Are irregulars necessary in former communist states?

We are often told the present is only for regular and high professional armies and militias aren't strong enough to reject foreign agression.
We are often convinced irregulars were efficient only untill 17 century.
A great share of truth in such ideas.
But one cannot forget there are not only foreign thereats exist.
Armed state bodies are also sometimes dangerous by so called praetorian syndrome i.e. the possibility th rebel, detrone nhe superior power, impose its concepts or at least threaten doing that. That was the reason why following the independence in 18 century USA dismissed regular army. Only militias of the states were left. We can notice a huge social progress in the USA of those years in comparison with Latic American states based on regular armies. Latin American governments had to think first about the interests of general and military officers and rich clans connected with them. They could rebel and people were out of militias and unable to resist regulars and their clans. In the USA the vice versa. militias of farmers was a real force capable to resist preatorian games. So their interests was the first subject of governmental activities.

Besides that, there is a numerous clan of lumpens and in general people downstairs who are sure everything in their living standarts depends not upon their activities but state care only. They never realize changes in economy and social life require personal force to assimilate to a new situation. They always blame authorities for any problem and usially are very jealous about the successes of people nearby withiot any attention to the cost of this successes.I think everibody knows people like that and knows that in different degree it is common with the vast majority of population of each European state today.

Such croud can be always used by politicians able to promice them high living standarts without any possibility to fulfil the promice. That can bring to power extremist populists in each country.

In order to avoid it today governments try to support lumpens taking rosources and prospects from middle classers. Middle classers work hard, solve their problems in each complicated situation. They are a golden fund of each Nation, but defensless today. They know only labour now not protecting of their rights and liberties while lumpens are organized quickly (not so efficiently and not for a long time, but they can represent a real force when middli classers are only undividuals separated one from each other).

Polish middle class szlachta (the majority of szlachtic were really middle classers of the Polish Golden Age), some 10-15 per cent of population could cope with 85-90 per cent of population. No peasant wars in RP exept only rebels inspired by kosaks and inefficeint in internal regions of RP with high percentage of szlachta (only magnate regions of Ukraine).

In Great Britain at the beginning of 19 century upper classes did much to support beggars taking money from farmers. The result was that many of middle classers following high taxation in favour of lumpens had to sell their property and to live for America.

But later an irregular army so called YEOMANRY was created. The majority of the irregular were middle classers, farmers that were able to keep a horse for possible battles. This irregular organization was created to reject possible Napoleonic agression but it never participated in external armed conflicts. Only in internal dosturbances and tensions defending the interests of middle class. Later anothe irregular organization appeared - volunteer courps. They all were able to put limits to Chartist populist movement and to the emerging Marxism and Anarchism. That was a real force of middle class.

American National Guard in the 19 and early 20 centuries was also inefficient in case of an external war but in internal conflicts it participated with many successes.

As to former communist countries there are very few irregular armies (for example KASP in Lithuania and Kaitseliit in Estonia) but they don't occupy an adecuate position in the state. The majority of former communist countries don't have irregulars at all.

What do you think on this?

I can't agree with that. Modern operational forces have huge abilities to fight other regular armies but also have huge problems with irregular forces. Look at Iraq. How easily Americans crushed Saddam's army and how many problems they have with hardly armed "terrorists". I think that optimal is to have small proffesional well equipped and trained forces and short national service, where people should be trained basic things, so in case of war also a large "home army" could be created.

Hi, Grzegorz,
I'm happy there are peopli thinking in such way. The majority listens to budget vampires from DEfence ministries.
The point I'll oppose is that home army may be created only in case of danger ind it is no need to organize its possible participants beforehand. Even not frequent trainings before signify much.

And my second objection is that home irregulars are very important as potential of middle class in time of peace because it can controle regular forces as well as lower classers.

