Holocaust Day in History Class


PDA






mordechaianiliewicz
October 12, 2010, 03:30 PM
Okay, so today in a History class at school we began talk on the Holocaust part of WWII. My teacher by the way, considers this her field of study. So, I make an observation that it probably wouldn't have happened if the Jews, Gypsies, pretty much everyone in Eastern Europe had been armed, and known how to use their weapons.

I also suggested that was probably the biggest lesson to take from the Holocaust, and that Democratic institutions, and international treaties don't really stop any dictator bent on genocide. Only force of arms do that.

The teacher was quite upset, and had a literal argument with me. However, after class, several classmates asked me questions. Two simple things she couldn't counter was why the Swiss never were invaded, and that only the Allies winning in Europe stopped the Holocaust ultimately.

It all began because of my presentation, which was The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. She grudgingly gave me a B.

After class, several folks asked me questions. I feel good. Number one, no one ever seemed to be that interested in history in this class till now. Number two, the connection is there in their minds.

If you enjoyed reading about "Holocaust Day in History Class" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dovedescending
October 12, 2010, 03:36 PM
Way to go! You may never convince her, but it's an excellent sign that fellow students came and asked questions :) Make sure to direct them to a website called www.thehighroad.org if they want to know more...

zxcvbob
October 12, 2010, 03:56 PM
I think the Swiss being heavily armed was less a factor than the fact that they were protected by The Alps, and there was nothing in Switzerland worth attacking except for the banks, and they were already being used by the Nazi leaders to hide stolen wealth until after the war. Attacking might ruin their "little arrangement"

(Good job, btw ;))

Sam1911
October 12, 2010, 04:05 PM
I would say (amongst ourselves, here on THR) that it isn't quite so simple as that. Just like we say in the S&T forum, "mindset, skillset, toolset -- in that order." The population first has to have the desire -- better said, the mental preparedness -- to act with righteous violence to stop oppression and genocide. There is much in the political and social history of Europe (and a great many other places) that makes (or made at the time) effective resistance neigh unthinkable.

But general disarmament is a symptom of those factors, and is itself a contributing factor, too, so you are quite right to say what you said.

When people own arms, they (may) practice with arms, and through that practice they are not only developing/maintaining physical skill with weapons, but as well stoking the "spiritual" fire that reminds us that we are, somewhere deep inside maybe, able and responsible to act with necessary violence to defend our freedom and lives.

So, the freedom to keep and bear arms (toolset), prompts the practice of the skillset, which in turn helps strengthen the mindset.

Disarm a population and (given time) you can starve out both the skills to use the weapons, but also all but the dimmest embers of the WILL to do so.

It is as you said. But the larger meaning of what you said runs deeper than you were able to express in your classroom. IMHO.

Good job! And don't stop arguing. You have the potential to reach a lot of folks.

essayons21
October 12, 2010, 04:07 PM
It is no coincidence that one of the most zealous, no-compromise pro-2A organization is the Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership.

Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

otcconan
October 12, 2010, 04:16 PM
I have a B.A. in History with a concentration on Eastern Europe and Russia.

I do know that most of the Jews in Germany were stripped of the right to firearms long before the true aims of the Holocaust became clear. Not too clear on the Poles, but the Soviets took guns away from just about everybody early on, so their Jewish population would be in heaps of trouble.

Interestingly, the Jews of Yugoslavia were quite well armed, and fought with Tito and his partisans against the Germans. Also, there was a group of Jews in Russia, the Bielski group, who actively fought alongside and with the Russian partisans, against the Nazis.

But I have to say, that the Jews as a people learned from history. They haven't been beaten since. They've fought 6 wars against their Arab enemies and won every time.

Water-Man
October 12, 2010, 04:25 PM
Thanks to the USA!

otcconan
October 12, 2010, 04:54 PM
Yes, we do give them some moral (and materiel) support. :)

SSN Vet
October 12, 2010, 05:55 PM
Thanks to the USA!

Yes, we do give them some moral (and materiel) support.

do your homework...

The US did not support Israel with arms or money in the '48/49 war.

And France was their primary supplier in '56... with the Anglo/Franco invasion and siezing of the Suez Canal bolstering Israels southern frontier.

Ike wouldn't risk war with the Soviets over Israel.

Mauserguy
October 12, 2010, 06:25 PM
Well, though I certainly agree that individuals should have a right to defend themselves, I don't believe that WWII is a good example of what could happen. In the case of the Warsaw uprising, the ghetto was ultimately reduced with all lost.

Additionally, professional armies could not stop the fascists until Stalingrad and El Alamein. In the case of partisan fighters, they were certainly brave, but often partisan attacks were followed by massive reprisals against civilians. Basically, individuals and small groups could only fight if they were willing to have their entire families wiped out. WWII was a bad deal all around.
Mauserguy

CoRoMo
October 12, 2010, 06:35 PM
hso posted a link to a video here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=548209), that would have been good for that history class.

BLACKHAWKNJ
October 12, 2010, 07:11 PM
I recall a scene in the movie Fail Safe where the Walter Matthau character says "How far do you think Hitler would have gotten if every Jew he went after had a gun in his hand?!"

Hillbillyz
October 12, 2010, 10:59 PM
Unfortunately many teachers have a view point that is far left. Know your facts, politely state your facts, and the open thinking minds will listen. As stated above way to go son.

rbernie
October 13, 2010, 12:15 AM
Debating the nuances of WWII history (absent any RKBA vector) is simply not an appropriate topic for THR; I've deleted quite a few posts here that strayed from that notion.

Let's keep the dialog focused on the RKBA.

mordechaianiliewicz
October 13, 2010, 12:38 AM
The presentation was 10 minutes. And while that is alot longer than it sounds, it wasn't long enough to really get into it. Plus, the RKBA was tangential to simply stating the uprising following liquidation. The leaders (including my namesake here), and the locations and events.

In all actuality the Russians had as much to do with ending the Holocaust as the Allies (though not out of any particular moral indignation).

