Best Insurgent Leader [Archive] - Professional Soldiers ®

Airbornelawyer

02-10-2004, 20:57

Giap should be on everyone's top 10 list, I think, although Ho Chi Minh might be a better candidate. Excellent start. I think of Washington more as a pure military leader than an insurgent, but I have not studied his life carefully.Ah but the devil's in the details. What is the basis for this distinction? Insurgent vs. "pure military leader"? Giap was certainly a purer military leader than Washington, who had been active politically before the war (Virginia House of Burgesses, 1759-74) and, obviously, after. If you meant to confine yourself to those engaging primarily in guerrilla warfare, then you have a definitional problem, since guerrilla warfare and insurgency are not synonymous (see the other thread).

And of course Giap's most prominent victory was a conventional siege.

And for that matter, while the tactics once battle was joined were conventional by 18th century standards, operationally Washington conducted a war of maneuver reminiscent of other guerrilla campaigns, avoiding battle when the enemy was too strong, fighting to outlast the enemy's will rather than merely defeat his forces.

Besides military and domestic political skills, Washington also mastered the diplomatic skills necessary for effective coalition warfare. The victory at Yorktown was the result of the effective relationships among Washington and his French allies Lafayette, Rochambeau and de Grasse (as a matter of fact, since Lafayette was the one who communicated the weakness of the British position in Virginia to Washington, and it was Admiral de Grasse's idea to go after Cornwallis, and it was de Grasse's squadron that defeated the Royal Navy and isolated Cornwallis, and half the troops at Yorktown were French, it can be argued that Yorktown was as much a French victory as an American one, if not more).

To keep the list, and the argument over who really qualifies as an insurgent leader, going, I will now add the Duke of Wellington, with specific reference to the Peninsular Campaigns (whence the term guerrilla entered the military lexicon).

Valhal

02-10-2004, 23:47

I am going to throw out some names not normally associated with insurgencies. I think an argument could be made though.

Spartacus
Jesus
Mohammed

Any takers?

lrd

02-11-2004, 07:53

I don't know about the most successful, but Gandhi succeeded where more "traditional" guerrila campaigns didn't.

I'm running out the door, so I'll quote:

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries a terrorist movement developed among Indian nationalists (especially in Maharashtra, Bengal and the Punjab) which was responsible for a number of assassinations by bombings and shootings. Even after Gandhi was as actively on the scene, the terrorists continued their actions. For example, as late as 1929 bombs were thrown. and shots were fired in the Legislative Assembly in New Delhi. At the end of that year a bomb exploded under the train carrying the Viceroy, Lord Irwin (later known as Lord Halifax when he was British Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to the United States). And that was not the end of the terrorist movement.

Subhash Chandra Bose by 1928 had achieved an impressive following with his cry of “Give me blood and I promise you freedom”. That year both he and Jawaharlal Nehru (later a supporter of Gandhi’s methods) favoured an immediate declaration of independence to be followed by a war of independence.
. . . .
Thus, rather than Indian non-violence being entirely natural and inevitable, it is clear that Gandhi deserves considerable credit in getting non-violent action accepted as the technique of struggle in the grand strategy for the liberation movement. It is clear that this acceptance by the Indian National Congress was not a moral or religious act. It was a political act which was possible because Gandhi offered a course of action which was non-violent but which above all was seen to be practical and effective.

CRad

02-11-2004, 08:55

Originally posted by lrd
I don't know about the most successful, but Gandhi succeeded where more "traditional" guerrila campaigns didn't.

I'm running out the door, so I'll quote:

Lisa, This is why we are friends. I was thinking about him last night and that he should make the list. One of the things Ghandi said that is worth thinking about was "Be the change you wish to see in the world."

I wonder if that thought had any affect on Che.

Team Sergeant

02-11-2004, 10:26

Originally posted by CRad

I wonder if that thought had any affect on Che.

Apparently not because the Quiet Professionals hunted him down and killed him.

The Team Sergeant

(And from what I understand Che went yelling kicking and screaming like the true coward he really was.)

NousDefionsDoc

02-11-2004, 10:47

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
Apparently not because the Quiet Professionals hunted him down and killed him.

The Team Sergeant

(And from what I understand Che went yelling kicking and screaming like the true coward he really was.)

LOL - and he looked a lot like Lindh before they cleaned him up.

COME ON! This is a good question that should be generating a lot of figh...debate!

Valhal

02-11-2004, 11:30

I do not know anything about Che, but I have seen his face on t-shirts, usually worn by movie stars and rappers, why is a part of our society enamored by him?

NousDefionsDoc

02-11-2004, 11:34

Originally posted by Valhal
I do not know anything about Che, but I have seen his face on t-shirts, usually worn by movie stars and rappers, why is a part of our society enamored by him?

NO HIJACKING!

Smokin Joe

02-11-2004, 12:37

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Who is the best insurgent leader in history? You can list a small group if you can't pick one. Why did you pick who you picked?

Col. Wild Bill Donovan.

Why? B/C he and his orgainzation were pivitol in winning WWII.

CRad

02-11-2004, 13:31

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
Apparently not because the Quiet Professionals hunted him down and killed him.

The Team Sergeant

(And from what I understand Che went yelling kicking and screaming like the true coward he really was.)

Everybody dies and not usually by a method of their own chosing. Ghandi was killed by a couple of pissed off Hindu brothers.

Team Sergeant

02-11-2004, 14:07

Originally posted by CRad
Everybody dies and not usually by a method of their own chosing. Ghandi was killed by a couple of pissed off Hindu brothers.

I do not see a correlation between the two or your point.

One insurgent leader was killed by a couple of disenfranchised Hindu fanatics the other insurgent leader was hunted down by the most powerful nation on the planet because he murdered and tortured men, women and children.

The end does not justify the means.

Che is right up there with OBL as far as insurgent leaders are concerned. When OBL is captured I’m fairly sure he’ll meet the same fate as Che.

TS

CRad

02-11-2004, 14:09

And some help from my friendly neighborhood 7th Grp guys I'll give some thoughts. (It's not cheating if all I did was ask questions to which general replies were given)

Martin Luther King and Louis Farrakhan can be considered insurrgents.

Since I brought Che's name up...Groups that have followed his philosophy have been singularly unsuccessful. Daniel Ortega was a loser because he was ultimately unsuccessful. The Contras were a success because they not only overthrew the Sandinistas but also brought some democracy to NIcaragua. No names there, but as a group.

Baader-Meinhoff - losers
Red Brigade - Losers
Shining Path - Probably losers, although, that might depend on who you ask.

With Castro, was he following Che, was Che following him or was it a joint effort so is it a success story or not. Or do we have to wait and see what happens after Castro dies to see if he was a success. With Ghandi we know that his country stayed intact after his death.

Insurgent forces are groups that conduct irregular or unconventional warfare within the borders of their country in order to undermine or overthrow a constituted government or civil authority. The distinction between terrorists and insurgents is often blurred because of the tactics employed by each.

My study group also said General Washington and others in the Revolutionary War couldn't be considered insurgents. Not even Roger's Rangers in spite of their tactics.

Since this is North Carolina we didn't discuss the War of Northern Aggression.

CRad

02-11-2004, 14:12

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
I do not see a correlation between the two or your point.

Che is right up there with OBL as far as insurgent leaders are concerned. When OBL is captured I’m fairly sure he’ll meet the same fate as Che.

TS

Which is why I added the smile at the top of my post. I agree that Che and Ghandi don't add up and that Che is a bad guy within boundries of what that term means at my house.

