[let's read]James Connolly, Workers Republic, Insurrectionary Warfare

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [let's read]James Connolly, Workers Republic, Insurrectionary Warfare

Ardent Communist: Oct 17, 2010; ALLAH! MU'AMMAR! LIBYA WA BAS!

So with the ongoing interest in the russo-ukraine war thread and all the other wars, i thought there might be interest in discussing tactics and strategy. i found these articles on marxists.org and plan to post them as quotes, with my own interjections to encourage discussion. the main thing is these articles came out in 1915, so it might be worthwhile to discuss what is still true and what have technology and tactics made worthless. here's the link if anyone wants to read ahead https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1915/rw/revwar.htm

James Connolly posted:

We propose to give under this heading from time to time accounts of such military happenings in the past as may serve to enlighten and instruct our members, in the work they are banded together to perform. A close study of these articles will we hope, be valuable to all those who desire to acquire a knowledge of how brave men and women have at other times and in other place, overcome difficulties and achieved something for a cause held to be sacred. It is not our place to pass verdict on the sacredness or worth of the cause for which they contended: our function is to discuss their achievements from the standpoint of their value to those who desire to see perfected a Citizen Army able to perform whatever duty may be thrust upon it.

We would suggest that these articles be preserved for reference purposes.

As many probably know, James Connolly was an irish republican who ran in socialist circles, opposing british rule of ireland and eventually giving his life in the Easter Rising. He wrote these articles whilst preparing for an uprising, as an attempt to educate similar minded individuals to understand tactics by studying previous insurrectionary warfare, both successful and unsuccessful, and discussing what worked and what didn't.

Might as well go straight into the first article.
Moscow Insurrection of 1905

James Connolly posted:

In the year 1905, the fires of revolution were burning very brightly in Russia. Starting with a parade of unarmed men and women to the palace of the Tsar, the flames of insurrection spread all over the land. The peaceful parades were met with volleys of shrapnel and rifle fire, charged by mounted Cossacks, and cut down remorselessly by cavalry of the line, and in answer to this attack, general strikes broke out all over Russia. From strikes the people proceeded to revolutionary uprisings, soldiers revolted and joined the people in some cases, and in others the sailors of the navy seized the ironclads of the Tsar�s fleet and hoisted revolutionary colours. One incident in this outburst was the attempted revolution in Moscow. We take it as our task this week because, in it, the soldiers remained loyal to the Tsar, and therefore it resolved itself into a clean-cut fight between a revolutionary force and a government force. Thus we are able to study the tactics of (a) a regular army in attacking a city defended by barricades, and (b) a revolutionary force holding a city against a regular army.

Fortunately for our task as historians, there was upon the spot an English journalist of unquestioned ability and clearsightedness, as well as of unrivalled experience as a spectator in warfare. This was H.W. Nevinson, the famous war-correspondent. From his book The Dawn of Russia as well as from a close intimacy with many refugees who took part in the revolution, this description is built up.

The other russian revolution, it's helpful to remember that even unsuccessful insurrections can lead to success further down the road, a rocking in the clasp of the jewel of revolution. the bolsheviks were the product of years of revolutionary struggle, and any parties attempting to follow their successes would be wise to remember that. this first article focuses on defending a city against the attacks of a regular army, which most guerrilla warfare enthusiasts would argue is already making a mistake, because you should trade land for people and maintain your force through hit and run attacks. however, cities are were the people are, and oftentimes politically valuable buildings and banks are located in cities, so it can be worthwhile to hold them against attack imo.

James Connolly posted:

The revolutionists of Moscow had intended to postpone action until a much later date in the hope of securing the co-operation of the peasantry, but the active measures of the government precipitated matters. Whilst the question of �Insurrection� or �No Insurrection yet� was being discussed at a certain house in the city, the troops were quietly surrounding the building and the first intimation of their presence received by the revolutionists was the artillery opening fire on the building at point-blank range. A large number of the leaders were killed or arrested, but next morning the city was in insurrection.

Of the numbers engaged on the side of the revolutionists, there is considerable conflict of testimony. The government estimate, anxious to applaud the performance of the troops, is 15,000. The revolutionary estimate, on the other hand, is only 500. Mr Nevinson states that a careful investigator friendly to the revolutionists, and with every facility for knowing, gave the number as approximately 1,500. The deductions we were able to make from the stories of the refugees aforementioned makes the latter number seem the most probable. The equipment of the revolutionists was miserable in the extreme. Among the 1,500 there was only a total of 80 rifles, and a meagre supply of ammunition for same. The only other weapons were revolvers and automatic pistols, chiefly Brownings. Of these latter a goodly supply seems to have been on hand as at one period of the fighting the revolutionists advertised for volunteers, and named Browning pistols as part of the �pay� for all recruits.

Against this force, so pitifully armed, the government possessed in the city, 18,000 seasoned troops, armed with magazine rifles, and a great number of batteries of field artillery.

The actual fighting which lasted nine days, during which time the government troops made practically no progress, is thus described by the author we have already quoted.

The perennial problem of revolutionaries, how ready is ready enough for the revolution? there have been successful revolutions that have happened before their time, and there have been unsuccessful revolutions that were launched by those that thought everything was prepared. i think it means that everyone advocating revolution should put themselves in the mindset of being ready, for events can sometimes take on their own momentum and people should be prepared. this insurrection was inspired by the army blowing up the house that the discussion was happening in, starting it off with killing many would-be insurrectionary leaders. it's good to spread useful knowledge to prevent things like this weakening the revolutionary movement, if you know something, teach something!
the insurrectionary forces are outnumbered, often a problem. the bigger problem is lack of weaponry. pistols are all well and good, but rifles are what makes it possible to defend yourself against all small arms. anyone whose shot both knows pistols are pretty hard to shoot accurately at any range. So how did they fight for nine days against 18,000 troops with rifles and artillery?

James Connolly posted:

Of the barricades, he says that they were erected everywhere, even the little boys and girls throwing them up in the most out-of-the-way places, so that it was impossible to tell which was a barricade with insurgents to defend it and which was a mock barricade, a circumstance which greatly hindered the progress of the troops, who had always to spend a considerable period in finding out the real nature of the obstruction before they dared to pass it.

The very multitude of these barricades (early next morning I counted one hundred and thirty of them, and I had not seen half) made it difficult to understand the main purpose of all the fighting.

As far as they had any definite plan at all, their idea seems to have been to drive a wedge into the heart of the city, supporting the advance by barricades on each side so as to hamper the approach of troops.

The four arms of the cross roads were blocked with double or even treble barricades about ten yards apart. As far as I could see along the curve of the Sadavoya, on both sides, barricade succeeded barricade, and the whole road was covered with telegraph wire, some of it lying loose, some tied across like netting. The barricades enclosing the centre of the cross roads like a fort were careful constructions of telegraph poles or the iron supports to the overhead wires of electric trams, closely covered over with doors, railings and advertising boards, and lashed together with wire. Here and there a tramcar was built in to give solidity, and on the top of every barricade waved a little red flag.

Men and women were throwing them (the barricades) up with devoted zeal, sawing telegraph poles, wrenching iron railings from their sockets, and dragging out the planks from builders� yards.

