Talk:People's war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


User:AAAAA, as I said, Numerous publications? Which ones? Scholarly ones? Non-partisan ones? What is the view in the historiography.The debate is not so one-sided. Needs to be fairly depicted. WP:CITE - English sources (emphasis added). Please observe WP:NOR policy, this is an English language encyclopedia, and I wish to see scholarly sources in English. Please refrain from refering me to the aforementioned report. You have arrived at this historical claim, and the onus is on you to prove its accuracy, here, in this English-language encyclopedia. El_C 7 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)


  • First of all, all the minor references from foreign (to Peru) sources that you present are many times written by people that know NOTHING about the country, and are not as credible as this neutral "commission of truth and reconciliation" that was established by the current government of Peru to make a "final report" on what happened with the 30 years of terrorism that Peru had to suffer. Secondly, YOU ARE MANIPULATING THE TRUTH by presenting only parts of the "truth" in your references. From reading, I understand something completely different. Read my comments below--AAAAA 7 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)

English sources:

  • In many parts of the country, there was widespread support for the Shining Path -- html (UK Criminal Bar Association)
    • This is a GROSS MANIPULATION of the "truth". Although I disagree with the source about the "widespread support" claim, you present only the less important part of the paragraph of that source. Complete, it reads like this: In many parts of the country, there was widespreads upport for the Shining Path when it was first expounding its own Maoist doctrine in the early eighties. When, however, the movement began to turn on its own apparent supporters among the peasants, somewhat on the lines of Pol Pot... So, as you can read, the real MEANING of the paragraph is TOTALLY DIFFERENT to what El_C claimed it to be.--AAAAA 7 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)
Again, keep in mind that this is an English-language encyclopedia, and resorting to one single report not drafted in English is not conisedred to be intellectually honest, but it is becoming repeticious. El_C 7 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)

Some opinions about "The Truth"[edit]

Mmm... El_C, I believe that in these case you are a little bit wrong about the role that the peruvian armed forces and the Insurgent Organization known as "Sendero Luminoso" played in the Peruvian fight against Terrorism. There are several points that can nearly disregard some of those points that you present as Facts" or the Truth:
  • In the First place, during the Belaunde's 2th Administration (1980-1985), The Army was not allowed to engage Sendero at any moment: This was in part due to the lack of political will and the fact that the country was much more busy in the reconstrucction of democracy. Fernando Belaúnde Terry was elected in fair and democratic elections that only Sendero Luminoso (by 1979 only a small group of radicals) did not recognise. Also, this tipe of insurgents organization were active since the 1960 (The MIR led by Ulceda and the several efforts of Hugo Blanco to start a revolution) that the peasant population did not support.
However, the election of Alan Garcia as the new President (1985-1990) (a election that was recognised as legal by most of the political left) changed the role of the government to fight the insurgency: Sendero Luminoso was already active in several place, not in a People's Crusade, but merely a menace and extortion of the peasants of the area. Ayacucho, Apurimac, and several Parts of Cuzco were seized by them, and the living standars of the population did not increase, but were force to pay and support Sendero's War effort. In any country, the Army is the institution in charge to reestablish order and peace, and thus they were given the task to fight Sendero. It is truth that the Army, led by some bad officers (and at any case we can talk about the HOLE Army), commited several atrocities, but the figures also speak that Sendero was as much (and in some cases worst) responsable than the Army during those years.
With the arrieve of Fujimori, a different strategy was developed, and this enable the capture of Abimael Guzman and most of the Leaders of the insurgency. This, however, did not prevent Sendero to kill innocent civilians in the Tarata Street Bombing and the Frecuencia Latina (Channel 2) Terrorist Attack. The fight was more focus on destroying the real minds behind the movement rather than facing them in the capital. Regardless of how much some people can hate Fujimori, his strategy fas far better than the innactivity of Belaunde or the Total War of Garcia.
  • WIDESPREAD SUPPORT FOR SENDERO? I believe that you are only relying on innacurate info (or in the worst case, manipulated by strange interest). As a matter of fact, the peasants of Peru are the ones who deserved the credit of the colapse of Sendero. They created "Rondas de Vigilancia", and in most cases without the help of the Army, they face and defeated the insurgency. In the so-called Liberated Areas, Sendero did nothing to improve the situation of the people, and that is why most of those areas were in an unstable situation.
  • A Peruvian People's Republic would have suffered the same fate as Cambodia, most likely. Sendero was extremely radical. Romanticism by part of people that did not known much of the reality of Peru could shown simpaties towards Sendero, but the fact is that the solution and the path that they followed was Violence, and thus, terror.
El_C, do not believe only what some people show about Peru. As in any country that is struggle to achieve developement, poverty and social injustice is something that until our days is a problem. But at any moment, those can justify the death of thousands innocents. And that is the lesson that Sendero left in Peru: Democracy is the only way to fight those problems. Messhermit 7 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)
Messhermit, I am unintersted with the Fujimori (et al.) history version, and it is rather presumptuous of you to assume I know so little about the conflict. Nor am I interested in you drawing of parallels with Khmer Rouge — though you should note that the Khmer Rouge wished to found an agrarian utopia, without science, hospitals, schools, industry, eyeglasses, etc. (in other words Middle Ages existence), this ultraleftist position in not one that is shared by any Communist Party I know of throughout history, including the PCP or any other — but I do consider the counter-factual claim to be propgandist on your part, and ask you to refrain from such polemics. And, as for the report by the oppressive govt. the PCP is trying to overthrow, it is hardly surprising it reflects well on the govt. and poorly on the PCP. Finally, I view it as a matter of historical revisionism and strong bias to ommit the deathsquads from the account. But none of this is pertinent, though your bias is, re: "never counted with much popular support" claim, which you seem to defend. El_C 7 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you did not understand what I was trying to said, and clearly put words in my mouth that at any moment I have said or express:
  • My argument is not a propagandistic one, and I'm simply presenting important facts about the Peruvian Politics of those Times. Belaunde, Garcia and Fujimori were democratically elected Presidents of Peru. Sendero Luminoso at any moment attempted a political solution and rather choose to embrace and armed insurrection that, at the end, did not solve any problem.
  • The Khemer Rouge and Sendero Luminoso did share some ideals. Abimael Guzman was already out of control, as he himself declare to be the "4th Sword of Communism". It is clear that he was already out of connection with the country and his own movement.
  • Unfortunately, in Peruvian History, Sendero Luminoso is regarded as one of the mayor problems that democracy had to face in Peru during the 80's.
Also, this is not the Fujimori's version of peruvian history. That is a Biased and Poor supported claim that I would really appreciate of you remove from your arguments. Let's achieve a compromise on this page. Messhermit 7 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)
Well, it sounded like it because it was one-sided, sorry you took offence to it. I am interested in having both sides represented, not just the government (and/or death squade) side, which really sums up your passage. And, I'm sorry, but I am uninterested in opinions which go beyond the scope of this immediate dispute. Please refrain from these (or at least addressing them to myself). Thanks. El_C 7 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)

