As discussion of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the role of armed citizens in defending their homelands continues, here’s another view, from a traditionally anti-gun source.
As discussion of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the role of armed citizens in defending their homelands continues, here’s another view, from a traditionally anti-gun source.
How about compulsory training in firing & maintaining assault rifles & light anti-armor weapons in the summer between the junior & senior years of high school. Annual weekend refreshers until age 40 with advanced training for selected individuals in man portable anti-aircraft weapons. Of course, this would require approval from the same politicians who don’t want you to own a .22 rifle & a love of country. Anyone else having a hard time seeing Adam Schiff in body armor holding out against a Russian armor column?
As for the Finns, they surely bloodied the Russians in the Winter & Continuation Wars but now seem more interested in throwing people in prison for reading the Bible.
I like a militia based system and am more familiar with the Swiss than the Finns. But neither has been tested in a long time. The Finns last outing was in 1944 and the later stages of that was more regulars than militia. I think the last invasion of Switzerland was by Napoleon. The Israelis, while less purely a militia system and more conscript/reservist in nature has been tested repeatedly.
George Washington disdained militia because the “well regulated” (trained) part was more honored in the breach than the observance. After some early war successes in MA where the Brits were ill-prepared, there was a long series of militia disasters. The only later successes were Cowpens (with regular support) and King’s Mountain. Cowpens was interesting in that it played upon the justified British belief that the militia would run away. The regulars were concealed behind the militia which were ordered to fire 2 shots, then run. Usually they ran after the first shot. Then the bloodied British came up against the outnumbered Continentals. Meanwhile, General Morgan sent officers to rally the militia some of which returned to the battle, surprising, routing, and surrounding the British.
Modern militia is much different than that era but the need for training which the Israelis and Swiss do extensively remains. It also helps to have a plan, like Morgan did, focusing on what militia can and can’t do. There is no evidence of this in Ukraine nor for that matter with the “Muh 2A” people here. The Swiss have published a work on resistance by H. Von Dach. It is technologically dated though.
Well considering they fought the Ruskies twice… and lost.
Still I would stock up on lots and lots of LAWs, Stingers, light mortars, mines, booby-traps, sniper rifles, light machineguns, etc… and teach all school kids how to use them and use them well. And everyone required to have a rifle in their home… scoped rifle.
The army can be small.. if backed up by lots of citizens who have the MEANS and KNOWLEDGE to fight.
Like the mythical saying of Yamamoto, “a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
Since they are just so small a country I’d study the Viet Cong, Swiss, Mau Mau, Philippines during WW2, etc.. in fact the history of Guerrilla war!
But most importantly, keep your country free by having an armed citizenry that is FREE!
Dear Deaf, more anti-missile, anti-aircraft, and anti-tank weapons, and artillery, less need to get close to the enemy.
The Atlantic is a cesspool of hypocrisy just like all leftist rags.
They publish a story that scolds Ukraine for being unprepared for the Russian invasion. They claim that Ukraine should have been handing out weapons to its citizens for years now. They endorse the concept of universal military training to form a citizen militia. They scold Ukraine because that Nation did not stockpile fuel, food and other material in advance of the invasion.
Yet, what would the Atlantic say about implementing those same methods here in America? What would they say if the U.S. Government changed the law, expanded the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and started handing out M-16’s to U.S. Citizens? What would they do if the U.S. adopted a Universal Military Training program for young adults?
I can tell you EXACTLY what the Atlantic would say! They would “foam at the mouth”, throw a “Dying Duck Fit” and then “Scream from the Mountain tops” about all those EVIL ASSAULT RIFLES and WEAPONS OF WAR being put onto America’s streets. We would hear the old refrain of “Blood-will-Run-in-the-streets” from every single page and every single paragraph of this leftist rag.
Leftist media will, from time to time, come down to earth and (seemingly) abandon left-wing ideology for real world logic. However, don’t (for one minute) think that they are changing their coats! It is all part of their campaign of lies and deceit.
