Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Kazarogkai]

Members are armed exclusively with M9 Berettas chambered in 9×19mm Parabellum, tear gas, shock batons and occasionally riot shields and steel helmets though no other armour of any kind.

For example, if the Public Force has a firepower value of 100% then the rebels have a firepower value of about 40%.

I'd probably say around 2% at best
An M-16 has a rate of fire of 700-950 rounds per minute and can empty a 30 round magazine in about 4-5 seconds.
Your 6 shooters will probably get those 6 shots off in the same time period before they have to reload+ they'll have a longer reload time due to inefficiencies in the reload process and lack of training.

The public force do not have M16s. They only have pistols albite more modern ones.... Sorry if that wasn't fully clear...

[Dothrakia]

I'd probably say around 2% at best
An M-16 has a rate of fire of 700-950 rounds per minute and can empty a 30 round magazine in about 4-5 seconds.
Your 6 shooters will probably get those 6 shots off in the same time period before they have to reload+ they'll have a longer reload time due to inefficiencies in the reload process and lack of training.

The public force do not have M16s. They only have pistols albite more modern ones.... Sorry if that wasn't fully clear...

Oh my bad I just saw "modern weapons" and jumped to conclusions.
That evens the Odds a little bit I guess but the same principles still apply, the public forces will still be able to fire a lot faster at longer range with (most likely) more accuracy. The rebels best bet would be to make the public forces go house to house and room to room and just hope they get lucky.

[The Manticoran Empire]

I'd probably say around 2% at best
An M-16 has a rate of fire of 700-950 rounds per minute and can empty a 30 round magazine in about 4-5 seconds.
Your 6 shooters will probably get those 6 shots off in the same time period before they have to reload+ they'll have a longer reload time due to inefficiencies in the reload process and lack of training.

The public force do not have M16s. They only have pistols albite more modern ones.... Sorry if that wasn't fully clear...

The odds are pretty even then. Neither side has a range advantage and the public Force is more likely to waste ammo while the rebels might be more accurate. But the Rebels will take longer to reload, allowing Public Force the overall advantage as long as they have ammo.

[Kazarogkai]

The public force do not have M16s. They only have pistols albite more modern ones.... Sorry if that wasn't fully clear...

The odds are pretty even then. Neither side has a range advantage and the public Force is more likely to waste ammo while the rebels might be more accurate. But the Rebels will take longer to reload, allowing Public Force the overall advantage as long as they have ammo.

Another edge on the Insurgent side is the fact they technically have the high ground and are in cover. They're firing from the 2nd floor up to the rooftops of the buildings that surround their district. Based on my reading said society seemed to have a thing for kinda brutalist architecture hence a lot of brick and concrete in terms of building construction; Add onto to the fact that said building are fortified with the first floor windows and doors boarded up and barricaded with tires, sheet metal, and steel drums filled with concrete or sand to prevent entry. In contrast the New Orders Public Force are fighting in the open on a large empty road.

So based on your guy's conclusion the Insurgents could theoretically pull out a win, aka force the New Orders offensive into retreat and or make them back off for the moment. Albeit said victory is going to be a hard fought one more or less. That seems fair. I imagine in such a situation the goal of the insurgents wouldn't necessarily be to win outright, march on the capital and all, but instead hopefully encourage sympathizers to also possibly rebel via winning an initial victory. Said victory could inspire riots and even similar large scale insurrectionist activity which could in the end lead to a long term victory. Theoretically anyways. Thanks for the comments guys.

[Gallan Systems]

iraqi insurgents defeated the US Army with 0 guns

[Triplebaconation]

Something like a Sten or Luty is a lot easier to make than a Peacemaker.

[Kazarogkai]

Something like a Sten or Luty is a lot easier to make than a Peacemaker.

I'm somewhat scepticle of that even though I will admit both of those weapons are quite simple and were designed to be made in... sparse conditions. Still the thing to keep in mind is old west revolvers were made with what was barely the equivalent of hand tools by the standards of the 20th century when both of said guns were made. By the time WW2 rolled around the machinery, even those in bike shops, would have been far more sophisticated than what they would have had when said revolvers were being made. Their is a reason said revolvers developmentally came before Sten guns and the like in terms of arms development. Older = simpler. That is not even considering the problems with gun powder. Black powder is incredibly simple to manufacture even with relatively primitive tech to such a degree that they were making the stuff in medieval times by the 13th century in Europe on a regular basis for a reason. Heck I know teenagers who made the stuff in their backyard easy as pie, albeit they usually replaced the sulfur with rust or sugar. Modern smokeless gun powder, even the most Primitive stuff, is quite a challenge requiring a pretty solid understanding of chemistry which is out of the means of the average Joe let alone a bunch of guild craftsmen in an apocalyptic setting. Your not putting black powder in a modern SMG or a modern automatic weapon in general and making it work. The stuff is nasty and will clog the whole thing up and might not even be strong enough to actually work the action.