I'm sure postcummunism can be overcome also only by this method, not by lustrations or investigations
What do you think on that

There is an interesting situation happening in America & to some extent globally involving 'irregular' forces, but it has a number of dimensions...in America, the Founding

Fathers for the most part opposed a centralized army and a powerful centralized government, with the rationale being that powerful government will become a tyranny

to the people, and that a centralized army was an extension of this tyranny & expensive
to maintain...thus the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution which called for well-regulated militias for the individual states & the rights of citizens to bear arms...these

state militias became the National Guard, well regulated militias controlled by the Governors of individual states...as the Federal Government grew more powerful/tyranical
these NG/militias became merged into a Central Army...but these original 'militias' were
designed to protect individual states against enemies both external/internal...today, you
have total degeneration of this concept, w/National Guard units fighting an illegal war in
Iraq for the Central Gov't/Corporate Interests, yet the US is being invaded by millions of
illegal Mexicans, but no National Guard resourses used to protect our borders...
Also, as far as Pretorian Guard, this is what is happening in Iraq, as there are an estimated 70-80000 corporate mercenaries there, creating havoc for the Iraqis, and maintaining the chaos that was the US goal all along, for interests of the 'elite'.

Lastly, irregular forces can be very effective, but for who & what ends?...they are mostly used by warlords/drug cartels/intelligence agencies globally for goals that are not

in the interest of middle-class or working people, but as a weapon of terror.

A brilliant idea. That was in this way in majority of states.
But don't forget:
A centralyzed armed structure may also establish its own tyranny detroning Supreme power or al least govern over it blackmailing and threatening.
That was also the reason why Founding Fathers gave up constructing a powerfil regular army. That was openly stated in works of Jeferson and Madison.

Pay attention: United police doesn't exist in the USA till now.
By the same fear. The posterior events demonstrated the fear wasn't a silly thing. When the first federal law-enforcement structure FBI (with very reduced tasks by the way) was created, its second chief Hoover managed to lead it during nearly 50 years because no President had power to dismiss him. He blackmailed them all and all their groups by information he took in service. Although Hoover had more deficiencies and maybe even crimes to be accused. He was gay, he had suspicious contacts with mafia and he defended some mafia leaders. He may be also suspected of being Soviet Spy because the communist hunt began by the initiative not FBI but House unamerican activities committee and FBI also followed HUAC when it seemed impossible not to react.

That is another evidence of pretorian syndrome in centralyzed regular armed or secret structures. The only reason why Hoover gave up thinking about becoming a USA President in 1938 was a possible opposition of decentralyzed police servants of different states. No ideas about honest competition with other candidates. He could blackmail anybody and a man in the street could vote in favour being convinced Hoover was the best man. You see Founding Fathers were right desentralising police and army. I'm afraid now Internal security body becomes a stronger Hoover.


When US government grew more tyranical? In 1800? In 1830? In 1850? I think you don't notice real tyrannies such as communist one in the former Soviet Union. Everything started in our land after a pretorian detronement of King and the rejection of his son. As to communists they came some mounths later. Before such praetorian rebel they were unable to do anything by being weak and not numerous. Generals and public servants were those who made revolution in 1917. The unexistence of irregulars was one of the reasons King and middle classers could defend Russia.


I'm sure that confirmes the idea middle class requires its own irregular army. And domestic one. Not a reserve of regular army in Iraq.

But the subordination of National Guard to a marasmatic Pentagon isn't the idea of Founding Fathers I mentioned as example for post communist countries. That marasmatic idea was invented by some regular military perverts I suppose at the beginning of 20 century and testen (unsuccessfully) doring the punishment of Pancho Villa detachment. The first 120 years militias were used in right way.


We are discussing not private criminal or ideologic militias.
State militia only. The militia compulsory for every settled citizen (in 19 century USA the middle and high classes) or nesessary for reputation of all people beginning from some level (the level of rich middle class) and not necessary but opened for all active people.

That is the Founding Fathers thought about. If every middle classer participates, what kind of crime (shall they rob their own property?) is possible? What kind of extremism (No countries with state irregular troops where extremism came to power - I didn't manage to find even one).

