Successful movements against war?

Submitted by posi on 12 June, 2008 - 16:22.

Leaving Russia 1917 aside, have there been any successful domestic movements against a state participating in a war? Either in terms of preventing the outbreak of war, or of ending it once it had begun.

I know there are lots of inspiring things that happened around GIs with regard to Vietnam, but my impression is that even that was a minor factor compared to the military defeat, and bodybags coming home.

... so - any ideas?

12 June, 2008 - 16:53

I think the internal demoralization, from the states point of view, of the US military and the increasing size, frequency and militance of domestic protests ended the war in southeast Asia, with all due respect for the Vietnamese.

12 June, 2008 - 17:21

You could say the domestic protests in France by French-Algerians, immigrants, and other French people were a major force for ending the French-Algerian war. Ofcourse there was an enormous bloodletting on the part of the Algerians as with the October 17, 1961 massacre but this all in some crude way served to stop it.

12 June, 2008 - 17:29

Germany 1918.

Devrim

12 June, 2008 - 20:08
Ambrose Nurrra wrote:
You could say the domestic protests in France by French-Algerians, immigrants, and other French people were a major force for ending the French-Algerian war. Ofcourse there was an enormous bloodletting on the part of the Algerians as with the October 17, 1961 massacre but this all in some crude way served to stop it.

Admittedly all I know about this is from a week of study at university and the Battle of Algiers film, but wasn't there a mass Algerian mobilisation (strikes, riots), combined with a virtual order to withdraw from the USA which was then holding alot of financial strings over France? Can't remember properly...

Devrim wrote:
Germany 1918.

Didn't the movement really only emerge once military defeat was pretty much a certainty anyway? I've got a book with an article I meant to read on this, so I'll check it out as soon as I can.

12 June, 2008 - 21:08
David in Atlanta wrote:
I think the internal demoralization, from the states point of view, of the US military and the increasing size, frequency and militance of domestic protests ended the war in southeast Asia, with all due respect for the Vietnamese.

yeah, concerning vietnam, my info is really spotty but i've heard the vietnamese resistance, for however tough it was, just did *not* defeat the US army whatsoever, and was just really inefficient. which leaves you with the war being ended in USA.

'course, i heard that from right-wingers, so could be biased info.

12 June, 2008 - 22:02

The australian World War One war effort was basically ended by an unholy coalition of the Trade unions, Irish Republicans, Socialists, Catholic Church and the IWW. They passed a referendum (yes! the IWW!) twice to abolish the draft. Since enlistment was nearly zero, no bodies = no army. My favorite quote is from Tom Barker, an IWW, who when asked about the Catholic bishop he was sitting next to said something like: "I won't march into heaven with this man, but I'll march into hell with him."

12 June, 2008 - 23:16

In response to the topic, France 1871. Also I would question the assessment that the NLF is not responsible for the US withdrawal from Vietnam. Had there not been tens of thousands of bodybags and the need for hundreds of thousands of troops (which dangerously depleted home troops for containing ghetto riots), I doubt the liberal wing of US capitalism would have put its weight behind withdrawal. Personally I find the anti-war protest recollections of the college professor types nowadays to be overly self-important.

13 June, 2008 - 05:35

Actually the NLF was definitely NOT responsible for the American (and Allied--let's not forget the troops from Australia, New Zealand, South Korea...) withdrawal. That "honor" goes to the North Vietnamese Army. The Tet Offensive pretty much destroyed the guerrilla infrastructure of the NLF, leaving the post-68 fighting to the "invading" North Vietnamese, who were afterwards responsible for the bulk of Allied troop battle losses. Let's leave that "heroic struggle of the Vietnamese people" to the Stalinists.

13 June, 2008 - 07:06
posi wrote:
Didn't the movement really only emerge once military defeat was pretty much a certainty anyway? I've got a book with an article I meant to read on this, so I'll check it out as soon as I can.