[Gallia-]

sten is really the ultimate insurgent gun tbh

literal pipe

luty is the ultimate machine shop gun tho i suppose

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Something like a Sten or Luty is a lot easier to make than a Peacemaker.

I saw Peacemaker and thought Liberator for some reason.

[Gallia-]

every man an icbm launch silo

[Triplebaconation]

Older = simpler.

This isn't necessarily true. While a revolver may be somewhat simpler conceptually, manufacture is more complicated. 19th century small arms manufacturers had far more powerful tools than you'd find in a bicycle shop. It's certainly possible to make a revolver with hand tools, but its a much more involved process than something like a Sten. Even more likely is some kind of single-shot zip gun.

Black powder is fine for recoil and blowback actions. Or rather revolvers have the same problems with it.

The most likely result of your scenario in any case is the Public Order guys running away after the first few shots.

[Sevvania]

https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/

A good source for photos of improvised weaponry, such as this longboi.

[Dothrakia]

How possible are National Resistance tactics , like after a nation is destroyed can you fully prepare plans to keep secondary plans for a military afterwards or insurgent group that holds a possible National Continuation for struggling after the Party falls. Can you also buy weapons second hand off large bulk deals from vendors online , either it being Milsurp people from Russia or Gun Dealers in Iraq from Facebook or possibly someone selling Transport Helicopters from a Thai Civilian site and set up a front company or secondary intelligence face value persona hoping to buy these items in mass to avoid Sanctions hindering the Military ? Maybe also contacting Terrorists through open channels on PR websites through anonymous personalities or figuring personalities in Pariah regimes to get Weapons in equipment ? Would these things be possible ?

If you look into Eastern European countries I think its Latvia(?) that is fully aware their government would be overrun by Russia within 36-72 hours so they've diverted huge sums of funds into training the militia or civilian populace in hit and run tactics and evasion to wage a guerrilla war

[Barfleur]

How possible are National Resistance tactics , like after a nation is destroyed can you fully prepare plans to keep secondary plans for a military afterwards or insurgent group that holds a possible National Continuation for struggling after the Party falls. Can you also buy weapons second hand off large bulk deals from vendors online , either it being Milsurp people from Russia or Gun Dealers in Iraq from Facebook or possibly someone selling Transport Helicopters from a Thai Civilian site and set up a front company or secondary intelligence face value persona hoping to buy these items in mass to avoid Sanctions hindering the Military ? Maybe also contacting Terrorists through open channels on PR websites through anonymous personalities or figuring personalities in Pariah regimes to get Weapons in equipment ? Would these things be possible ?

If you look into Eastern European countries I think its Latvia(?) that is fully aware their government would be overrun by Russia within 36-72 hours so they've diverted huge sums of funds into training the militia or civilian populace in hit and run tactics and evasion to wage a guerrilla war

I thought the Geneva Conventions prohibited civilians from acting as combatants.

[Triplebaconation]

No

[Spirit of Hope]

If you look into Eastern European countries I think its Latvia(?) that is fully aware their government would be overrun by Russia within 36-72 hours so they've diverted huge sums of funds into training the militia or civilian populace in hit and run tactics and evasion to wage a guerrilla war

I thought the Geneva Conventions prohibited civilians from acting as combatants.

Things get complicated when you start talking about partisans and the generally accepted rules of war. Under the Geneva convention there would be an issue if someone just picks up a rifle and starts shooting at the occupying authority, but there are provisions that deal with how one is supposed to respond to organized resistance, and rules on how the resistance is supposed to behave under the circumstances. It is an incredibly complex situation, and is part of why most military units have a lawyer floating around, beyond just dealing with the punishments that need to be carried out inside the unit.

[Dothrakia]

I thought the Geneva Conventions prohibited civilians from acting as combatants.

