Insurrection in Modern Times

#1
Gents has there ever been an insurrection in Modern Times that has not had a Friendly base, outside the nations border ?

The only one I can think of is Cuba late 50's.

john
 
#2
Depends how far back you class as modern. The Anglo-Irish War/War of Independence/Tan War didn't have a friendly base as such apart from importing foreign arms I believe.
 
#4
Does turning the best part of Palestine into Israel count?

I bet there were a few revolutions in S America where the jungle and mountains served as a friendly zone but was still within national boundaries.

And these 'Arab Spring' boys are having a good go without having a seperate country to hide in and operate from (apart from legging it to Italy of course).

In fact, what about the Russian revolution? I know the main instigators spent much time in Western Europe plotting it up, but once it got going it stayed within bounds.

Or, going back a bit, the French Revolution?

I bet it felt like an insurgency when the Luddites were on the rampage oop North as well.

Depends what you mean by insurgency, I suppose.
 
#5
Gents has there ever been an insurrection in Modern Times that has not had a Friendly base, outside the nations border ?

The only one I can think of is Cuba late 50's.

john
Tamil Tigers?
 
#8
Nice one T4.
Er the border is notoriously porous.
Depending on who's doing what 'Deals' with who, I will suggest determines just what is allowed to flow in either direction.
All very high level 'Politics'.
Burma now has gas, which is exported through and to Thighland.
Now I will suggest border is tight and much will depend on coming Thai Election.

john
 
#9
It depends on whether you mean an organised logistic support structure provided by a neighbouring state or more informal ties. Traditionally, border peoples involved in insurgencies call on clan ties straddling borders without the other host nation necessarily being involved. The Karen and the Uighurs certainly do, the Hmong used to (not sure what they get up to now).
 
#10
Yes, as with the Pathan in Ganistan/Pakistan tribes do straddle the area accepted as the border drawn on the Map.
In this case I will suggest that it's higher then ground level, much higher.
Gas/oil is big bucks.
I tried accessing The Irrawaddy magazine but they have tightened up on access, sensitive time now, Thai elections due in next few weeks and BBC has big feature to day on the Succession of Head of State.
BBC News - US 'worried over Thai succession'

john
 
#11
How about the outside base in the form of a non-state actor? I'm sure the various East India Companies would qualify and modern multinationals have never been shy about stirring up cross-border trouble.
 
#12
I started off by wondering if the latest Riots in Ireland would kick off full time.
I was wondering can any modern insurrection succeed without an external base for it's troops/supplies.
Cuba was the only one I could think of.

john
 
#13
There are a couple of minor self-contained ones rumbling along in India. That's all I can remember. Certainly nothing springs to mind that threatens a state's authority.
 
#15
Not sure if its too far back, but the Bolsheviks in 1918? Weren't the KPP in Turkey pretty much on their own until the 2003 invasion established a friendly regime in Northern Iraq?
 
#16
What about Malaya?
 
#17
I think the Bolsheviks were initially funded and supported by the Germans, and the Malay communists funded and directed by China (we Brits had helpfully supplied most of the arms ourselves...).
 
#19
I am currently reading Singapore Burning and there is a referance during the 'Retreat' down the peninsula of the Brits starting to to give arms and some training to the Chinese 'Activist' and one says
'Yes we have been training to kick you out.'

john
 
#20
The Malay communists were completely unsupported by any outside help. (Not counting 'normal' commercial transactions in the Thai weapons market) The Chinese Communists, who never controlled the Malay party, but had some 'influence', counselled against the insurgency. The Chinese view was that the Malay's were impetuous and the timing was wrong.

The Viet Minh insurrection can be properly dated from October 1945. As was the case with Malaya the Viet Communists received NO assistance whatsoever from the Chinese or from the Soviets. Partly because the Viet Minh at that time was pretending to be a broad based opposition to the French and denied their Communist disposition.

It was only after Mao's triumph over CKS in 1950 that any assistance at all was directed towards the Viet Minh. Prior to 1950 thhe provisional government established by Giap and Ho Chi Minh did not even have political recognition from the Chinese or Soviet Communists.

After 1950 the Chinese made an enormous investment in the Viet Minh. The railroad was pushed through to the VM liberated areas on the Southern China border. The Viet Minh got artillery and instruction for the first time. The Soviets not only recognised the VM they sent trucks and weapons.

The Malays still got naught.

That the Viets prevailed and the Malays failed is telling.

Without the industrial support of the Soviets and the logistic support of the Chinese the Viets would NEVER have beaten the French at Dien Bien Phu.

As far as Communist Insurgency in SEA is concerned, without outside support, they were all unsuccessful.

The IADS that surrounded Hanoi and Haiphong against the B-52's cost the Soviets billions to establish. The Vietnamese debt incurred from that Mig and Missile system was a serious drag on the Vietnamese economy. The billions owed to the Soviets by the Viets was recently written off by Vladimir Putin. Modern warfare is extremely expensive and totally beyond the means of Peasant armies, even in Asia where peasant armies come cheaper than anywhere else.


Mick
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top