The war had turned against them, but immediate defeat wasn't staring them in the face.
The Solidarity pamphlet on mutinies wasn't bad if I remember well. It concerns the allied armies in WWI. Here is a sample about the British intervention in Russia:

Quote:
THE RUSSIAN FRONT

There is some evidence of fraternisation between Russian revolutionaries and the allied armies sent to put them down, even in the Northern Sector. In December 1918 an occupation of the barracks by Russians of the First Archangel Company, who were sympathetic to the revolution, was supported by fraternising allied troops, who picketed the town so as to shut it off from the barracks. The mutiny was suppressed when Russian NCOs, under British command, mortared the barracks, killing at least one innocent civilian bystander.

In February 1919 men of the Yorkshire Regiment refused to march on Seletskoe. Two sergeants, delegated to express the battalion's refusal to fight, were arrested, court-martialled and sentenced to be shot. In the light of 'secret' orders from the King prohibiting executions after the Armistice, these sentences were later commuted to life imprisonment. News of the Yorkshire's mutiny spread rapidly through the allied forces. The first to follow suit were the French battalion at Archangel, who refused to return from leave.

Much has been said about the determination of Russian workers to protect the revolution from the Western allies. What has rarely been recorded is how weak the Bolshevik armed forces were. When clashes with the allied Navy occurred, Bolshevik commanders often surrendered immediately. And the few planes the RAF had commandeered easily took command of the air. In one instance an RAF pilot was able to follow a Bolshevik plane to its aerodrome and land there, after shooting it up, before making a safe return. The ultimate Bolshevik military victory was not due to the superiority of Lenin's forces in the field, but to the decision of the Allies to pull out - a decision largely influenced by the mood of their own soldiers. Major setbacks on the battlefield were largely due to vast numbers of Whites going over to the other side, rather than the superior forces of the Bolshevik armies.

In June 1919, in spite of the fact that the Bolshevik forces on the Dvina were on their knees, the Hampshire Regiment refused contact and withdrew from the battle. To prevent similar acts of indiscipline the ringleaders were sent home for demobilisation. Maintaining discipline, however, proved to be more difficult than it was thought. On July 7 the Slavo-British Legion, which had been at Dvina for only 3 days, mutinied, killing five British officers and four Russian officers. Several mutineers called for volunteers to join the Bolsheviks and some 50 did so, another 50 deserting. Two of the mutineers were captured, tried and shot. The rest of the battalion was disarmed and turned into a labour unit.

The situation in Russia was unique. Here was an army inflicting heavy losses on the Bolshevik forces, breaking through their lines with relative ease, and yet, from the reports of mutinies, it was evident that the whole Archangel force might easily collapse. It is against this background that we can understand the decision to withdraw allied troops from Russia. By September 1919 the evacuation of an army, scarcely damaged by Bolshevik forces, was well under way.

http://libcom.org/library/mutinies-dave-lamb-solidarity

Devrim

13 June, 2008 - 08:04
fnbrill wrote:
The australian World War One war effort...

Pics or it didn't happen.

uh, I mean, links please?

13 June, 2008 - 09:26

Its always hard to tell what was the main reason behind things that didnt happen, but when the "union" between Sweden and Norway was ended in 1905 by the Norwegians claiming independency there was a rather big risk of war (that would have meant sweden invading norway) but the war-to-be was opposed by the swedish workers movement and never happend.

13 June, 2008 - 18:46
Iron Column wrote:
In response to the topic, France 1871.

i cant claim to know a lot about the Franco-Prussian war, but i've never got the impression that the Paris Commune (that's what you're thinking of, no?) was actually a response to END the war at all. France was basically at the point of defeat and promised Prussia that it could occupy Paris for a period of time, as a term of defeat. the Parisians, however, rebelled at the indignity and tried to CONTINUE the war - and when the French government refused, they turned the war against the government. not a very good example of a successful *anti*-war movement, if anything they prolonged the war!