Also, very much true (as stated earlier, mindset, skillset, toolset).... you can't just hand a person a gun and tell them to "handle it"... but, it is a first step. Really, you have to be able to have a "gun culture."

The Jews of Europe had a culture of art and science, finance and politics. Music and rich traditions of thought and study, both secularly and religiously. None of that meant one wit when the SS started knocking on doors.

I did later discuss that very thing with a few students. They needed the same clarifications. But, the assignment didn't leave me the ability to stump for Appleseed (though I really wish I coulda)

daorhgih
October 13, 2010, 12:48 AM
(How can I make that read "WWII") The M-1 and the men behind it, and the weather and The Man behind it (Gen George Smith Patton.) Stalingrad was abandoned to the "advancing" Wermacht, as a burning wasteland, and German troops starved through that winter. Moskva was destroyed too, and not by force of arms, long-guns or pistols. Cities are strategic; a pistol is specific. Do all you can to preserve your right to it.

Vyacheslav
October 13, 2010, 12:50 AM
well, a lot of people in eastern europe was armed, thats why they made it to berlin first, lol

robert garner
October 13, 2010, 10:39 AM
Mordachai, well done,good luck!
robert

svtruth
October 13, 2010, 10:47 AM
IIRC, the Warsaw Ghetto had a few weapons and occupied a significant number of German troops for months.

Captcurt
October 13, 2010, 03:11 PM
Lesson #2: The Japanese didn't invade the USA because EVERYONE was armed.

Buck Snort
October 13, 2010, 05:13 PM
Lesson #2: The Japanese didn't invade the USA because EVERYONE was armed.
WELL!! There's also the logistical problem of moving an invasion force all the way across the Pacific oceon and getting it there in one piece!

stchman
October 13, 2010, 05:33 PM
Your teacher got upset at you because in all her training it probably never dawned on her before.

Yes, if the Jewish populace would have been armed they would have been a far more difficult target for Hitler to try to exterminate.

Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers saw this and created the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

In many countries that have very strict gun laws are at the mercy of their governments to take care of them. Sheep we call them.

Col. Plink
October 13, 2010, 05:37 PM
I'm not sure there's anything more inspiring in human history than the Warsaw Uprising.

Good for you!

GEM
October 13, 2010, 05:53 PM
Using historical examples to defend the RKBA is dangerous as the typical cliches are not well documented.

1. The Japanese - the Japanese had no plans to invade the US. They thought that we would negotiage a sphere of influence to them after Pearl Harbor and the taking of the Phillipines. As mention they did not have the capacity to invade us. Nor did they ever intend to. Deterrring them with our citizen's arms never entered the picture. The quote that floats around isn't part of the real historical records of their war plans.

2. The Swiss - they cooperated for a large part with the Reich. They supplied materials, financial services and railroad, transportation support to the German Forces. The Swiss did have a plan for a redoubt where they would withdraw if invaded. Most importantly, they heavily mined the tunnels that the Germans used for transport. That was their greatest military threat.

With their cooperation and threat to damage infrastructure - the Germans never seriously had the need to invade. Yes, there would be resistance but the German could have overcome it, if need be. There were a fair number of Nazi sympathizers in Switzerland and in their armed forces who would have been Quislings. They were removed by the head of the Swiss forces but they would have been there.

Recall Sweden - never invaded for the same reason. They gave Germany transportation rights and materials. They didn't have the same militia system. No one brings them up. But it indicates that cooperation was the crucial issue. Was it moral - both countries were in a hard place.

Thus, if you support the RKBA with those examples against a person who knows history - you would be in trouble with the cliched examples. If a teacher didn't, that's their incompetency.

On the other hand, research on genocides clearly indicates that the target population has little means to defend itself. Although, you have to be careful of using the fake Hitler quotes.

Water-Man
October 13, 2010, 06:21 PM
IMO, it wouldn't have mattered if the Jews did have guns. Do you really think that would have altered the outcome in Germany?

Vyacheslav
October 13, 2010, 06:32 PM
IMO, it wouldn't have mattered if the Jews did have guns. Do you really think that would have altered the outcome in Germany?

gestapo getting shot as soon as they kicked down a door would have altered the outcome plenty

Water-Man
October 13, 2010, 06:36 PM
Jews getting shot thereafter!

jimmyraythomason
October 13, 2010, 06:41 PM
gestapo getting shot as soon as they kicked down a door would have altered the outcome plenty That would have resulted in the annihilation of everyone in the house. A rapid death rather than a death camp. End result would have been the same.

Cosmoline
October 13, 2010, 06:50 PM
As I understand it, the Jews had by long practice developed a tradition of enduring whatever hardships the European states inflicted on them. Sort of a "this too shall pass" attitude. And it served them very well. They were able to endure and even thrive by making lemonade from lemons. Many saw the new wave of persecution coming with the Nazis. It would have been hard not to. But they assumed that it would be like all the other pogroms and purges. Bloody, yes, but temporary and survivable. They did not see the death camps coming.

In that context, the notion of taking up arms was anathema to most Jews. It would only invite reprisals and make things worse. Even in Warsaw there was considerable resistance to the idea of resistance. So most just clung to their community and traditions in the hopes of enduring.

The lesson isn't so much that guns = freedom, but that you should never assume things will end up OK just because they always did before.

the Japanese had no plans to invade the US.

Gem, without getting us sidetracked, I have to point out that they DID invade the US. They took and held territory here in Alaska, though nobody ever seems to remember it. Fought hard to keep it, too. What they would or would not have done if they had beaten us at Midway and destroyed the rest of our Pacific fleet is conjecture. Doubtful they would have marched into DC, but they might have been perfectly willing to snatch up Hawaii, Alaska and some ports on the Pacific for good measure. They were an utterly ruthless imperial power looking for someone to beat.

geekWithA.45
October 13, 2010, 06:51 PM
In the case of the Warsaw uprising, the ghetto was ultimately reduced with all lost.


Except, of course, for the dignity of those who died facing their enemy, arms in hand.



And that, really, is the bottom line.