Ah, barricades. A long revolutionary tradition, and something not given much discussion in regular military circles. it could be argued tanks have made them less useful, planes as well, but tanks can't go over everything and losing a track crossing a barricade is undoubtedly a victory for their opponents. many of them would take a long time to clear, by planes or by any means.

James Connolly posted:

Noteworthy as an illustration of how all things, even popular revolutions, change their character as the conditions change in which they operate, is the fact that no barricade was defended in the style of the earlier French or Belgian revolutions.

Mr Nevinson says:

But it was not from the barricades themselves that the real opposition came. From first to last no barricade was �fought� in the old sense of the word. The revolutionary methods were far more terrible and effective. By the side-street barricades, and wire entanglements they had rid themselves of the fear of cavalry. By the barricades across the main streets, they had rendered the approach of troops necessarily slow. To the soldiers, the horrible part of the street fighting was that they could never see the real enemy. On coming near a barricade or the entrance to a side street, a few scouts would be advanced a short distance before the guns. As they crept forward, firing as they always did, into the empty barricades in front, they might suddenly find themselves exposed to a terrible revolver fire, at about fifteen paces range, from both sides of the street. It was useless to reply, for there was nothing visible to aim at. All they could do was to fire blindly in almost any direction. Then the revolver fire would suddenly cease, the guns would trundle up and wreck the houses on both sides. Windows fell crashing on the pavement, case-shot burst into the bedrooms, and round-shot made holes through three or four walls. It was bad for furniture, but the revolutionists had long ago escaped through a labyrinth of courts at the back, and were already preparing a similar attack on another street.

The troops did not succeed in overcoming the resistance of the insurgents but the insurrection rather melted away as suddenly as it had taken form. The main reason for this sudden dissolution lay in receipt of discouraging news from St Petersburg from which quarter help had been expected, and was not forthcoming, and in the rumoured advance of a hostile body of peasantry eager to co-operate with the soldiery against the people who were �hindering the sale of agricultural produce in the Moscow market�.

one of the true values of city fighting, and why historically armies have been avoiding them as much as possible. even saw people complaining the games thread of total warhammer about how annoying it was to have to send platoons down small roads with buildings crowding up on all sides, and having to chase down opponents and no clear sight lines. these are all real problems, but it can be to advantage of revolutionaries as in this situation, where they use their pistols to great effect by shooting at close ranges and them melting away once artillery is unleashed. at least the masses of people in a city made it possible for the fighters to melt away when further resistance seemed futile, something that guevara may have missed when he was trapped in bolivia.

James Connolly posted:

Criticism
The action of the soldiery in bringing field-guns, or indeed any kind of artillery, into the close quarters of street fighting was against all the teaching of military science, and would infallibly have resulted in the loss of the guns had it not been for the miserable equipment of the insurgents. Had any body of the latter been armed with a reasonable supply of ammunition the government could only have taken Moscow from the insurgents at the cost of an appalling loss of life.

A regular bombardment of the city would only have been possible if the whole loyalist population had withdrawn outside the insurgent lines, and apart from the social reasons against such an abandonment of their business and property, the moral effect of such a desertion of Moscow would have been of immense military value in strengthening the hands of the insurgents and bringing recruits to their ranks. As the military were thus compelled to fight in the city and against a force so badly equipped, not much fault can be found with their tactics.

Of the insurgents also it must be said that they made splendid use of their material. It was a wise policy not to man the barricades and an equally wise policy not to open fire at long range where the superior weapons of the enemy would have been able with impunity to crush them, but to wait before betraying their whereabouts until the military had come within easy range of their inferior weapons.

Lacking the co-operation of the other Russian cities, and opposed by the ignorant peasantry, the defeat of the insurrection was inevitable, but it succeeded in establishing the fact that even under modern conditions the professional soldier is, in a city, badly handicapped in a fight against really determined civilian revolutionaries.

Don't know if i particularly agree with Connolly here. although artillery is more vulnerable to being seized in a city, artillery is the queen of battle for a reason and no fortification can survive bombardment forever, especially across open sights. without artillery of their own, any revolutionary's ability to hold terrain is a question of time and will, and should be accounted for in any plans.
it's interesting to read this for me and see how it may have influenced his decision to launch the Easter uprising. although they didn't have so much success as melting away as in this case, it could be argued that staying and either dying or being taken prisoner (and then executed) did more to inflame passions in ireland against british rule. what's more, although he is proven wrong in an army's willingness to bombard a city as the british did in the easter uprising, he was right in the moral value of such actions towards insurrectionary feeling.

Well, what do you think? Should i go on or hang my head in shame at a terrible thread?

# ? Jan 15, 2023 18:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 1, 2024 02:33

paul_soccer12: Jan 5, 2020; by Fluffdaddy

Reserved

# ? Jan 15, 2023 20:25

lobster shirt: Jun 14, 2021

# ? Jan 15, 2023 23:15

Ardent Communist: Oct 17, 2010; ALLAH! MU'AMMAR! LIBYA WA BAS!

Alright, the massive interest has inspired to me to continue.

James Connolly posted:

Insurrection in the Tyrol
In the course of the present war between Italy and the Central States, the Tyrol is likely to come once more into fame as the theatre of military operation�s. Therefore the story of the insurrection in the Tyrol in 1809 may be doubly interesting to the reader as illustrating alike the lessons of civilian warfare, and the nature of the people and the country in question.

The Tyrol is in reality a section of the Alpine range of mountains � that section which stretches eastward from the Alps of Switzerland, and interposes between the southern frontier of Germany and the northern frontier of Italy. It is part of the territory of Austria; its inhabitants speak the German language, and for the most part are passionately attached to the Catholic religion. They are described by Alison, the English historian, in terms that read strange to-day in view of the English official attitude to all things German. Alison says:� �The inhabitants like all those of German descent, are brave, impetuousus, and honest, tenacious of custom, fearless of danger, addicted to intemperance.� The latter clause was in itself not sufficient to make any people remarkable, as at that period heavy drinking was the rule all over Europe, and nowhere worse than in these islands. But the Tyrolese were also well accustomed to the use of arms, and frequent target practice in the militia and trained bands as well as in hunting had made excellent shots of a large proportion of the young men of the country.

After the defeat of Austria in 1805 by Napoleon, the Tyrol was taken from that Empire by the Treaty of Presburg and ceded to Bavaria, the ally of Napoleon. The Tyrolese resented this unceremonious disposal of their country, a resentment that was much increased by the licentious conduct of the French Soldiers sent as garrison into the district. Brooding over their wrongs they planned revolt, and sought and Obtained a promise of co-operation from the Austrian Emperor.

Alright, good establishing the basis of the conflict in question. Important to always remember that decisions made from on high don't tend to have a lot of support on the ground, especially if the people in question are well armed and well trained.

James Connolly posted:

In the revolt, alike in its preparation and in its execution there were three leading figures. These were Andreas Hofer, Spechbacher, and Joseph Haspinger. Hofer, the chief, was an innkeeper, and of great local influence, which he owed alike to his high character and to the opportunities of intercourse given him by his occupation, a more important one before the advent of railroads than now. Spechbacher was a farmer and woodsman, and had been an outlaw and poacher for many years before settling clown to married life. Joseph Haspinger was a monk, and from the colour of his beard was familiarly known at Roth-Bart or Redbeard.

