# How many would really rebel?



## Montero (Jun 14, 2009)

Just been reading a fantasy based around an invasion, and how the country side rose up to fight back.  Suddenly struck me, over the years I've been on a couple of committees for groups I was in, helping run things, been part of a protest group.  It is amazing how few people actually get up and help/protest.
So just finished up wondering - when there is an invasion how many people actually do anything.  Does anyone here know for example how many people were in the French resistance as compared to the number of people in France?
Or how much the countryside fought the Normans after the Saxon army lost at Hastings?
Or any other battle/resistance historical scenario?


----------



## Rodders (Jun 15, 2009)

Sounds like you're planning something.


----------



## Montero (Jun 16, 2009)

Not really for a change   Or anyway, not got a book plot in mind.  Just exasperated that I seem to be doing most of the work and seeing a really big contrast between my life and the book I just read.  So wondered how many ordinary people have get-up-and-fight reactions in the type of invasion scenario you get in fantasies.
Not liking something being built in your neighbourhood is far less serious than an invasion, so just wondered if more people got up and did something about an invasion than they did about a naff development.  Or maybe fewer do because it is more dangerous!


----------



## deaconllq (Jun 16, 2009)

Look at Iran right now. I think it depends on the situation. No one protests when things are relatively comfortable, even if there are things that should be protested. But in places like Iran, where I wager a good deal of folks are not happy, a large number are willing to take to the streets and even lay down their lives for change.


----------



## Rodders (Jun 17, 2009)

I'm sure like many, i'd certainly like to THINK that i'd stand up, do the right thing and be counted. But in reality??? Knowing myself as i do, i don't think i'd have the balls to risk my life for a belief or my country. Sorry.


----------



## ManTimeForgot (Jun 19, 2009)

The simple fact is most people will not.  Historically we have seen time and time again people "tolerating the intolerable."  It takes conditions of truly abysmal proportions before people do much of anything.  The "trick" behind all this is that you have to get elites in order to back you or nothing spreads.  The medium of discourse has almost always been controlled by elites, so if they don't want an idea to spread you can be darn sure that it won't or will but under controlled circumstances.

MTF


----------



## reiver33 (Jun 21, 2009)

A VERY general rule in small-unit military psychology, but one I believe holds true for other organisations, is that it takes about 15% of the total to agitate for a given course of action which the majority will then follow. The trick is, of course, for the activists to remain 'active' - not discouraged, in prison, exiled or dead - until they can hit this critical mass.

Trying to direct a 'mass movement' though, is another matter entirely.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jun 21, 2009)

I think it relies to a large extent on whether other factors that could stir up the populace are present.

A famine or an economy that's smashed to ruins, or especially a combination of both, will do it.


----------



## The Judge (Jun 21, 2009)

In addition to control of the elite and the media, and outside matters such as famine, I think much would depend on what action is taken by the invaders against the local population and how quickly they take it.  

Allowing the locals to carry on as before the invasion, so that there is very little difference in life for the mass of people, and the herd instinct will be to do nothing - because doing something will only make it worse.  If restrictions and privations are brought in gradually, then again, people will tolerate them because life is only a little worse than before, and no one wants to get killed over something that isn't important.  (Well, no one wants to be killed, full stop, but risking your life to prevent your children being murdered is one thing; taking that risk so they don't have to wear a symbol on their coats is another.)  Even when worse things start happening, if there is sufficient disinformation being given out - and the worse things are happening to other kinds of people - the majority will stay quiet.

If on the other hand the invaders are fighting their way through, killing everyone who moves, then people are more likely to fight, simply because they have little choice - they are dead either way.  (Though even then, there will be those who believe it possible to appease the invaders, or those who will just wait and hope.)

J


----------



## Saeltari (Jun 21, 2009)

I think it comes down to what Teresa and the Judge, as well as others, have mentioned. If people feel they have something to lose chances are they will not rebel but if they are to the point where they feel they have nothing to lose then rebel, they will.


----------



## Dimentio (Jun 27, 2009)

Montero said:


> Just been reading a fantasy based around an invasion, and how the country side rose up to fight back.  Suddenly struck me, over the years I've been on a couple of committees for groups I was in, helping run things, been part of a protest group.  It is amazing how few people actually get up and help/protest.
> So just finished up wondering - when there is an invasion how many people actually do anything.  Does anyone here know for example how many people were in the French resistance as compared to the number of people in France?
> Or how much the countryside fought the Normans after the Saxon army lost at Hastings?
> Or any other battle/resistance historical scenario?