Let me quote from the 76th Ferengi Rule of Acquisition:
“Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.”
This is EXACTLY what the Atlantic was doing with this piece. They have published something that is logical, reasonable and full of Commonsense. Exactly the opposite of Left-wing ideology. Why would they do such a thing? To “confuse the hell out of their enemies”.
Do not take ANYTHING that the Left says at face value. They are all liars and servants of the Father of Lies, Satan. The TRUTH is not in any of these people!
I’m not familiar with the publication, but from the article blurbs below the feature, it seems Mr Wood’s article is far from the usual for it. Unless it’s somehow understood that the US doesn’t need to do so.
The concept presented has much merit. However, there’s a humongous BUT involved. Many of the eastern European countries are former Soviet client states with little or no concept of a free citizenry. Much of the “free” world has morphed into autocracy lite. Enabling the citizens in the manner suggested can seriously threaten the status quo and the political classes. My apologies for sounding like a Trotskyite.
Ukraine has, however, sorta put a new perspective on the comment by the Prez that people with rifles (and the occasional anti-tank/helo rocket) don’t stand a chance against others with jet fighters, tanks and nukes. On that subject, IIRC, while Russia was bleeding in Afghanistan, I do believe Putin was in East Germany working with the STASI. Perhaps he thinks once a serf, always a serf.
Perhaps it’s time to reconsider universal service. Yes, there are trade offs, but people did meet people they otherwise wouldn’t have, saw many stereotypes busted and learned to work together with folks they might not like. Something that seems as rare today as having a common goal.
Yup. The Finns, and the Swiss. Both nations train their young early, all of them then keep their skills current at intervals. These are reasons both nations have anjoyed long periods of time at peace. Sort of like Roosevelt’s Walk softely and carry a big stick” thinking. Or the (alledged) retort of Japan’s Yamamoto when asked about the wisdom of invading the US: no, bad idea. There is an American with a rifle behind every blade of grass. Hitler’s minions returned a similar response when he considered a land strike agasint the US.
My how a generation and half have changed things here. Post Second German War prosperity, a standing army and full navy have lulled us to sleep, along with the ever-increasing nannie mentalituy of government.
The age old question of “how does an ant eat an elephant? One bite at a time” has morphed into “how does a government neutralise its people? One gun at a time”. Thus we have politicans enacting RedFlag laws, mag cap bans, ten day waits, “might at some point in the future if we are convinced you are one of us” issue Mother May I Cards, once a felon always a felon, and felony “crimes” include a bazillion things that aren’t……. and so it goes, marching toward a disarmed and disabled population. But they’re still not satisfied. They want to up the cadence to the quickmarch. Or, as the DieFie Unit so infamously (but all too seriously) quipped: “Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in”.
Couldn’t agree more, Mas. However, that logic will not affect those who have already convinced themselves that an unarmed (other than the bad guys, of course) public is a great thing, regardless of the Second Amendment. After all, it can’t happen to us, right?
When an anti-armed citizenry advocate says that something like an invasion or a criminally abusive government ‘can’t happen here’, I like to ask them ‘Why not? What specific aspects of America make that impossible here?’
They generally have no serious answer, and it embarrasses them. Especially when I follow up with ‘Why do you want only a Donald Trump government to have all the guns?’ I’ve found that the more they hate The Donald -or George Bush or any other Republican- the more vehemently they hate an armed citizenry, which pretty clearly doesn’t make any sense.
Sometimes they’ll say ‘we need to get the right people into office’, which still forces them to respond to ‘and what happens when free and fair elections replace your right people with more neo-Nazi, racist, genocidal misogynists like Donald Trump?’ They either have to admit that The Donald and the Republicans, for all their failings, are really no such thing or just stand there grinding their teeth into powder.
Or admit that they oppose free and fair elections once they are in power. It seems pretty clear to me that quite a few of them oppose free and fair elections.