It will he observed that none of the three were professional soldiers, yet they individually and collectively defeated the best generals of the French Army � an army that had defeated the professional militarists of all Europe.

The eighth day of April, 1809 was fixed for the rising, and on that date the signal was given :by throwing large heaps of sawdust in to the River Inn, which ran all through the mountains, by lighting fires upon the bill tops, and by women and children who carried from house to house little balls of paper on which were written �es ist zeit�, �it is time�.

Obviously revolutionaries can come from many walks of life, and i think it's important to remember that former criminals may still be useful to the revolution. Castro got help from weed smugglers who knew lots of people as well as routes that were less occupied. even stalin was a bank robber, breaking plenty of laws that were established to help maintain the stranglehold of the bourgeois is no real crime.
i like the tales of the different ways the revolution was promulgated. Fire is a classic, it was probably reminiscent of that scene in lord of the rings. i know none of us is planning a revolution or anything like that, but it's still interesting to me to think of ways to spread the news quickly. some would probably say internet, and protests have started by such means, but i think it would be incumbent on anyone to have other ways to spread the news widely, as the internet, being a series of tubes, can be turned off at points or in geographical areas. the french army, lately maligned but historically successful, operated the corps system where armies were split into smaller portions so that living off the land was less ruinous, as well as keeping the roads in better shape. well, anyways, the relevant part is how they knew when a separate part of the army had come into action, they could hear the sound of the guns and the operative saying "when in doubt, move towards the sounds of guns" gave them the ability to mass during battle and spread out after. obviously this has value, especially in the early days of a revolution where individual forces may be spread out geographically.

James Connolly posted:

At one place, St. Lorenzo, the revolt had been precipitated by the action of the soldiers, whose chiefs, hearing of the project, attempted to seize a bridge which commanded communications between the upper part of the valley and Brunecken. Without waiting for the general signal the peasants in the locality rose to prevent the troops getting the bridge. The Bavarian, General Wrede, with 2,000 men and three guns marched to suppress this revolt, but the peasants hid behind rocks and trees, and taking advantage of every kind of natural cover poured in a destructive fire upon the soldiers. The latter suffered great loss from this fire, but pushed forward, and the peasantry were giving way before the disciplined body whcn they were reinforced by the advanced guard of an Austrian force coming to help the insurrection. The Bavarians gave way. When they reached the bridge at Laditch the pursuit was so hot that they broke in two, one division going up, the other down, the river. The greater part were taken prisoners at Balsano, amongst the prisoners being one general.

At Sterzing Hofer took charge. Here the peasants were attacked by a large force of soldiers, but they took refuge in thickets and behind rocks and drove off the attacks of the infantry. When the artillery was brought up the nature of the ground compelled the guns to come up in musketry range, and then the peasant marksmen picked off the gunners, after which feat the insurgents rushed in and carried all before them in one impetuous charge. Three hundred and ninety prisoners were taken and 240 killed and wounded.

A column of French under Generals Bisson and Wrede made an attempt to force its way up the Brenner. The peasants fell back before it until it reached the narrow defile of Lueg, where it suffered severely as the insurgents had broken down the bridges and barricaded the roads by heaps of fallen trees. The troops were shot down in heaps as they halted before the barricades and bridges whilst a part of their number laboured to open the way.

once again, another revolution kick-started by the actions of the army trying to prevent it. this is actually pretty similar to how another revolution started that our more historically minded readers may know, but since it's covered later i'll avoid mentioning it now. once again, the best use of terrain can make all the difference. supposedly one of the things castro did in preparation for his revolution, but it may have been some other military minded figure, but anyways he would go on walks and study the terrain, where would be a good ambush postion, where good concealment or cover can be found. this can be done by anyone, even you! if you own a dog i'm sure it would love going along and getting to know all the secret areas, but even without you can get to know your neighbourhood, where cars can't go or where they'd be easily blocked, where there is lots of top concealment. i mean, going for walks, especially in wilderness is good for your mental well-being, so even if you're not thinking tactically you should still go for walks in your neighbourhood.
trained soldiers don't love fighting in mountainous terrain, the taliban have shown that even airpower doesn't make it completely unfair for a guerrilla force fighting in the mountains, especially with long range weapons capable of shooting from mountain heights. airpower does have its advantages, as the basques found out during the spanish civil war, where they tried to hold mountain peaks without enough concealment from the air, and without the means to shoot the planes down.
it mentions trading terrain for time, remember terrain is only useful for how it can help you, once in it becomes a hindrance it's always a good idea for the revolutionary to abandon it and save oneself, it's a world revolution, baby, you can make the revolution wherever you are.

James Connolly posted:

Meanwhile another large body of peasants had attacked and taken Innsbruck, the capital of the Tyrol, and when Bisson and Wrede eventually forced their way up the Brenner with the insurgents everywhere harrying on their flanks and rear, picking them off from behind cover, and rushing upon and destroying any party unfortunate enough to get isolated, as they advanced into the open it was only to find the city in possession of the insurgents, and vast masses of armed enemies awaiting them at every point of vantage. After a short fight Bisson, caught between two fires, surrendered with nearly 3,000 men.

Spechbacher took Hall in the Lower Tyrol. A curious evidence of the universality of the insurrection was here given by the circumstance that as none of the men could be spared from the fighting line 400 prisoners had to be marched off under an armed escort of women.

In one week the insurgents had defeated 10,000 regular soldiers experienced in a dozen campaigns and taken 6,000 prisoners.

In a battle at Innsbruck on May 28th-29th the women and children took part, carrying food and water and ammunition. When the insurgents had expended all their lead the women and children collected the bullets fired by the enemy and brought them to the men to fire back at the soldiers. Amongst the number Spechbacher�s son, ten years of age, was as active as any, and more daring than most.

women uphold one half of the sky! i know we're mostly pasty white men, but it's important to remember that there's a good chance a woman can do whatever you can do, and probably better. there's no point in gatekeeping or limiting postions based on sex. one of the few failings i can see with the black panthers was kind of limiting woman to more matronly pursuits. women can shoot just as well, and as our soviet brothers found out, sometimes better as snipers, and to limit ourselves in this way is no benefit. all communist revolutions owe some of their success to the actions of the fairer sex.

James Connolly posted:

After the total defeat of the Austrians and the capture of Vienna by Napoleon, the city of Innsbruck was retaken by a French army of 30,000 men. Hofer was summoned by the French General to appear at Innsbruck. He replied stating that he

�would come but it would be attended by 10,000 sharpshooters.�

At first the peasantry had been so discouraged by their abandonment by the Austrians that a great number of them bad gone to their homes, but at the earnest solicitation of their leaders they again rallied, and hostilities re-opened on August 4th.

A column of French and Bavarians were crossing the bridge at Laditch where the high road from Balsano to the capital crosses the river Eisach. The Tyrolese under Haspinger occupied the overhanging woods, and when the troops were well in the defile they rained bullets and rocks upon them without showing themselves. Men were falling at every step, and the crushing rocks tore lanes through the ranks. The soldiers pressed on until the narrowest point of the defile was reached when a sudden silence fell upon the mountain side. Awestruck, the column involuntarily halted, and amid the silence a voice rang out �

�Shall I? Shall I? Stephen.�

and another answered �

�Not yet, not yet.�

Recovering, the troops resumed their march in silence and apprehension, and then as they wound deeper into the path the second voice again rang out �

�Now, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, cut loose.� And at the word, a hinge platform of tree trunks, upon which tons of rocks had been collected, was suddenly cut loose, and the whole mass descended like an avalanche upon the soldiery, sweeping whole companies away and leaving a trail of mangled bodies behind it. Despite this terrible catastrophe the column pushed its way on towards the bridge, only to find it in flames, and a raging torrent barring their further progress. They retreated to their starting point harassed all the way by the invisible enemy and with a loss of 1,200 men.