I wish you answered and other people participated

Well, you know that here ARE other militias here in the United States, mostly in the Mid-
Western & Rocky Mountain area, but also some activity in the Mid-Atlantic states & a
little in New England...these are sometimes referred to as 'Patriot' militias, and, apparently some are very well organized, w/many military veterans involved...but they

keep a very low profile, i.e., they are underground...you will see some above-ground
activity in the 'Minuteman' movement, whose members non-violently monitor the passage of illegal Mexicans into the areas of the SW United States (California, Arizona)...
but there are armed cells of these groups...they would come into play in the event of
a power-grab by the Federal Gov't or a declaration of martial law....these people are
mostly what would be called middle-class citizens.
But let me say, that in a country such as Russia, where Putin is trying to bring order after the 1990's chaos/looting of the state by 'oligharchs/mafias'/Western Financial elites, this would hinder the situation...I am sure such 'militias' do exist there but on the

warlord/Intelligence/mafia level.

Some objections:
1. Putin is trying to put the state in order (that was also Yeltzin's goal but he only started). But to that is possible only using armed force and law enforcement bodies. They are obliged to defend the state but who will defend country from them? You see tho only force is a mass state militia

2. You write: I am sure such 'militias' do exist there but on the
warlord/Intelligence/mafia level. A portion of exageration I - Russian resident consider - but even if it is so, what to do? There were not only state and mass militias in the USA in the 19 century. Indians, bandits etc. also had militias. And FBI I'm sure have lots of recruted non-salaried without public servant status agents who can also be qualified as militias acting not necessary in favour of Presidential power but also against it (remenber Hoover - do you agree I wrote above?).

What to do? - I repeat asking you.
The only way is the same as it was in epoch of Minutemen - to create a wide state bodies, everybody can (and sometimes must) enter. Or at least not everybody but all of some richest 10-15 percent of population. By fear he will loose reputation in case of ignoring militia and will be unable to succeed in business or public cereer.

Or other militias mentioned by you as well as by me will rule.
3. A crazy idea that middle classers work hard and pay taxes and the rest (police protection military defence) is given to them by centralyzed public servants lead by elected authorities. Sooner or later it occures in each country that

a)those who have force go out of such system and start imposing their desire (the case of police regime in today Russia).
b)Or some politicians lead lumpens to revolutions law enforcement bodies can never prevent by their nature (read Curtio Malaparte - one of the best politologists). That is the situation of Russia of 1917.

c) Some generals or high policemen act as praetorians. They detrone the Head of State they must defend and establish Tyranny (also case of Russia 1917 and of majority of Latin American and African countries.

d) The universal right to vote without any middle and high classes organization takes governments to attempt satisfying all interests. In this case lumpens gain and middle classers loose (situation of today West). In this case the majority of people give up working hard (what for? - the result will be devided between everybody) and become sicial parasites. Not immediately but later.

e) The government isn't active and flexible by fear of results mentioned in points a-d. It ia unable to reduce army by fear of a rebel, to put legal obstacles to secret services by blackmail (see Hoover case), to start serious economic reforms because they are firsi only in interest of some 15 active per cent and the rest of population will feel the results later (after in rebels or government looses elections - depends upon situation but the result is the same).

So you see to be middle classer always means not only to work and pay taxes (and in some countries to spend a perioud in regular army) but also to defend status in group of the similar people.

That was a rule during all World history (high and lesser nobility were irregulars as well as town population and settlers as in early America). Only beginning with Enlightment in 18 century something bevame to change.

