How a Weak Country can Prevent Being Conquered by a Stronger Country

It would appear that large countries consume smaller countries, in the same way large fish consume smaller fish. However, many small countries continue to exist. Sometimes large countries break into smaller countries, conquered colonies and territories break away from empires, and sometimes a large country just can't conquer a smaller country.

Not being able to be conquered largely comes down to two decisions. One, are the people patriotic and willing to fight the foreign power? Two, are the people armed? If the answer to both of these is yes, then it's extremely unlikely that even the strongest country can conquer the weakest country.

Theoretically the stronger country could kill everyone in the smaller country, but it's difficult to garner the support of the people necessary to carry out a genocide like that. It's possible, just unlikely.

The United States offers several examples. The US, the most powerful country in the world, one of two world super powers along with the Soviet Union at the time, couldn't defeat half of Vietnam over a 20 year war from from 1955 to 1975. The Vietnamese people were obviously willing to fight, and they were armed because they had just finished fighting a war against the French, who they also defeated, over almost a decade, meaning the Vietnamese fought continuously for 30 years.

You can say that North Vietnam was backed by large countries too, because they were heavily backed by the Soviet Union and China. This will often apply in other wars too. If a big country is trying to conquer a small country, that big country has enemies. The enemies of the big country will see an opportunity to help supply money and weapons to the small country to help fight a proxy war against the big country. That's so common it's the norm.

The US provides more recent examples in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wars the US fought for two decades, and lost. These are excellent demonstrations of how this works.

Iraq supposedly had a large military. The US walked right through that official military. It stood no chance against the power and might of the US armed forces. Then, after a 20 year insurgency, when the US was retreating and withdrawing, the US left behind billions of dollars worth of equipment to supply the enemy forces the US had fought.

Afghanistan barely had a traditional military at the start of the war with the US in 2001, and it evaporated quickly. But, after a 20 year insurgency, the US withdrew in defeat. Afghanistan has multiple examples of not being able to be conquered. The British Empire couldn't hold it. The Soviet Union couldn't hold it. It's a difficult terrain with an armed populace that doesn't want to be conquered. Now, at one time the area was pagan and conquered by the Greeks under Alexander the Great and ruled by the Bactrian kings, who converted to Buddhism, and then was later conquered by the Muslims. So, it can be done. It's just difficult, and it seems that this has become more difficult as technology has advanced.

It's notable that while the US was fighting Muslims it was also funding Muslims, including organizations like the Taliban. The US would send money to the Taliban in Pakistan to help supply the war against the US. The US government is still officially and unofficially funding the Taliban. So the US government was paying to kill US soldiers. This makes an important general point. Often the large empires are so corrupt that they work against themselves, which is part of the reason they can lose wars against smaller countries.

Even further than that, while the US had soldiers dying overseas fighting Muslims, US politicians imported a lot of Muslims to the US, to such an extent that the Muslims have been able to take over multiple cities in several states such as New York, Michigan, and Minnesota. So not only did the US lose the foreign wars, it also lost domestically to the same enemy. A great example of how a corrupt large country can easily destroy itself.

It's notable that Hitler went around Switzerland in World War Two. Why? It would have been good for him if he could have taken it along with all of their wealth to continue funding his wars. So, why not take it? Switzerland has an armed populace. All of the adult males in the country have guns and have been trained. And they seem like they would put up a fight. Even if the Nazis could have defeated Switzerland, Hitler might have decimated his whole military there, and the other big powers would have fed supplies into Switzerland making it even harder. Plus, Switzerland has difficult terrain which they've designed for a defensive war.

Hitler easily took France, even though theoretically they had a defense set up against Germany, and Hitler easily took the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, but then they had some insurgency issues. Hitler also took Greece, Poland, and Yugoslavia, but then had major insurgency problems. Initially conquering a place is one thing, holding that new territory is another thing.

Many of these situations are playing out today. Israel is slowly starting to arm more of its populace, because the Muslims are increasing in power and the US is falling in power (partially because of the US fighting wars for Israel). It's reasonable that Israel a century from now could be conquered and need to fight an insurgency war themselves, so they are starting to prepare for that. (As US wealth and power diminishes, so will its ability to fight foreign wars directly and indirectly.)