On August 10th Marshal Lefebre, with 20,000 men, attempted to force a passage through and over the Brenner. He was attacked everywhere by small bodies, his progress checked, and his way barred by every obstacle that nature could supply, or ingenuity suggest, and eventually driven back, losing 25 cannon and the whole ammunition of his army.

On August 12th, with 23,000 foot, 2,000 horse, and 40 cannon, he was attacked at Innsbruck by the three insurgent leaders and defeated. Hofer had kept his promise to come to Innsbruck �with 10,000 sharpshooters�. The French lost 6,000 killed, wounded and prisoners.

This was the last notable success of the insurgents. The French having made peace with Austria, and having no other war on hand, were able to concentrate upon the Tyrol a force sufficient to make further resistance impossible. The insurgents returned to their homes, and resistance was abandoned.

Some pretty badass quotes, dunno how connolly got all of them but it makes a good story. like the ewok tactic of using trees and rocks to make an avalanche, once again showing the value of terrain. it's always good to know the land. the ending is a bit sad, but that's the value of making sure you're not alone. even geographically isolated actions can benefit each other if they make the reactionary forces have to split their focus.

James Connolly posted:

Remarks
The nature of the country lent itself to the mode of fighting of the insurgents. But their own genius also counted for much. They used every kind of cover, seldom exposed themselves, and at all times took care not to let bravery degenerate into rashness.

Every effort was made to tempt artillery into close range, the insurgents lying as quiet as possible until such time as their muskets could be brought into play upon the artillery men. To the same end positions were taken up which seemed often to be in direct contravention of military science, since they seemed to abandon every chance of a clear field of fire in front, and enabled the enemy to approach closely without coming under fire. But their seeming mistake was based upon sound judgment as the superior weapons of the enemy would have beaten down opposition from a distance, whereas being compelled to come close in before opening fire the regular soldiery lost their chief advantage over the insurgents and were deprived of the advantages conferred by discipline and efficient control by skilled officers.

Connolly agrees with me (or me with him?) that terrain made all the difference, and choosing terrain that plays to your strengths and hurts your opponent's strengths. it's always good to have your opponent come to you, especially in a hurry. i guess it falls on us to come up with ways to ensure that's the case.

# ? Jan 17, 2023 04:31

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

I like your thread please continue

# ? Jan 17, 2023 05:16

ro5s: Dec 27, 2012; A happy little mouse!

Same, I don't have anything to say in terms of discussion but this is interesting to read.

# ? Jan 17, 2023 09:21

Ardent Communist: Oct 17, 2010; ALLAH! MU'AMMAR! LIBYA WA BAS!

Alright, i'll continue. got a short one which is good.

James Connolly posted:

Defence of the Alamo
In 1821 Mexico was separated from the kingdom of Spain and entered upon a turbulent and troubled existence of its own. At that time almost all of the territory comprised in the present American State of Texas was an integral part of the Mexican Republic. It was inhabited largely by Mexicans and other persons of Spanish or mixed Spanish and Indian descent. But along with these there were a large number of immigrants from the United States, some of whom had taken up land under the laws of the Mexican Government, whilst others were hunters, trappers, and adventurers. All these latter were rather disinclined to submit to the laws of the Mexicans, especially when the various changes in the Mexican Government made it at times somewhat problematical what these laws were, and still more of a problem to judge how each fresh incumbent in office would administer the laws. Consequently, the uneasiness grew in volume with each accession of strength in the numbers of the immigrants, and each fresh caprice of the rulers. To add to this uneasy situation the designs of the slaveholders in the United States included an extension of slaveholding territory to the South. Unable to extend the slave belt to the North, and menaced by the continual growth of free states in the West, the slaveholders of the United States were anxious to secure fresh territories which could be erected into slave states whose votes could be counted upon against the pressing changer of the increase of liberationist sentiment in the Congress and Senate. Hence the restless immigrants in Texas received secret encouragement from the United States Government, and having real and genuine grievances of their own their restlessness gradually developed into rebellion.

A Mexican Congress in 1835 adopted a new Constitution for the country, one feature of which was the dissolution of all power in a Congress to meet in Mexico City. This was resented in many parts of the country, and in March 1836, a Texan Congress met at Washington, Texas, and declared Texas to he a free and independent Republic. A provisional Government was organised, and Sam Houston was declared Commander-in-Chief. Hostilities commenced immediately.

just laying a little historical groundwork for those who don't know, the only interesting thing i can think about this, is the parallels i can kind of see between this and what's currently going in on in the ukraine. not the slavery part but just a larger country encouraging separatist sentiments in a neighbouring country, then eventually annexing it. kind of makes the americans critizing russia doing this as hypocritical.

James Connolly posted:

Fighting took place at several places, notably at San Antonio de Bexar, where the insurgents after five days battle in the street, compelled the garrison to surrender. On hearing of this disaster to his forces, the Mexican President, Santa Anna, crossed the Rio Grande, the river which forms the boundary line between Texas and Mexico, with an army of 10,000 men, and advanced against the insurgents. In the path of their advance lay an old wooden fort known as the Alamo, into which a Texan officer named Travis threw himself with a garrison of 145 men. The Mexican force laid siege to the place, and Travis sent off the following message for reinforcements:�

�The enemy have demanded me to surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison is to be put to the sword. I have answered his summons with a cannon shot. Our flag still floats proudly from the walls. We shall never surrender or retreat, Liberty or death!�

The little Texan force of one hundred and forty five insurgents held out for ten days against the Mexican army of 10,000 men. Again and again the Mexicans attempted to storm the place, and as often they were beaten off. The wounded were propped up by their comrades and kept on fighting until death, the rushes of the regular soldiery with bayonets were beaten off by the Texans with clubbed rifles or met with the quick deadly work of bowie knives, and when at last the building was taken and the Mexicans were victorious it was found that the loss they had sustained was without a parallel in history. Fifteen hundred Mexicans had been killed or ten for every Texan engaged.

No quarter was given or asked. All the defenders were killed, their bodies collected in a heap and burned.

well, a glorious slaughter. no position can be held forever, but holding against a massively larger force for so long does give them some credit, especially when there are other forces acting elsewhere to benefit from your delaying action.

James Connolly posted:

But the defence of the Alamo had enabled the insurgents elsewhere to organise their resistance, and General Samuel Houston with twelve hundred men was by this time in the field and in a position to conduct a regular campaign. Houston pursued a retreating and waiting policy refusing to be drawn prematurely into a baffle, but patiently biding his time and keeping his men together until he had made them into an army.

Eventually on April 19th, 1836 the two armies met at Buffalo Bayou and the Mexicans were defeated with great slaughter, their General and six hundred men being taken prisoners.