There is always a big difference between a war and terrorism. We had the same situation in Northern Ireland for generations. Winning a war at the outset is always easy for countries like England had in the Falklands War in the mid 1980's or even for the USA in Iraq when there is a common enemy and the result you are looking for is simply a quick military surrender. You see the opposition and you kill them-it is as simple as that! It is during occupation that things actually become difficult as forces start to regroup and the enemy is one you can not see in uniform. Resistance in France and Yugoslavia against the Germans are good examples during World War 2. America used high tech to defeat Iraq with rockets driven and controlled by computer aided control, it looks easy on the television seeing buildings just disappearing-very simple, but when you have troops actually on the ground they are beginning to take serious numbers of casualties once the enemy regroups as bandits.

My only reply would be that the concentration of wealth in the US now is in the hands
of about the top 5-10%...that is, the real capital, that is used to buy & sell major indus-
tries, enterprises & dictate to the rest of us, on terms decided by them...this is probably
just the way of the world, but I feel that some balance is necessary & right now there is
an extreme power consolidation that reminds me of a 'Hi-Tech Feudalism'...so what is
the answer?...I do support the concept of this 'irregular' force as a counter-balance to
a powerful State.......oh, and the real centralization of the military in the US started dur-
ing the Civil War with the Federal Gov't 'dragooning or drafting' citizens in the North to
fight the Confederates.

That is the challenge I mean.


And what about only 1 per cent? Don't you think 10 per cent reachest have only some 20 percent of that 1%.
In my opinion when any country gives up basing on some 15 % of population by saying it has a common popular regime and 100% popular participation in politics in reality occures that only 0.1% governs?

As in the USA. Nobody abroad is able to explain how can 99.9% of Americans be interested in annual 600 billion dollars for defence of a state separated by oceans from all possible enemies

I think irregulars are beneficial "balancing factor" to the country. Regular is usually controlled by the political majority, causing the minority to be left out ruling the military. Bad thing is that irregulars also attract extremists and rascists. Maybe the Swiss model where everyone after military has to own a gun, that way everyone is forced to take some part in military even if they dont like it. So it is just not the extremists.

One of the biggest problems for USA is that it is not popular for middle classes take part of military service. In ideal society every level of society is represented in the military

Yes but look. It occures only when state militia doesn't exist. State militia can include some secret extremists but they never impose its ideas to the majority of irregulars.

The most important thing is that no totalitarian regime appeared in 20 centiry in a state that have state militia.
No state militia in Russia - revolution. No state militia in pre-fashist Italy - Mussolini comes.
No state irregulars in Germany after 1918 - national socialism comes to power.
State irregulars in UK, USA, Swiss militia.
Finland with state irregulars was queite a democratic country despite contacts with Germany.
That means much
State irregulars is one of the most inportant obstacles for extremism and totalitarism


Sometimes regular military or police - secret service minority comes to power. That is the challenge for Russia and one of the main reasons we had 1917.


It is enough to make irregular service compuulsory for social reputation of people in business, public service and politics. I.e. to some 15-20% of population. No duty in law is required, only moral obligation without which one cannot have a reputation for career or business. Nothing more.

In this case the irregulars will be all middle and upper classers, very different people unable to fall in rheir majority in dependence upon extremism.

I think we basically agree on this, perhaps it is military(irregular or regular) that attracts the exteremists in general more than rest of population. Thats why everyone should take part, even pacifists.

I'm sure if a state has a wide state militia it is not so important to maintain compulsory regular army service.
Irregulars if they are in permanent contact can always obstacle praetorian and extremist rebels or regular army or centralyzed police and secret service. The seem to be weak to act in the field and support a field defence against regulars, but as to controle over theit territory they can be always stronger than extraterritorial regular army and more numerous than police.


Usually non-state militias attract extremists and they can even come to power only in situation of a wide state militia unexistence. That's the experience of 20 century

AS to regular army it should be a littele one composed of volunteers and professionals only. In this case it is possible to multiplicate it in some years and professionals will teach new recruits.

The example of German army is evident. In 1932 there were only 100 000 professionals. In some 8 years the growth was some 100 (!) times. The army became so strong that lost the war only meeting some several times more strong coalition.

That occured because that little number of professionals were real experts in military art and could prepare many people.