NousDefionsDoc

02-11-2004, 14:30

Baader-Meinhoff and the Red Brigades were not insurgents, they were simple terrorist groups, they had no plan for after they won. SL is a Maoist group, they do not follow Che's line.

MLK and Farakook can't be considered insurgents because they do not use violence, same for Ghandi, Jesus, etc.

I would say the founders were a classic case of an insurgency. Began politically and pretty much followed the protracted war theory with escalation into conventional war. Developed safe areas, used unconventional war,popular and external support, shadow government, all of it. Your study group is wrong.

I don't think I would classify Donovan as an insurgent. He was an unconventional warrior operating within the confines of the greater war. A component if you will.

I doubt Che ever read Ghandi. He turned radical about 26 and linked up with Fidel because of lack of action in Argentina, Bolivia and Guatemala. He was reading Marx and after he met Fidel, Marti. He was pretty much apolitical before Guatemala.

The difference between the deaths of Ghandi and Che is significant and they have nothing to do with each other IMO. Ghandi was assassinated by individuals, probably crazy and probably simply because he was famous.

Che was hunted down and killed BECAUSE he was an insurgent, just as UBL probably will be.

CRad

02-11-2004, 14:41

Baader and Red Brigade while being terrorist were still influenced by Che as was SL. Regardless, his tactics are those of losers.

conduct irregular or unconventional warfare within the borders of their country in order to undermine or overthrow a constituted government or civil authority

With that in mind, why can't MLK and Farrakhan be considered insurgents? Does there have to be violence for a group to be called insurgents? What to call it when there's a peaceful take-over? A bloodless coup?

Why would the revlutionaries be insurgents rather than revolutionists. They weren't trying to change England; they were trying to break off from it.

NousDefionsDoc

02-11-2004, 14:46

conduct irregular or unconventional warfare

Have you ever heard of bloodless warfare?

Peaceful take - over? Election results - Dems losing Congress and the WH.

Give me an example of a bloodless coup - I'll guarrantee somebody died, might have been before the actual event, but somebody died.

NousDefionsDoc

02-11-2004, 14:48

Back to the topic at hand...

CRad

02-11-2004, 14:52

goat

02-11-2004, 15:06

What about Col. Don Blackburn?

NousDefionsDoc

02-11-2004, 15:14

People died, but they didn't kill them.

UBL is an insurgent that uses terrorism as almost his exclusive weapon. However, he has a political plan, he has used other forms of unconventional warfare and I would estimate he sees the current conflict as an extention of the fight against the Russians.

Revolutionary, rebel, Leftist guerrilla, Marxist insurgent, feedom fighter, right-wing death squads, separatists - all amateur terms as far as I'm concerned. They are all insurgents, then you define the nature of the insurgency, then the strategy they use.

The founders were insurgents, first reformist then secessionist. They did try to change England's manner of ruling the colonies before they went to the hills. Same with the South.

If you're going to call Giap, I think you have to define what period.

I'm a little surprised no one has mentioned Mao, Marulanda, Begin (Against the Brits), Castro (Che wasn't the leader in Cuba), Bolivar, Marti, Lenin, Khomeini (against the Shah), Collins, etc. Not saying I would pick them, but nobody has mentioned them.

Don't be callin' Jesus no insurgent.

NousDefionsDoc

02-11-2004, 15:15

Originally posted by goat
What about Col. Don Blackburn?

What about him? Are you asking or telling? LOL

Airbornelawyer

02-11-2004, 15:29

Originally posted by CRad
Insurgent forces are groups that conduct irregular or unconventional warfare within the borders of their country in order to undermine or overthrow a constituted government or civil authority. The distinction between terrorists and insurgents is often blurred because of the tactics employed by each.My study group also said General Washington and others in the Revolutionary War couldn't be considered insurgents. Not even Roger's Rangers in spite of their tactics. Originally posted by CRad
Why would the revolutionaries be insurgents rather than revolutionists. They weren't trying to change England; they were trying to break off from it.
Separatist insurgencies are still insurgencies. Most start off attempting to change the political order peacefully from within, but chose to break off, often violently, when they feel there is no other choice. This was true in 1775 and 1861.

In the case of the American Revolution, the move from change from within to separatism was relatively rapid. Compare the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress (http://www.americanrevolution.com/DeclarationandResolves.htm) of October 14, 1774 to the Declaration Of The Causes And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms (http://www.americanrevolution.com/DeclarationOfTheCauses.htm) of July 6, 1775, and to the Declaration of Independence (http://www.americanrevolution.com/DeclarationofIndependence.htm) of July 4, 1776.

The quoted definition of insurgent forces is too limited. Broadening the definition of terrorism to include street crime and broadening the definition of insurgency to include non-violent political protest is too, well..., broad. Similarly, narrowing the definition of insurgency to effectively make it synonymous with guerrilla warfare or UW is too... narrow. Insurgency is not defined simply by its tactics.

As Mao noted in On Protracted War, guerrilla warfare is just one of the tactics chosen by the revolutionary movement, and depending on the stage of the revolution, the state of one's own forces and the state of the enemy, guerrilla warfare isn't even necessarily the best tactic. The mobile warfare he spoke of in those essays would be perfectly understood by Washington. To use Mao's terminology, mobile warfare, guerrilla warfare and even positional warfare play their roles depending on the situation, and work together to defeat the enemy.

In the Peninsular War (1808-1814), the key to victory was Wellington's war of maneuver, but this was made possible by the Spanish guerrillas. There were 300,000 French troops in Spain by 1810-11, but they were never able to get more than 70,000 in a single battle against the British and Portuguese combined army because of the guerrillas.

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I'm a little surprised no one has mentioned Mao, Marulanda, Begin (Against the Brits), Castro (Che wasn't the leader in Cuba), Bolivar, Marti, Lenin, Khomeini (against the Shah), Collins, etc. We were just trying not to be too obvious. :D

To rehash Che, he would actually go on my list of worst insurgent leaders. It seems like left to his own devices, without Fidel, he was a colossal failure - in the Congo, Bolivia and elsewhere. He would be up there with another failure, Emilio Aguinaldo, who had potential and some skills, but whose talents were outweighed by his flaws.

Regards,
Dave

NousDefionsDoc

02-11-2004, 15:32

I'm not sure I would even classify Che as a leader.

Smokin Joe

02-11-2004, 16:38

Why not Col. Donovan, I understand what you are saying by "A component of the war" however weren't he and his me key in organizing training and suppling resistance groups such as the French, Dutch, and Greek resistance?

Maybe I'm mis-interperting "The Best Insurgent Leader". B/C the way I look at it all of the men on the ODA's that went to Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom, would qualify for this catagory. Some maybe better than others but the fact that they trained, equiped, supported, and lead the Afghani's aganist the Taliban could in my interpretation be considered Insurgent leaders.

Am I wrong in this intpertation?

goat

02-11-2004, 17:23

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
What about him? Are you asking or telling? LOL

Asking, what i have read about him is limited. He appears to have been quite a successful guerrilla leader in the Phillippines.

NousDefionsDoc

02-11-2004, 17:56

Smokin' the key in the Donovan OSS case IMO is:

within the borders of their country in order to undermine or overthrow a constituted government or civil authority.

Donovan was not operating within the borders of his own country. He was conducting unconventional warfare, in all its definitions, in support of conventional warfare against a foreign enemy. Now, if the Nazis has occupied the US and did it, then yes. Other than that, I can't really explain it. You can count him if you want, but I don't.

goat
I just wanted to see if you knew your history. I would count him among the greats for what he achieved in the Philippines and one of the great counter-insurgents for his work in SEA.