Penrod,
“It can’t happen here.” If that refers in an invasion from without (meaning outside the country), it is probably true. To the north, Canada, to the east, the Atlantic Ocean, to the south, Mexico and some islands like Cuba, to the west, the Pacific Ocean. Invading the USA from without would be pretty tough, well nigh impossible.
But what about an invasion from within? Lincoln said that was how we would perish, by suicide. In other words, what if the American people are “invaded” by our own, hostile, tyrannical government? That is possible. Also, groups of citizens, or even states, could endanger the country from within, as happened in 1861–1865.
What if our government invented the COVID-19 virus? What if our government put biological weapons labs in Ukraine, like was just reported on Tucker Carlson’s show tonight? What if our government had policies that hurt the people in other nations? What if our government had policies that hurt tax-paying Americans? That would mean our main enemy was not Russia, or China or Islamic terrorists, but our own government, which WE THE PEOPLE voted for.
Roger, you need to watch Red Dawn and Invasion U.S.A. again. Only this time, Patrick Swayze and Chuck Norris won’t be there to save us.
With the hordes of criminals pouring into America numbering in the tens of millions, even a small faction of those invaders could cause massive problems inside our country, not just financially and socially, but from a national security standpoint. Be prepared to defend our homes and property, and be ready to face the wrath of the currently Marxist government for doing so when the time comes to act.
Tom606,
You are correct as usual. In my mind, I try to think of things we the citizens can do, because our government is not doing the things our taxes pay them to do. The problem is, in every scenario I envision, the citizens get arrested, JUST LIKE THE JANUARY 6TH DEMONSTRATORS!
Maybe if the citizens go out to do the things our government should be doing, but shout, “Black Lives Matter” while doing it, the government will think the citizens are Leftists, and leave them alone. Ha! Ha!
Actually Mas, I was studying the Winter War a little bit before the invasion began. The Finns did some very innovative things to wreak havoc on uncle Joe’s troops, and I have no doubt the Ukrainians are doing the same thing. Isn’t it ironic that most European countries have rather repressive gun laws to disarm the very citizenry who would form the nucleus of the Territorial defenders? Lastly, another good read that I still do periodically is The Third World War: August 1985, by General Sir John Hackett.
The Soviets later used those same tactics on the German troops retreating from Moscow.
Simo Häyhä, also known as “The White Death” is widely regarded as the most skilled and successful sniper there ever was, with over 500 kills to his name. He helped defend Finland from the Soviets during the Winter War.
His story…
https://www.simohayha.com
Speaking as a citizen of a free nation, “compulsory” should be reserved for very rare occasions. However, if the gun-hating public would just take the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights at face value a number of problems would disappear. Armed and trained citizens are a crime deterrent. Surely there are threat actors who will abuse firearms, but there are many more of us who could intervene when they do or perhaps the criminal justice system could see violent offenders for what they are. If there were true consequences for someone robbing another at gunpoint, perhaps so many people would not be robbed at gunpoint.
Those who choose to learn the martial arts, provided there were enough of us who learn them, could teach others in a pinch even if that training were not armed conflict per se but only harassing the enemy with traps, obstacles, or deception.
In short, let us keep and bear arms as the Founders intended and leave the absurd arguments about civilians owning tanks, jets, and artillery behind. 50BMG rifles are still legal for civilian use but I don’t see many of us clamoring for them or criminals pointing such enormous weapons out of sedan windows on a drive-by.
On very rare occasions I’ve dipped into ‘The Atlantic’. Over several decades I’ve found that while it is a reliably lefty magazine, they do now and then publish a somewhat pro armed citizenry article. It has generally been one of those articles which drew me to read it, so I’ve no idea how much anti-2nd Amendment stuff they may also publish, particularly in recent years.
My impression, and it’s only that, is that The Atlantic isn’t one of the totally frothing at the mouth lefty outlets. Again, that may have changed in recent years as I pay little attention. They are lefties, but it’s nice tho to see them allowing at least this opinion piece.