That depends on the cruelty of the invaders, the culture of your country and other factors which neither your country or the invaders have any influence upon.


----------



## deaconllq (Jun 29, 2009)

I agree that culture plays a large part. In Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers, he cites a study involving airplane crashes. The study supports a theory that more airplanes crash under the hand of pilots from highly structured and submissive societies than those from societies founded and celebrating freedom and individualism. For example, Korean Airlines had a comparatively high incident rate (crashes and mishaps). Korean society puts a high premium or emphasis on deference to those in authority. Therefore, even when co-pilots or navigators on Korean flight decks knew there was something wrong, they refused to speak up and avert disaster for fear of embarrassing their superior, the pilot. Similar scenarios on flight decks with crews from non-deferential societies produced drastically different results. U.S. subordinates often spoke up early and avoided disaster because the culture of the U.S. puts a high premium on individual achievement. 

Therefore, it really depends on where the invasion occurs and what part of the war we are talking about. A country that is rigidly hierarchic will field a tremendous army because they all follow orders. However, once regime change settles in, they are much more willing to acquiesce and simply play by the new set of rules. 

A country that celebrates individualism will produce those that will fight on even years after the regime change.


----------



## Peter Graham (Jun 30, 2009)

Montero said:


> Just been reading a fantasy based around an invasion, and how the country side rose up to fight back. Suddenly struck me, over the years I've been on a couple of committees for groups I was in, helping run things, been part of a protest group. It is amazing how few people actually get up and help/protest.
> So just finished up wondering - when there is an invasion how many people actually do anything.


 
It depends what you are fighting for. You posit a couple of scenarios which appear to be based on considerations of nationalism (such as Saxons and Normans). Although it clashes with the Hollywood notion of history, time and again nationalism has come a poor second place to survival and even profiteering. Would you be prepared to stand up and die in defence of the Queen or the Labour government or a red, white and blue flag, simply because your love of a constitutional monarchy and/or a bicameral legislature and/or a bit of cloth were being threatened? Is your nationality not just an accident of birth? 

My guess is that what brings people out is a direct threat to them and their loved ones. The further away the threat, the less people would be bothered.

By way of an example let us say that our European allies get so sick of our "little Englander" Euroscepticism that a pan European force invades Blighty across the Channel. We are caught totally by surprise and a quick call to the White House reveals (lo and behold) that our "special relationship" with the US military machine is very much secondary to real politic.

Within a day or so, enemy troops have overwhelmed Aldershot and are approaching London, having subdued Sussex and Kent without much of a fight. But people living in Sussex and Kent are getting messages through to their friends and family elsewhere in the country to say that the invading troops are being polite and are actually paying for their billets and stores. It is clear that they are under strict instructions not to plunder or loot. The US president comes on the television to announce that, although he deplores a coup, it is clear that the British people have nothing to fear from the invaders, who have given him assurances that they propose to stop once they have seized London and arrested the govenrment. The Queen is not to be removed as nominal Head of State and elections are to be held to allow the British people to select a new, pro-European government. At that point, the invading forces will require the new governemnt to sign a Treaty, at which point the troops will be recalled.

After a slow start, the beleagured government has taken action. The Army has been rallied around various garrison towns - Catterick in the north and Winchester in the south, and the Navy has scrambled all available personnel to Plymouth and Portsmouth. The Air Force is marshalling all available resources on its bases in Lincolnshire and Norfolk. There is talk of a nuclear strike against Strasbourg or Brussels, to be triggered the second the first enemy soldier crosses the M25.

From a hidden bunker somewhere on Salisbury Plain, military top brass are attempting to raise the country against the invaders in the hope of launching a counter attack to liberate the south east and save the government.  

Would you turn out?


----------



## Urien (Jun 30, 2009)

Yes. 

I imagine the images of foreign soldiers driving their tanks and carrying guns through British towns would draw a massive response. If they didn't win quickly then I suspect they'd regret their invasion.


----------



## The Judge (Jun 30, 2009)

Not really fair, Peter.  A bloodless coup is hardly an invasion of the type Montero was talking about.  

I agree with your general premise.  It's an axiom that soldiers don't fight for their country, as much as for their mates.  The same would be true of the general population, you fight for your family, not for a people you don't know or much care about.  

But sometimes it only takes a handful of deaths, if the news is manipulated cleverly enough, to spark a revolution.  So in those circumstances a lot would depend upon the media and how much footage there is of the casualties which have been incurred in Kent and Sussex.

But speaking as a Eurosceptic, I haven't taken up arms against them yet, so I don't know how different I would feel if their ultimate goal was realised quite so dramatically!  

