Quote:
Originally Posted by DieselAddict
It's not just the will of the citizenry that's the deciding factor, but also the will of the government. In some countries, well-armed insurgencies have been going on for decades without much success for their side (Sri Lanka, Colombia, etc.). In some other countries, oppressive governments fell at the hands of an unarmed citizenry and without a single shot being fired (Czechoslovakia, Poland, East Germany, etc.). I think in the end a successful revolution must have a political resolution. If the US citizenry ever decided to violently take on the government, it would be a never ending blood bath (mostly on the civilian side) until some resolution was reached.
|
You just can't tell. You are absolutely right about the differences in duration of revolutions and insurgencies. There are certainly no guarantees. They vary from completely peaceful like the collapse of the USSR & Warsaw Pact to bloodbaths like the French experience. And there are those that last for centuries, like Northern Ireland. Is there any doubt that the UK outguns the "Real" IRA? Yet those people have been killing and maiming for over a decade since the entity formerly known as the IRA entered into peace negotiations. Also there's the Jewish experience vs Rome or the Palestinians vs Israel.
There is no historical combination that will always work. In our own little revolution most historians agree that less than 30% of colonists wanted to sever from Great Britain in 1776. In the unsuccessful revolution of 1861 one side had far better officers and were better led top to bottom and approximately equally matched in weapons at the beginning. They won some stunning victories early and had the other side not been willing to fight at all costs, could easily have won. It was the will to win that gave the union time to gear-up it's arms and promote effective general officers. Not guns. In the end the union forces won in every measurable way. But it was not weapons alone that won the war.