You might want to include the Second Boer War, the Philippine-American War, and the 1991 uprisings in Iraq in your study of asymmetrical warfare. All three are modern-day examples of insurgencies that were successfully and dramatically defeated by a conventional army.
Philippine-American is actually one of my key examples—the ideas for this came together when I read a description of the Philippine-American war and some key conflicts, and how Mao’s rural countryside recruiting and tactics enabled him to take over China. Looking at the two together, I started realizing that a lot of guerrilla warfare is about symbolic victories for recruiting purposes, and about shaking the will of the opposing side. I’ll check into 1991 and the Second Boer War as examples too, thanks for that.
Asymmetrical warfare is a lot harder when your enemy is willing to “make a wasteland and call it peace”. Guerrillas can’t hide among civilians if all the civilians are dead, enslaved, or in internment camps.
Indeed, but I’d phrase it a little differently. “If one side fights much more honorably than the other, they lose.”
“If one side fights much more honorably than the other, they lose.”
That’s one factor, but there are many others.
I recall something that someone who knows some military history once said in conversation: The most dangerous weapon in the hands of a terrorist gang is not a nuclear bomb, or a truckload of Semtex and Armalites, but an officer. Because when a rabble goes up against an army, the rabble loses every time, and the difference between a rabble and an army is military discipline, training, organisation, and experience. That’s one reason that parts of Eastern Europe became so violent after the collapse of the USSR. They’d had conscription for years, and there were a lot of disaffected young men with the military experience to organise fighting bands.
That’s one reason that parts of Eastern Europe became so violent after the collapse of the USSR.
It never happened.
Even the bloodiest Bosnian War killed barely 100k people, and most were little more than tiny border skirmishes. In a region where half billion people live—in historically the most bloodthirsty continent of history Europe—after total political and economic collapse—it is just ridiculous to call it “so violent”. It was easily the least violent fall of a major empire in history of the world.
I don’t follow the logic there. You link to a page describing a war, and say that refutes the assertion that ex-conscripts were a factor in the violence, on the grounds that some other historical upheavals were more violent.
“Malaria transmitted by mosquitos? Nonsense, smallpox is far worse!”
Your post seems to make an implicit claim not just for violence but for unusually intense violence (plus a causal explanation based on the availability of ex-military men). taw claims that the violence was not unusually intense.
With respect to what reference class? taw took “falls of empires” and dismisses 100k casualties out of half a billion people (half a billion? [1]) as tantamount to “never happened”. I took “the state of things before the USSR went away” and rate 100k casualties and 2M refugees out of the population in the region where this happened as “going to hell in a handbasket”.
But if you look at anything from far enough away, you won’t see it.
[1] Half a billion in Eastern Europe? Eastern Europe here means that part of Europe which was under the control of the USSR. Estimating this to be all the non-EU European countries, plus all former subject states of the USSR that joined the EU since 1989, minus Switzerland, I get less than 200M (source: various Wikipedia pages). Adding Ukraine (which I don’t classify as part of Europe, though some might; certainly nowhere farther east counts) gets another 45M. Maybe taw is including the entire population of the USSR and its subject states in his reference class for “where this happened”?
“Figures for the population of Europe vary according to which definition of European boundaries is used.”
But then, if Ukraine is already in Europe, that means I was double-counting when I added Ukraine, and the lower figure of under 200M applies. The “non-EU European population” component of that is from here: 94M. You can look up for yourself which definition of “Europe” that uses. If you’re going to include Russia as far as Kamchatka in “Europe”, well, why not include the whole world. Bosnia was a mere speck compared with six billion. “Never happened.”
I included it in the figures, and they still don’t add up. Or if the Wiki figure for “non-EU European population” includes Ukraine, it’s already there in the figure of under 200M.
Philippine-American is actually one of my key examples—the ideas for this came together when I read a description of the Philippine-American war and some key conflicts, and how Mao’s rural countryside recruiting and tactics enabled him to take over China. Looking at the two together, I started realizing that a lot of guerrilla warfare is about symbolic victories for recruiting purposes, and about shaking the will of the opposing side. I’ll check into 1991 and the Second Boer War as examples too, thanks for that.
Indeed, but I’d phrase it a little differently. “If one side fights much more honorably than the other, they lose.”
Thanks for the feedback. Great stuff.
That’s one factor, but there are many others.
I recall something that someone who knows some military history once said in conversation: The most dangerous weapon in the hands of a terrorist gang is not a nuclear bomb, or a truckload of Semtex and Armalites, but an officer. Because when a rabble goes up against an army, the rabble loses every time, and the difference between a rabble and an army is military discipline, training, organisation, and experience. That’s one reason that parts of Eastern Europe became so violent after the collapse of the USSR. They’d had conscription for years, and there were a lot of disaffected young men with the military experience to organise fighting bands.
It never happened.
Even the bloodiest Bosnian War killed barely 100k people, and most were little more than tiny border skirmishes. In a region where half billion people live—in historically the most bloodthirsty continent of history Europe—after total political and economic collapse—it is just ridiculous to call it “so violent”. It was easily the least violent fall of a major empire in history of the world.
I don’t follow the logic there. You link to a page describing a war, and say that refutes the assertion that ex-conscripts were a factor in the violence, on the grounds that some other historical upheavals were more violent.
“Malaria transmitted by mosquitos? Nonsense, smallpox is far worse!”
Your post seems to make an implicit claim not just for violence but for unusually intense violence (plus a causal explanation based on the availability of ex-military men). taw claims that the violence was not unusually intense.
With respect to what reference class? taw took “falls of empires” and dismisses 100k casualties out of half a billion people (half a billion? [1]) as tantamount to “never happened”. I took “the state of things before the USSR went away” and rate 100k casualties and 2M refugees out of the population in the region where this happened as “going to hell in a handbasket”.
But if you look at anything from far enough away, you won’t see it.
[1] Half a billion in Eastern Europe? Eastern Europe here means that part of Europe which was under the control of the USSR. Estimating this to be all the non-EU European countries, plus all former subject states of the USSR that joined the EU since 1989, minus Switzerland, I get less than 200M (source: various Wikipedia pages). Adding Ukraine (which I don’t classify as part of Europe, though some might; certainly nowhere farther east counts) gets another 45M. Maybe taw is including the entire population of the USSR and its subject states in his reference class for “where this happened”?
Just in case it wasn’t clear, I’m not taking a stand on either side; I’m not well-informed enough.
What the fuck????? Check what “Europe” means in any reference material. If you mean something else, use another word.
“Figures for the population of Europe vary according to which definition of European boundaries is used.”
But then, if Ukraine is already in Europe, that means I was double-counting when I added Ukraine, and the lower figure of under 200M applies. The “non-EU European population” component of that is from here: 94M. You can look up for yourself which definition of “Europe” that uses. If you’re going to include Russia as far as Kamchatka in “Europe”, well, why not include the whole world. Bosnia was a mere speck compared with six billion. “Never happened.”
I included it in the figures, and they still don’t add up. Or if the Wiki figure for “non-EU European population” includes Ukraine, it’s already there in the figure of under 200M.
Reference class tennis.