J

PS Not sure if Urien is being very facetious...


----------



## Ursa major (Jun 30, 2009)

The Judge said:


> But sometimes it only takes a handful of deaths....


 
Wasn't one turning point in the Velvet Revolution (Velvet Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) the _assumed _death of _one_ person who, it seems, worked for the government:



> By 16:00, about 15,000 people had joined the demonstration. They walked to Opletal's grave** and - after the official end of the march - continued into downtown Prague (map), carrying banners and chanting anti-Communist slogans. At about 19:30, the demonstrators were stopped by a cordon of riot police at Národní Street. They had blocked all escape routes and beat the students. Once all the protesters were dispersed, one of the participants - secret police agent Ludvík Zifčák - kept lying on the street, posing as dead, and was later taken away. It is not clear why he did it, but the rumor of the "dead student" was perhaps critical for the shape of further events. Still in the evening, students and theater actors agreed on going on a strike.


 
I don't know what the real impact on the ground of this non-death was, but I remember the reports of the "death" on the TV here in the UK (I seem to recall footage of the "body" being taken away) and how it was said to be an important factor in the strength of the protests. (Perhaps one of the members from that country - well, the sucessor countries - might enlighten us.)




** - Please note that Opletal was a victim of the Nazis not of the Czechoslovak authrities in 1989.


----------



## deaconllq (Jul 1, 2009)

Hmmmmmmmm........

Ahmadinejad wants probe of suspicious Neda death | International | Reuters

interesting


----------



## Dimentio (Jul 1, 2009)

That depends on how extreme the government is. The more extreme, the more I would dissent. Until it moves over to totalitarianism. Then I would stay quiet, but join in if I think its going to collapse.


----------



## Scifi fan (Aug 11, 2009)

Depends on the culture and the situation. 

During WWII, the north-western European countries didn't rebel at all, but the Balkans did, and they tied down quite a few Germans. Same with German-occupied Russia. At the same time, across the planet, the Chinese and Asians were also up in arms against the Japanese, but not the Mongolians or, as far as I know, the Philipinos. And definitely not the Koreans. 

Right now, the Taliban are fighting the coalition forces tooth and nail, but many of Saddam's former soldiers have switched over to the Coalition side.


----------



## Xelebes (Aug 11, 2009)

Scifi fan said:


> Depends on the culture and the situation.
> 
> During WWII, the north-western European countries didn't rebel at all, but the Balkans did, and they tied down quite a few Germans. Same with German-occupied Russia. At the same time, across the planet, the Chinese and Asians were also up in arms against the Japanese, but not the Mongolians or, as far as I know, the Philipinos. And definitely not the Koreans.
> 
> Right now, the Taliban are fighting the coalition forces tooth and nail, but many of Saddam's former soldiers have switched over to the Coalition side.



The Norwegians and French did rebel during WWII.  The Norwegian rebellion was directly involved with preventing Germany from procuring the heavy water necessary to make Germany's own nuclear bomb.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Aug 11, 2009)

It depends on the oppression of the majority. The German people did not rebel against Hitler, not outright, even though they likely didn't ALL agree (obviously, since many hid the Jewish people). 

The peasants finally rebelled against Stalin, but not until after private trade had been shut down and the people where starving. Similarly with the French Revolution. 

In nearly all revolutions I can think of, it is less about what is being done wrong than it is about who it is being done too. 

Americans never revolted, not even during times of severe Constitutional wrongdoings like being Blacklisted. Because the majority of Americans are better off than the majority of the world.


----------



## Pyan (Aug 11, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> Americans never revolted, not even during times of severe Constitutional wrongdoings like being Blacklisted. Because the majority of Americans are better off than the majority of the world.



Don't you count *1775–1783* and *1861–1865* as revolutions then, Dusty?


----------



## dustinzgirl (Aug 11, 2009)

pyan said:


> Don't you count *1775–1783* and *1861–1865* as revolutions then, Dusty?



We revolted against Britain, and weren't exactly Americans until that revolt was over. The civil war was also not technically a revolt, it was a secession.

I tend to think of revolts as the people as a whole or part standing against a single government.


----------



## Scifi fan (Aug 11, 2009)

There were underground movements in France, the Netherlands, and Norway, but they were more subtle - sending messages, minor sabotage and so on. The Balkans, by comparison, were far more intense.


----------



## thepaladin (Sep 3, 2009)

There are too many variables. To even get close we'd have to be looking at a specific set of circumstances. 