Things get complicated when you start talking about partisans and the generally accepted rules of war. Under the Geneva convention there would be an issue if someone just picks up a rifle and starts shooting at the occupying authority, but there are provisions that deal with how one is supposed to respond to organized resistance, and rules on how the resistance is supposed to behave under the circumstances. It is an incredibly complex situation, and is part of why most military units have a lawyer floating around, beyond just dealing with the punishments that need to be carried out inside the unit.

Thats where I think it was the militia but there was some other "organization" there but they were being trained primarily as partisans

[Manokan Republic]

How possible are National Resistance tactics , like after a nation is destroyed can you fully prepare plans to keep secondary plans for a military afterwards or insurgent group that holds a possible National Continuation for struggling after the Party falls. Can you also buy weapons second hand off large bulk deals from vendors online , either it being Milsurp people from Russia or Gun Dealers in Iraq from Facebook or possibly someone selling Transport Helicopters from a Thai Civilian site and set up a front company or secondary intelligence face value persona hoping to buy these items in mass to avoid Sanctions hindering the Military ? Maybe also contacting Terrorists through open channels on PR websites through anonymous personalities or figuring personalities in Pariah regimes to get Weapons in equipment ? Would these things be possible ?

It depends on how well armed or trained the civilians are, and how well equipped. It also depends on how destroyed your country is or how much territory they've already taken over. If you have a civil war type thing where one half is taken and the other supports the civilians in the other half, the chance of success is much higher, or if you have outside support. Afghanistan in the Soviet war is perhaps one of the better examples of a disorganized citizen's militia fighting off a large professional military, with little help from the outside. However, Afghanistan had a number of elements that afforded this, including most the citizens owning guns, living off the grid already as farmers and herders, and a strong sense of morale to fight off the invaders. Most industrialized countries ironically will be susceptible to quick take overs, as their urban centers, which house much of the population, have no means of resistance, usually being disarmed and completely dependent on outside sources for food, water and electricity, which can be easily cut off.

Finland for example has virtually everyone in the militia service, as well as Switzerland, and most citizens keep a gun at home, with some ammunition, in case of an invasion. If people had water and food stored up, a rain water collection system to gain more water (and copious amounts of water filters), back-up generators and fuel, as well as the ability to live at least partially off-grid, then being cut off from logistics wouldn't be as bad as it would for normal civilians, and they could muster a decent defense. Finland is a good example of a smaller country mustering all it's defenses to fend off a bigger country, such as the Soviet Union and Germany in WWII, and Switzerland at the same time was never even attacked due to the fear of the resistance they'd put up by their citizen's army. However, neither were really destroyed or taken over, resistance mostly resulted in a stalemate. Poland was destroyed and the remnants of their military, a sizable chunk of nearly half, known as the "cursed soldiers" kept fighting for at least a decade, but eventually were wiped out after assaults by both germany and the soviet union, even with outside support. The French resistance were useful in the allied invasion of Normandy, but likely could never have succeeded on their own, being too disorganized and weak to mount anything other than a minor nuisance to the germans.

The simple answer is, it's extremely rare for a country to wage a successful resistance against it's occupiers once it's main military is overthrown. It is possible for a smaller force, for guerrillas, and even for so-called inferior forces to take on larger forces, if they can get at least a few things right, which lends some insight in to how a citizen's militia might fight off a professional military force. The Toyota wars are a good demonstration of how largely militia in toyota trucks could take on a professional force with armored vehicles and win, by using hit and run tactics with rocket launchers against the tanks. But they still had some outside help, and sophisticated rocket launchers, which won the day. To win, you would need a large, motivated militia, with sufficient logistics to live off grid for a long time, that is without running water and electricity from a central source. This is easier and harder than some might expect, and would require substantial investment in to it. However it would be worth it not only for the case of an invasion, but also for general survival situations. It depends but, it's not that difficult to stock up many years worth of food and water. Just for an example, you can buy a 275 gallon thing of beans and rice for like 1000 to 2000 dollars, which results in 1800 pounds, or roughly 3.6 years worth of food. It doesn't have all the vitamins and minerals you need, but vitamin pills/extra stored food can compensate for that, while several years worth of calories can be stored up. Per person, it could be around 2000 to 4000 dollars to store up nearly 8 years worth of food, which given that it can last 25-30 years in storage with no major problems, means it wouldn't cost that much per year to stock up a decent amount of food for a survival situation. All you need is a water supply to re-hydrate it, which can be gained in part through rain-water storage and a good filter (to filter the water for drinking purposes), and you can basically live off of the main water grid indefinitely if you are very water conscious. A normal person consumes like 100 gallons per day, but this can be cut down to 2-10 if you really need to. Granted, survival food supplies can vary wildly in cost, and anything like military rations will be more expensive. But it's not really impossible or impractical to store up large amounts of food, especially if you can fill in the gaps with vitamins and minerals. As long as you can get your protein and calories, than getting things like your meat proteins and whatnot should be pretty easy. You only need a small amount of meat and vegetables to get the essential nutrients, with the bulk of your diet potentially being grains and beans if you really had to.