Smokin Joe

02-11-2004, 18:14

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Smokin' the key in the Donovan OSS case IMO is:

Donovan was not operating within the borders of his own country. He was conducting unconventional warfare, in all its definitions, in support of conventional warfare against a foreign enemy. Now, if the Nazis has occupied the US and di it, then yes. Other than that, I can't really explain it. You can count him if you want, but I don't.

Gotcha....and thank you for the clarifiication.

Jimbo

02-11-2004, 20:12

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
When OBL is captured I’m fairly sure he’ll meet the same fate as Che.

TS

No kidding, since 2000 that has been what I think about as I drift off to sleep. Every night.

Best is too hard to define, so I'll go with two of my favorites:
Terence Bellew McManus
James O'Diomasaighe

NousDefionsDoc

02-11-2004, 20:20

Why McManus and not the other eight? He didn't win. Why do you pick him. The 2nd one I think I know. LOL

See boys and girls, old Jimbo here is testing me. LOL He's going to accuse me of looking this up, but note, I was actually posting on the Che thread. Obscure assed reference that it was, it would have stumped a mere mortal. LOL

CRad

02-11-2004, 20:29

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

Revolutionary, rebel, Leftist guerrilla, Marxist insurgent, feedom fighter, right-wing death squads, separatists - all amateur terms as far as I'm concerned. They are all insurgents, then you define the nature of the insurgency, then the strategy they use.

Where are you going to put partisans? They used guerrilla tactics and strategy against an invading army that attempted to be a civil authority. The Soviet partisans were particulary good at guerrilla warfare.

NousDefionsDoc

02-11-2004, 20:30

Originally posted by CRad
Where are you going to put partisans? They used guerrilla tactics and strategy against an invading army that attempted to be a civil authority. The Soviet partisans were particulary good at guerrilla warfare.

Where do you put them? I generally like them on the left flank, but that's just me:D

Jimbo

02-11-2004, 20:56

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Why McManus and not the other eight? He didn't win. Why do you pick him. The 2nd one I think I know. LOL

See boys and girls, old Jimbo here is testing me. LOL He's going to accuse me of looking this up, but note, I was actually posting on the Che thread. Obscure assed reference that it was, it would have stumped a mere mortal. LOL

I'm related to both of them.

The only two I don't know on the Che thread is who gave him the nickname and the name of the Bolivian that put him down (though I believe there may be some controversy over that).

NousDefionsDoc

02-11-2004, 20:58

Well, I didn't know that, I'm going to have to watch you.

Che - Hell even Ty Cobb didn't bat 500. LOL

I'll bet goat is looking all over the internet. LOL

CRad

02-11-2004, 21:21

I kind of like them out ahead of me as a harrassment element.

Enough questions and joking around. (at least from me for now and in this thread ;))

Menachem Begin for his leadership of Etzel prior to a Jewish State. Made a good transtion from insurgent to national leader and diplomat. He even was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Abebe Aregai for his leadership of the Ethiopians against the Italians. He achieved his goals and was regarded highly enough to be brought to negotiations. The place ended up a shithole but he was still a good fighter and commander.

NousDefionsDoc

02-11-2004, 21:26

Oh sure, NOW you think of Begin:D

Well, if your're going to bring the Italians into it, I'll counter with, Abd el-Krim and the Rifs

CRad

02-11-2004, 21:36

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Oh sure, NOW you think of Begin:D

No, I did a search using "best terrorist tactics & leaders"

Those search engines work really good.

Ockham's Razor

02-12-2004, 06:13

Just to be different... Simon Bolivar.

I'd provide a summary of his accomplishments, but I think all here know them. :)

pbr549xxx

02-12-2004, 09:39

What about Native American Leaders like Geronimo or Osceola?Could they be listed as insurgents?

Airbornelawyer

02-12-2004, 10:12

Partisans qualify because nothing says the the government or civil authority has to be legitimate.

Who's Osceola? You mean Billy Powell?

Native American Indian leaders can't be lumped together. Too many different objectives (on both sides). In most of the early wars they were conflicts between sovereign nations, not insurgencies. A-si-ya-ho-la and Goyathlay, maybe, but Tecumseh, for instance, probably would not be counted as an insurgent.

William Hazen

02-12-2004, 11:06

Of I'll bite since I am a Military History buff. LOL

My favorites include.

Geronimo
Mao
Nelson Mandela
Mahatma Gandhi

William Hazen

Airbornelawyer

02-12-2004, 11:21

Going back a few years, add Judah the Hammer to the list.

Although a lot of the stories surrounding the Maccabees may be apocryphal (or Apocryphal if you are Catholic) and are generally taken on faith, the basic facts remain that they led a successful insurgency against the Seleucid Emperor Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) and established an independent Judean kingdom which lasted for 100 years until an internal power struggle led to Roman intervention.

Does anyone have any thoughts on another historical figure about whom much legend has been wrapped - William Wallace? My impression is that the real Wallace was a good guerrilla leader but only a fair conventional commander, and that his greatest gifts were charismatic and ideological, such that even with his defeats and death, his single-minded dedication to Scottish independence continued to inspire.

Regards,
Dave

pulque

02-12-2004, 13:01

Kamose the Theban, in the 16th century BC, in the Egyptian war of liberation from the Hyksos invaders.

None can pass through it as far as Memphis (although it is) Egyptian water! See he (even) has Hermopolis!

No man can settle down, when despoiled by the taxes of the Asiatics. I will grapple with him, that I may rip open his belly! My wish is to save Egypt and to smite the Asiatic!

Air.177

02-12-2004, 13:06

How about the Texans? Houston and the like, and later the Rangers under Patterson I believe.

CommoGeek

02-12-2004, 13:12

Mao. He took advantage of a very unstable situation and made a country. One I don't like, but he made it work.

NousDefionsDoc

02-12-2004, 13:21

Originally posted by CommoGeek
Mao. He took advantage of a very unstable situation and made a country. One I don't like, but he made it work.

I was waiting for you (I didn't know who it would be).

Take out the Japanese invasion and put a competent leader in Kai-shek's position and how good is Mao?

Airbornelawyer

02-12-2004, 13:44

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I was waiting for you (I didn't know who it would be).

Take out the Japanese invasion and put a competent leader in Kai-shek's position and how good is Mao? Why?

Take out the French and the Americans and get rid of Bao Dai and Ngo Dinh Diem (actually him we did get rid of...) and how good is Giap or Uncle Ho? Take out the vainglorious Antiochus Epiphanes and how good was Judah the Hammer?

A leader shapes and is shaped by his environment. Mao knew his enemies, knew his own forces and knew the battlefield. He knew his Sun Tzu as well as his Marx (since Marx' military ideas were Clausewitzian and Clausewitz drew from Napoleon and as a junior officer Napoleon read the French Jesuit missionaries' translation of the Art of War, the circle is complete).

Besides, what other revolutionary leader bothered with details like this: "Song and dance section. In accordance with the circumstances in which the unit finds itself and the nature of its tasks, this section composes all sorts of songs in order to stimulate the interest of the officers and soldiers in singing songs, or it puts on dances in costume, assuming various comical attitudes, in order to make the onlookers laugh until they hold their sides." (Basic Tactics (http://www.maoism.org/msw/vol6/mswv6_28.htm), Chapter XV, Section 10.4(c).

Dave

NousDefionsDoc

02-12-2004, 13:55

Did you see me say Giap or Ho were among the best insurgent leaders?

If you want to be the best, you have to win against the best, when the odds are against you.