Taiwan may be taken by China. China has always claimed Taiwan. It's an interesting fallout because China was having a civil war before WW2, then got crushed by Japan, then continued the civil war with the Communists winning most of China, but the old empire kept Taiwan (and until 1999 Britain kept Hong Kong and Portugal kept Macau).

Taiwan is somewhat similar to Tibet. China took Tibet in 1950. They had claimed it as theirs for several decades. The reason that Tibet was easily taken by a fairly weak China is that the people weren't armed, they weren't willing to fight, and they didn't have any foreign support. Why would foreign powers support Tibet? Tibet was going to lose. Now imagine if Tibet had an armed populace that was willing to fight. Then foreign nations might have supplied Tibet, and China would have had a difficult time taking them. It could have easily turned into a 20 year war that China could've lost.

Taiwan isn't exactly the same, but there are similarities. Many people in Taiwan don't want to be taken by China. But, speaking the same language and having a shared history, ethnicity, and culture, some people in Taiwan seem fine with the idea of being a part of China. So, are the people willing to fight to stay separate? It's hard to tell.

Taiwan has an army, but the populace itself is completely unarmed. If they were to be willing to fight and allowed people to have weapons, then it would be impossible for anyone to take Taiwan. If the United States itself tried to take Taiwan it would fail, if the populace resisted and was armed. Fighting in those mountains and jungles, it would be at least as hard as Vietnam and Afghanistan.

If foreign powers thought that Taiwan could win, they would supply them to help weaken China. That ability is going down in the world right now, because the US is getting weaker as it becomes more of a corrupt welfare state while losing war after war. All of Europe combined isn't very strong because it's a welfare continent and is protected militarily from Russia by the US, with the US paying for more of Europe's military than Europe. Canada and Australia are small and would probably support China against Taiwan. The US hasn't allowed Japan to have a real military since WW2. India doesn't recognize Taiwan, but if Taiwan looked like it could win, and therefore could get support from the US and some of Europe, India might jump in too.

There's a chance that China won't need to take Taiwan militarily and will just do it politically and follow-up with a police state. This is similar to Hong Kong. Foreign powers recognized the right of China to take Hong Kong. People in Hong Kong resisted, but they were unarmed so the resistance didn't really do much. It doesn't help that they are tiny with easy terrain.

Some people foolishly think that peaceful resistance movements can work, usually because they believe propaganda about Gandhi in India peacefully defeating the British Empire. That idea is wrong in multiple ways. First of all because not only was Gandhi not against violence, he was for it. He just saw non-violent resistance as a higher form of human virtue, but he saw cowardice and surrender as lower in virtue than violence. In his 1920 article 'The Doctrine of the Sword' he says, "I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence.", and says that his son should defend him with violence, and that people should train with weapons. In his article 'Between Cowardice and Violence' he says, "I want both the Hindus and Mussalmans to cultivate the cool courage to die without killing. But if one has not that courage, I want him to cultivate the art of killing and being killed rather than, in a cowardly manner, flee from danger." The Hindus and Muslims both carried out violent protests against the British (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are all violent to this day), plus the British people didn't want to fight in India, plus Britain went completely broke fighting in WW2. It wasn't peace that gave independence to India, it was violence. Of course no government school in the world would teach that truth to children that will grow into adults they want to control.

Gandhi also pointed out that Britain didn't really conquer India, the Indians made deals and essentially gave India to Britain. That's more common than you would think, the invaders and conquerors are invited in. This happened in ancient Rome when the Romans invited the Goths in as refugees. It's how the Muslims conquered Spain and Portugal, when the Goths were having a civil war and invited the Muslims in. It's happening in Europe and the US now where Africans and Muslims are being paid to move in and take over these countries. It's how the Dutch conquered England, when William was invited to go over and become king. It's a major part of how the European powers were able to defeat the Native Americans. The Native Americans didn't see themselves as one, they were a bunch of smaller tribes who worked against each other and at various times sided with various European powers against other Native Americans. This theme is a norm.

Russia and the Soviet Union have been halfway successful at controlling areas, with difficulty. Russia has areas controlled by Muslims like Chechnya, where there's been a lot of resistance against the government for a long time, but Russia continues to hold it. There is an autonomous state in Russia controlled by Jews over by China. It's one of two explicitly Jewish controlled governments in the world other than the United States, Israel and the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. Russia took the Crimea. Russia seems to control part of the country of Georgia now.