If you focused very intently on preparing for it, or you have a natural climate which is conducive to guerrilla warfare and your citizens are self sufficient, your chance goes up dramatically. If you expect citizen's with no training, skill, organization or resources stocked up, perhaps many of them not even having guns, to wage a successful resistance... they likely won't. The existence of so many dictatorships throughout history prove that to be the case. To fend one off is quite rare. You need a strong military and gun culture, as well as large supplies of resources stocked up, beforehand, or else your resistance will be too small to have a meaningful impact. Other than a small number of rogue soldiers continuing to fight the good fight for many decades until their eventual death, you won't have much of a resistance force. Something to give you an edge, like lots of rocket launchers, will be needed to stand a chance at winning. As a Defense force you just need to outlast the enemy, and make it so expensive or obnoxious to stay there that they decide to leave. An enemy in a static position is an easy target, and so as they become complacent as an occupation force, it becomes easier to ambush them or set traps. You can make it really difficult to maintain a presence in a region, especially if you they never know where the enemy attacks will come from. The main problem comes from a scorched earth policy, as in if they just started murdering your people en masse, which happened in both Poland and Afghanistan. In the Afghanistan war they managed to succeed, but only because their people could live off the grid so well, mostly because they weren't industrialized. In an urban setting, this can be dramatically more difficult, as they depend on that industrialization to survive, and this can be easily disrupted, be it water or electricity, or even simple things like grocery stores being full of food. So basically if you live in a modern highly urbanized society, success will require large amounts of preparation.

[Spirit of Hope]

I don't know why you think the Soviet Afghan war represents a civilian militia with little support defeating a professional military.

The US alone contributed billions of dollars in weapons, direct monetary aid, and training to the mujahedeen. This doesn't even count the support the British, Chinese, Pakistani, and other Arab nations provided. Nor were the fighters solely civilians in Afghanistan, a large number were recruited from other Arab nations and were close to full time resistance fighters operating in Afghanistan.

Also the goverment that emerged after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was not the government that had existed before the Soviet invasion.

[Manokan Republic]

I don't know why you think the Soviet Afghan war represents a civilian militia with little support defeating a professional military.

The US alone contributed billions of dollars in weapons, direct monetary aid, and training to the mujahedeen. This doesn't even count the support the British, Chinese, Pakistani, and other Arab nations provided. Nor were the fighters solely civilians in Afghanistan, a large number were recruited from other Arab nations and were close to full time resistance fighters operating in Afghanistan.

Also the goverment that emerged after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was not the government that had existed before the Soviet invasion.

The main idea is that another military didn't invade to help them out, they are the one's who fought their way out of the situation. It wasn't like a U.S. invasion in WWII, liberating France, Half of Germany and so on, this was done primarily with native fighters, who were not a part of an official government at the time. That is the main idea of them not having much outside military forces fight along side them, or instead of them. They weren't liberated from an outside force.

The soviet union withdrew in 1989, which was pretty much before the 1991 collapse, but the fighting had come to a stand-still before this, around 1986. The U.S. didn't spend that much time training or equipping the Mujaheddin, and largely assisted those who had already had weapons and had proven to be able to fight. The guns the Mujaheddin used were largely of soviet origins, in particular the Ak-47's and PKM machine guns and things, as well as RPG's, and so the U.S. largely gave intelligence to the Mujaheddin of where to strike or when, which while of critical importance, was not that much material support. There were something like 10 CIA agents in the entire region at any given point in time, and this was hardly enough to train or equip all of them. Operation cyclone that funneled approximately 3 billion dollars to them, and it was useful, but in the grand scheme of things 3 billion dollars is not all that much money. Even so it was largely used to assist them in buying food and weapons that already existed in the local environment, rather than funneling in large volumes of weapons. Pakistan did help train a large number of Mujaheddin, but even this was not that many in comparison to the total of the forces involved. Similarly, groups like Al-Qaeda from Saudi Arabia numbered in the 100's, and contributed little to the war, often times causing more damage to the Mujaheddin than they did to the soviets.