I suppose that in an American context the citizenry ‘trained to kill invaders’ is our cadre of deer hunters, small game hunters, plinkers, target shooters, and the various groups of practical shooters. Of course, an invader capturing the various state gun registration databases and pro-2nd Amendment groups’ membership lists wouldn’t help.
A well regulated militia…
The Finnish model seems to fit the bill, and I am of the firm opinion that we should revert to it.
Kurt
To make the Greenies in America happy, Elon Musk should include an AR-15 with the purchase of every Tesla. Every other manufacturer of electric vehicles will follow soon as those cars costs a lot of money and $600 is a small price to pay for selling one of them. Most buyers who can afford an electric vehicle are not criminals and will easily pass a background check for a firearm. This would be a Win-Win situation for both buyers of electric cars and the manufacturers, and even for the U.S.A. as more good people will be armed and our nation more feared by foreign countries.
The idea of citizens training for combat is wonderful. I have no doubt that it has worked well in Switzerland, Finland, Israel and the USA. A man who knows how to shoot a gun before he goes into the military is going to be a better soldier than a newbie who has a lot to learn.
I remember reading where Jeff Cooper asked the question, “Is an ace fighter pilot successful because of good flying skills, or because of good shooting skills?” After looking at aces, he concluded that, while decent flying skills are necessary, all the best aces had been hunters before becoming pilots. I find that to be fascinating.
Let’s look at European Jews versus Israeli Jews. The European Jews were disarmed by Hitler, then he killed 6 million of them. The Israeli Jews know how to fight, and carry guns everywhere. They have been attacked many times by groups of neighboring nations, and frequently by terrorists. Yet they survive, prevail, and even triumph over their enemies. Here we see the same group of people being victims when they don’t have guns, but becoming winners when they do have guns. That’s a stark contrast.
I’m ambivalent about compulsory military service. There are good things about it, and many Americans do need to get better life training from the military than they get from their worthless parents and worthless government schools. However, a conscript is actually a slave, and that is incompatible with freedom. Our population is so large, we don’t need to draft anyone. We should have plenty of volunteers. If the country had to fight a big war, we could implement the idea of Vo Nguyen Giap, who said, “Everyone can do something.” Those who don’t want to fight could do many things to support our military with medicines or supplies.
I thank God we have a healthy, vibrant, voluntary citizen militia in this country. We just need to have federal gun laws pre-empt state gun laws, like they do in Constitutional Carry states, of which there are 21 now.
The success of guerrillas is unbelievable, absolutely amazing. It makes no sense that Afghans could stand up against the Soviets and we Americans, BUT THEY DID IT!
@ Roger Willco – “The success of guerrillas is unbelievable, absolutely amazing.”
It seems like at least some of the Ukrainians are thinking along those same lines. See this news story:
https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/ukraines-insurgency-in-waiting/
If the Ukrainians are successful in (A) setting up an operational resistance movement using guerrilla warfare tactics and (B) keeping open lines of supply so that other Nations can feed them arms and equipment, then the Russians might well find themselves in another version of “Afghanistan”.
Accomplishing both (A) and (B) are far from a given, however. Time will tell how this war unfolds.
There is a big difference between conquering a country and occupying it. I have read where for every two soldiers the Roman Army used in conquering a land, it then took 100 soldiers to garrison it, subdue it, and rule it. The insurgency can make things very dangerous and expensive for an occupier.
One correction. While Hitler and his minions did kill the Jews, the disarmament was done by the Weimar government and even more so by the Polish and Soviet governments.
Richard,
Thanks for the correction. The Jews gave up their guns. Now we all know that was a bad idea. The Ukrainians were not prepared for this invasion. They thought Putin was bluffing. Now the whole world has seen the same lesson again. DON”T GIVE UP YOUR GUNS!
That also works on the macro level with nations. Libya gave up its nukes, and got invaded. Ukraine gave up its nukes and got invaded.
In the paragraph above the last one, I wrote that the whole world has “seen” the same lesson again. I did not write that the whole world has “learned” the same lesson again. Everyone sees, but not everyone learns.