This ended the campaign, the independence of Texas being shortly afterwards formally acknowledged.

a big thing i don't hear mentioned enough about revolutionary armies is the good they do just existing. even just evading your foes can be a good thing, especially if actions have been big enough to attract attention to you. i think this was a big problem for che in bolivia (besides elements of the communist party betraying him) was that he tried to go off a fake name, instead of using it to rally people to him, despite being in a different country, just like guiseppe garibaldi did so successfully. what's more, whereas castro was enough of a showman to know that they oughta attack army bases as opposed to the easier ambush an army convoy, because the latter can be explained away as an car accident. a revolutionary must always remember that actions are better if they are widely visible. But as Houston basically running away while preparing his army, the long march, even washington camping in valley forge, are examples of a revolutionary army that went on to be successful that had to trade space for time but maintained being an army-in-being, thus giving hope to supporters and occupying the minds of the enemy.

James Connolly posted:

Remarks
The defence of the Alamo was one of those defeats which are often more valuable to a cause than many loudly trumpeted victories. It gave spirit and bitterness to the Texan forces, and more important still gave time to their comrades elsewhere. Fortunately for their cause also they had in Houston a General who recognised that the act of keeping an insurgent force in the field was in itself so valuable an establishment of the revolutionary position that it gave all the functions and prestige of government. Hence lie kept his force in the field without fighting as long as possible, despite the murmurs of his men, and only hazarded an engagement when he considered that his army was made.

i think this is kind of the groundwork of what guevara was getting into whilst coming up with foco-ism, i presume he read connolly, but iterating what i was mentioning, that the maintenance of a revolutionary army is in itself a revolutionary act, because it heightens the contradictions in a society and catalyses people to pick a side. Related to that is the value even a small force can have in a defeat, so long as there is symbolic value. while we are probably all materialists, it is wise to remember people can still be motivated by a good story, even if the material effects are bad.

# ? Jan 18, 2023 09:14

Ardent Communist: Oct 17, 2010; ALLAH! MU'AMMAR! LIBYA WA BAS!

Alright apparently i skipped one, but we'll just ignore that and do it now.

James Connolly posted:

Revolution in Belgium
After the defeat and final deposition of Napoleon the Allied Sovereigns met at Vienna in 1815 and proceeded to settle Europe. All during time war against Napoleon all the Continental Powers in alliance with the British Empire had loudly declared to the world and to their respective peoples that they were fighting for Liberty, for National rights, and against foreign oppression. But when they met at Vienna the Allies proceeded to ride roughshod over all the things for which they were supposed to be fighting. Nations in many instances were ruthlessly partitioned, as in the case of Italy, or were subjected to new foreign rulers without being consulted in any manner. This latter was the case of Belgium. That country was forcibly placed under the rule of Holland. Belgium could not resist as the whole of Europe, except France, was represented at the Vienna Congress, and the armies of all Europe were at the call of the Powers for the enforcement of the decrees of that Congress. In passing, it may be said that this settlement of Europe by the Allied Powers was so utterly at variance with the will of the people, so flagrant a denial and suppression of all that the Allies had pretended to fight for that it led to revolution, subsequently, in every state in Europe.

Holland in its rule over Belgium was accused by the Belgians of a systematic campaign against every expression and manifestation of Belgian national life. It was alleged that it penalised the native language of Belgium, and gave undue official preference to the Dutch, that it sought to place Dutch officials in all posts to the exclusion of equally well qualified Belgians, that it unduly favoured Dutch industries by legislation and retarded Belgian, and that in every possible way Belgium was treated more as a conquered province than as an Allied State.

These grievances were agitated in many ways, and many efforts were made to obtain remedies without avail. Eventually in 1830, fifteen years after the settlement by the Congress of Vienna revolution broke out in Brussels.

Interesting little sidebar. it's funny, there's that one quote by i think stalin where he said "the october revolution was the result of the first world war, the second world war saw the expansion of socialist states to half the world, a third world war will see our victory". that's a paraphrase from memory, maybe somebody else remembers the exact quote. but anyways, nations tend to promote all sort of wonderful things to encourage their men and women to fight or sacrifice for during a big war, and then when it's over they regress back to their status quo. it seems like this is the best time for revolution, as people get used to sacrificing for something bigger than themselves and see that their previous efforts have not had a major change on their lives, despite promises given. dunno, might be relevant if things keep developing the way they are.

James Connolly posted:

On the 25th of August, 1830, a partially armed mob attacked the house and printing establishment of the chief pro-Dutch paper, the National. After wrecking these they obtained more arms by sacking gunsmiths� shops. Then the official residence of the Dutch Minister of Justice, M. van Mannen, was attacked, gutted, and burned to the ground.

On the 26th the troops were called out and fighting took place in the streets. The crowd had got possession of a large amount, of arms and ammunition and successfully withstood the soldiery. Eventually the troops withdrew in a body to the Place Royale, the reason for the withdrawal being thus stated in the English Press of the time that �

�in street warfare regular troops, who to he effective must act together, fight at a great disadvantage.�

The streets of the city were thus left clear to the people, who proceeded to wreak their vengeance upon the houses and offices of the Government officials. The houses of the Public Prosecutor (Procureur du Roi), of the Director of Police, and of the Commandant of the city were sacked, the furniture being taken out, piled up in the street and burned.

Up till this period the middle class Belgians had only looked on passively, but now they organised themselves into a Burgher Guard to defend their property, and took possession of the city partly by force, partly by agreement with the armed workers who up to this time had done all the fighting. Five thousand Burgher Guards were enrolled, the Commandant being one Baron Hoogvorst. All the military posts in the city were occupied by the Guard, the military remaining inactive outside.

getting to the guts of the actions of a people in revolt. in a war against capital, the easiest way to truly draw a line between reform and revolution is to destroy their property. at the end of the day, that's all that truly separates us. they don't tend to like the reminder that it can all burn. the middle class might be able to organize effectively, but its the working class that has the heart and guts to see a revolution through, and its to the credit of the bolsheviks that they were able to limit that effectiveness and ensure that the working class still had the reins. but i guess this is an example of a bourgeois revolution, coming as it did before 1917, so the consciousness of the working class was not yet strong enough to seize power for themselves.

James Connolly posted:

A Committee of Public Safety elected by the Burgher Guard issued a Manifesto setting forth the grievances of the Belgian Nation, and instituting reforms. Clause XI of the Manifesto ordered that

�Bread be distributed to all unfortunate workmen to supply their wants until they are able to resume their labour.�

On the 20th of August Royal troops marched upon Brussels, but halted outside upon being told that if they attempted to enter they would be resisted, but the Guard would keep order within if the troops remained outside. As yet there had been no talk of separation, but all Royal colours had been torn down, and distinctive Belgian colours hoisted on the buildings, and worn by the armed people.

On the 30th of August the Prince of Orange arrived outside Brussels and sent in word that he was about to enter. He was informed that he could only enter alone or with his own aide-de-camp. He then threatened to storm the city, and the people replied by building barricades in all the leading streets, and occupying the gates in force. Then the Prince issued a proclamation commanding the inhabitants to lay aside their rebellious colours and badges, and that he would enter the city and take over their duties. This was refused, and he then consented to enter the city alone.