It was not just a citizen's force, although it was primarily one, but given the scenario is one of a nation resisting and defeating an enemy who has overtaken their country or government, it falls within the parameters of a nation fighting back after having been otherwise defeated/occupied. It is not an example of people doing it with no help, just with little help. And by little, again I mean as in little if any direct military action from the outside. Most of their weapons were largely already there, and the contribution of foreign weapons were relatively minor. While the Stinger is touted by some as being some kind of major game-changer, only about 500 were sent to Afghanistan, total, and maybe were responsible to up to half of the 451 aircraft destroyed during the war which is, not that many. The soviets seemed to largely ignore it's presence, although it probably was a morale booster/forced them to give more consideration to it's presence. Most of the weapon's were domestic, and the training was more or less sparse, even when it was present, which leads to, a largely domestic affair. The Afghanistan people were largely able to sustain themselves, many of them being goat herders and already living off the land, and small tribes supporting the various disorganized cells that made up the Mujaheddin. It's worth noting that the Taliban formed in 1994, many years after the war was over, and after then president Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq mysteriously died in a plane crash, that completely changed the entire political make-up of the country.

[Spirit of Hope]

Without outside support any form of resistance movement is going to die on the vine, they simply don't have the ability to finance or procure weapons on a large enough scale to pose a realistic threat to a foreign military force.

While the US didn't invade Afghanistan to liberate it in support of the Mujahideen, it provided the Mujahideen with the weapons, ammo, and training they needed to continue the fight. The fact that the US largely funded those who had already proven they could fight shouldn't be a surprise, you send money to people who have already proven they can do the mission so they can keep doing that mission better. The US spent $3 billion, which was then Matched by Saudi Arabia, and doesn't include the $7 Billion in aid that the US gave to Pakistan, in part because Pakistan was also funding, training, and equipping the Mujahideen. There was also plenty of private investment, with some estimates saying that over 2/3 rds of funding for the Mujahideen came from private donations from the Arab world at large. It is important to remember that the CIA was largly providing funding to the ISI (Pakistan) for the ISI to then train and equip the Mujahideen. The ISI trained tens of thousands of Mujahideen to fight against the Soviets. Of course the weapons the Mujahideen were using were largely AK and RPG style weapons, that is what was already available in the area. Which means it was the least expensive to aquire, and also allowed the US and her allies to have deniability about what they were doing.

I would hardly say that the support the various outside forces gave to the Afgan Mujahideen was "little help." Without the aid provided by outside nations, and private individuals contributions, the Mujahideen would have been defeated by the Soviet forces. I will also again point out that the resistance movement did not reinstall the previous government back into power, and that the after effects of the fighting devastated the nation.

[Allanea]

The fact of the matter is this:

1. A foreign government typically only supports your resistance movement after it has proven itself to be somewhat competent or able to fight in some way (otherwise, the foreign govenrment would be throwing money away).
2. Without some kind of foreign support resistance movements are almost condemned to failure. The Afghan resistance movements (which were actually a whole bewildering array of factions) were receiving support from a whole pile of foreign governments, for a range of reasons all of their own.
3. Most of the time, even when a guerrilla movement scores a "victory", the costs of war that the country suffers are appalling. In some cases, the country suffers from violence by the various guerrilla groups fighting each other decades, and even generations, after the invaders have been defeated - instability caused by Spain's guerrilla war against Napoleon, "the OG guerrilla war", continued long after Napoleon himself was dethroned. Whether this is worth it for your nation's people only they can decide.

[Gallia-]

The Muj would have beat the Soviets regardless of what happened, even if NATO had not sent a single dented Blowpipe canister. Stingers didn't even slow the Soviets down (on the contrary they flew the Hinds higher, increasing their drag relative to their lift, and thus speed). The only way they would have lost is if hawaldars didn't send billions from oil sheikhs and the ghazis didn't arrive by the literal boatloads to the Pakistan-Afghan border.

So you would somehow need to defeat Islam itself I guess. Tall order for some dudes who just want to have a couple airbases to bomb the Pakistanis with.