After WWII ended in Europe, the Allies assembled the leading fighter pilots of all air forces that fought in that theater (possibly excepting Russians, definitely excepting those held prisoner by them). They all agreed that the vast majority of their victories involved pilots who had no idea that enemy planes were around until bullets started hitting their planes.
The leading American ace later wrote in a book that “It takes 4 seconds to shoot down a plane, look around every 3 seconds.”
There’s a clear lesson there.
WR Moore,
Ah, the importance of ambush, the element of surprise. Dick Marcinko was a Navy Seal in Vietnam. He wrote that half the men he killed never knew he was there.
It’s interesting that the highest scoring aces in WW I and WW II mainly ambushed their prey and rarely engaged in dogfighting.
In WW I, Manfred von Richthofen aka The Red Baron, using groundbreaking tactics taught by his mentor, German ace Oswald Boelcke, amassed 80 aerial victories by sneaking up on his victims and blasting them from the skies over France. On the other hand, Werner Voss, an excellent pilot who preferred to dogfight his opponents, got 48 kills before he was shot down by one of 7 British fighters who he engaged in combat by himself, after downing 2 of them and damaging every enemy aircraft.
In WW II, German ace Erich Hartmann scored an astounding 352 kills, mostly on the Eastern Front by approaching his prey from behind and below to blast them at close range. On the Western Front in Africa, fellow ace Hans Joachim Marseilles was more chivalrous and preferred to dogfight his 158 opponents before shooting them down. Once, he destroyed 17 enemy aircraft in one day using a minimum of ammunition for each and this was witnessed by his wingman and ground troops. Marseilles’ life was cut short when his Bf 109G’s engine caught fire when not in combat and he bailed out, striking the tail of his plane which killed him instantly.
The moral of the story is, ambush your opponent if you want to win. Just like back in America’s old west, the smart guys usually took out their victims by shooting them in the back at night with a shotgun, not the face to face “High Noon” gunfight on main street with revolvers, unless one is as good and cool as Wild Bill Hickok, who was killed by a bullet to the back of his head while playing cards in a saloon.
Of course, this tactic is for warfare. In peacetime America, it’s not a good idea from a legal standpoint to ambush your opponent and shoot them in the back, unless one wants a very long stay at the Big House.
Tom606,
Thanks for all you wrote. Just want to add that Richthofen was a hunter. Apparently, I would even call him a trophy hunter because sometimes, after downing an opponent, he would land, and take the insignia off the tail or side of the downed plane. This was also a way of proving he made the kill. All these aces had kills which were not credited to them because their kill was not observed by others, or maybe it flew away, and crashed later, out of sight.
You are right. Ambushing your opponent is the way to go, the safest tactic for winning. Too bad this option is not open to the good guys during rule of law. At this time, in America, we only have one-half rule of law. Because, if you are a criminal favored by Leftists, you can get away with your crime.
I’ve always believed justice should only be administered by the government. Now, our justice system has become so ineffective, I’m beginning to wonder if the private sector could do a better job of administering law and order than the government does. Capitalists like to point out the private sector can do almost everything better than the public sector. These Soros prosecutors are proving them right. For an example of an ineffective government legal system, look at the Central American narco-states. The criminal gangs have more power than the governments.
“If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn’t plan your mission properly.”
― David Hackworth
Roger:
You’re correct in stating that The Red Baron was a hunter and he started as a young lad, way before he joined the Army. His younger brother Lothar hunted too and was also a top ace in the famed “Flying Circus” with Manfred and survived the war to die later in a civilian aircraft accident. Richthofen was fortunate to be in the German aristocracy where his family had money and owned lots of land with plenty of game animals to stalk. Besides taking trophies from downed planes, Richthofen also had silver cups made for each of his aerial victories. He never got all 80 cups made as Germany was running short on resources including silver towards the later part of the war. A British .303 caliber bullet from a land based machine gun ended his life on April 21, 1918.