A deputation had been sent to the king at the Hague to lay before him the demands of the Belgians. He met the deputation very courteously, as kings always do when in difficulties, promised many reforms, but insisted that his son, the Prince, should enter Brussels at the head of his troops, and that the deputation should confer with the Minister of the Interior. This latter conference took place, and at it the delegates presented a new demand � the separation of Belgium from Holland, and its erection into an independent Kingdom under the same king.

you gotta love imperious people getting told where to stick it, and as Machiavelli said there is nothing so weak as a reputation for power not based on ones own strength. even forcing them to negotiate with you on an equal level is a victory, even if just for establishing in future that representatives of the working class have equal value to those of the bourgeois. just gotta be careful not rest on your laurels, "l'audacite, l'audacite, toujours l'audacite" as danton said, any negotiating period has to be used to greater value than it gives your opponents. otherwise they'll be happy to stall until people get tired and just want things to go back to "normal".

James Connolly posted:

On this point, like Ireland in our day, the country was divided. Antwerp and Ghent petitioned against separation. Tournay, Verviers, Mons and Namur declared for separation, and in each of them the Civic Guard seized the town and proclaimed the revolution. Bruges followed suit. In each of those places, whilst the Civic Guard was hesitating, the working class took the lead and forced the pace, bringing the guard eventually into line.

On the 19th September the working class of Brussels, tired of the hesitation and inaction of the middle class represenatives, took matters in their own hands, rose in rebellion and marched on the Town Hail. There they seized 40 stand of arms. Next day they took possession of the Town Hall, and all the military post�s in the city, and were fortunate enough to get possession of a large supply of arms and ammunition. They dissolved the middle class Committee of Public Safety, and established a Provisional Government.

On the 21st September Prince Frederick advanced upon Brussels and ordered that the guard should surrender their posts, all rebel colours should be taken down, all armed strangers expelled, and threatening to hold responsible personally all members of the Committee of Public Safety, of the Council of Officers of Guards, and of the Municipal Administration. But as all these bodies had been dissolved the Proclamation fell rather flat. The people prepared to fight.

once again, the middle class taking a "take your time and see how the pieces fall" and being forced forward by the working class. this a macro example of what a vanguard party does, where it motivates and energizes the working class. the growing economic malaise in western countries is being felt by more and more, and although the strength of communist parties has gone up somewhat, until people actually think that they can do anything, they won't be able to get the kind of support necessary to really change society. this is just my personal feelings, but i agree with guevara that a guerrilla force can encourage the sharpening of the contradictions in a society. here with a rebellious people, those that would prefer to stay on the fence are forced to either be led forward or be left behind.

James Connolly posted:

Barricades were thrown up in all the streets and at the gates. Pavements were torn up, stones carried to the top of houses in streets through which the troops would have to pass, and every preparation made, the women being specially busy in the preparations. The attack began on the 22nd, the middle class citizens who had been in the Burgher Guard kept carefully to their houses and out of the fighting. The troops made the attack upon six different points, or districts towards which they opened, Flanders, Auderlecht, Lacken, Schaarbeck, Namur, Louvain. The artillery easily broke through the gates and adjoining barricades but as they advanced, obstacle succeeded obstacle, resistance seemed to multiply itself with every step, and the fighting increased in intensity the farther into the city they penetrated. At the Flanders gate the troops swept at first everything before them with their artillery fire. They advanced with great steadiness until they were met by a strong barricade at a curve in the street which prevented the artillery from being brought to bear. Here they were exposed to a deadly fire from behind the barricade, and overwhelmed from above with showers of paving stones, heavy pieces of furniture, hatchets, fire-irons and every species of missile. Beaten back, they were compelled to retreat. At Auderlecht gate the same fate overtook the soldiery, and at Lacken the insurgents compelled a retreat with great loss.

The division which attacked at Schaarbeck gate fought its way in until it reached an open park in which it took refuge from the close quarters and dreadful hostility of the streets. Then it halted afraid to advance further against the streets. The divisions attacking by Namur and Louvain gates also fought their way in for a short distance and then halted, fearful of attempting a further advance.

On the 24th the middle class joined the insurgent working class, and the fighting was renewed. After a long day�s contest the troops were unable to advance, although they had made themselves masters of one of the main streets. The insurgents were still in possession, but too badly organised to expel the troops from their foothold in the city.

On the 26th and 27th volunteers from neighbouring towns joined the insurgents, and, encouraged by their aid, the insurgents began to close in on the troops and drive them back. Eventually, believing their position to be hopeless, the soldiery gave up the struggle and withdrew from the city.

The total insurgent loss from the 22nd to the 27th was stated to he 165 killed and 311 wounded.

After the retreat from Brussels the Government had no foothold in Belgium except in its fortresses. The populace rose in the towns, the Belgian regiments declared in favour of the revolution, and one after another the fortresses fell into the hands of the insurgents.

At Ath and Mons the Dutch garrison was made prisoner. At Namur the garrison surrendered the fortress on condition that it was allowed to depart. At Liege 1,100 men, constituting the garrison, made the same arrangement. Ghent held out against the revolution until October 16th, when it also surrendered on like terms to Namur. By the end of October the Belgians were in possession of all the fortresses except Antwerp, Maastricht and Luxemburg.

On the 10th November a National Congress established the Kingdom of Belgium, which was afterwards formally acknowledged by all the powers.

connolly gives a lot of value to fighting in towns, encouraged by these examples as ways for an armed people to overcome the extra training and firepower of regular armed troops, and it presumably encouraged the eventual strategy that the easter uprising took. the end of the quote also mentions the value in letting troops surrender. although a revolution is always a battle to the death, killing all those who oppose you can actually make more trouble in the future. letting troops leave fortresses intact saves you from taking them through force, and presumably can save more of your own lives than it would cost the opponent. but they'd be unlikely to do it if you had a reputation for killing all those who fall in your hands.

James Connolly posted:

Remarks
The Revolution in Brussels and the successful stand of an insurgent body against regular troops, made such an impression upon Europe that it was long held as an axiom that it was the duty of the officers in command of the army, confronted with such a condition, to refuse to fight in the streets, and content themselves with a regular investment or siege of the city. The official English view has always dissented from this advice.

Two things have to be kept in mind in studying the Brussels Revolution:

First � that, unlike Continental revolutions in general, there were no defections among the troops. It was two nations in conflict. Hence the revolution at Brussels won purely because of its military position and strength.

Second � that the invention of smokeless powder would tend to make such street fighting far more deadly and demoralising to an army which could not see from whence came the shots that decimated the ranks.

hehe, you see the gears changing in his mind in this quote i think. commenting about how european leaders have learned from example and avoided cityfighting because of how ruinous it can towards their troops, but that the english would ignore this knowledge and throw themselves into the meatgrinder. it worked a bit in the easter uprising, but then they pulled the troops back and shelled the hell out of them. last resort, as destroying property goes against everything they stand for, but as i said earlier, they will abandon all principles if they feel their power slipping away, and in the case of the irish, it encouraged more sentiment against the british. we all know that most western governments are hypocritical, but in the good times they can convince the vast majority of the population that they actually mean those sentiments. a revolutionary has to lay bare the contradictions that form the basis of the mental prison that people are stuck in. " 'Those who do not move, do not notice their chains.' as rosa said, but their weight plays upon all of the working class, and lifting those mental chains will see the people energized if you can make them believe that you will change their lives for the better.