The fundamental problem with the Soviets' strategy is they thought Afghans actually wanted the DRA. It turns out one thing all Afghans could agree on is that the communist governments are bad and Islam is good. Secular-rational M-Ls could not understand this, so they were destined to lose no matter what they did, because the DRA troops would desert to join the insurgents/Muj/Taliban/whoever the second the Soviets turned their back. Which is what happened.

Without the Soviet Union or America or Britain to prop it up, the Afghan state usually reverts to some form of theocratic dictatorship.

[Austrasien]

I answer that the principalities of which one has record are found to be governed in two different ways; either by a prince, with a body of servants, who assist him to govern the kingdom as ministers by his favour and permission; or by a prince and barons, who hold that dignity by antiquity of blood and not by the grace of the prince. Such barons have states and their own subjects, who recognize them as lords and hold them in natural affection. Those states that are governed by a prince and his servants hold their prince in more consideration, because in all the country there is no one who is recognized as superior to him, and if they yield obedience to another they do it as to a minister and official, and they do not bear him any particular affection.

The examples of these two governments in our time are the Turk and the King of France. The entire monarchy of the Turk is governed by one lord, the others are his servants; and, dividing his kingdom into sanjaks, he sends there different administrators, and shifts and changes them as he chooses. But the King of France is placed in the midst of an ancient body of lords, acknowledged by their own subjects, and beloved by them; they have their own prerogatives, nor can the king take these away except at his peril. Therefore, he who considers both of these states will recognize great difficulties in seizing the state of the Turk, but, once it is conquered, great ease in holding it. The causes of the difficulties in seizing the kingdom of the Turk are that the usurper cannot be called in by the princes of the kingdom, nor can he hope to be assisted in his designs by the revolt of those whom the lord has around him. This arises from the reasons given above; for his ministers, being all slaves and bondmen, can only be corrupted with great difficulty, and one can expect little advantage from them when they have been corrupted, as they cannot carry the people with them, for the reasons assigned. Hence, he who attacks the Turk must bear in mind that he will find him united, and he will have to rely more on his own strength than on the revolt of others; but, if once the Turk has been conquered, and routed in the field in such a way that he cannot replace his armies, there is nothing to fear but the family of this prince, and, this being exterminated, there remains no one to fear, the others having no credit with the people; and as the conqueror did not rely on them before his victory, so he ought not to fear them after it.

The contrary happens in kingdoms governed like that of France, because one can easily enter there by gaining over some baron of the kingdom, for one always finds malcontents and such as desire a change. Such men, for the reasons given, can open the way into the state and render the victory easy; but if you wish to hold it afterwards, you meet with infinite difficulties, both from those who have assisted you and from those you have crushed. Nor is it enough for you to have exterminated the family of the prince, because the lords that remain make themselves the heads of fresh movements against you, and as you are unable either to satisfy or exterminate them, that state is lost whenever time brings the opportunity.

Still one of the best things written about the subject.

[Austrasien]

Most NS (and real) wanks about "muh militia" miss the point entirely because they hinge on little more than arming people en mass. Like the Volksturm. And hoping this will translate into a viable and effective resistance movement. Unlike the Volksturm.

In states which are highly consolidated like the European powers during the Second World war, any effective resistance died when the state capitulated. While much more disorderly states like Yugoslavia remained a thorn in their occupiers' side. Japan is an excellent case study here because despite both an ideological inclination to and practical plans for widespread resistance to American rule it took little more than a broadcast from the Emperor to (almost) completely pacify the population. Similarly, any Nazi "werewolf" designs were buried when Donitz signed the surrender.

The Germans and Japanese (and Italians and French) could and did fight bravely on the battlefield but they didn't have the force of will to resist toeing the line. Also why the British Home Guard, modern Swiss Militia and American survivalists were/are not credible forces except perhaps as auxiliaries to their respective armed forces. These places were and are very, very "Turkish". While Afghans and Somali militias are very credible.

From an NS perspective, it is doubtful a state can be both highly regimented with a powerful centralized government, strong field army and vibrant economy AND also maintain the unruliness necessary for a truly effective resistance movement (the French resistance incidentally was mostly a meme, it only did anything useful/seriously troubling to the Germans when it was acting in concert with the Allies armies). The process of building a "modern" (Turkish as the big M would say) state requires that such tendencies be quashed and marginalized.

Call it the Dionysian - Apollonian spectrum of states.