importance of the Bajoran resistance

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Could the Prophets have interfered in the occupation? I'm not so sure. They exist in the wormhole, after all, and throughout the occupation nobody had any idea it was even there.

The Cardassians confiscated all of the Bajoran Orbs, but they had no idea how to use them.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

^The Prophets didn't understand causality. The occupation began and ended. The caste system came to an end. They may have had any reason to connect the two.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Oh, I see what you're saying. It's the Slaughterhouse-Five explanation: Since the Prophets could see that the occupation does end, they literally have no concept of interfering in an event which, to them, already has played out. Gotcha.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Whenever I hear about the Bajoran resistance I am reminded of this part from the book Shibumi by Trevanian:

It is astonishing that the Germans managed to hold France with so few divisions, considering that everyone who wasn't draining German resources by the clever maneuver of surrendering en masse and making the Nazi's feed them was vigorously and bravely engaged in the Resistance. Is there a village without its Place de la Resistance? But one has to be fair; one has to understand the Gallic notion of resistance. Any hotelier who overcharged a German was in the Resistance. Each whore who gave a German soldier the clap was a freedom fighter. All those who obeyed while viciously withholding their cheerful morning bonjours were heroes of liberty!

So I have to ask, how important was the Bajor resistance to Bajor's independence? After all there was also that pesky Federation-Cardassian war going on...

Wouldn't you say that the Bajoran resistance is a bit overrated?

Not the only factor, but important I think.

The quote you cite seems to be a sarcastic dig at the French Resistance, which I don't think is fair. They were unable to kick out the Nazis by themselves, but one American general said they were worth a whole division to the effort.

The 'dig' at the french resistance is entirely fair, due to it being entirely accurate.

The reason we can deduce that the Bajoran resistance was also important was that the Cardassians left without a foreign military driving them out, as was the case in WWII.

The cardassians left because the writers wanted them to leave.
In-universe, no reason to leave was provided - and, indeed, coming up with one requires some very convoluted assumptions.

Realistically, a conquered people of little value for their conquerors - beyond slave labor - cannot overthrow conquerors armed with nuclear weaponry they are quite willing to use.
They can die, though; this, quite easily.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

How big is the Bajoran population, at least in the high millions, if not the billions? Not everybody joined the resistance, but they sure aided the resistance. No way they would have been able to control the population without a significant ground force. Otherwise France would still control Algeria and the American Revolution would have failed. Without a dominating ground presence, there's no way to stop them from sabotaging all the mining operations and making the entire affair unprofitable.

It's true the Bajoran resistance by itself couldn't have kicked out the Cardassians. But they can make it so holding Bajor is not profitable.

 

[PhoenixClass]

The 'dig' at the french resistance is entirely fair, due to it being entirely accurate.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the quote, but I took it to mean that the only reason the Germans could hold France with relatively few divisions was because the Resistance was a farce and that acts that could not truly be considered resisting were described as resistance.

If that is an accurate interpretation of the sarcasm, then I don't agree. Apparently, neither did Eisenhower or Churchill, who both praised the resistance as very helpful to the war effort.

I was wrong about the worth of the Resistance in terms of divisions, though; they were actually valued at 10 to 15 divisions at the time of the Normandy landings.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

PhoenixClass

If you insist on taking all your information on the french resistance from a wiki page, at least read it until the end. You will read about the french myth of the Résistancialisme that sprung up after WW2 and about the events of May 1968.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance

As to the Eisenhower quote - having people who know the way of the land, an organization already in place/etc is quite useful, yes, regardless of its previous performance.

As to you not agreeing with the commented quote - not agree away; it changes nothing to it being accurate: the french resistance was quite limp* for the size/population of France, only to be lionized after the war.

*You want an example of a country that actually meant business with resisting the nazis? Yugoslavia.

 

[PhoenixClass]

Your reference to Résistancialisme is irrelevant. In the page you link to, it defines Résistancialisme as describing "a highly resistant France opposed to the collaboration of the Vichy regime." The link in that page leads to the following definition:

the myth, particularly amongst Gaullists and Communists, which exaggerated the French involvement in the resistance to Nazi occupation during the Second World War. In particular, it was used to describe the belief that resistance was both unanimous and natural during the period, as well as the lack of historiographical interest in the role of French collaboration and the Vichy government.
​

Résistancialisme, based on the sources you refer to, says nothing about the effectiveness of the resistance that actually existed.

Could the French Resistance have been more effective had more people participated? Of course. But the thread was started by referring the French Resistance, and the only Resistance we can refer to is the one that actually existed, however stunted or ubiquitous it was. And the one that did exist was praised by people in the highest levels of Allied command.

Furthermore, your argument about false mythology is undermined by your concession that "having people who know the way of the land, an organization already in place/etc is quite useful."

In an earlier post, the OP asked for better examples to compare to the fictional case of Bajor. If you think Yugoslavia would be better, tell us why.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

PhoenixClass

So: you read - finally - the Résistancialisme info on the wiki page but replaced the - for you - large blank areas with whatever you wish for vis-a-vis effectiveness of the french resistance in order to continue to claim the commented quote is not accurate.
Ookie-dookie.

Why don't you read up on Résistancialisme from the sources the wiki article names, becoming informed enough to write a half-valuable response on - for example - the following questions:
-how many divisions did the germans need to keep the french in line - by compasion, say, to the yugoslavians (taking into account the size of the french/yugoslavian population)?
-how many losses did the germans suffer in occupied France - by comparison to occupied Yugoslavia?
-how much of the hardware brought to bear by the german army in WW2 was made in France?
etc.

PS - I see you're unwilling to do even minimal research concerning the yugoslavian resistance - which doesn't stop you from making authoritative claims about resistance movements in WW2.
Tell me - do your posts have as purpose the eliciting of 'lols' from their readers?

About Eisenhower:
- you are, of course, moving the goal-posts from the commented quote to the later liberation of France. Old news.
-any resistance movement, no matter how limp, will have an easy life when supported by an overwhelming military force that de facto attracted all german military in the region, etc. All that is required for the movement is that it has members in cities/villages behind the front lines. This, of course, doesn't mean the resistance movement wasn't half-hearted, enjoying little support among the occupied population.

 

[PhoenixClass]

It's not my job to make your arguments for you.

I am willing to listen to people who know about subjects that I do not know about. You, apparently, are not the one I will learn from. This is the second time (once in another thread and now here) that I have offered you the chance to correct me with actual facts. It is also the second time that you responded by adopting an arrogant tone and calling me a laughing stock instead of sharing the knowledge you imply you have.

From now on, I will simply ignore your responses to my posts, and focus on users who are willing to have a respectful conversation.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

PhoenixClass

I presented my arguments just fine.
And it is you that, by demonstrating your unwillingness to even superficially read up on the subject discussed* and by repeating authoritative statements I have already shown to be unsupported, invited the 'lols' I inserted in my previous posts. You see, due to them being entirely justified, these 'lols' are entirely fair.

PS
*Sources on the subject being trivially easy to find. For example:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/resistance_movement_in_yugoslavi.htm
etc