Someone or group, for any or no reason, with or without the color of law, may decide that it's a perfectly good idea to go and do their best to kill you.

That won't be up to you. That will be up to whatever other forces are in play.

The Jews of Europe had a culture of art and science, finance and politics. Music and rich traditions of thought and study, both secularly and religiously. None of that meant one wit when the SS started knocking on doors.


What will be up to you is what you do about it.

Your answer will have a lot to do with how you regard yourself throughout the rest of eternity.

Vyacheslav
October 13, 2010, 06:57 PM
Jews getting shot thereafter!

better to get shot than starve to death or be gassed

Cosmoline
October 13, 2010, 07:05 PM
the ghetto was ultimately reduced with all lost.

Quite a few of the fighters and even leaders actually escaped and survived. Resistance is not futile.

KBintheSLC
October 13, 2010, 07:07 PM
This quote pretty much sums it up...

"The great questions of the time will be decided, not by speeches and resolutions of majorities, but by iron and blood" -Otto von Bismarck 1862 address to the Prussian high ministry

jimmyraythomason
October 13, 2010, 07:20 PM
better to get shot than starve to death or be gassed I agree,however, they did not know that the death camps and starvation awaited them. Fathers had to think of their families. Forceful resistance(without sufficient means) which was certain death for them and their children or.....an unknown future.... Dying with honor is good but knowing your actions will cause the deaths of your family members is a great persuader.

Deanimator
October 13, 2010, 07:44 PM
I agree,however, they did not know that the death camps and starvation awaited them.
Untrue.

From early on, reports of massacres by the Einsatzgruppen started to spread. Reports of the death camps spread afterward. These things were the impetus for resistance that did take place.

The difference between not fighting back and fighting back is that in the latter, Nazis died as well as the Jews. I fail to see the downside in that course of action.

jimmyraythomason
October 13, 2010, 08:03 PM
The difference between not fighting back and fighting back is that in the latter, Nazis died as well as the Jews. I fail to see the downside in that course of action.
Fighting back with what?

labhound
October 13, 2010, 08:54 PM
It amazing how many members here seem to feel that even if the Jews had been armed they wouldn't have fought back for fear of their own family being killed, or if they had fought back they wouldn't have made any difference. To me this kind of goes against our own RKBA and the 2nd Amendment arguments. If we're not willing to stand up and fight against armed aggression, then whats the point of owning guns and raising so much fuss about the 2nd Amendment. Is it just so we can hunt, shoot paper targets, and maybe prevent a home invasion or robbery? Do we raise all this fuss about gun ownership and then hide when the real need for an armed militia arises,

jimmyraythomason
October 13, 2010, 09:07 PM
What is even more amazing is 21st century Americans who have never known anything but freedom can know why someone a world away and a couple of generations ago chose to do or not do according to their means and understanding at that time. I think the Jews did as they were able and not as they would have liked.

Carl N. Brown
October 13, 2010, 09:24 PM
Walter Matthau (Fail Safe):

"How far do you think the Nazis would have gotten if every Jew whose door they knocked on had met them with a gun in his hand?"

Actually, the point is, would they have dared to crack down as they did if there had been a credible potential for resistence?

bushmaster1313
October 13, 2010, 09:42 PM
I believe that the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto had two firearms and a flare pistol at the start of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

They fought the Germans longer than the Polish Army faught the Germans.

If every Jew had taken a Nazi with him there would not have been any Nazi's left to fight the Russians and the Americans.

Sky
October 13, 2010, 09:43 PM
Seems like a common thread in all "Holocaust" Cambodia, Russia, Guatemala, Various African states, Europe etc. etc. the ones getting Holocaust-ed have already been disarmed and have very little means to protect themselves.

junyo
October 13, 2010, 09:48 PM
"How far do you think the Nazis would have gotten if every Jew whose door they knocked on had met them with a gun in his hand?"

Actually, the point is, would they have dared to crack down as they did if there had been a credible potential for resistence?
Exactly.

I saw a movie once where the good guy with a six shooter is facing off against a group of bad guys. One of the bad guys is urging the others to rush the hero because he's only got six bullets and there are more of them. Fine, the hero says, who wants them?

If bullying Jews had been actively hazardous to your health, joining the Brownshirts becomes a lot less attractive. Change that math and the whole equation changes.

A large part of the RKBA is changing that math.

gizmohead
October 13, 2010, 09:53 PM
In fighting tyranny, I think guns are necessary, but not sufficient. In addition to the guns themselves is the skill to use them expertly, the resolve to use them, the wisdom to know when to use them, and the ability to employ the right tactics, in the company of others who stand with you, to defeat a common enemy.

Just finished reading "Paul Revere's Ride" (great book) and that's the message I took away, FWIW.

Onward Allusion
October 13, 2010, 09:55 PM
While that may be true, there are a lot more sheep among the herd than shepherd dogs willing to tangle with a wolf.



If bullying Jews had been actively hazardous to your health, joining the Brownshirts becomes a lot less attractive. Change that math and the whole equation changes.

A large part of the RKBA is changing that math.

SSN Vet
October 13, 2010, 10:50 PM
the real need for an armed militia arises

I think the key word in that sentence it militia... which implies a certain multitude of cooperating people with some level of organization.

I don't know if it's from watching Rambo movies or playing first person shooter games, but it seems to me that too many people have unrealistic ideas about what one or two guys with a pile of arms and ammo can pull off.

I think the Tennessee State Militia, which is strictly under State and not Federal control is the best model going out there.

After the first stormtrooper got shot kicking in the door of a Jewish household, the goons could have easilly just burned the next hundred families alive in their houses.

Nico Testosteros
October 13, 2010, 11:40 PM
The American Indians were armed somewhat and that didn't prevent the Holocaust against them. Granted, they fought but still they ended up on reservations with their land stolen from them.

Hatterasguy
October 13, 2010, 11:55 PM
Interesting, but you have a few holes in your argument the Holocaust or any other systematic genocide for that matter would have taken more to stop than a few guns.