Not be lucky enough to have a weak corrupt leader and a foreign invader do 3/4 of the work for you. I know you don't think the Chinese peasants joined Mao because of those songs. They joined for the same reason I would vote for John Kerry - the only other choice would be Dean or Kucinich. They had to choose between Mao - or the Japanese or Kai-shek, same as no choice at all. The Long March was not heroic, it was a full fledged retreat that probably wasn't even necessary, but it made him famous. Mao should have been dead years before he ever came to be a leader - he was lucky, not good.

For that same reason, I'm not impressed by Castro/Guevara.

The title of the thread is "Best Insurgent Leader" not "Luckiest Insurgent Leader".

NousDefionsDoc

02-12-2004, 14:12

AL,
I'm not making fun of your name. Its when you put "Dave" down there at the bottom, it makes it sound so final, like there's nothing left to discuss. I got tickled a couple of times is all. I won't do it again.

CRad

02-12-2004, 14:29

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer

A leader shapes and is shaped by his environment. Mao knew his enemies, knew his own forces and knew the battlefield. He knew his Sun Tzu as well as his Marx (since Marx' military ideas were Clausewitzian and Clausewitz drew from Napoleon and as a junior officer Napoleon read the French Jesuit missionaries' translation of the Art of War, the circle is complete).

I love it when the circle gets closed. Other half says "you are the sum of your experinces." I say "you go with what you know." It's the same thing, only he's more eloquent. I agree with the lawyer on Mao.

I'm not so sure about Ho and don't enough to even open my mouth about Giap.

CommoGeek

02-12-2004, 14:40

Mao did the "best" he could with what he had. Did others do better through history? Probably , but I can't think of them right now.

His propaganda turned it into a victory. The people were tired of Kai-shek and the Japanese weren't an option. For better or worse he united the most populous country on the planet and punted two opposing factions.

I'd also nominate COL Russell Volckmann, but he is probably best defined as a UW type of guy and not an insurgent. Too bad.

Airbornelawyer

02-12-2004, 15:27

As noted many postings ago, I believe that Che is a boob.

You don't always get to chose your enemies, so not having won against the best isn't necessarily a knock.

Mao took advantage of the situation he had and shaped it for his own ends. Eventually, there was only Mao, Chiang and the Japanese, but during Mao's and Chiang's rises, there were plenty of other warlords. And there was always the peasant's choice to do nothing, and let history march past as it had for centuries. One of Mao's skills was making them choose, and the political work chapter of Basic Tactics deals heavily with that. The unit "song and dance section" was a tool of that indoctrination. The unit "joke section" was such a tool too. The guidance for that section was threefold. First, "when jokes are told, we must make them easy to understand. We can take materials from joke books and such, but they should not be too obscene." Then, "when telling stories, we should devote much time to stories about the abundant exploits and great enterprises of the ancients, and to their excellent words and admirable conduct, in order to achieve an inspirational effect" and "when reporting on the news, we should devote attention to our own victories and to the atrocities of the enemy."

On the Long March, reading between the lines of Marxist rhetoric, it seems that Mao recognized it as a military failure, but effectively spun it into a propaganda victory, which in the protracted war he was fighting proved to be just as good. Here are Mao's observations, from a speech "On Tactics Against Japanese Imperialism":Speaking of the Long March, one may ask, "What is its significance?" We answer that the Long March is the first of its kind in the annals of history, that it is a manifesto, a propaganda force, a seeding-machine. Since Pan Ku divided the heavens from the earth and the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors reigned, has history ever witnessed a long march such as ours? For twelve months we were under daily reconnaissance and bombing from the skies by scores of planes, while on land we were encircled and pursued, obstructed and intercepted by a huge force of several hundred thousand men, and we encountered untold difficulties and dangers on the way; yet by using our two legs we swept across a distance of more than twenty thousand li through the length and breadth of eleven provinces. Let us ask, has history ever known a long march to equal ours? No, never. The Long March is a manifesto. It has proclaimed to the world that the Red Army is an army of heroes, while the imperialists and their running dogs, Chiang Kai-shek and his like, are impotent. It has proclaimed their utter failure to encircle, pursue, obstruct and intercept us. The Long March is also a propaganda force. It has announced to some 200 million people in eleven provinces that the road of the Red Army is their only road to liberation. Without the Long March, how could the broad masses have learned so quickly about the existence of the great truth which the Red Army embodies? The Long March is also a seeding-machine. In the eleven provinces it has sown many seeds which will sprout, leaf, blossom, and bear fruit, and will yield a harvest in the future. In a word, the Long March has ended with victory for us and defeat for the enemy. Who brought the Long March to victory? The Communist Party. Without the Communist Party, a long march of this kind would have been inconceivable. The Chinese Communist Party, its leadership, its cadres and its members fear no difficulties or hardships. Whoever questions our ability to lead the revolutionary war will fall into the morass of opportunism. A new situation arose as soon as the Long March was over. In the battle of Chihlochen the Central Red Army and the Northwestern Red Army, fighting in fraternal solidarity, shattered the traitor Chiang Kai-shek's campaign of "encirclement and suppression" against the Shensi-Kansu border area and thus laid the cornerstone for the task undertaken by the Central Committee of the Party, the task of setting up the national headquarters of the revolution in northwestern China. I think Mao was lucky in his enemies, but he did shape the battlefield as much as it shaped him. One of Che's greatest failings was his belief that he could create a revolution wherever he went by virtue of his own ideological purity or charisma. Mao was far shrewder than that.

BTW, "Dave" is just there because the usernames seem too impersonal. There is a man behind these posts. A man who feels, and can cry, and who hurts sometimes.... A man who got picked on a lot as a kid and thirsts for the sweet nectar of revenge.... A man who... wait, did I say all that out loud? :eek:

Roguish Lawyer

02-12-2004, 15:32

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
BTW, "Dave" is just there because the usernames seem too impersonal. There is a man behind these posts. A man who feels, and can cry, and who hurts sometimes.... A man who got picked on a lot as a kid and thirsts for the sweet nectar of revenge.... A man who... wait, did I say all that out loud? :eek:

LOL.

Tip: On your User C/P, you can choose to be notified by e-mail or a pop-up when you have a private message. This is also a hint.

NousDefionsDoc

02-12-2004, 15:37

I think Mao was lucky in his enemies, but he did shape the battlefield as much as it shaped him.

On this, we will disagree.

Dave

LOL

Whoops...

Roguish Lawyer

02-12-2004, 15:39

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I'm a little surprised no one has mentioned Mao, Marulanda, Begin (Against the Brits), Castro (Che wasn't the leader in Cuba), Bolivar, Marti, Lenin, Khomeini (against the Shah), Collins, etc. Not saying I would pick them, but nobody has mentioned them.

So who would you pick?

NousDefionsDoc

02-12-2004, 15:51

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
So who would you pick?

LOL - NOBODY! despite me messing with DAVE, I don't think you can say one is the best. Each set of circumstances is too different. The ones that are generally very principled and truly talented lose because they have tough adversaries. The ones that win are generally more lucky than good.

I like the way Begin ran his op, minimal civilian casualties, etc. But the Brits were already broke and looking to pull out anyway.

I've said my peace on Mao. Points were made regarding Giap.

Marulanda is losing and hasn't really done much more than sustain, although that is a feat in itself.

Lenin was out of the country when it started and didn't even believe it was happening at first.

Each one has pluses and negatives. Its like asking Who is the greatest General or who is the greatest ball player. LOL.

Good discussion though!

Che is my favorite, but not the best. He's my favorite because he was a true believer and his legacy lives on, despite that he was not good militarily. He was the rock and roll revolutionary! LOL. Good T Shirts too.

