I think the notion that an armed populace will overthrow an authoritarian government is largely fantasy. Even a civilian population heavily armed with assault weaponry stands little chance against the guy with the tanks and the helicopter gunships.
His main worry is keep his own military from turning on him.
I think the notion that an armed populace will overthrow an authoritarian government is largely fantasy. Even a civilian population heavily armed with assault weaponry stands little chance against the guy with the tanks and the helicopter gunships.
His main worry is keep his own military from turning on him.
[Edit] The armed populace wouldn't be able to overthrow the authoritarian but they could sure engage in one heck of a civil war. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
"I think the notion that an armed populace will overthrow an authoritarian government is largely fantasy."
King George the 3rd and Muhammar Khaddaffi would like a word.
"Even a civilian population heavily armed with assault weaponry stands little chance against the guy with the tanks and the helicopter gunships."
Illiterate heroin farmers in Afghanistan lacked tanks and helicopter gunships, yet their ability to not give a fuck about that kind of thing on a long enough timeline gave them a victory now didn't it? Just because one side has the tanks/helos doesn't mean they have the ROEs to employ them against an insurgent force that blends into the civilian populace. Ask the Israeli government how using ordnance against civilian populations is working out for their international credibility and if it'll stop Palestinians from continuing the fight against them in the future.
"The armed populace wouldn't be able to overthrow the authoritarian but they could sure engage in one heck of a civil war. Wouldn't that be wonderful?"
Some peoples would rather die on their feet for generations than live on their knees over the same time period. Should the Ukrainians pack it up and let Russia into Kyiv on the basis that it'd be better to end the war now and live under occupation as opposed to a longer protracted war?
Aside from the case of Khaddaffi, which I'd have to look back at (I suspect he lost support of his troops), those are all really guerrilla movements against foreign forces. Not the same as the population overthrowing their own authoritarian.
A lot of domestic populations tend to lose the support of their troops when they go harsh on the populace (Assad's Syria is a counter-example).
Khaddafi did lose the support of *some* of his troops but he also lost others to NATO fires. That said, the Libyan militias were already moving to the outskirts of the capital by the time NATO launched TLAMs against Khaddafi's tanks and air defense (mostly from a single submarine). George the 3rd definitely didn't lose the support of his troops when confronting the colonial revolution that became the US.
Examples of successful domestic revolutions: American Revolution. French Revolution. October 1917 Revolution in Russia. Revolution of Liege. Haitian Revolution. Batavian Revolution. Bolivian and Peruvian Revolutions (Same time period). Mexican War of Independence. Argentine War of Independence. Venezuelan War of Independence. Chilean War of Independence. Second Serbian Uprising. Ecuadorian War of Independence. Greek War of Independence. Brazilian War of Independence. Belgian Revolution. Texas Revolution. Dominican War of Independence.
A more extensive list of successful/unsuccessful revolutions and uprisings here, but the important takeaway is that none of them happen without an armed populace:
Without taking the time it would take to dig into all of these it appears as if most of them were anti-colonial battles. Not the same as an overthrow of a homegrown authoritarian. The two standouts are the Russians and the French, neither of which led to institution of happy and healthy democracies.
Also, there is the issue of the level of arms required to overthrow a government that has lost popular support. Pitchforks and torches are sufficient when the mobs are large enough. Molotov cocktails can do a lot of damage.
Kind of like the resistance the French are now dealing with in New Caledonia.
"Without taking the time it would take to dig into all of these it appears as if most of them were anti-colonial battles. Not the same as an overthrow of a homegrown authoritarian."
Valid enough point, but again, how do modern Venezuelans, Russians, etc. overthrow their current rulers absent being armed? Sure, the Ukrainians overthrew their puppet government in 2013 without guns, but how does a Russian or Chinese or Venezuelan citizenry do so without them?
"The two standouts are the Russians and the French, neither of which led to institution of happy and healthy democracies."
Didn't say the new boss would be better than the old boss, just that the people being armed tends to make getting rid of the old boss a helluva lot easier. Napoleon and Lenin would have had a harder time maintaining their authoritarianism if the people were armed against the gendarmerie or the NKVD.
"I just object to the fantasy that some have of overthrowing *this* government."
Yea I'm with you there that there's no reason to overthrow our current gov.
As for Venezuela, yes, there are still *some* Chavistas who approve of Maduro--usually because they're in on the corruption themselves or simply because they're holdover bootlickers to Chavez--but the vast majority of that country (like 80+%) want Maduro gone but can't get rid of him because they're an unarmed populace and Maduro won't hold honest elections. When they tried to get rid of Maduro peacefully during the last years of the Obama admin via national protest he simply had his security forces shoot/beat/arrest/torture people until the protests stopped.
All it really takes is a sniper's bullet or a well-placed IED to take care of the authoritarian. You can do that even if the military sticks with the authoritarian. But if the people can't own precision rifles and most people don't know how to make homemade explosives and can't carry out a good emplacement job on top of that then yea, an unarmed peoples can't do much.
I think the notion that an armed populace will overthrow an authoritarian government is largely fantasy. Even a civilian population heavily armed with assault weaponry stands little chance against the guy with the tanks and the helicopter gunships.
His main worry is keep his own military from turning on him.