You have to remember the Holocaust involved more than just Jews, it was the state policy of Nazi Germany to eradicate the "untermenschen." This included the Jews, Gypses, mentaly handicapped, homosexuals, blacks, and various other races they viewed as sub human; also people who were opposed to Hitler. The Slav's were to be used as slaves to farm Russia as far east as the Volga when the war was over. They planned on depopulating Eastern Europe except for the Slav's so the German settlers could have workers.

What needs to be remembered is that the Nazi party was a political party like any other and that the Nazi government was a duly and democratically elected government by the German people. Hitler was voted into power, and the German people voted all their rights away right after it. They probably did this to fill the national hole left by the Kaiser but that's another argument. Anyway in the 1930's Hitler and the Nazi party did a lot of good in Germany and were widely support both in and out, for awhile we had a very active Nazi party in this country which interestingly Hitler didn't support. Many prominent Americans supported Hitler, such as Henry Ford and the Kennedy's. To this day we still enjoy some things that came from the party, our modern interstate highway system for example is modeled after the Autobahn, VW was essentially created by Hitler and Dr. Porsche, etc. Also NASA owes them a lot.

My point is that a few individuals with guns cannot change state policy, enter the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn't protect your right to own a hunting rifle, or carry a Glock for self defense, or play solider run and gun in the desert on the weekend. A few individuals with weapons can have an uprising such as in Warsaw but by that point it was to little to late, and the SS quickly crushed them. 2A protects the citizens rights to form militias to overthrow the US government in the event that voting brakes down. Cause the Founding Fathers for all their faults were very smart people, and they knew that people can be swept away by devils with silver tongues and vote guys like Hitler into office. So they put a few checks into the system to prevent this, the electoral college is the first, 2A is the final. 2A is as more about mentality than it is about firepower, firearms are simply the tools to achieve the desired outcome.

The Jews fate was sealed in Germany for many reasons, largely culture. They were Germans, they were raised to obey authority and had not the slightest notion of the 2A and what it means, nor the means to carry it out. They also didn't realize until it was to late exactly what the Nazi's were planning. Heck a lot of them were party members for awhile, and their kids in the Hitler Youth. Having firearms wouldn't have changed anything since they lacked the culture to use them.

Lastly the Swiss were never invaded because they were the Germans bank, you don't attack your own bank. Certainly being well armed didn't hurt, it moved the risk vs reward equation in their favor. But don't think for one minute the Wehrmacht wouldn't have rolled right over them if they were ordered to. The Swiss knew this and their entire defense plan involved a fighting retreat. Geography was also on their side; there country has a lot of mountains and they are located in an area of Europe that really isn't an invasion route from Germany to France. Unlike say Belgium which is screwed either way, they are France's front door to Germany.

David E
October 14, 2010, 12:12 AM
Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

Or suffer from them.........

Sky
October 14, 2010, 12:13 AM
The American Indians were armed somewhat and that didn't prevent the Holocaust against them. Granted, they fought but still they ended up on reservations with their land stolen from them.

Yep if they would have joined forces they would have kicked the settlers butt and thrown them back into the sea. There was one leader who united three eastern tribes and was very successful for a while; may his ancestors forgive me for I can't remember his name..

They were so tribal and had the attitude of my feather is better than yours that it did them in or helped contribute to their losing almost everything. Also even in the tribe they were very independent fighters..Generalized statement.

Blankets with smallpox, measles and a lack of cohesion will get ya every time.

GREAT POST Hatterasguy

mack
October 14, 2010, 12:15 AM
Eventually the Nazi's did resort to burning the Warsaw ghetto - as the most efficient solution. But that only worked because the Jews had already been transported and contained within the ghetto. Burning square blocks of Berlin and other major German cities where many non-Jews also lived would not have been such an attractive option.

The resistance in the Warsaw ghetto - while brave and valiant as it was - was too late to make a major difference for most - though they did get to die fighting the good fight.

The point that many have made is that a gun without the knowledge and most importantly the will to use it is just a hunk of wood/metal/plastic.

There needs to be a commitment to individual freedom - a belief in inalienable rights - that no government may morally trespass on - no matter the pleas of necessity.

A willingness to resist with force if necessary to defend one's rights - even if the cost is one's life.

The availability of arms to fight with and the ability to use them.


While the idea of a citizen militia marching out to fight a modern military - with planes, tanks, heavy weapons, trained soldiers, smart bombs, missiles, artillery, and predator drones, toe to toe is laughable - that would never and has never been the real deal.

The backbone of citizen resistance has always been guerilla warfare - the average citizen and his peers seeking targets of opportunity and then slipping away to blend back into the general population.

A repressive government that seeks to establish or maintain tyrannical rule over its own citizens, if a significant fraction of said citizens chose to resist, has an almost impossible task.

Doing so requires - boots on the ground - a heavy and immediate physical presence of police state agents to control citizens urban and rural. Such a presence is an invitation for ambush and hit and run assault - necessarily exposing one's troops/police to continual danger and attrition.

It also requires protecting supply lines and manufacturing from assault and sabotage - when the enemy may work at the plant or be a member of the local community.

It also requires the deferential use of force - rebels hiding amongst the general population of a major city - pretty much precludes the use of area wide weapons, nukes - artillery - and such when there is no hard target to attack - taking out Chicago and all the innocent citizens and its transportation and manufacturing would not be an effective or efficient use of force.

Public opinion - even in tyrannical states is a force that must be recognized and respected - even by tyrants - a population and/or members of the military or police who became even in a significant fraction - sympathetic to the rebels - can sow the seeds of defeat for the government. It cuts both ways though - rebels who indiscriminately use violence can turn public opinion against them and lose because of it.

Sky
October 14, 2010, 01:02 AM
Many good post in this thread

staggerlee213
October 14, 2010, 05:25 AM
Visible oppression and violence is more difficult to get away with than secretive.. If at the least an armed population would have brought more attention/slowed events(or yes possibly accelerated them)

If the Branch Davidians and the people at Ruby Ridge hadn't been armed-- would the Oklahoma City bombing have taken place? Definitely not saying these are the same things(nor do I condone what happened in OKC in any way).

