Anonymous
6/28/2025, 5:40:33 PM No.63908651
How did guerrilias ever win wars when they dont got jets and tanks?
Replies:
Thread 63908651 - /k/ [Archived: 787 hours ago]
Anonymous
6/28/2025, 5:43:08 PM No.63908660
yawn
Anonymous
6/28/2025, 6:13:33 PM No.63908769
>>63908651 (OP)
By wearing down the invading force and making them extremely unpopular to the local population by forcing the invaders to take draconian measures in order to stay safe.
By wearing down the invading force and making them extremely unpopular to the local population by forcing the invaders to take draconian measures in order to stay safe.
Anonymous
6/28/2025, 6:53:32 PM No.63908923
RTFM
Anonymous
6/28/2025, 7:05:48 PM No.63908981
>>63908651 (OP)
They never "won", they just kept existing for so many decades that the other force just got bored, packed up and left. Everythime they actually attempted to do anyting than sit in a cave they got BTFO.
They never "won", they just kept existing for so many decades that the other force just got bored, packed up and left. Everythime they actually attempted to do anyting than sit in a cave they got BTFO.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/28/2025, 7:12:40 PM No.63909006
>>63908981
So you spent $8 trillion to just get bored one day, pack up and leave?
So you spent $8 trillion to just get bored one day, pack up and leave?
Anonymous
6/28/2025, 7:13:59 PM No.63909010
>>63908651 (OP)
War efforts are made of 5 things. If you don't have something, you spend more of the other 4 things you do have. The things are time, space, will, means and people
Guerrilla:
>Have years of time
>make good use of space with camo, trees and looking like a civilian
>Will: nobody fights harder than people who want to see their homeland made free
>Means: this is the thing guerrilla don't have. No factories, tanks, planes or artillery. However, you get a head start because it isn't necessary to protect these things. Try to capture the enemy resources and get a other governments to give you free shit
>People: you're going to have high casualties. It's just true. However, in the long run the people of a nation get what they want so guerrilla always wins
All of this is exactly opposite from terrorism so don't get confused
>>63908981
Not exactly but you do need to be ready to drag things out.
War efforts are made of 5 things. If you don't have something, you spend more of the other 4 things you do have. The things are time, space, will, means and people
Guerrilla:
>Have years of time
>make good use of space with camo, trees and looking like a civilian
>Will: nobody fights harder than people who want to see their homeland made free
>Means: this is the thing guerrilla don't have. No factories, tanks, planes or artillery. However, you get a head start because it isn't necessary to protect these things. Try to capture the enemy resources and get a other governments to give you free shit
>People: you're going to have high casualties. It's just true. However, in the long run the people of a nation get what they want so guerrilla always wins
All of this is exactly opposite from terrorism so don't get confused
>>63908981
Not exactly but you do need to be ready to drag things out.
Anonymous
6/28/2025, 7:17:21 PM No.63909020
It's that easy.
Anonymous
6/28/2025, 7:24:44 PM No.63909034
>>63908651 (OP)
They never have, it is a disinformation tactic to promote violence and division.
They never have, it is a disinformation tactic to promote violence and division.
Anonymous
6/28/2025, 8:44:01 PM No.63909298
>>63908651 (OP)
Because the invaders aren't willing or capable of killing everyone who resists.
Because the invaders aren't willing or capable of killing everyone who resists.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/28/2025, 10:34:00 PM No.63909718
>>63909692
Then the guerillas would all be dead and their people would be crushed by their new overlords. You could expect the ethnicity to be absorbed by settlers from the oppressor country as they settle the conquered land.
Then the guerillas would all be dead and their people would be crushed by their new overlords. You could expect the ethnicity to be absorbed by settlers from the oppressor country as they settle the conquered land.
Anonymous
6/28/2025, 10:36:44 PM No.63909735
>>63909692
Then the invaders win obviously. But at what cost is the question. Its more of a popularity contest with insurgencies, circle strafing tanks to death with AKs and molotovs isn't how these kinds of things are decided.
Then the invaders win obviously. But at what cost is the question. Its more of a popularity contest with insurgencies, circle strafing tanks to death with AKs and molotovs isn't how these kinds of things are decided.
Anonymous
6/28/2025, 10:49:05 PM No.63909820
>>63908651 (OP)
What changed in the 20th century was the politics of guerrillas. (War = extension of politics by other means.) Historically, guerrilas tended to be ideologically conservative, and were more concerned with either kicking out whoever intruded into their mountain valley in extremely inaccesible and marginal places, while otherwise wanting to be left alone, or they were conservative forces resisting some centralizing regime like the War in the Vendee during the French Revolution, but didn't have their goal being the conquest of national power like 20th century guerrillas.
Then in the 20th century you had guerrilla movements begin developing mass popular support. This was part of some cause like poor against the rich, or kicking out the foreigners. The tactics and basic Robin Hood principles were the same (using knowledge of the terrain, mobility, and physical hardiness to outmaneuver and refuse to fight the enemy on his own terms). But the guerrilla's major asset is non-military: he must have the sympathy and support, active and passive, of the local population. Robin Hood without support from the simple villagers is a dead man, and so is any guerrilla. Every textbook of guerrilla warfare begins by pointing this out and make sure to turn on English subtitles here:
https://youtu.be/cZlTKdq4Yb4
Also FYI representing the majority population is an asset. There were numerous examples of failed guerrillas in the 20th century who represented ethnic minorities like communists with their base in the Chinese minority in Malaysia who were defeated by the British.
What changed in the 20th century was the politics of guerrillas. (War = extension of politics by other means.) Historically, guerrilas tended to be ideologically conservative, and were more concerned with either kicking out whoever intruded into their mountain valley in extremely inaccesible and marginal places, while otherwise wanting to be left alone, or they were conservative forces resisting some centralizing regime like the War in the Vendee during the French Revolution, but didn't have their goal being the conquest of national power like 20th century guerrillas.
Then in the 20th century you had guerrilla movements begin developing mass popular support. This was part of some cause like poor against the rich, or kicking out the foreigners. The tactics and basic Robin Hood principles were the same (using knowledge of the terrain, mobility, and physical hardiness to outmaneuver and refuse to fight the enemy on his own terms). But the guerrilla's major asset is non-military: he must have the sympathy and support, active and passive, of the local population. Robin Hood without support from the simple villagers is a dead man, and so is any guerrilla. Every textbook of guerrilla warfare begins by pointing this out and make sure to turn on English subtitles here:
https://youtu.be/cZlTKdq4Yb4
Also FYI representing the majority population is an asset. There were numerous examples of failed guerrillas in the 20th century who represented ethnic minorities like communists with their base in the Chinese minority in Malaysia who were defeated by the British.