Roger Willco stated…
“I remember reading where Jeff Cooper asked the question, “Is an ace fighter pilot successful because of good flying skills, or because of good shooting skills?” After looking at aces, he concluded that, while decent flying skills are necessary, all the best aces had been hunters before becoming pilots. I find that to be fascinating.”
During WW2, the Korean War, and maybe Vietnam the gun deflection shots are the hardest to make hits on an enemy plane. This requires in being able to lead a moving object just like you do from the duck blind. The soldiers being trained as gunners for the B-17 and B-24 bombers started out with sessions on the skeet field. Being good at accurately leading a moving object was critical to scoring hits. To bastardize an old saw, “Flying skills are good but deflection accuracy is fatal”. Today’s modern fighters all use computers to deal with deflection shots – you just point and shoot.
Besides training with shotguns for aerial combat, fighter pilots and bomber gunners were advised to fire in the path of enemy aircraft and let them fly into the stream of bullets. This tactic was especially effective when dealing with earlier Japanese planes as they were lightly constructed and had no armor and self sealing fuel tanks, causing them to explode quickly.
German ace Hans Joachim Marseille was a master of deflection shooting in WW II and seldom fired more than a dozen rounds to take out each of his 158 victories. He once shot down a British fighter with a single 20mm shell. Marseille was not a hunter, but a gifted musician and played the piano very well.
Just a few thoughts. In USA there are roughly 15 million hunters by 2019 numbers. 11.4 million deer hunters and 2 million bow only hunters. Although these numbers continue to decline this represents a pretty large standing army if needed that could be activated in short order. They already have weapons and ammo. All they need would be motivation. Not to mention all the gun collectors, former military and police. Far from ideal to defend our country but a lot farther ahead than Ukraine giving out AK 47s to its citizens. The American hunter represents the largest unorganized militia in the world. The Swiss and the Finns have the right plan. I pray to God we will never need them.
Do yourself a favor and forget ANY proposal for compulsory training of conscripts in the U.S. in peacetime. Four hundred years of precedent show that Americans will NOT seriously conscript in peacetime. We will lie about it and pretend to do it, but actually useful training WILL NOT OCCUR.
Just stop fooling yourselves and face reality.
Stephen St. Onge,
I’m afraid you’re right. I was in the USAF from 1983–1987. They wanted motivated troops, they did not like having to waste time and effort on discipline problems. Imagine drafting large numbers of people who don’t want to serve. That would be a nightmare for the military. Face it. Americans do not learn discipline and life skills from their parents, (some do, many don’t) from their schools, from their churches or from the mass media and popular culture. Americans are as obedient as cats. “Hey, you can’t tell me what to do! I have my rights!” That’s the way we were before snowflakes actually began listening to their teachers’ propaganda. My generation did not listen to teachers, because they were uncool.
For most of America’s history, we really did not need a standing army. Our shores could be defended by militia, and our seas by privateers (ship owners hired by our government to defend our coasts). In modern times, it would be foolhardy to dispense with our Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard and Space Force, because of the technological advances in military weapons. But, if the aim is to simply defend America, I believe it could by done by highly motivated Patriots with only small arms. I say this because of what I saw in Afghanistan during the Soviet–Afghan War and the nineteen years we spent there. You don’t need fancy weapon systems to defend a nation. You just need guerrillas who are willing to die. Of course, those fancy weapons help a lot, they save the lives of our people, but they are not necessary for victory. (A minor point, we could save a lot of tax money if we defunded the military, and relied only on militias. We do the opposite. We have eleven aircraft carriers, ELEVEN!!! I think they are beautiful, but they sure are expensive).
Let me paint an absurd scenario, just to make a point. Imagine America being invaded by the combined militaries of both China and Russia. Their weapons would devastate our cities, but the countryside could not be held by them. Like Russia in WWII, our land is too large to be conquered. Many Patriots would die fighting, just like many Mujahideen and Taliban fighters /terrorists/jihadists died, but the Chinese and the Russians could not subdue the whole nation. Probably the hardest state to subdue would be Alaska. Now, if nuclear weapons were used, the radiation would kill everyone, but it would kill the Chinese and Russian invaders, too.