I find it difficult to imagine WWII would have been very very different in the face of a RKBA Europe

Deanimator
October 14, 2010, 07:47 AM
Fighting back with what?
ANYTHING.

If I've got a straight razor and the will to use it and you've got a rifle and poor situational awareness, pretty soon I'm going to have a straight razor AND a rifle.

Carl N. Brown
October 14, 2010, 09:46 AM
Didn't a lot of the Warsaw Ghetto fighters take weapons from the German occupiers? I believe that was also the case with Filippino guerillas armed with single shot shotguns made of plumbing pipe, killing Japanese sentries and taking their rifles and ammo.

That is a reason why oppressive governments forbid private ownership of "military caliber" firearms: in many revolutions, the main source of ammo for the rebels is the oppressive government itself. A just government derives its best defense from the volunteer force of its own people familiar with arms, rather than a professional army standing over its people. We know what model Nazi Germany fit in the occupied territories.

The problem with possible resistance to the Holocaust is that while people knew things were bad, nobody knew how bad they would become. A little restriction did not seem to warrant near-suicidal resistence. And Nazi Germany did not just murder millions of Jewish civilians: they murdered millions of non-Jewish civilians, in forced labor, concentration and extermination camps.

Deanimator
October 14, 2010, 10:41 AM
Didn't a lot of the Warsaw Ghetto fighters take weapons from the German occupiers? I believe that was also the case with Filippino guerillas armed with single shot shotguns made of plumbing pipe, killing Japanese sentries and taking their rifles and ammo.
And...


Nationalist Chinese Guerrillas
Communist Chinese Guerrillas
Viet Minh
French Resistance
Belgian Resistance
Dutch Resistance
Tito's Partisans

etc., etc., etc.

I had this same discussion more than ten years ago in usenet. One supposedly "Jewish" anti-gunner mocked the European victims of the Holocaust for not emigrating to the United States. Apparently he thought that the S.S. Saint Louis was a steamboat on the Mississippi River. He apparently also thought that F.D.R. WANTED the ones who couldn't work on the Manhattan Project.

Onward Allusion
October 14, 2010, 11:51 AM
^^^^

Yup. Guerrilla warfare is effective as long as your enemies care about the resources that you're sitting on or in. That and hit-and-runs are very effective within your enemies' borders. Soooo going back to the original premise - if the Jews were armed and had the balls to make whatever sacrifices necessary the outcome may have been different. Decapitate the top ranks and cause panic in the streets.

jimmyraythomason
October 14, 2010, 12:04 PM
That and hit-and-runs are very effective within your enemies' borders. Also the cause of retaliatory action against the civilian population by the Nazis. The Union Army did the same against the families of Confederate Partisan Rangers in Kansas in 1863.

Carl N. Brown
October 14, 2010, 12:42 PM
One supposedly "Jewish" anti-gunner mocked the European victims of the Holocaust for not emigrating to the United States.

Immigration was strictly controlled in those days, and many countries were reluctant to provoke Hitler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.S._St._Louis MS St. Louis, German ocean liner; in 1939, the captain tried to find homes for 930 Jewish (mosty Germans) and 7 non-Jewish German refugees; they were turned away from Cuba, then the US, then Canada; finally they were accepted by UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_of_the_Damned 1974 book and 1976 movie

mack
October 14, 2010, 01:04 PM
Important points as identified by some previous posters and as illuminated by this Churchill quote: "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

In the case of the Warsaw Ghetto and other similar historical instances, resistance only came after disarmament and the identification and attempted isolation of the identified "enemies of the state". Therefore the chances of successful resistance were reduced and much less likely. Contrast it to the American Revolution where armed resistance began in earnest with the first early attempts at government disarmament. Additionally the cause of universal liberty and individual rights - is not limited to an easily identifiable ethnic or cultural group.

Thus to me - successful resistance to tyranny depends on three things:

A culture dedicated to individual rights and liberty

An armed population trained in the use of personal arms

The willingness of a significant portion - perhaps ten percent - of the population to use force to resist government forced disarmament.


The greatest goal of course is to defeat tyranny and would be tyrants whilst they are still in their infancy, before it comes to the necessity of using force to resist. Thus the four boxes - the soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box - in that order. The soapbox of public opinion to ridicule, reveal, and destroy the pretensions of tyranny and would be tyrants. The ballot box to elect only those supportive of individual rights and liberty. The jury box to nullify unjust laws it necessary and to see that true justice is done. The cartridge box - if all else fails - to resist force with force.

Today we remain as a nation, despite all our problems, a long way from the cartridge box and I pray that it will remain so. As the founding fathers stated in that foundational document of our nation - "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

I find myself encouraged by such things as the Appleseed project - by the grassroots tea party movement - and by the concerns of many Americans that our nation remain dedicated to the proposition of liberty.

mack
October 14, 2010, 01:16 PM
If rebels are engaging in hit and run attacks on legitimate government agents and sabotage of government installations - avoiding as much as possible injuring non-combatants - then the government engaging in atrocities by carrying out reprisals against the families and communties of the rebels will only serve to undermine their own legitimacy in the eyes of the general population and will ultimately lead to creating more sympathy and support for the rebels in the general population.

The history of tyrannical governments prevailing in the long term over genuine insurgent movements fighting for liberty is not very promising for would be tyrants.

jimmyraythomason
October 14, 2010, 01:20 PM
will ultimately lead to creating more sympathy and support for the rebels in the general population.
Very true but if the general population hasn't the ability to act against the tyrant where is the consequences of such reprisals?

cambeul41
October 14, 2010, 01:30 PM
There was one leader who united three eastern tribes and was very successful for a while; may his ancestors forgive me for I can't remember his name..

Pontiac?

Cosmoline
October 14, 2010, 01:45 PM
Certainly being well armed didn't hurt, it moved the risk vs reward equation in their favor.

