept of "asymmetrical warfare" comes from. there is an asymmetry in the cost to maintain a conventional army, and in the value of what the conventional army has to defend, versus what the guerrilla can get away with attacking using improvised explosives or even just bullets. there are examples of this throughout the various conflicts in the Middle East over the past 20 years of Islamic insurgents blowing up oil pipelines, which results in literal orders of magnitude in terms of asymmetry. the guerilla wins over the long term by taking advantage of these asymmetries.
"analogically, the guerrilla fights the war of the flea, and his military enemy suffers the dog's disadvantages: too much to defend, too small, ubiquitous, and agile an enemy to come to grips with. If the war continues long enough, the dog succumbs to exhaustion and anaemia without ever having found anything on which to close its jaws or to rake with its claws."
No.1826939
>>1826931see the Algerian war, early revolutionary violence almost ended their movement because they kept being arrested, interrogated and more members were subsequently arrested. Leaving the cities was the smartest decision the FLN made. After that they became more cautious and organized, and would lead the French Military on wild goose chases. It was not about "winning" the war but Ben Bella understood the political situation in France, he knew the war was unpopular and costly and thus it became a slog of retreating to rural regions or neighboring Libya or Tunisia until they built up their strength and then ambush and retreat, also it's best leaders were men who had previously served in the French Army and knew enough about military discipline and how the French Army functioned.
No.1827021
>>1758613>>1765448>>1755298>During the Iran-Iraq War, Sunni, Shi’a, and Kurd fought alongside each other throughout the war in direct support of unabashedly nationalist objectives. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from every community voluntarily joined the armed forces and served alongside fellow Iraqis who hailed from places they had never seen, or perhaps never even heard of. Nationalism rose above ethno-sectarianism as the identity most relevant to Iraqi Army will to fight. Arguably, it also constituted a motivating ideology. National mobilization and national service during the Iran-Iraq War bonded Iraqis together and provided the basis for later resurgence of nationalist sentiment in the 2000s and 2010s. The fact that tens of thousands of Kurdish Iraqis served honorably in the Iraqi Army during the war, even as their fellow Kurds were actively rebelling against the state, speaks volumes to the weakness of primordial arguments. We will never know if the will to fight of individual Kurdish soldiers suffered due to identity issues; some Kurds almost certainly had second thoughts, and some deserted. Wholesale enthusiasm for the war going into 1988 mattered more for combat effectiveness than idiosyncratic desertions.
>There is an interesting dynamic that emerges when discussing ethno-sectarianism with Iraqis, and particularly with Sunni and Shi’a Arabs. Most Iraqis of all ages will aggressively downplay ethno-sectarian divisions within the Iraqi state, even as those divisions rise to the surface and cause internecine violence. It is difficult to overestimate the adamant nature of the continuous rejection of primordialism in interviews with Iraqis. Whether or not the perceptions are, or were true, they are truly felt. This is a representative quote from an Iraqi general officer, in response to the question, “What role did ethno-sectarianism play in the Iraqi Army before 2003?” "Believe me there was no role. No way, it was not allowed, even if you were Sunni. If a Sunni said something about a Shi’a, he would be sent to court. Sectarianism was not allowed."
>Individuals identify with different groups, often simultaneously. Ideology and identity are closely intertwined but sufficiently different to warrant separate assessment. Even as the Kurds sought independence in the north, ethno-sectarianism was effectively a null issue for the army in 1980. In this case, the lack of expected identity issues actually reinforced Iraqi will to fight. The partly organic, partly contrived rise of Iraqi nationalism helped to feed Iraqi fighting spirit.