General Smedley Butler came to the conclusion that the only just wars were when men defended their homelands (and the Constitution). Other than that, “War is a Racket.”
The immoral Chinese and Russian military commanders would use poison gas on American insurgents without any hesitation. If they take the U.S.A. it’s for the land and resources. They will gladly exterminate all the people to get what they want. Attractive young women may be spared a quick death and used for more diabolical purposes.
Tom606,
Yes, I think the reason why the USA has not triumphed in guerrilla wars is because we are not willing to exterminate everyone. The way to win a guerrilla war is through genocide, and in my absurd scenario above, Russia and China would use chemical warfare to end the resistance. That would even work in Alaska, if there were any “Red Dawn”-style holdouts in Alaska during that invasion. This war in Ukraine is a lot like “Red Dawn.”
What world leader said,”we will not attach America, we will destroy you form within”.
There is an army massing in our country today. Look at all the single, male, military age people entering our country illegally by the thousands. I just saw this week where the number of Russians entering our country has increased. This was a report by the border patrol. If the criminals can get weapons on the black market the illegals can too. We need to stop this invasion across our boarder! Before many of our citizens wake up, we will have an army in our back yard. This makes the civilian gun owners front line defense. I have no idea who would be coordinating this attach, but there will be someone. We don’t have to worry about Russia or China or some other country making a full scale attach on us, it will be a coalition of several countries attaching us from within.
Keep your weapons clean and store ammo boys, it’s CAN happen here!
Tome,
Thanks, Tome. In 1956, Nikita Khrushchev said, “We will take America without firing a shot. We do not have to invade the U.S. We will destroy you from within….” He was the Soviet leader. It’s always been interpreted as weakening us morally, and taking over our mass media and educational institutions. Now we know Communists have also taken over the Democrat party.
It would make sense to weaken your opponent as much as possible before getting in a fight with him. I can’t beat an MMA fighter, but I could if I had a month to make him sick and mal-nourished. Maybe the plan was to spend decades weakening America’s families and moral fiber, then send in the “troops” you mentioned, for the final blow. You can’t send a foreign soldier in uniform into the US, but you can send anyone across our southern border. The phrase, “Death by a thousand cuts” comes to mind.
I want to write why we Patriots are not taking action, but I have to censor myself. Most can guess the answer.
I was thinking it was him but wasn’t sure.
The statement “Death by a thousand cuts” could be so true. The democrats have been cutting us for years with many different blades and from all directions.
The government has no idea where all the illegal border crosses are today. Who knows what the end game is. If the government knew what was being planned they wouldn’t tell us. The only thing we can do is be ready. If you even mention the word militia the left goes ballistic. With all the hunters and gun collectors there are any country would be crazy to attempt an all out assault but they can whittle away at us using the democrats to wreck our economy and demoraliz us and try to disarm us. We have to be vigilant and voice our opposition to our elected officials.
Thanks for posting this. I just read an article on the sinking of the MS Estonia from The Atlantic and it was great, I almost emailed you the link while I was forwarding it around since it was so good. I hope you received the book with a dvd wedged in the middle I mailed you a while back. For anyone who hasn’t seen Mas ferret thru a stack of old books and dig out solid gold, its something else. Its also heartening and enlightening to read the team’s comments here.
While people are waxing nostalgic about militias and resistance, what is missing a bit of history. The vast majority, if not all, of the resistance/irregular forces victories have been due to active material support from secure out of country bases by interested third parties. Possibly with actual military action in addition. There are several scholarly dissertations in print that document this. Although I expect most are in places that specialize in military history. I don’t specifically recall anyone doing a support analysis of the the Finland/Russia fracas, but strictly speaking, those were actual troops using unconventional tactics. Not Ma & Pa Kettle going rogue.