That's really the key to the Swiss and Swedish success. They were both very well armed in the runup to WWII, but at the same time offered olive branches to both sides to keep them happy. So the costs of invading would have been high due to the arms, and the benefits negligible since they already had what they wanted. Unarmed, unprotected bankers in the Alps could VERY EASILY have been rolled into the Reich as part of a week's excursion. So why not do it? But fiercely independent, universally armed Swiss who live in terrain that's impossible for tanks and heavy weapons--that's another matter. The invasion of Switzerland would have tied down badly-needed divisions for months and cost a lot of money without giving the Axis any particular tactical advantages. They already had all the surrounding territory, after all.

Sweden, for its part, would have presented fewer challenges to invaders, but it was a tougher nut than Norway. Norway was a series of isolated harbors, each cut off from the others and impossible to reinforce. Sweden was more like Finland, and the specter of the costs of the Winter War would have been on Germany's mind. Plus, what would have been gained? By the Continuation War Germany already had troops in Finland and access to the northern reaches of the USSR. They already had Norway's ports And they could buy what Swedish grain and material they needed. The greater threat to Sweden arguably came from the Allies, and Great Britain in particular. If the British invasion of Norway had been pulled off, the next step may have been to force a hole through Sweden to Finland to neutralize German influence and force Stalin back. That was back when Hitler and Stalin were buddies--it gets confusing.

But, again, if Sweden had NO significant military and if Sweden hadn't set up its defenses in the late 30's, then the costs of invading would have been much less and it could have happened.

mack
October 14, 2010, 02:14 PM
But resistance begins with speaking out - if only to ones friends or family. By saying the government is wrong - what they are doing is wrong - and to support it is wrong. The loss of moral legitimacy is the crucial first step in resistance and revolution.

Resistance begins with not actively supporting the government - not identifying rebels or their families. Providing intelligence and warning and food and materials to the rebels. By providing moral support for the rebels. By not reporting what you saw or telling all you know. By privately or publically speaking out against the government. Hence the saying that all that is needed for one to be considered a dangerous person today is to quote the founding fathers. All these things are significant and necessary steps to resisting tyranny.

Where does the government recruit its troops - from the general population. Where does the government get its ammo and weapons - from manufacturers that employ citizens from the general population. Where does the government get the information it needs to identify and arrest or destroy the rebels and their movement - from the general population. Where does the government get the individuals who are necessary to maintain the infrastructure of a modern state (power, fuel, communications, roads and transportation, food) from the general population. So, in many significant ways the general population always has the means of resistance at hand.

Yes, the way is harder and less sure if the general population is not armed and if they do not have a basic understanding and commitment to liberty. That is why it is always important to maintain an armed citizenry and an educated citizenry committed to the values of freedom and individual liberty.

Tyranny rarely happens overnight - the loss of individual rights and the disarming of the general population are lines in the sand the demark the journey to that dark destination.
"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air — however slight — lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." Justice William O. Douglas

Deanimator
October 14, 2010, 02:15 PM
Also the cause of retaliatory action against the civilian population by the Nazis.
That's not much of a threat to the Jews if they know (or suspect) that your ultimate goal is there not BEING a [Jewish] civilian population.

The Jews of Europe simply had NOTHING to lose by fighting the Nazis.

When your enemy's goal is your PHYSICAL ELIMINATION, the ONLY "downside" to TOTAL resistance is if you actually don't WANT to harm those seeking to exterminate you absolutely. Unilateral pacifism in the face of genocide is merely an obtuse form of suicide.

jimmyraythomason
October 14, 2010, 02:21 PM
all that is needed for one to be considered a dangerous person today is to quote the founding fathers. Very sad but true.Tyranny rarely happens overnight - the loss of individual rights and the disarming of the general population are lines in the sand the demark the journey to that dark destination.
This is the time to resist,before the enemy grows into a giant.

jimmyraythomason
October 14, 2010, 02:28 PM
Unilateral pacifism in the face of genocide is merely an obtuse form of suicide.
Agreed but that wasn't what was going on. Pacifism is never a counter to tyranny.The Jews of Europe simply had NOTHING to lose by fighting the Nazis.
They had no way of knowing that. They were faced with surviving for today and if they lived through that day then they faced trying to survive the next day. We are looking at this through 70 years of breaking it down to it's smallest form not living it as it happened. I will not try to judge a people for doing the only thing they knew to do or were capable of doing.

Water-Man
October 14, 2010, 02:35 PM
"the four boxes"? The soapbox is history. The ballot box-what choices do we have? One is as bad as another. The lesser of two evils. Two parties. Not much of a choice! The jury box? Not likely! The cartridge box?

Deanimator
October 14, 2010, 02:54 PM
They had no way of knowing that.
Untrue.

From the start, reports of the activities of the Einsatzgruppen and later of the industrial execution machine leaked out, both to the Jews of Europe and to the west.

There's a fundamental difference between not knowing and not WANTING to believe.

mack
October 14, 2010, 02:57 PM
soapbox - any place you speak in public to other people - and/or the internet - radio - newspapers - facebook - twitter - etc... going on right now.

ballot box - run yourself - local elections are important too - local politicians become state politicians - become national politicians. There are nascent political movements out there - tea party - libertarian - green - etc... not perfect by a long shot and in need of serious reform - but not impossible - and there are a few good ones out there too. Primaries are important - you can help to get good candidates in office if you start out to do so before a general election.

Jury box - education on jury nullification - and even today there are many places where some so called "crimes" are not prosecuted as there is falling public support for some specific laws - as prosecutors don't want to risk losing the case. True this does need to be re-asserted and is almost dead - but it does not have to remain so, the people retain the power - but need the will to assert it.

cartridge box - well that is one that we want to avoid - but in extremis that is the last resort to preserve freedom.

jimmyraythomason
October 14, 2010, 03:00 PM
They had no way of knowing that.

Untrue.

From the start, reports of the activities of the Einsatzgruppen and later of the industrial execution machine leaked out, both to the Jews of Europe and to the west.