>Iraqi leaders had several built-in advantages as they sought to improve Iraqi combat effectiveness, and particularly the will to fight of the Iraqi Army. The very fact of Iranian presence on Iraqi soil was enough to trigger sentiments of both desperation and revenge across Iraqi society, and particularly within the military. In general, Iraqis were ready, willing, and able to serve. The Iraqi Army expanded over the six years from 1982 to 1988, from 150,000 to nearly half a million soldiers, and the overall armed forces including militias grew to perhaps 1,000,000 people in uniform. At the same time as Saddam and the Ba’ath Party leadership were successfully rallying the Iraqi state and the army, the Iranians struggled to maintain the zealous enthusiasm that had empowered their early battlefield victories. They managed to press through economic collapse and battlefield stalemate in the mid-1980s, but by 1988 the Iranians were reaching their culminating point. Support for the war ebbed and recruiting started to dry up, even as the ranks of the Iraqi military swelled. The Iraqi Army’s mass use of chemical weapons had eroded Iranian will to fight and struck terror into front-line soldiers and recruits alike. Just as the Iraqis lost enthusiasm in 1980 when the Arab Iranians failed to rally behind their cause, the Iranians received a cold welcome from the Shi’a Arab Iraqis in the occupied territories; they were not welcomed as liberators. >After the initial fallback from Iran, leadership at all levels of the Iraqi Army improved unevenly, and in fits and starts, throughout the course of the war.>Two factors helped affect this general, though inconsistent, trend of improvement. First, war is an unforgiving crucible. Combat almost always weeds out paper tigers. Between 1980 and 1988, natural selection and combat promotion generated a new caste of handpicked, combat-tested leaders in most of the units throughout the Iraqi Army. Second, Saddam’s direct intervention changed the nature of the entire officer corps. Even those tribal flunkies and political appointees who survived combat failure were shifted to positions where they could do little harm. Soldiers saw this shift firsthand. It significantly improved their will to fight over time. "By this point in the war [1987], Saddam was supporting military professionalism over political, tribal, and regional loyalties when choosing his senior commanders. The resulting changes in the high command coupled with hard earned experience finally began to influence Iraq’s fielded capabilities" His intensive efforts to promote competent leaders generated significant improvement in the quality of the army’s leadership and in the effect their leadership had on the army’s collective will to fight: Top-level competence generated increasing confidence in the organization over time. As early as 1983, senior Iraqi military leaders could be found at the front trying to rally units to hold out or drive forward.
>If one believes that Iraqi nationalism did not exist prior to 1921, that it did not spontaneously materialize in 1921, and if one ignores all the structured efforts to generate nationalism from the 1920s through the late 1970s, it is hard to avoid the evidence that nationalism had certainly emerged and was functioning by 1988. Saddam leveraged religion, secularism, populism, militarism, socialism, capitalism, democracy, diplomacy, terror, paternal love, and outright payoffs to unite Iraqis behind the state and behind the war with Iran. By 1988, Iraq was probably more united than it had ever been or has been since. National unity was a significant factor in Iraqi Army will to fight. Saddam and his top generals reshaped the Iraqi Army. The Army gradually got rid of some incompetent officers through execution or transfer and (with some exceptions) installed more competent and proven professionals in their place. The Republican Guard Corps was established, and guard units quickly gained a reputation for competence and dependability. Military control was firmly established through an intricate system of punishment and rewards, enforced by thousands of Ba’ath Party commissars planted at every level of the military. Army leaders implemented a lessons-learned program to help improve military training and education. Many top army leaders understood the critical value of human factors in training.
>Most experts on Iraq argue for a rejection of primordial simplification. Nationalist identity can and does coexist with other identities in Iraq, as it does in Russia, a country with one of the world’s most powerful armies. And, as in the Soviet and modern Russian armies, the Israeli Army, and in the U.S. Army, complex identities can be a source of both strength and prospective weakness.
<"Iraqi Army Will to Fight" by Ben Connable No.1827069
>>1826931the bourgeois armies are well aware of what asymmetrical warfare is
>>1826939most western bourgeois states are politically crystallized and reach the full extent of their territories. just as an example of what happened here (a 3rd world btw), communist guerrillas tried to set up base in the jungles and got liquidated in the blink of an eye because the place they thought the bourgeois couldnt reach was actually very accessible to them (and the bourgeois armies have been training against counterinsurgency and in rough terrain aswell)
No.1827225
>>1827069The first translations of Mao's guerrilla warfare came from the US army, like there wasn't some law that wouldn't keep them from reading leftist guerrilla manuals, they literally used guevara's entire base plan to catch him on Bolivia.