Roguish Lawyer

02-12-2004, 16:14

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Its like asking Who is the greatest General

Maybe we'll do that one later. Or greatest NCO! :)

NousDefionsDoc

02-12-2004, 16:16

I've got my favorite NCO and officer.

Roguish Lawyer

02-12-2004, 16:18

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I've got my favorite NCO and officer.

Well, you're the boss. You want to give it up in a new thread, two new threads or here?

Airbornelawyer

02-12-2004, 16:21

Oh ye of short time span! :D Che's legacy is going on what, 20-30 years?

My boy GW, now he was a true believer and his legacy lives on - going on over two and a quarter centuries now - and he was good militarily. He doesn't have as many t-shirts, but he's got a state, a city or ten, a few universities, a bunch of streets, the dollar bill, the quarter, the side of a mountain, a big Masonic phallic symbol, an Academy Award (no, wait, that was Denzel),...

And two millenia after his death, Judah the Hammer has a couple million kids spinning dreidels and thinking it's fun, while millions of parents light candles and try to explain to them that it's not "Jewish Christmas" and why eight days of crappy presents is better than one day of cool ones (apologies to South Park).

NousDefionsDoc

02-12-2004, 16:22

I'm not the Boss, LOL. New thread, one for both?

Roguish Lawyer

02-12-2004, 16:23

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I'm not the Boss, LOL. New thread, one for both?

Done. I'm putting them in GD, though.

Local_Pol

02-13-2004, 14:06

"Who is the best insurgent leader in history?"

First: Benjamin Franklin, US representative in Europe, American Revolution.

Second: Boris Yeltsin, Ex-President, Russian Republic

"Why did you pick who you picked?"

Both individuals met the following criteria:

1. Both individual were originally part of existing establishment, worked both inside (and eventually from outside/fringe) to functionally replace the existing system of governance with a radically different alternative form of governance.

2. Both individuals took extreme risks as part of their efforts on behalf of their respective insurgencies. If Franklin had ever been captured by the British, well, he would have been a dead man and that might well have been the end of the American Revolution.

3. Both were "successful" (on Yeltsin, jury is still out) in their "insurgencies", compared to many of the others mentioned here.

4. Both efforts were primarily "insurgencies", and not primarily "terrorist" in nature, as the goal in both cases was to establish a different type of government structure.

Just my .02

Tracy

02-14-2004, 11:53

Hmmm...

Favorite insurgent leaders...

From my POV, I'd have to select those that had an impact beyond the immediate target audience; but didn't drift too far into terrorism.

Joan of Arc (just so I can say the French did something...)

George Washington (he wasn't the only person involved, but he signed the blame line)

V.I. Lenin

Mao Tse Tung

Ho Chi Minh

Castro

Daniel Ortega

Ghandi

Barzani

IMHO, the only effect Che had on the world scene was T-Shirt sales in the USA.

CRad

02-14-2004, 13:18

Tracy - Why Ortega? He was a loser of the first water. YOur reasons on impact beyond immidiate area doesn't hold up with him.

good comment on Guevara, by the way.

Footmobile

02-14-2004, 13:53

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Who is the best insurgent leader in history? You can list a small group if you can't pick one. Why did you pick who you picked?

Certainly not "the best of all time" but of great note lately is Ahmed Shah Masood of the N.A. in Afghanistan. Organized, trained and fought with a wide swath of ethnic groups first against the Soviets, then the Taliban for over 20 years.

He had the ability, charisma, and leadership to do all this on a shoestring budget and was so effective that A.Q. pulled out all stops in seeking his assaination.

Tracy

02-14-2004, 21:00

Originally posted by CRad
Tracy - Why Ortega? He was a loser of the first water. YOur reasons on impact beyond immidiate area doesn't hold up with him.

good comment on Guevara, by the way.

Daniel Ortega may be the Forrest Gump of Insurgencies; but he was also the poster child for the "Domino Theory" in Central America.

The Reagan Administration held him and the Sandinistas up as an example of complacency.

Another thing that intrigued/impressed me was the way he faded from view when the Nicaraguans demanded free elections. He could have done worse to the process. For all we know, he's running a PC help desk in San Diego...

Someone mentioned Masood of Afghanistan; which is a very good choice.

lrd

02-21-2005, 19:31

What do you think? Was George Mason the first insurgent leader in American politics?Colonel Mason, the master of Gunston Hall, stood on the floor of the Federal Convention of 1787 and appealed for a clear stipulation of the rights of the individual citizen as over against his government, and when it was rejected he refused to sign the Constitution of the United States of America and withdrew from the assemblage to lead a strong opposition party against its ratification. This was the first great political contest in the United States, and so strong did the opposition become that the First Congress was forced to carry through amendments of this nature, and these stand today as the first ten amendments to the Constitution. With this in mind, this pilgrimage to old Gunston Hall, the estate of the first insurgent leader in American politics, is especially interesting.

I would nominate Nathanial Bacon.

NousDefionsDoc

02-22-2005, 20:01

This is a good thread

NousDefionsDoc

02-22-2005, 20:04

I would nominate Nathanial Bacon.

Bacon's Rebellion was probably one of the most confusing yet intriguing chapters in Jamestown's history. For many years, historians considered the Virginia Rebellion of 1676 to be the first stirring of revolutionary sentiment in America, which culminated in the American Revolution almost exactly one hundred years later. However, in the past few decades, based on findings from a more distant viewpoint, historians have come to understand Bacon's Rebellion as a power struggle between two stubborn, selfish leaders rather than a glorious fight against tyranny.

;)

QRQ 30

02-22-2005, 21:15

Marshall Tito. He started out with the resistance against the Nazis.

Castro wasn't half bad either.

Mao Tse Tung.

Ho Chi Minh.

Althopugh they ended up as national leaders, they got their beginnings as insurgents.

Too lazy to go all of the way back but it looks like Tracy and I see somewhat alike.

lksteve

02-22-2005, 21:50

without a doubt in my mind, i think George Washington was the greatest leader of an insurgency...perhaps it's because i am a Virginian...maybe i'm partial to soldier/surveyors...but in my mind, he was the greatest insurgent leader...

he had some great help...Nathaniel Greene's campaigns in the Carolinas were brilliant...Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine were great propagandists and provided inspiration for the movement....

but GW....yup...that's the guy...

Huey14

02-22-2005, 21:50

For a New Zealand flavour, I would nominate Hone Heke. Not quite sure if he fits the criteria or not, though. This obviously isn't my field.

He cut down the flagpole and decimated the British flag a number of times at Kororareka before they went after him I understand.

The British Army pursuit of Hone Heke and Kawati of Nga Puhi, following their sacking of Kororareka in March, 1845. James Belich says the burning of the town by Maori was probably accidental. An exploding armoury and British shelling from offshore certainly added fuel to the burning of Kororareka.

The Northern War was a complex ‘three-way war.’ Two factions of Nga Puhi fought against each other. One faction was led by Hone Heke who opposed the Crown, and who was prepared to take that opposition onto the battlefield. The other faction was headed by Tamati Waka Nene who generally supported the Crown, against Heke, though it is probably more accurate to suggest that he found a useful ally in the Crown in his dispute with Heke.

Three major engagements involving British Army and Maori were fought at Puketutu, Ohaeawai and Ruapekapeka.

Further Reading: Tim Ryan and Bill Parham, 'Hone Heke's Challenge' in The Colonial New Zealand Wars, Wellington 1986, pp.15-28.

Back to top of page

magician

02-23-2005, 08:58

I do not like the definition. It eliminates guys from contention like T.E. Lawrence.