Since it is obvious that we will never agree on this,I think we should move on.

mack
October 14, 2010, 03:03 PM
There's a fundamental difference between not knowing and not WANTING to believe.

Deanimator
October 14, 2010, 03:09 PM
OSS and Knowledge of the Holocaust (http://books.google.com/books?id=WQSa8ykpSG0C&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=knowledge+of+the+holocaust&source=bl&ots=VYd_VYdhfW&sig=JjCyP-0HQqZwFRztQDvSpc_FLbM&hl=en&ei=t0a3TIfCDo24sQO154H5CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=knowledge%20of%20the%20holocaust&f=false)
People KNEW. For various reasons, they chose not to do anything. The reports leaked out, and early on.

heeler
October 14, 2010, 03:10 PM
So after reading all of this my question to Mordechai is why did the teacher become upset with your response?
Seems pretty obvious to me that if an agressor is met headlong with unwavering and quite stiff resistance the agressor just might rethink his approach to his ongoing behaviour.

jimmyraythomason
October 14, 2010, 03:13 PM
People KNEW. For various reasons, they chose not to do anything. The reports leaked out, and early on. Yes,this I know. I'm only talking about the Jews living under Nazi occupation. The Nazis controlled all of the communications. Anything the Jews could have known had to be learned BEFORE the Nazi war machine rolled in. Anyway as I said it's time (for me)to move on.

mack
October 14, 2010, 03:14 PM
"There's a fundamental difference between not knowing and not WANTING to believe."

This is a problem in all ages. As has been said:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me."



First they restricted the rights of suspected communists, but I did not speak out because I was not a communist. Then they restricted the rights of suspected terrorists, but I did not speak out because I was not a terrorist. Then they came for the semi-automatic military style rifles, but I did not speak out because I was a hunter and shotgunner. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out or resist.

Deanimator
October 14, 2010, 03:27 PM
So after reading all of this my question to Mordechai is why did the teacher become upset with your response?
Seems pretty obvious to me that if an agressor is met headlong with unwavering and quite stiff resistance the agressor just might rethink his approach to his ungoing behaviour.
Let me provide a couple of answers, not necessarily his, but which I've encountered for decades.


In left, and especially left academic circles, there is an obsession with "nonviolence" on the part of the VICTIMS of the most horrific violence. While they will excuse the most bestial AGGRESSION, they reflexively recoil at self-defense. They feel that it "sullies" the victim status of the victim, "lowering" him to the level of the aggressor. It is better to be slaughtered, whether by two monsters in your own home in Connecticut, or in a gas chamber in Poland, than to use physical violence to save oneself or others. This is the case on both the micro and macro levels. Hence it is wrong both for a Jew to shoot an SS Mann, just as it is wrong for the United States to bomb Germany or Japan. One must in all cases provide a "good example"... whether it's by walking peacefully into the gas chamber or allowing oneself to be bombed without bombing in return.

Again on the left, but also on the right (mostly in a faux version of the left position), those who oppose violent resistance by the Jews do so because they "like" Jews, but only as VICTIMS. The Jew who meekly stands at the edge of the pit, or who walks passively into the gas chamber is morally "pure". Those in this camp prefer dead Jewish martyrs to live Jews with the blood of their wouldbe slaughterers on their hands. There is a similar attitude toward Blacks, Muslims (especially in the Balkans) and others who resist violence with violence. The human victims are seen merely as archetypes rather than real people with the right to defend themselves. They're more useful... and less threatening as "honored dead" than as independent actors with the ability and will to harm their assailants.

stonecutter2
October 14, 2010, 03:37 PM
Gem, without getting us sidetracked, I have to point out that they DID invade the US. They took and held territory here in Alaska, though nobody ever seems to remember it. Fought hard to keep it, too. What they would or would not have done if they had beaten us at Midway and destroyed the rest of our Pacific fleet is conjecture. Doubtful they would have marched into DC, but they might have been perfectly willing to snatch up Hawaii, Alaska and some ports on the Pacific for good measure. They were an utterly ruthless imperial power looking for someone to beat.
Don't want to continue a sidetrack, but actually, Alaska didn't become a US state until 1959 - same as Hawaii. So the Japanese technically never invaded the US. They attacked US forces in Hawaii, and Shigenori Nishikaichi crash landed on the island of Ni'ihau, but again - Hawaii was not a US state at the time.

SSN Vet
October 14, 2010, 03:45 PM
this has turned out to be a very thought provoking thread and is central to the whole crux of the 2A (imo)... I hope it doesn't get shut down...

Thus to me - successful resistance to tyranny depends on three things:
A culture dedicated to individual rights and liberty
An armed population trained in the use of personal arms
The willingness of a significant portion - perhaps ten percent - of the population to use force to resist government forced disarmament.


The greatest goal of course is to defeat tyranny and would be tyrants whilst they are still in their infancy, before it comes to the necessity of using force to resist. Thus the four boxes - the soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box

Unfortunately, the same elements established to ensure the USA doesn't succumb to tyranny are being used by the advocates of tyranny to protect and advance their movements, as they have cloaked themselves in the robe of the protected minority.

Case in point... Islamo-Fascism.

There are groups based in the U.S. that actively advocating violent jihad, world wide Islamic rule and implementation of Sharia law over the U.S.

They operate openly and the government knows them well. They hold national conventions in pricey hotels in Chicago and NY. They get their $$ from the Saudis. They actively recruit with videos of the most red-hot fire brand preachers of hate. They organize and send people to Pakistan for terrorist training.

A culture dedicated to individual rights and liberty: this is their protection

An ethic of political correctness: this is how they paint their critics as bigots.

The soap box used to be a pulpit. But most never see one these days, and the ones they do see are more often than not filled with the very PC message that protects the very source of the problem.

The media controls the modern soap box (nightly news)and the ballot box (political ads) as they selectively doll out access to the microphone.... and of course they ensure 'proper' censorship of all messages.

The jury box teeters on 5/4 votes and will likely swing the other way if O-man gets re-elected.