Shining Path[edit]

The Shining Path have never had popular support in Peru, and is a perfect example of the anti-worker terrorism of marxism. Cites will be provided in abundance, as needed. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 8 July 2005 01:38 (UTC)

SS, I thought you were not going to follow me, as stated in your apology. El_C 8 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)

Wow, thats weak. Are you under some illusion that "I am going to try to avoid confronting you" implies I will fail to focus on article content? I'll refrain from further comment, with wiki-policy in mind. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

Either your word meant something, or it didn't. You are confronting me, right now. That's all I have to say. El_C 8 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)

Please review my email regarding your insinuations. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 8 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)

I am wholly unimpressed with and unmoved by your email. Please never email me again, I thought I made that clear on the mailing list after you accidentally emailed me privately instead of w-l, but apperently not. I desire no such contact with you. El_C 8 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)

  • Reasons for Shining Path's defeat
  • Lack of support among large sectors of the population
  • Authoritarian methods against peasants, workers, and other sectors of the population
  • Brutal military repression
  • Opposed by grass-roots organizations
  • Vertical nature of the party structure
  • International isolation

It should be obvious to the reader, I hope, that these sources (and/or SS' conclusions) only represent one side of the historiography, which isn't so one-sided. I actually find value in Maj.Gen. John W. Huston (who, among other things, is the former chair of the History Department of U.S. Naval Academy), which is why I cited the exact same work Sam Spade brings forward (linking to another reference noted in his work), in my very first edit to this article (diff), ever (yesterday). We can all draw just the views we promote from the historiography, but that would be unfair and unrepresentative. Incidentally, though I disagree with Huston on most things, I found insights in and recommend his book Rhodesia: Ending An Era (Springwood Books, London, 1978). At any rate, Joe's edit is seen as an acceptable comrpomise by both Messhermit and myself. El_C 8 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)


The term 'People's War' predates the Maoist usage. It was amongst other things used to describe the Soviet war effort during WWII. In India there was a publication titled 'People's War' at the time. --Soman 15:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not just guerilla warfare[edit]

Mao's methods are usually identified as 'guerilla', but not by Mao himself, not by Western military professionals when they study his military methods.

--GwydionM 19:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

People's War of Russia 1812, and Clausewitz[edit]

User:Soman was quite right by saying "the term 'People's War' predates the Maoist usage". The concept of people's war was created long before Mao was born. The Patriotic War of 1812, the Russian name for Napoleon's invasion to Russia, was called People's War already in the 19th century. Clausewitz has a chapter in his book (from 1832) about the subject. The Great Patriotic War (The Russian name for the Soviet-German war during the WWII) was named after it's Napoleonic predecessor, which was then called The First Patriotic War of 1812. The pre-Maoist concept should be mentioned in WIkipedia too. --Ukas (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it was also a feature of the French Revolutionary Wars and the Levée en masse.Leutha (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
It was also the position of the German National Bolsheviks in 1919. 19:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:People's war/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

No references, very short. I'd call it a stub. --Ideogram 09:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on People's war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

communist victory[edit]

why is it that when the capitalists win, it's called a "government victory"? also, was vietnam really a victory for communism? because it doesnt look that way, especially when we look at vietnam today. the vietnam war ended in 75. china became capitalist in 78. 3yrs isnt really a long time. id say that capitalism was the true victor. america knew this, and thats why they pulled out in 75. america invaded vietnam to put pressure on china in the 1st place. so history has shown us that this worked, and china folded.