No.1827230
>>1827021>Ben ConnableDo I even gotta look into this guy's background?
No.1827257
>>1827254The war actually made Iran realise that it couldn't win battles let alone wars with the power of Islamic zeal alone. When tens of thousands men and boys had been massacred, so they released the old Shahist officers (after ideological Islamic training) to train and lead the new army, they next generation of officers were further sent to Russian after the war.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/how-the-iranian-air-force-turned-the-tide-of-the-iran-iraq-war-in-1980/ No.1827277
>>1827254>Do I even gotta look into this guy's background?>retired glowieEvery. Time. That's why his analysis left out any mention of Western influence propelling Iraq to war, and on Saddam. It makes the entire pasta worthless.
No.1827282
>>1827277>the government we spent six trillions overthrowing to replace with IRGC Islamists was cool actually Okay IRGCuck
>Western influence propelling Iraq Yeah like this one 5 (five) years prior to the war
>>1827254 No.1827289
>>1827257You are mixing things up a little bit. The conflict the anon before you put in his picrel involved pro-western and pro-zionist Pahlavi's Iran - as Burgerland and Zion central supporting them shows - against Ba'athist Iraq - usually flip-flopping between the blocs, but in this situation definitively backed by the Good Guys. And that was the mid 1970s. You are clearly referring to the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s. An extremely gruesome war that brought to nothing except millions of dead and further destabilisation. In that situation, Burgerland had the stated objective of letting both countries bleed each other out while having officially good relations with Iraq and a hostile attitude towards Khomeini's Iran.
No.1827310
>>1827282>replace with IRGC Islamists was cool actually objectively cooler if you insist on being a simplistic retard about it
>5 (five) years prior to the war and what the fuck changed in those 5 (five) years that you are deliberately omitting? Almost exactly the same thing that the retired glowie's account omitted.
No.1827320
>>1827310>what changed Iran went from receiving western weapons directly to receiving them through Israel and other loopholes as you can see in this graph from Pierre Razoux's book on the topic
>>1827282It's crazy I look at the tank and air battles during the war and it's almost always Soviet weapons used by Iraq vs Western weapons used by Iran, very curious.
No.1827350
>>1827320>very curious.and very irrelevant. Both countries were using legacy weapons from previous alliances. It's not complicated. Venezuela operating US weapons as long as possible after Chavez ascended is a also not le very curious. Significantly, you follow the retired glowie in omitting that the west propelled Iraq to war with Iran after the revolution.
>very curious. No.1827363
>>1827350Yes, and the US famously being one of Venezuela's main weapons suppliers today.
>you follow the retired glowie in omitting that the west propelled Iraq to war with Iran after the revolution. So true xixter. Ignore the breaking of treaties, hundreds of border violations, sending terrorists to bomb schools and hospitals, "death to kuffar", "theocracy now!" and "exporting the revolution" suff.
No.1827368
Most importantly, remember in 1979 when Saddam send his diplomats to congratulate the new Iranian government, being one of the first states to do so? How did the Ayatollah respond? Why by calling Saddam an infidel and inciting a revolution in his Shia majority country.
Imagine if it was the other way around, we wouldn't hear the end of it.
What my fellow "materialists" fail to grasp beyond these silly reductive narratives, is that Ba'athists were third world national bourgeoisie. They couldn't give less of a fuck about what either the US or Soviets wanted. They were looking out for their own interests, and they acted rationally against an irrational threat. If Ba'athists were stooges, Kissinger wouldn't be on the record calling for their overthrow few years prior to the war, arming Iran with one of the biggest and most modern western arsenals in process.
>Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called on Iraqis to overthrow the Ba'ath government, which was received with considerable anger in Baghdad. On 17 July 1979, despite Khomeini's call, Saddam gave a speech praising the Iranian Revolution and called for an Iraqi-Iranian friendship based on non-interference in each other's internal affairs. When Khomeini rejected Saddam's overture by calling for Islamic revolution in Iraq, Saddam was alarmed.