For example: the French in our Revolution, the Allies during WWII, the Communists in Indo-China/Viet Nam, Castro in Cuba etc.
WR Moore,
Yes, the guerrillas have to be able to resupply. From what I’ve read about the Vietnam War, our guys would go out and kill the VC and NVA, but they were able to be resupplied by the Russians. The survivors could keep fighting as long as they could be resupplied, and that is what they did. We killed 1 and 1/2 million North Vietnamese soldiers, and 1 and 1/2 million Vietnamese non-combatants were collateral damage. You would think the Chinese would also help Vietnam, but I read that the Vietnamese don’t like the Chinese, so they would not accept much help from them.
I suppose if Ma & Pa Kettle could not be resupplied, then their stand for freedom would simply be a long, drawn-out version of the Alamo, or the Native Americans’ desperate fight to keep their lifestyle and land in the late 1800s. However, I believe both the defenders of the Alamo and the Injuns are heroes for their resistance to tyranny. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. Of course, that’s easy for me to say when I’m a Christian, old, single and childless. [Yes, I know the NSA is recording all electronic transmissions, text, phone calls and everything on the Internet. It’s a net, that why they call it the “World Wide Web.” Our government is the spider spinning the ‘net.]
One should not just look at the Russia-Ukraine conflict in isolation. There are many factors that contributed to causing this conflict. Furthermore, there are many people who seek to profit from it. Not the least is the American Left and the Biden Administration who seek to use the Russia-Ukraine conflict as a distraction from the total dumpster fire that their leftist policies have made out of America. For a short list:
Loss of our Civil and Constitutional Rights
Political Corruption
Increased Racial Tension
Crime
Inflation
Supply chain problems
unsecured National Borders
Uncontrolled immigration
Drug addiction (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2021/20211117.htm )
Gas Prices / Shortages
Falling Stock Market Values
Out of control National Debt
Welfare State – Culture of Dependency
National Humiliation / Weakness on World Stage
So many of the above problems are directly traceable to our corrupt and uncaring ruling class of so-called Political Elites. The only thing “elite” about them is their corruption, incompetence and thirst for power.
Here is a somewhat broader perspective on some underlying contributing factors to the Russia-Ukraine conflict:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5oA-IUKaz8
In my email, the notification for this blog was partial: “We’ve Discussed the Swiss, Let’s Look to…” — so before I clicked on the link, I did not know which country was going to be named. My first thought was to fill in the blank with “Taiwan.” Since Putin is getting away with killing, what are the odds that Xi Jinping attempts a copy-cat performance in Taiwan? I would be interested to read an analysis regarding whether the Taiwanese are learning anything right now with regard to self defense.
AM,
I hope the Taiwanese are building deep tunnels and stuffing them with supplies.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn the Taiwanese have nuclear weapons, just like Israel and Japan who deny it. Taiwan is an advanced country and it’s population is intelligent enough to produce the ingredients necessary, and the knowledge, to make nuclear weapons. Crooked Joe will not help Taiwan, unless George Soros or another of his puppeteers allow it.
Tom606,
If Taiwan does have nuclear weapons, then it will not be invaded. Libya and Ukraine show the world what happens when nuclear nations disarm. Things I read are that every nation is upping security and many will try to get nukes. This type of thinking is elementary, and shows that possessing defensive force works the same way on both the micro level and the macro level. It deters aggression.
Nuclear weapons are the modern version of Theodore Roosevelt’s “Big Stick”.
Only a fanatic or insane person would use them unprovoked nowadays when so many countries have these massively dangerous weapons which could wipe out billions of people within minutes.
For what it is worth:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2022/03/12/ukrainian-killing-field-belarusian-hospitals-are-reportedly-overflowing-with-rus-n2604464
Given the unreliability of journalism in today’s World (it has mostly degenerated into pure propaganda by means of the “Yellow (Journalism) Brick Road”), we may never know the truth as to what it happening in Ukraine.
Comments are closed.