# ? Jan 22, 2023 03:49

Ardent Communist: Oct 17, 2010; ALLAH! MU'AMMAR! LIBYA WA BAS!

Alright, like any true revolutionary i will continue on despite the people not rising up and supporting me

James Connolly posted:

Revolution in Paris, 1830
After the deposition of Napoleon by the allied powers the Bourbon family was restored to the throne of France much against the will of the French people. That family at first made some slight concession to the spirit of democracy which the French revolution had aroused in Europe, but gradually as the people advanced in their claims for enfranchisement the royal family and court became more and more reactionany and opposed to reform.

Eventually the Government took steps to suppress the freedom of the press, and four journals active in the reform movement were proceeded against, their editors sentenced to prison and to pay heavy fines. The Chamber of Deputies took sides against the king, and presented to him an address in favour of reform. He dissolved the Chamber and ordered a general election.

When the election was over it was found that, despite the restricted suffrage and persistent government terrorism, the Reform party out of a total Chamber of 428 members had returned 270, whilst the ministry had only returned 145.

As his answer to the elections the king on the 25th July, 1830, issued a decree destroying at one swoop all the liberties of his subjects.

The new Chamber of Deputies was dissolved before it had even met.

one thing a revolutionary has to keep in mind is that adopting a wait and see approach tends to benefit reactionary forces. if you're trying to revolt, spin the wheels of history towards revolution, you should work to keep up momentum. any slowing in momentum benefits the reactionaries who would like to see that wheel slow, and then stop, and then reverse. any student of revolutionary history can point out examples, but here connolly mentions that even in a revolutionary society if those at the top are left with the levels of control, despite protestations to the contrary, will use them to maintain their power. any cease-fire, pause in conflict, what-have-you, has to be benefitting you more than your opponents or it's best avoided.

James Connolly posted:

Liberty of the press was suspended. Writings published in violation of the regulations were to be seized, and types and presses used in printing them to be taken into custody, or rendered unfit for their purposes.

The method of election was altered so as to put it completely in the power of the king and his party.

At this time Paris was garrisoned by a force of 4,750 men of the National Guard, 4,400 troops of the line, 1,100 veteran battalions, 1,300 gendarmes or police.

The first sign of resistance came from the press. Four of the principal editors met and issued the following manifesto which was printed in the National:

�Legal government is interrupted and the reign of force has commenced. In the situation in which we are placed obedience ceases to be a duty. The citizens first called upon to obey are the writers of journals; they ought to give the first example of resistance to authority which has divested itself of legal character.�

On the morning of the 27th the police began to seize types and break presses. They were resisted in many places. At the offices of the Temps and National the police were refused admission. Whilst they were attempting to break in the printing of papers went on and copies of the paper were thrown out of the windows as fast as they were printed. Bought up by the crowd these papers were quickly carried all over Paris.

Locksmiths and blacksmiths were brought to break open the door, but they refused to act, and eventually this had to be done by a convict blacksmith brought from the prison. When the police entered they destroyed all the machines.

The example of resistance fired the whole city, and great mobs marched everywhere. The residence of the Premier was protected by a battalion of guards and two pieces of cannon, and a division of lancers patrolled the immediate neighbourhood. Three battalions were in front of the Palais Royal, the Place Louis XI was held by two battalions of guards and two guns, and in the Place Vand�me were detachments of regiments of the line. Thus all the great squares were held by the military.

can you imagine any western news agency acting like this these days? once again shows the importance of getting the word out, and holding out long enough for people get involved. i think this was a major reason why occupy "succeeded" as it did, since you could still work and show up on your weekend or whatever. see too many protests for midweek midday, whose going to be able to make that? sure if it's mayday you can call in sick, but for every protest? but anyways, the stage is set.

James Connolly posted:

The police attempted to clear the streets and failed, and soldiers were ordered to assist. As they pushed the people back in the Rue St. Honor� the first shot was fired from a house in that thoroughfare. It came from a shot gun and wounded some of the soldiers.

The troops fired at the house, and the crowd fell away. As the soldiers pursued they were stopped by a barricade made out of an overturned omnibus beside which had been piled all kinds of furniture and other obstructions. But as those behind this barricade were only armed with stones the soldiery after firing several volleys easily stormed it.

In other places fighting took place, in one a police guardhouse was stormed, and the arms carried off.

Next day, the 28th, the people attacked all the gunmakers� shops and took possession of the arms and equipment. Barricades were erected all over the city, and police guardhouses attacked and taken. The working class from the Faubourgs organised and marched upon the City Hall, or Hotel de Ville, and arms were distributed from various centres.

The military planned to enter the barricaded districts in four columns at four tactical points. The first column entering by the richer parts of the city met with little opposition.

another stage in a successful revolution, seizing a bunch of weapons. i guess americans can skip this stage, but for the rest of the world this seems to be historically important. revolutions aren't tea parties and all that. as an aside, i think people don't respect enough the french or at least paris for being pretty drat good at sticking up for themselves. the waiters aren't as subservient as in other places and it just drives a certain kind of person furious.

James Connolly posted:

The second column entered by Porte St. Martin, and was met by sharp firing. After firing two rounds from the artillery, and a number from the muskets of the infantry it crushed the opposition at this point, but as it advanced into the centre of the city the insurgents built barricades behind it, and the further it advanced the more barricades they built in its rear. It reached its objective the great square of the Place de la Bastille, but when it attempted to return was stopped by the aforementioned barricades, and fired upon from all the intersecting streets. The commanding officer after several fruitless attempts to return by the route marked out for him, at last fearing that he would lose his artillery broke out in another direction, leaving the ground he had occupied in the hands of the insurgents, and reaching a point entirely out of touch with the General in command. This column had passed through the insurgents, but it had left them just as it had found them, except, as one writer remarks, �that they had been taught to meet the royal troops without fear, and to know the value of the method of fighting they had adopted.�

The third column reached a huge market place, the March� des Innocens, but at this point was assailed with a hot fire from the roofs and windows, accompanied by showers of slates, stones, bottles, and scrap iron. One battalion was ordered to march along the Porte St. Denis, clear it, and march back again. In doing so it encountered a barricade in front of a large building, the Cour Batave. Here the insurgents had got inside the courtyard, and fired from behind the iron railing around this building, lying on the ground behind the stones into which the railings were fixed, and keeping up a murderous fire on the troops as the latter body laboured to destroy the barricade. This battalion also was unable to fight its way back, as barricades had been erected behind it as it passed. Its companion battalion at the market place awaiting its return found itself hemmed in, with barricades rising rapidly in all the surrounding streets, and a merciless fire pouring in on it at every opportunity. At last in despair it was resolved to send out a messenger for help.

An aide-de-camp shaved off his moustache, got into the clothes of a market porter, and succeeded in getting through the insurgent lines with a message to the commander-in-chief of the Paris district. Help was sent in the shape of another battalion which had to fight its way in. At the market place the forces united, and fought their way out with great loss.