A couple of snide, side comments:

1. The only influence that El Ché had upon the Communist Party of Perú, aka Sendero Luminoso, was in terms of which approach to revolution in the Americas to eschew. Strictly speaking, the Party would probably view him as a bourgeois romantic, a weak communist.

2. Ché is an idea, an icon, and a shallow one, at that. And yes, now he is a t-shirt. One thing that you can say about El Ché, however: he dared. He did not just stay home, get a job, get hitched, and live in oblivion.

3. On Mao....you cannot excise Mao from the two revolutionary wars that the Communist Party of China fought. Mao himself would say that those wars were crucibles, and that they forged not only cadres, but the Party. And this gets into what I think is among Mao's true contributions to the art and science of Marxist revolution: the internal party two-line struggle, abbreviated in later derivative Maoist tracts as "2LS," which refers to internal party practices, self-criticism, and the wariness that any true Maoist maintains of bourgeois opportunism.

4. If we talk about Mao...we must also talk about Lenin, whose true contribution to the art and science of Marxist revolution was clearly the armed vanguard party.

5. My favorite insurgent leader.....impossible to say. All accomplished amazing things from humble origins, and this is almost part of the definition. I am partial to Abimael Guzmán, however, to Presidente Gonzalo....because he exercised such an effect on latter-day Maoism. It is a good goddamned thing that the guy is "buried alive," as the Revolutionary Communist Part, USA characterizes his incarceration at Callao.

Do not ever let him out. Not even for a new trial. Any access that the guy can gain to the media will certainly rebound to the detriment of the state, even if it is nothing more than a few moments depicting him in the docket. He is a great propagandist, and has little more to do with his days than bend his considerable intellect to the problem of how best to exploit his next opportunity to address his fellow Party members and communists worldwide.

Good thread....but again, I do not like the definition. It is artificial.

QRQ 30

02-23-2005, 09:09

As Magician says to pick a best of all time is impossible. There were so many: King David, Mel Gibson (Braveheart), even Darth Vader. :cool:

magician

02-23-2005, 09:20

As Magician says to pick a best of all time is impossible. There were so many: King David, Mel Gibson (Braveheart), even Darth Vader. :cool:

Terry....Terry....Darth Vader was no insurgent. He was a tool of the Emperor!

:)

QRQ 30

02-23-2005, 09:32

Terry....Terry....Darth Vader was no insurgent. He was a tool of the Emperor!

:)

OOPS!! How about YODA?? :munchin

magician

02-23-2005, 09:37

my brother, you really need to smoke less opium when you watch Star Wars.

Yoda, and other members of the Jedi Counsel...also served the Empire!

if there was any insurgent leader in the saga....it would probably be Obi-Wan Kenobi, or Princess Leia.

:)

jatx

02-23-2005, 09:41

2. Ché is an idea, an icon, and a shallow one, at that. And yes, now he is a t-shirt. One thing that you can say about El Ché, however: he dared. He did not just stay home, get a job, get hitched, and live in oblivion.

Minor hikack. The Motorcycle Diaries, just released on DVD, is a fine movie. There are a few spots where the politics can rub you a bit, but in general it concerns itself with a very young Che - a romantic dreamer with wanderlust. No reference is made to how this went horribly wrong later. But I also can't remember another recent movie that did such a great job showing the profound beauty of S. America.

Kyobanim

02-23-2005, 09:49

QRQ 30

02-23-2005, 09:49

NousDefionsDoc

02-23-2005, 18:41

I'm going to go with a guerrilla instead of an insurgent - Colonel Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck

NousDefionsDoc

02-23-2005, 18:43

I do not like the definition. It eliminates guys from contention like T.E. Lawrence.

He gets my vote for most over-rated of all time. :munchin

Roguish Lawyer

02-23-2005, 18:44

I'm going to go with a guerrilla instead of an insurgent - Colonel Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck

http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/lettowvorbeck.htm

NousDefionsDoc

02-23-2005, 18:51

http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/lettowvorbeck.htm

Himself

jatx

02-23-2005, 19:00

I'm going to go with a guerrilla instead of an insurgent - Colonel Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck

NDD, have you read his autobiography and, if so, would you recommend it?

NousDefionsDoc

02-23-2005, 19:11

NDD, have you read his autobiography and, if so, would you recommend it?
No, I haven't read it. I learned about him from other studies. I have it on my list though.

brownapple

02-24-2005, 09:50

lksteve

02-24-2005, 10:24

The Jedi Council served the Republic. Gee, and you're talking about what people smoke? :D

not to mention that they were fictional...at least, in my world, the were fictional characters...

"roll another one, just like the other one..."

QRQ 30

02-24-2005, 10:57

not to mention that they were fictional...at least, in my world, the were fictional characters...

"roll another one, just like the other one..."

You've go to be joking!! Where did you study history? This really happened in a Land far, far away in a time long, long ago.!! :rolleyes:

magician

02-24-2005, 11:02

doh!

of course the Jedi Counsel served the Republic. What was I thinking?

sorry about that.

lksteve

02-24-2005, 11:32

You've go to be joking!! Where did you study history? This really happened in a Land far, far away in a time long, long ago.!! :rolleyes:

i didn't study history...i studied rocks-for-jocks...

and George Washington is still, by-far, the numero uno leader of an insurgency...besides, he was a surveyor, too...

lrd

02-24-2005, 17:19

Bacon's Rebellion was probably one of the most confusing yet intriguing chapters in Jamestown's history. For many years, historians considered the Virginia Rebellion of 1676 to be the first stirring of revolutionary sentiment in America, which culminated in the American Revolution almost exactly one hundred years later. However, in the past few decades, based on findings from a more distant viewpoint, historians have come to understand Bacon's Rebellion as a power struggle between two stubborn, selfish leaders rather than a glorious fight against tyranny.;)My great-great-great-...grandparents:

http://www.famousamericans.net/williamdrummond/

:D

boat guy

03-01-2005, 09:27

people died in the fight for civil rights, but enough.

Ok, MLK, Ghandi, Jesus, Mohhamed and Wm Donovon have been ruled out as insurgent leaders.

One other thing - I don't think you can call OBL an insurgent. He's a terrorist.

I'll bite on Muhammad. While Muhammad is recognized by Muslims as the founder of their religion, the last prophet of God, and the origin of the Shari’ah, he can easily be recognized as one of the most successful insurgent leaders of all times. Expatriated from his homeland after his revolution he established "The State" in Medina and began his attack on all of Arabia. Early Islamic followers of Muhammad conducted hundreds of “expeditions” that were as much conquests as evangelical missions. His employment of militarily organized expeditions each with its own head and blessed autonomy is the basis of modern cell-networks. His use of the divine for both the assumption of authority and basis for threat combined with the devastation wrought upon those who did not accept his authority and ideology garnered massive acquiescence and support. Early converts to Islam were among the poor and downtrodden, victims of an oppressive semi capitalist society of khalifs and amirs. His anti establishment message which brought hope for the those oppressed under their previous government ensured his ability to attain resources in any region. In the first 10 years of its existence Islam had fought Jews, Christians and Pagans, exerting influence over the entire peninsula and extracting tribute from the non muslim inhabitants. Successful in multiple major battles Muhammad brought the government of Makkah to their knees. The battle for Islam has been raging for centuries now and by both peaceful means and extreme conflict the Shariah and beliefs outlined in the Quran have been accepted by millions. Today Islamic militants following the same message and using many of the same tactics are engaged in conflict throughout the world and in many instances succeeding.

lrd

03-07-2005, 05:25

Daniel Ortega may be the Forrest Gump of Insurgencies; but he was also the poster child for the "Domino Theory" in Central America.