It looks like Russia has a good chance of taking and holding part of the Ukraine, as they previously did with Crimea. Ukraine had a military build up, but didn't let very many people legally own guns, but there were a lot of black market guns available. Once the war started the Ukraine gave a bunch of people guns. So it's been a mix. The US and Europe flooded Ukraine with money and weapons against Russia, at least partially to cover up the US and European corruption, fraud, and biological weapons programs in Ukraine. There was at least some Russian support inside of Ukraine as well. So it's a real mess, but demonstrates the same idea that Russia was not able to easily take a smaller and weaker country.

The origin of the US is another good example. The American British colonies were just colonies, and the British Empire was mighty. But, many, maybe half, of the people in the colonies saw themselves as a separate thing, they saw their rights as being violated, they saw justice in their own self-defense, so they were willing to fight, and they were armed. Fiddle Around and Find Out (FAFO). The British found out at the beginning of the war in 1775 with the Battles of Lexington and Concord, where the traditional army resistance to the British was nothing, but the general public caused them losses. People just stepping out of their houses and killing British Regulars.

It follows a familiar pattern. An armed populace that's willing to fight goes up against a large military force that should crush them. The smaller force is resilient and shows it. Enemies of the enemy see an opportunity and give some support, the French against the British in this case. The weak power looks like it's losing, George Washington did a large amount of retreating, and then wins. The British were so confounded that they tried again in 1812, with similar results.

Here's a key that most people don't know. The American Founding Fathers knew that Britain, or France, or Spain would try to conquer the United States again. So, while George Washington was President they passed the Militia Acts in 1792. This made it a law that all able-bodied white men between 18 and 45 had to join the militia, meaning they had to train for war, and they had to own weapons. The law gives a list of supplies that they have to own to be prepared for war, including a gun, black powder, a bayonet, musket balls, and a knapsack, to be ready to go. You couldn't lose possession of these things even to lawsuits or taxes, you had to have them. This was later expanded to other races and older ages. Then it was shrunk down, technically making it a little easier to conquer the United States after 1903, but still not possible for any other country in the world.

The United States also has the Second Amendment to the Constitution, so that citizens can own weapons. Even though that keeps becoming more restricted over time, even now the US general populace is the most heavily armed group of people in the world, making it impossible for a foreign invader to conquer the United States. (The United States will fall more like ancient Rome, where the foreigners are first invited in as refugees, then something like a civil war by foreigners who are already inside of and part of the country, coordinated with foreigners outside of the country connected to the refugees, are able to conquer it, like the Goths taking Rome. It's similar to how the Visigoths lost the Iberian Peninsula to the Muslims as well. It's also part of how the Muslims lost the Iberian Peninsula to the Christians, by having internal conflicts and forming alliances with the foreigners. These types of patterns are why people say history repeats.)

This makes it pretty clear how a small and weak country can make it unlikely that they'll be conquered. Arming the populace gives them the best chance. Places don't do this because the current governments also fear the populace, and propaganda against guns is so easy. If you take a country that doesn't have people owning guns and start giving out guns, some deaths are going to occur, and then there's going to be public uproar to take the guns away again, and it's a great political opportunity to campaign for election to office (most likely with the country that wants to control the other country willing to indirectly financially support the political candidates that want to disarm the population).

You would need to roll it out slow and controlled. In year one all men between the ages of 18 and 55 have to take a three day training course with rifles and acquire a rifle and a minimum amount of ammo. You could even restrict the ages so you start with more mature men first and then over a year or two open up the age range. It makes sense to do background checks so that criminals and gangs can still be illegal and restricted. Year two you could require them to do a three day training on handguns. There are a lot of different specific paths that could work for how to roll the policy out. This can be fairly open like the US is now. Or it can be more structured like Switzerland is. Either system works as a strong deterrence, and even if the deterrence doesn't work then the insurgency most likely will.

Most of the world isn't interested in this though, and I find that fascinating. They are more comfortable with the possibility of being conquered from without than with having an armed populace within. They also probably fear having an armed populace will lead to civil war, which is a reasonable concern. As the US starts to police the world less, as it becomes poorer, over the next few decades we'll see some of these places conquered.

Find more at JeffThinks.com or JeffreyAlexanderMartin.com