I think it more likely that a socioty would fold up and fall from the inside than that the people would sit still through an invasion. There you have an enemy to "point to". In the case of internal politics the fall will come from comfortable people sitting things out until the loss of their "freedom" smacks them in the face. The proverbial frog in the water pot example.


----------



## Kei (Nov 16, 2009)

This is something my hubby, a citizen of Mexico, comments on often. Mexicans are notorious for revolting (a lot of Latin Americans are). You might think it's because of the third world country/poverty factor. I'm not sure this is the case, and I don't think that any Mexican would agree either. Here in Mexico City, the general quality of life is not so far from any big city in the United States. There are sky scrapers, coffee shops, malls, etc. 

My hubby thinks that Americans are a bunch of push overs. She calls us "ants", because we're trained to be polite, to go to work, to obey rules without questioning, etc. Yet, we're not a real community. It takes something enormous to get us to band together, while in Latin America if anything at all goes down, everyone gets furious. The government is afraid of its people to a certain extent. They know they have to strike a delicate balance between the rich people who put them in office and pay them off, and the every day citizens who could revolt at any moment.

I think it is also about cultural types. Latin Americans are not known for being polite, they're passionate, and they're expressive. If they want to yell, they yell. If they want to curse, they curse. There's very little in the way of emotional repression. Laws are suggestions here, and people mostly do what they want, when they want. Surprisingly, it isn't as terrifying a state as one might think. Yes, I've seen more drunken fights in my 2 years here than in my life in the United States. I don't know if you've seen the television show where they try to provoke people, and see how far you have to push them before they'll reciprocate the aggression. You couldn't do that here, because you're likely to get cursed out and our punched on the first try.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 16, 2009)

Kei said:


> My hubby thinks that Americans are a bunch of push overs. She calls us "ants", because we're trained to be polite, to go to work, to obey rules without questioning, etc.



You all should come on over to my end of the nation. We do things a bit differently than what you see on the television.


----------



## Window Bar (Nov 19, 2009)

The act of rebellion has so much to do with the psychological makeup of each individual. The out-and-out rebel, the man or woman who will lead an insurrection, is a profound risk-taker, one who values his/her own life as insignificant in comparison to the ideals. Though I'm not proud to say this, I would never see myself as such a person. On the other hand, secret acts of sabotage would come quite naturally to me.

A sci-fi/fantasy forum would not be a natural place to find conformists. My guess is that most members of this board would find ways to rebel. I'd be very curious to know what different individuals would do.

-- WB


----------



## jackokent (Dec 7, 2009)

Are we saying being a rebel is an intrisicly good thing and sitting it out isn't?  I like to think that I wouldn't rebel unless specifically threatenned.  

Coming from a Country that's done it's fair share of invading and coming from a culture that's had it's fair share of slavery I'd say that things would have to be pretty extreem to make me rebel.  

Of course if the invaders wanted to kill me (or my dog) or if they wanted me to do things I couldn't live with that would be a reason to rise up.  Otherwise I'd much rather work with the invaders to find a happy medium.  I certainly wouldn't revolt for the sake of it.  I image if I'd been born centries earlier I would have been quite pleased with the Romans coming over here for instance.

I don't think of that as cowardly at all, it feels like comon sense to me.  I'd always be proud to be on the side of comon sense.


----------



## thepaladin (Dec 7, 2009)

As I said things like this generally come today not with tanks rolling across the border (not since Poland in WWII almost) but with a slow rot from inside. I believe it is more often thecliche of the frog in the slowly heating water than a sharp shock of invasion. Invasion would actually offer a more easily made decision. It can be argued that a rebel isn't always participating in violence, but simply in attempted change or resistence to changes they feel are undesirable, I suppose.


----------



## Montero (Dec 21, 2009)

Moving away a bit from the invasion premise to general rebellion.  (Though you could certainly classify Indian protest during the Raj as an ongoing response to an invasion.)

Anyone here know what percentage of the population followed Ghandi and how long the movement took in growing?

Reading through everything that has been said, I think I'm more likely to turn out for a peaceful protest than a destructive one.  Though whether I'd have the nerve to sit still and not retaliate when beaten up (as happened to Ghandi's followers) is another matter.

Sticking in India, the little I know of India in the Raj history (thanks to MM Kaye) - wasn't the "Indian Mutiny" as it was called triggered by the rumour that the new cartridges that the Indian soldiers were supposed to bite the ends off, were greased with beef fat which would render the Hindu's caste-less and pig fat, which was anathema to the muslims?
One of the more effective flash points in history.


----------