No.1827418
>>1827363>the US famously being one of Venezuela's main weapons suppliers today.The same US that grounded Venezuelan air assets by refusing to supply parts and support. Almost as if fluid geopolitics don't effect the use of legacy systems from previous alliances. The recent developments with Venezuela and Guyana make it seem unlikely that the US is famously anything with Venezuela rn. Extremely sus how quick on the draw you were with that vid btw, anon.
>>1827363>>1827368>West causes chaos on Brzezinski's World-Island>It's actions ensure that only an extremist formation can overthrow it's dictator. >West criticizes formation for being extremist and immediately sides with Iraq, playing every side all the time>Resulting in Iraq being propelled into war with Iran>Leftists suffer, as always.The details are downstream of this. Xixters.
No.1827928
>>1827823By mentioning the fact that independent Iraq invaded the western vassal that was (is) Iran in 1720?
Or that Iranians got cucked by bongs all the time while Iraqis won their independence in 1920? Or how Bong steamrolled Iran in WW2 (1 week lmao) while struggling with Iraq for a month?
How do IRGCucks cope with the fact that they would've remained beneath Iraq's feet if it weren't for Americans and the only reason they aren't a US colony is because of the Iraqi resistance?
>>1827837>demonstrates Eastern superiority by clapping your cheeks with Soviet weaponsNothing personal kid
No.1827945
>>1827928>…including old French Mirages from Argentina…Yet if you search for "Iranian Mirage fighter" the only results you'll find either in text or in photo form are the Mirage F1s that flew from Iraq to Iran to avoid being blown up during the gulf war, with no record of Iran ever owning a Mirage III or Mirage 5 (the kind of Mirage jets operated by Argentina, trivial to distinguish visually from the Mirage F1 despite the similar name)
No.1827969
>>1827945This was written by the Iranian-Israeli arms dealer who broke the Iran-Contra story.
Iranians took them apart and shoved them up the Ayatollah's ass for all I care.
>>1827946Poor fucks couldn't even invade Basra, got re-invaded by Iraq in 1988 and then surrendered the same year. The only reason they have any foothold in the region is because of their US masters. I'd sleep on it.
No.1827996
>>1827969again I dislike them, but I'm not delusional enough to believe they have a secret alliance working with the US and Israel, they want control of the region and are aware that US and Israel destabilisatiing it is actually good for them, allows them to pick up the piece and create proxies in ethnic or religious minority groups, they do that in my own country, where Shia and even Sunni ethnic nationalists parties are financed and support ed by them
No.1828009
>>1827823Iraq was an ottoman province
No.1828011
>>1827946Wth are you talking about? How tf did Iran interfere in Pakistani elections? Most Pakistani involved with Iran were Shia refugees and volunteers joining Iranian proxy groups like Liwa Zainebiyoun due to increasing sectarian and religious violence in Pak
No.1828014
>>1828009It was independent from 1704-1831 and only collapsed because of an embargo by bongs and a crop failure, then Ottomans took the opportunity to chimp out and annex it.
It stretched from Basra to Zakho so literally the exact same borders today except for a larger coastline. Not to mention it being the heartland of the Abbasid Empire. Mesopotamian history, etc etc
No.1828023
>>1828011not our elections, but it does have links with shia parties(you'll find Khomeni pics everywhere) and it has worked with Indian agents and certain nationalists
No.1828050
>>1828009They were never an independent provice, Iraq, Syria and Palestine were all part of Eyalet I Misr
No.1828067
>>1828062All of ME should be under either Turkish or Iranian control tho
No.1828069
>>1828067Both should be under deez nuts doe
No.1832242
>>1832116>LE GULF MONEYRINOSThe Gulf loans didn't reach Iraq until Iranians were at the Gulf's gates in 1982. The value of said loans was about 1/4 of what Iraq got from USSR and other places and 1/10 of the war's cost for Iraq.
Saudi Arabia allowed Israeli planes to bomb Iraq using their air space. They also laundered billions as part of the Iran-Contra affair, funding Iran essentially.
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/30/us/white-house-crisis-evidence-points-big-saudi-role-iranian-contra-arms-deals.html Unique IPs: 207