How Effective is an Armed Populous as a Deterrent to Invasion?

[SlowwHand]

You, as in you yourself, are welcome to it.
I'd rather die taking some with me than give in meekly.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
What do invaders do to secure their occupation, when they know the occupied populous is heavily armed? They disarm the population ala the communists in 1948 in Czechoslovakia or the Germans in western Poland in 1940. In Czechoslovakia, the government asked each citizen to register their weapos, assuring them that registwered weapons could be kept. Next, they outlawed the weapons. They then gave the population the "opportunity" to turn in their now outlawed weapons. Then the Army went door-todoor searching for weapons and arresting anyone who had not turned in a registered weapon or had an unregistered weapon. Obviously, the Russians had not hesitated to "liberate" Czechoslovakia from German rule based on the armed population. However, when the population elected a non-Communist the Russians voided the election and disarmed the Czechs right away.

Armed populations do not seem to be a deterrent to invasion, but they do gratly complicate subsequent occupation. Note: not every invasion leads to occupation by the invaders for more than a few months.

My respect for Felch's reasoning power and use of knowledge:

The Poles did manage to mount a modestly effective resistance to the Nazis though, primarily through the same means as the Yugoslavs, Greeks and French. They obtained weapons from old government supplies, from allied smugglers, and from the Germans themselves. The Polish resistance may not have been as successful as the Yugoslavs, but Poland was more heavily garrisoned since it was a crucial transport route to the Eastern Front. Yugoslavia was better guerilla territory too. Also Yugoslavia was divided amongst ethnis groups who hated each other, so one way around the brutal Nazis reprisals was to stage raids in their neighbors' territory. Serb partisans raided Nazis groups in Croatian regions and when the Nazis came and shot Croatian villagers they shed not one tear. The same can be said of Croatian, Slovene and Bosnian partisans.

Remember the Czechs did stage a 'revolt' against the Soviets. Remember 1968? They had more than private firearms, they had their own army. Didn't do them much good against the combined weight of the Warsaw Pact.

[GePap]

The problem the Nazi's faced with insurgencies was that obviously fighting those wars was of secondary importance behind fighting the actual allied armies. Had the Germans been able to win the war with the USSR prior to heavy US involvement none of the insurgencies that cropped up against the Nazi's would have had much of a chance, and would have probably ended like the two Warsaw uprisings.

A state willing to use the full might of its military and having sufficient public support or aquiecense can crush an uprising. Just look at the US Civil War.

[SlowwHand]

Bad example. The North had manufacturing. The South had the best military leaders, leading farmers.

[Patroklos]

A state willing to use the full might of its military and having sufficient public support or aquiecense can crush an uprising. Just look at the US Civil War.

A better example would be the Gallic Wars.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You, as in you yourself, are welcome to it.
I'd rather die taking some with me than give in meekly.

Natural selection.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Patroklos


A better example would be the Gallic Wars.

Ah, but the Gauls could not organise a truly united uprising. Their internals feuds prevented that. Had the Romans invaded in 200-400 AD however, I'm not sure it would've been quite as easy.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Natural selection.

Considering Sloww has children already and you're gay, I find it funny that you are invoking natural selection.

[Boris Godunov]

It was invoked in the general sense, not in the specific case.

[OzzyKP]

I know, just found it funny.

[GePap]

Boris situation isn't determined by natural selection, but sexual selection.

[Boris Godunov]

Besides, you never know. I could be a frequent donor to sperm banks.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by GePap
Boris situation isn't determined by natural selection, but sexual selection.

So you're saying that homosexuality is unnatural?

[Boris Godunov]

Are you playing dumb, or do you really not know the difference between natural and sexual selection?

[OzzyKP]

Are you playing dumb, or have you somehow misplaced your sense of humor?