The fourth column was directed to reach the City Hall, the Hotel de Ville. It was divided in two. One part marching across a suspension bridge was attacked by the insurgents, but bringing up artillery and receiving reinforcements of another battalion fought its way through, and reached its objective � the Hotel de Ville and adjacent Place de Gr�ve. The insurgents barricaded all the surrounding side streets, and kept up a fire from all the corners and windows. One writer says:

�The guns attached to the guards were found to occasion only embarrassment.�

getting surrounded, despite the occasional badass quote to the contrary, is best avoided. although the insurgents make best use of the terrain, as well as modifying it to better suit their interests, they don't hold a position past the point of military sense. keeping your enemies isolated is always a good idea, armies rely on communication, especially in cities, and any attempt to stymie that will probably benefit. obviously that could be much harder in these days with all the technological ways to communicate, but perhaps they can be overcome? i don't know too much about radios and such.

James Connolly posted:

Eventually finding the place untenable they fought their way out, attacked all the way by the people who closed in like a sea as the troops passed.

The end of the day�s fighting found the people everywhere in possession. Next day fresh troops arrived from the country outside Paris, but great preparations had been made to receive them. Streets had been torn up, and pavements converted into barricades. Great mounds were placed across the streets, barrels filled with earth and stones; planks, poles, and every conceivable kind of obstacle utilised to create barricades. Carts, carriages, hackney coaches, drays, wheelbarrows had been seized and overturned, and trees cut down and used to improvise street fortresses.

Then a peculiar thing took place. The troops refused to advance into the streets, and in turn fortified themselves in their positions. This gave the insurgents opportunity to organise themselves and plan their fight more systematically. When they advanced against the troops, after some fighting the soldiery were driven from their central position � the Louvre, some of the regiments of the line surrendered, and the city was abandoned by the troops.

The Revolution had won.

I do like savouring that last sentence. although there are elements that support the government (hence the easy entry of the army into that wealthy district) there's enough people that disagree that to the army it's like the whole city is against them. another example of what i was saying with the making best use of your time, there's no resting on your laurels for a revolutionary, they made massive modifications to the environment to change things in their favour. these days that could be mouseholing through houses, connecting sewers, digging trenches, but anyways, you need to do something to make territory yours. a revolution has to be visibly changing things to gain momentum, and as that one general said "I don't know if we'll change history tomorrow, but i promise we'll change the geography." even taking advantage of the police's absence to put up a bunch of revolutionary graffiti is a good idea, although that's more for a ferguson-esque retreat then open warfare on the streets.

James Connolly posted:

Remarks
Like the fighting in Brussels narrated in a previous issue the chief characteristic of the Paris fighting in this Revolution was the elusive nature of the insurgent forces. The conquest of a street by the royal troops was not worth the blood it had cost them, for as soon as they passed onwards fresh barricades were erected in their rear on the very ground they had just conquered. No sooner did they fight their way in than it became necessary for them to fight their way out again. They only commanded the ground they occupied, and the surrounding barricades shutting off their supplies and communications made the position untenable. To have successfully resisted the revolution would have required an army sufficient to occupy in force every inch of ground they passed, with another force massed at some tactical point strong enough to assist any part of the long drawn out line at any point where it might have been attacked.

does anyone think barricades have had their part in the sun and they no longer serve a purpose? I'm not so sure, denying the opponent easy mobility is always valuable, and digging trenches through the streets seems kind of risky, but building something that they can't just drive a car through seems pretty valuable. the success of minecraft shows that people like building things, but the cost of materials and where to put stuff limits people's creativity. a revolution gives fresh impetus to those feelings, remember a revolution needs all sorts, basically any kind of interest or skill can benefit with a little thought.
anyways, there's two particular chapters left, and then a summary left for me to cover. anyone got any tips for encouraging further discussion? people just reading and absorbing and keeping their mouths shut? it's all good, hopefully it gets some minds thinking.

# ? Feb 3, 2023 03:33

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

I'm just reading but I'd be interested to know how people think the modern version of smashing the printing presses would look and how that presumably online suppression would be resisted. Or is the modern technological panopticon simply irresistible?

Wrt: barricades they are surely useful if you have lots and lots because even modern militaries have finite engineering resources and they can't be everywhere at once, a barricade is a low effort way to draw a lot of resources into it's dismantling imo

# ? Feb 3, 2023 03:58

Danann: Aug 4, 2013

It's pretty interesting to read the piece a hundred years (give or take a decade) later. The most applicable advice are those that are more abstract such as the importance of combat engineering, the need to keep pushing the envelope of the moment, and being on the ball wrt seizing armories and gun shop inventory.

At the same time there's also a lot of examples that have not aged well. Many of the examples in the work presumes single-shot firearms that suffer inherent disadvantages that modern repeating firearms don't. Likewise, the common infantryman these days are accustomed to working in small formations due to evolutions in training and communications technology. And then there are technological inventions such as motorized and armored vehicles, airpower, drones, etc. that simply didn't exist back when the work was published.

For that we would inevitably have to look at other conflicts such as Vietnam, China, Angola, Cuba, Iraq, Asghanistan, etc. for examples relevant to the present day.

# ? Feb 3, 2023 08:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 1, 2024 02:33

Ardent Communist: Oct 17, 2010; ALLAH! MU'AMMAR! LIBYA WA BAS!

Slavvy posted:

I'm just reading but I'd be interested to know how people think the modern version of smashing the printing presses would look and how that presumably online suppression would be resisted. Or is the modern technological panopticon simply irresistible?

Wrt: barricades they are surely useful if you have lots and lots because even modern militaries have finite engineering resources and they can't be everywhere at once, a barricade is a low effort way to draw a lot of resources into it's dismantling imo

Yeah, that's interesting to think about, because we have examples of the internet being shut down for example during occupy, where they shut it down for a certain geographical area, at least for phones. But even if they shut down a website, i think people are more used to sites going down, even being shut down. Can you imagine rioting because your favourite news site got shut down? i think western people are just more used to their government denying them liberties, 9/11 and the erosion of civil liberties didn't have anything near the reaction that the french had, and the blatant election fixing that has occurred hasn't inspired anyone to revolt.

Danann posted:

It's pretty interesting to read the piece a hundred years (give or take a decade) later. The most applicable advice are those that are more abstract such as the importance of combat engineering, the need to keep pushing the envelope of the moment, and being on the ball wrt seizing armories and gun shop inventory.

At the same time there's also a lot of examples that have not aged well. Many of the examples in the work presumes single-shot firearms that suffer inherent disadvantages that modern repeating firearms don't. Likewise, the common infantryman these days are accustomed to working in small formations due to evolutions in training and communications technology. And then there are technological inventions such as motorized and armored vehicles, airpower, drones, etc. that simply didn't exist back when the work was published.

For that we would inevitably have to look at other conflicts such as Vietnam, China, Angola, Cuba, Iraq, Asghanistan, etc. for examples relevant to the present day.

I mean, if you wanted to discuss a similar situation, in a more current era, i think the closest example would be mogadishu, where it certainly seemed that the american forces were islands that despite their movements (restricted by burning tire barricades) were only able to have any control over the area they currently were. As for more recent tactics, i've a mind to follow up this thread with either mao's or che's on guerrilla warfare, but i thought this was a good place to start because of it's relative shortness. but they focus on the countryside, and the vast majority of humanity live in cities, so it's important to realise both are important to revolutionaries.

# ? Feb 3, 2023 08:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [let's read]James Connolly, Workers Republic, Insurrectionary Warfare