The Reagan Administration held him and the Sandinistas up as an example of complacency.

Another thing that intrigued/impressed me was the way he faded from view when the Nicaraguans demanded free elections. He could have done worse to the process. For all we know, he's running a PC help desk in San Diego....
Looks like he's running for President...again.

NICARAGUA

Daniel Ortega picked as party's candidate

MANAGUA - Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista Front chief who was president during the 1980s but has lost three straight presidential elections, will again be his party's candidate in 2006.

Some 800 party militants called a special Sandinista Congress late Saturday in Matagalpa, a town 60 miles north of the capital, Managua. There, they voted to expel Ortega's chief rival for the presidential nomination, Herty Lewites, from the party.

Lewites, a Sandinista militant for 35 years and former Managua mayor who polls show is more popular with voters than Ortega, said in January he feared for his life because opponents within the Sandinista Front have accused him of treason.

The party leaders also rejected the idea that the Sandinistas hold an open primary to decide who its presidential nominee should be, instead voting to officially choose Ortega for next year's race.

Only a tiny fraction of the leaders on hand for the vote voiced opposition to Ortega. The voters also approved resolutions in support of Iraq, Cuba, Venezuela, Afghanistan and Libya.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/americas/11069491.htm

MtnGoat

04-28-2006, 13:05

http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/lettowvorbeck.htm
This is a really good Thread!!!

I did a search and came to this Thread..Great Posting here! A Ton of Information for read and for learning a bit over the Force to.. :D

RL or AL have (Anyone??) either of you read the book Guerilla COL Von Lettow-Vorbeck and Germany's East African Empire By Edwin P. Hoyt

jatx

04-28-2006, 13:25

Roguish Lawyer

04-28-2006, 14:00

I have not.

mugwump

04-28-2006, 14:26

This is a really good Thread!!!

I did a search and came to this Thread..Great Posting here! A Ton of Information for read and for learning a bit over the Force to.. :D

RL or AL have (Anyone??) either of you read the book Guerilla COL Von Lettow-Vorbeck and Germany's East African Empire By Edwin P. Hoyt

Great book. Von Lettow on his bicycle doing recce, good stuff. A kindred spirit to the QPs -- he treated his native levies with utmost respect and they returned it in spades -- as opposed to the Brits with their Sepoy Indians. He tied up, what, 250,000 men at one point with a force of 8,000?

True story: Germany awarded Von Lettow's native soldiers a pension in the 1980s? Records were destroyed, so they had a German SGM hand a broomstick to these, by now very elderly, former soldiers. If they could complete the German drill with arms to his commands (which hadn't changed in 70 years, go figure) they were awarded the pension. Apparently scores were found.

Added

MtnGoat: this is really good too: The Great War in Africa, 1914-1918 by Byron Farwell. Interesting counterpoint to Guerilla because it's written from the British perspective. Von Lettow comes off just as heroic a figure in British eyes. Smuts, the English general tasked with hunting him down, clearly admired Von Lettow and only achieved partial success when he copied Von Lettow's tactics and use of African levies.

NousDefionsDoc

04-28-2006, 14:56

I have Hoyt's, I will start on the other one soon.

Excellent book.

Cincinnatus

04-28-2006, 15:57

I just read "Mimi and Toutou's Great Adventure", which could have been subtitled "Anatomy of a Clusterf#ck." It tells the story of an inept British officer taking two launches cross country to use on Lake Tangnayika to disrupt the Kaiser's forces. As TV Guide would say "zany hijinks ensue." Von Lettow-Vorbeck figures in the story.

Did anyone mention Joseph of the Nez Perce in the previous pages?

Airbornelawyer

04-28-2006, 16:18

Smuts, the English general tasked with hunting him down, clearly admired Von Lettow and only achieved partial success when he copied Von Lettow's tactics and use of African levies.
Smuts is turning over in his grave, now.

Jan Smuts was not English. He was an Afrikaner and fought on the Boer side in the Anglo-Boer War. I have no doubt Smuts admired Lettow-Vorbeck, but that was at least in part because Lettow-Vorbeck was copying the guerrilla warfare tactics of Smuts and other Boers that gave us the word commando.

mugwump

04-28-2006, 16:38

Yikes, I shouldn't work from memory -- it ain't what it used to be.

NousDefionsDoc

04-28-2006, 17:15

Smuts is turning over in his grave, now.

Jan Smuts was not English. He was an Afrikaner and fought on the Boer side in the Anglo-Boer War. I have no doubt Smuts admired Lettow-Vorbeck, but that was at least in part because Lettow-Vorbeck was copying the guerrilla warfare tactics of Smuts and other Boers that gave us the word commando.
According to Hoyt, Smuts was in denial and lied to the english powers that be. And he never turned Letto's tactics against him. Apparently part of the problem was the Afrikaaner's racism and refusal to use African soldiers in any sort of significant role because they were Black. Same with Van Deventer to a lesser degree.

MtnGoat

04-29-2006, 08:42

Great book. Von Lettow on his bicycle doing recce, good stuff. A kindred spirit to the QPs -- he treated his native levies with utmost respect and they returned it in spades -- as opposed to the Brits with their Sepoy Indians. He tied up, what, 250,000 men at one point with a force of 8,000?

True story: Germany awarded Von Lettow's native soldiers a pension in the 1980s? Records were destroyed, so they had a German SGM hand a broomstick to these, by now very elderly, former soldiers. If they could complete the German drill with arms to his commands (which hadn't changed in 70 years, go figure) they were awarded the pension. Apparently scores were found.

Added

MtnGoat: this is really good too: The Great War in Africa, 1914-1918 by Byron Farwell. Interesting counterpoint to Guerilla because it's written from the British perspective. Von Lettow comes off just as heroic a figure in British eyes. Smuts, the English general tasked with hunting him down, clearly admired Von Lettow and only achieved partial success when he copied Von Lettow's tactics and use of African levies.
RL and NDD Thanks for the reply's

mugwump - Great info and thanks for the recommendation on the Great War of Africa. I'm starting Guerilla This weekend. Thanks again. Why no Book Review??? No post???? :confused: :eek:

Like the story on the elderly, former soldiers that could complete the German drill with arms to his commands. We remember the little things we do in our life (military lives that is). Just like the Legion's house in South France.

Thanks

504PIR

04-29-2006, 22:38

Let me throw a few names into the fray:

Francis Marion, AKA "The Swamp Fox" lead a very successful campaign in the Carolinas, tying down British forces in our Revolution.

Col. Mosby for his "partisan" operations against the Union Army, but since the CSA lost can't say he was the "Best". But he was very good at what he did.

The Reaper

04-30-2006, 08:30

The strategic outcome does not render the quality of service performed greater or lesser.

Mosby accomplished incredible feats, tying down terns of thousands of Federal troops in security ops with his few dozen men.

IMHO, the best insurgent leader ever based on scale and results would be Mao Tse Tung.

TR

Airbornelawyer

04-30-2006, 14:42

According to Hoyt, Smuts was in denial and lied to the english powers that be. And he never turned Letto's tactics against him. Apparently part of the problem was the Afrikaaner's racism and refusal to use African soldiers in any sort of significant role because they were Black. Same with Van Deventer to a lesser degree.
I realize this is hearsay - you are telling us what Hoyt argued - but I think the Afrikaner racism charge might be a bit of a red herring and a bit of cover for the general racial attitudes that characterized not just the Afrikaners, but the British, Americans and others at the time. Even at the height of apartheid, the South Africans raised black units, especially for countrerinsurgency operations.

