Rwanda had been a recent (relativly speaken) example how easy a normal society can break. Those 800,000 people weren't slain by crininals alone...

No. Every commmunity would make their own law. Every community of survivors would band tiogether closely. Liklely, laws wuld be enacted much stricter than before. Where stealing in times of prosperity isn't such a grave crime, under these circumstances, they'd be back to chopping off hands fairly soon. Also, society might become more authoritarian and certainly more xenophobic within these survivor communities.

But presuming the only things that keeps people from going psycho crazy and eating each other is rule of law and federal police is nonsense.


Depends on the locale really. New Orleans is much different from Smallville. In case of some sort of global apocalypse, however, while the cities will turn into hell (unless everyone dies there), the countryside would just splinter into tiny communities.

And for the record, viking-like roving bands of post-apoc madmen don't work. If only bbecause they would need loads of gas and ammo they just won't get from anywhere.

Rwanda wasn't a normal society. It was an agglomeration of two major tribes, and one killed the other until the armed militia of the tribe under attack came back and kicked ass.

The killings hadn't been commited by armed forces only, that was the point I was trying to make.

Even at it's relative post-colonial height, Rwanda was FAR from Western standards in terms of organised civilisation. If the West goes bad, it will go bad the Nazi/V for Vendetta/Empire way, not in any way Mad Max-ish. That can happen only after some really, really devastating calamity that leaves all cultural centers, including small towns and family units, shattered.


No, but it for the most part were militias formed according to the Hutu government's propaganda, who armed and logistuically supported them, too. That didn't happen in a state of total anarchy. These slaughters were at least partially orchestrated. Think Dharfour and the Arab-African government's role in these massacres.

True, but of whom consisted this militias? For a large part former ordinary citizens iirc and not only soldiers, mercenaries and criminals.

So did the SS. Does that mean they weren't state guided and a band of ravaging reavers? Hardly.

This discussion drifts too far away from the thread topic, so maybe we should quit it - even though it's an interesting one.

Thread split please, oh mighty moderators?

Comparing the SS and Rwandas killing commandos doens't work: the SS had a strict hierarchy and was part of a military, while the Rwanda-militias formed relativly quickly and for a short time only. Both were state guided, sort of, that's true.

My calling Tutsi forces a "milita" is a bit of a misnomer. The Tutsi forces were the "Rwandan Patriotic Front", a military force that had been founded in 1986-87 by Rwandan Tutsi refugees to invade Rwanda and take power from the Hutu dominated government. (This is disputed by some- but it will work for this purpose) Which they tried in 1990, but lost and were mostly in neighboring Uganda or in the Rwandan mountains when the urban genocide started in 1994. In 4 months the RPF had defeated the Hutu forces (and their French allies) and controlled the country. The RPF military wing is now the Rwandan Defense Forces.

I know about that, but my point was that the Hutu forces (call them milita, call tem para-military, call them mob) commit the major part of the genocide - and this people had been regular citizens before and not a trained military force liek the SS as hermit compared them with.

Neither the SA nor the SS were military forces.

The Waffen SS, which was part of the SS, was a military force.

Paramilitary and integrated into the chain of command, but seperate nonetheless und ultimatly a party-affiliated militia. Also, the Waffen-SS had a number of volunteer regiments from non-German ethnicities who were little more than crooks with guns and tanks.

I know that you are right according to the letter, hermit, but let's face it: the SS functioned as military, police and security force with administrative and exterminating extra capabilities.

Well yes, as do bandit militias in many parts of Africa. The difference between the SS and the DCLF or whatever is that the SS had the backing of a powerful military-industrial complex and a country with a very militaristic and warlike history and mentality, while the african rag-tag militias only have sleazy arms dealers from Pakistan and Belgium and used/discarded military surplus from China or Russia to go with. And far less effective training, tactics, and communications equipment.


Still, neither was composed of ordinary Joes (or Alis) who just picked up their machetes or hopped into their Tigers to massacre their neighbours.

Exactly my point.

Anyway; 'War Nerd' of the eXile publication wrote a number of pieces on the African bush wars, I'll post some of the better, though recent, ones:

http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-from-hyen...canadian-bitch/

http://exiledonline.com/nkunda-is-nkool/

http://exiledonline.com/from-the-rhinos-he...e-hyenas-belly/

The older articles, dating all the way from 2002 I believe (some good ones on Rwanda, in fact, and more technical in nature), are on the old site archive and I can't be bothered to dig 'em up at the moment.