[Edit] The armed populace wouldn't be able to overthrow the authoritarian but they could sure engage in one heck of a civil war. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
"I think the notion that an armed populace will overthrow an authoritarian government is largely fantasy."
King George the 3rd and Muhammar Khaddaffi would like a word.
"Even a civilian population heavily armed with assault weaponry stands little chance against the guy with the tanks and the helicopter gunships."
Illiterate heroin farmers in Afghanistan lacked tanks and helicopter gunships, yet their ability to not give a fuck about that kind of thing on a long enough timeline gave them a victory now didn't it? Just because one side has the tanks/helos doesn't mean they have the ROEs to employ them against an insurgent force that blends into the civilian populace. Ask the Israeli government how using ordnance against civilian populations is working out for their international credibility and if it'll stop Palestinians from continuing the fight against them in the future.
"The armed populace wouldn't be able to overthrow the authoritarian but they could sure engage in one heck of a civil war. Wouldn't that be wonderful?"
Some peoples would rather die on their feet for generations than live on their knees over the same time period. Should the Ukrainians pack it up and let Russia into Kyiv on the basis that it'd be better to end the war now and live under occupation as opposed to a longer protracted war?
Aside from the case of Khaddaffi, which I'd have to look back at (I suspect he lost support of his troops), those are all really guerrilla movements against foreign forces. Not the same as the population overthrowing their own authoritarian.
A lot of domestic populations tend to lose the support of their troops when they go harsh on the populace (Assad's Syria is a counter-example).
Khaddafi did lose the support of *some* of his troops but he also lost others to NATO fires. That said, the Libyan militias were already moving to the outskirts of the capital by the time NATO launched TLAMs against Khaddafi's tanks and air defense (mostly from a single submarine). George the 3rd definitely didn't lose the support of his troops when confronting the colonial revolution that became the US.
Examples of successful domestic revolutions: American Revolution. French Revolution. October 1917 Revolution in Russia. Revolution of Liege. Haitian Revolution. Batavian Revolution. Bolivian and Peruvian Revolutions (Same time period). Mexican War of Independence. Argentine War of Independence. Venezuelan War of Independence. Chilean War of Independence. Second Serbian Uprising. Ecuadorian War of Independence. Greek War of Independence. Brazilian War of Independence. Belgian Revolution. Texas Revolution. Dominican War of Independence.
A more extensive list of successful/unsuccessful revolutions and uprisings here, but the important takeaway is that none of them happen without an armed populace:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions
Without taking the time it would take to dig into all of these it appears as if most of them were anti-colonial battles. Not the same as an overthrow of a homegrown authoritarian. The two standouts are the Russians and the French, neither of which led to institution of happy and healthy democracies.
Also, there is the issue of the level of arms required to overthrow a government that has lost popular support. Pitchforks and torches are sufficient when the mobs are large enough. Molotov cocktails can do a lot of damage.
Kind of like the resistance the French are now dealing with in New Caledonia.
"Without taking the time it would take to dig into all of these it appears as if most of them were anti-colonial battles. Not the same as an overthrow of a homegrown authoritarian."
Valid enough point, but again, how do modern Venezuelans, Russians, etc. overthrow their current rulers absent being armed? Sure, the Ukrainians overthrew their puppet government in 2013 without guns, but how does a Russian or Chinese or Venezuelan citizenry do so without them?
"The two standouts are the Russians and the French, neither of which led to institution of happy and healthy democracies."
Didn't say the new boss would be better than the old boss, just that the people being armed tends to make getting rid of the old boss a helluva lot easier. Napoleon and Lenin would have had a harder time maintaining their authoritarianism if the people were armed against the gendarmerie or the NKVD.
Yeah. Say hello to the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Or worse.
I just object to the fantasy that some have of overthrowing *this* government.
I'm not up on Venezuela but, as for the Russians, the majority seem to support the malevolent dwarf they've got.
"I just object to the fantasy that some have of overthrowing *this* government."
Yea I'm with you there that there's no reason to overthrow our current gov.
As for Venezuela, yes, there are still *some* Chavistas who approve of Maduro--usually because they're in on the corruption themselves or simply because they're holdover bootlickers to Chavez--but the vast majority of that country (like 80+%) want Maduro gone but can't get rid of him because they're an unarmed populace and Maduro won't hold honest elections. When they tried to get rid of Maduro peacefully during the last years of the Obama admin via national protest he simply had his security forces shoot/beat/arrest/torture people until the protests stopped.
It's really hard to get rid of an authoritarian as long as the army sticks with them. They will always have the heavy weapons advantage.
Rioting can cause enough chaos that the ruling class eventually dumps their ass, I suppose.
All it really takes is a sniper's bullet or a well-placed IED to take care of the authoritarian. You can do that even if the military sticks with the authoritarian. But if the people can't own precision rifles and most people don't know how to make homemade explosives and can't carry out a good emplacement job on top of that then yea, an unarmed peoples can't do much.
So, we don't really need an armed populace after all. Just, at most, a few capable assassins.
Seems to be a simpler and cleaner solution to me. Avoids all that mass bloodshed.
[Edit] Although, not necessarily. At least in the case of Archduke Ferdinand it didn't wind up so well.