In World War One, there was a great demand for native soldiers, especially due to the drain of white soldiers to the battlefields of Europe (and the French used native troops extensively on the Western Front). But overarching all of this, especially for the British of this period (and people like Smuts who were part of the British military system even though they had fought the British a few years prior), was the "theory" of martial races. Certain races were considered to be inherently better soldiers, and corollary, certain races were considered to be bad military material. There were plenty of Africans whom Europeans considered to be of good warrior stock - the Zulu of South Africa, the Gikuyu of Kenya, the Tutsi of the Lakes region, etc. - but the corollary is the kicker. If these were good warrior stock, the Xhosa, Tswana, Luo, Hutu and others were not. Units raised from them were thought to be inferior at the outset. Good officers did not want to be assigned to them, and blamed the units' failings on inferior soldiers rather than inferior leadership. The units' failures became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Racism probably played its role, but laying such racism all at the feet of Afrikaners seems like excuse-making. The British considered - rightly - East Africa to be a bit of a sideshow, and deployed a hodgepodge of second and third-rate units there.

Cincinnatus

04-30-2006, 17:19

IMHO, the best insurgent leader ever based on scale and results would be Mao Tse Tung.

I went back a few posts to find this from NDD, "Take out the Japanese invasion and put a competent leader in Kai-shek's position and how good is Mao?" Since you guys are so often in agreement, I wonder if either of you would care to elaborate on Mao as an insurgent leader. Other than "Stillwell in China" I've read little on this theater and period of history and am always looking to learn.

NousDefionsDoc

04-30-2006, 17:50

NousDefionsDoc

04-30-2006, 18:04

I went back a few posts to find this from NDD, "Take out the Japanese invasion and put a competent leader in Kai-shek's position and how good is Mao?" Since you guys are so often in agreement, I wonder if either of you would care to elaborate on Mao as an insurgent leader. Other than "Stillwell in China" I've read little on this theater and period of history and am always looking to learn.
Read The Reaper's conditions in the post where he named Mao. With those conditions, I fully agree with him.

Airbornelawyer

04-30-2006, 20:24

Agreed AL, even Lettow understood it was a side-show., His sole aim was to draw as many assets as possible from Phrance and tie them down in Africa. However I won't accept that as a reason for his success. Most of his German "troops" were retired, stranded there by events or of some other calling. His used a naval ship's crew to great success. While his enemy fielded if not first rate troops - at least troops. Lettow was outnumbered and out gunned at every turn. His supply lines were cut after the first year, his civilian leadership wanted to surrender and he had no direct comms with his higher.

English military arrogance was indeed cited, as was racism beyond that of the Afrikaaners. There were other problems as well, apparently Van Deventer had to use a terp to stalk to the englishmen on his staff. Still no excuse. Lettow ran them ragged.
I am not sure of the level of experience of the British or South Africans (South Africa had been relatively quiet after 1902), but many of the Germans under Lettow-Vorbeck were experienced and decorated veterans of Germany's colonial wars, especially the Herero War in German South-West Africa (now Namibia). These included v. Lettow-Vorbeck himself, Captains von Grawert, Baumstark, Fischer, Styr, Schulz, Willmann, Schön, Tafel, Gräff, Braunschweig, Bock von Wülfingen, Wintgens and Freiherr von Hammerstein-Gesmold, Lieutenants Falkenstein, Busse and von Linde-Suden, and a number of NCOs whose names don't appear on the German Army rank lists. Fischer, Bock von Wülfingen, Freiherr von Hammerstein-Gesmold, Falkenstein and Busse were all killed, along with a number of other Schutztruppe officers.

The Schutztruppe in German South-West Africa was even more seasoned with experience veterans, including Major Viktor Franke, probably the most highly decorated soldier in the German Army before World War One. However, the terrain and relations with the local population did not favor the Germans there, and the colony fell more quickly.

NousDefionsDoc

04-30-2006, 21:32

I don't have the books here with me, I'll get back to this after I get back out to The Farm.

huntcg

05-01-2006, 00:28

I've missed a few posts in this thread, but has anyone mentioned/remembered George Rogers Clark. His taking of Fort Vincennes was brilliant. Also, Spartacus did lead a very successful albeit shortlived campaign against the Romans.

(I am a little biased, Clark operated in my home state and county.)

mugwump

05-01-2006, 08:30

But overarching all of this, especially for the British of this period (and people like Smuts who were part of the British military system even though they had fought the British a few years prior), was the "theory" of martial races. Certain races were considered to be inherently better soldiers, and corollary, certain races were considered to be bad military material.

Ah, but isn't that an example of racism? Whatever its source and extent, Von Lettow didn't ascribe to it. What impressed me about Lettow (remember this is from a grand total of two books) was that he defied conventional wisdom at every turn. He performed his own recon on foot and bicycle, personally negotiated with "lowly" village councils when seeking supplies and succor, tactically zigged when he should have zagged, etc. and all while fighting under his own high interpretation of the rules of war.

Racism probably played its role, but laying such racism all at the feet of Afrikaners seems like excuse-making. The British considered - rightly - East Africa to be a bit of a sideshow, and deployed a hodgepodge of second and third-rate units there.

I seem to recall first-tier British troops being deployed at one point -- I don't have the books at hand -- and I've seen 250,000 bandied about as the number of troops he tied up. Sideshow or not, shipping, supplies, men and planning resources were all expended in the attempt to keep him in check.

Airbornelawyer

05-01-2006, 09:30

Ah, but isn't that an example of racism? Whatever its source and extent, Von Lettow didn't ascribe to it. What impressed me about Lettow (remember this is from a grand total of two books) was that he defied conventional wisdom at every turn. He performed his own recon on foot and bicycle, personally negotiated with "lowly" village councils when seeking supplies and succor, tactically zigged when he should have zagged, etc. and all while fighting under his own high interpretation of the rules of war.Of course it is. As noted, my point is tarring Afrikaners as if they were uniquely racist seems to fit apartheid-era conventional wisdom but misses the general attitude of the day. Whether von Lettow-Vorbeck was immune to that is a discussion for another day; alot of the literature on him approaches the hagiographic.
I seem to recall first-tier British troops being deployed at one point -- I don't have the books at hand -- and I've seen 250,000 bandied about as the number of troops he tied up. Sideshow or not, shipping, supplies, men and planning resources were all expended in the attempt to keep him in check.The total number seems to include porters and other NCs. I don't know of a complete OB, and of course the units involved changed over time, but below are infantry and cavalry units I know were involved at various times.

1st Battalion, The King's African Rifles
2nd Battalion, The King's African Rifles
4th Battalion, The King's African Rifles
25th (Frontiersmen) Battalion, The Royal Fusiliers
2nd Battalion, The Loyal North Lancashire Regiment
3rd Royal Bombay Sappers and Miners
1st Battalion, Cape Corps
2nd Battalion, Cape Corps
1st Rhodesia Regiment
2nd Rhodesia Regiment
Northern Rhodesia Police
The Gambia Regiment
Gold Coast Regiment
The Nigeria Regiment, West African Frontier Force
The West India Regiment
101st Grenadiers
63rd Palamcottah Light Infantry
98th Infantry
13th Rajputs
2nd Kashmir Rifles
3rd Kashmir Rifles
2nd Gwalior Rifles
5th South African Infantry
6th South African Infantry
7th South African Infantry
8th South African Infantry
9th South African Infantry
10th South African Infantry
11th South African Infantry
12th South African Infantry
1st South African Horse
2nd South African Horse
3rd South African Horse
4th South African Horse