Historically - what works and what doesn't? There have been thousands by now, some of them failed, some of them didn't. What are the crucial variables?
2007-01-14 09:02:55 · 4 answers · asked by Ejsenstejn 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
historically speaking, what works best is a mix of reason and violence. The occupier must be reasonable, so that the 80% of the population who just want to get on with their lives have no cause to complain. About 10% will support the occupier, and another 10% will oppose him.
Violence is needed to prevent the creation of any "safe" zones for the insurgents- if necessary by the physical destruction of each and every hide hole (vide Boer wars). Assistance from the locals is not essential, but it helps.
Look up Dacia- it kept rebelling against the Romans. They exterminated everyone. Much like the Chinese in Tibet or the Russians in Chetchenya today. That method also works
2007-01-14 09:46:49 · answer #1 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same way the Germans and Soviets did ...Secret police,no trials,anyone looking nasty to disappear(their families as well).Trajic yes , but very cost effective.The French paras did a great job in Algeria,A super model to follow.
2007-01-14 09:08:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Popular support. If the resistance movement is popularly supported then it will be easy for them to find aid and shelter and very easy to conduct a prolonged guerilla campaign.
The way to beat it of course is to curb its popularity.
2007-01-14 09:08:05 · answer #3 · answered by william 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
First variable:
-- you own strength
Second variable:
-- support for resistance movement outside
third:
-- logistic support for your resistace opponent inside your borders
-- percentage of population and simple resources
Last Variable: How well you have tabds on people in your borders
Whast works and wat doesnt.
Depends much on above variable
2007-01-14 09:10:04 · answer #4 · answered by rostov 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