The cartridge box: With Federal and State agencies turned into powerful para-military forces and the ability of the media to spin your 90 year old grandma into a terrorist, this becomes very risky.

SSN Vet
October 14, 2010, 03:48 PM
But resistance begins with speaking out - if only to ones friends or family. By saying the government is wrong - what they are doing is wrong - and to support it is wrong. The loss of moral legitimacy is the crucial first step in resistance and revolution.

Sophie Scholl and the other White Rose Movement kids did just this. But it was to late and they paid for it with their lives.

Deanimator
October 14, 2010, 03:48 PM
Don't want to continue a sidetrack, but actually, Alaska didn't become a US state until 1959
Alaska was a UNITED STATES TERRITORY. It was U.S. soil and those born there were U.S. citizens. An invasion of Alaska was an invasion of the U.S..

Are you saying that an invasion of Puerto Rico wouldn't be an invasion of the United States? If not, of what country WOULD it be an invasion?

SSN Vet
October 14, 2010, 03:52 PM
many significant ways the general population always has the means of resistance at hand.

but the Nazis so terrorized the "general population" of the German people by '42, that they were all scared stiff to do anything but say "yes sir, yes sir, three bags full"

On top of that, a war for the survival of the nation played heavilly on their nationalistic impulses to go along for the ride.

The Arien bred, Christian minded German civilians who dared to speak out agianst the war or the party were given summary trials in a kangaroo court and hung shortly thereafter. They never made it to the concentration camp.

Tommygunn
October 14, 2010, 03:55 PM
The cartridge box: With Federal and State agencies turned into powerful para-military forces and the ability of the media to spin you 90 year old grandma into a terrorist, this becomes very risky.

Oh ... what was it prior to the militarization of our state agencies, a cakewalk??:rolleyes:

That choice has always been risky. It was risky for our founding fathers. Even General Washington got his butt kicked out of New York City, and barely kept his army together until Trenton. The redcoats could in theory have won.
It will be tougher for us should things come to this point. Our own oppressors won't have to deal with the logistics of crossing an ocean, for starters ... the rest I'll leave to the imagination of The High Road members .....:evil:;)

SSN Vet
October 14, 2010, 04:02 PM
The Jew who meekly stands at the edge of the pit, or who walks passively into the gas chamber is morally "pure". Those in this camp prefer dead Jewish martyrs to live Jews with the blood of their wouldbe slaughterers on their hands.

I think this is why so many American Jews seem to hate Israel defending themselves.

mordechaianiliewicz
October 14, 2010, 04:11 PM
That very thing was what I discussed with the few fellow students after class. When do you actually fight?

I think of that as the most difcult thing to figure out. Do you do it because a government you elected raises taxes by a few percent? Most Americans (myself included) would laugh @ the idea of going to war over that.... though that is exactly how the USA was founded.

Do you do it when they are trying to put you into a gas chamber? Well, virtually everyone would fight, but they wouldn't be able at that point.

It's somewhere inbetween, and something everyone has to decided for themselves, and hope most people agree with them. (one man with a rifle is nothing, millions with rifles are everything).

My belief on this matter is that "the steps" to genocide are the following:

1.) Attempts to limit the rights of the First Amendment.

2.) Taking of actual property (whether it be cash, real estate, shares of stock, anything) without just compensation, and without even the pretense of providing services.

3.) Attempts @ disarmament.

Those three things happen, and you start getting ready. Even if genocide is not the goal, slavery is. If you can't express yourself, can't own anything, and can't defend yourself, you haven't got human rights anymore.

Sky
October 14, 2010, 04:15 PM
I heard or read there has never been a revolution without the population being starved? Population gets starved down so far though there is no energy even to barely get out of bed.

One of the problems with most employed societies; they are focused on day to day jobs, family, and tend to narrow their focus down to the comfort/security of living and not worrying about the larger whole.

Hey I got mine and I am not in trouble so why worry about the house to house stuff going on in the next city. Head in the sand works for a surprising many.

Hitler was Time Magazine's man of the year around 36? Germany was on it's butt after WWl with wheel barrows of money to buy a loaf of bread. His party pulled Germany out of that mess only to be destroyed later and yet earned him loyalty for a long time. He was a sneaky little bugger that reinforces the belief that absolute power corrupts absolutely!

Many Jews were certainly in the beginning not living the high life and it tended to go down hill from there. If they could not organize due to isolation it is pretty hard to get up for most and say, " Today I fight and die"! Human spirit seems to always have a little spark of, "I will make it even through this" or something/one will save me.

Man's inhumanity to man has always been something that stopped surprising me long ago. Be-headings, dismemberment, torture, is going on all over the world by despotics, Tyrants, governments and people whose belief system makes them right and everyone else wrong.

Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao, just to name a very few were good at killing their own population excluding war.

Deanimator
October 14, 2010, 04:20 PM
but the Nazis so terrorized the "general population" of the German people by '42,
The German "general population" wasn't "terrorized". It was largely SUPPORTIVE of the regime, especially as long as it succeeded in its foreign adventures. When it came to its more sordid activities, they were quite content to not see the things which they didn't want to see. Unlike Stalin's regime, Hitler's was perfectly willing to for the most part, not unduly molest those who said what they were supposed to say, did what they were supposed to do and kept their noses out of things the state decided didn't concern them... as long as they were not a member of a proscribed minority group, such as Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc.

The majority of Germans weren't some terrorized mass of slaves. They were far more akin to the Colombians who aligned themselves with and profited from the activities of Pablo Escobar. It wasn't until their patron's adversaries started striking back in significant ways that they had second thoughts. Of course by that time it was too late.

SSN Vet
October 14, 2010, 04:33 PM
If you can't express yourself, can't own anything, and can't defend yourself

Sounds like business as usual for more than half of the countries on the planet.

SSN Vet
October 14, 2010, 04:37 PM
It was largely SUPPORTIVE of the regime, especially as long as it succeeded in its foreign adventures.

I don't disagree with you, but I think the debacle at Stalingrad greatly weekened popular support, but by then, the secret police had legal power to arrest and imprison any German citizen they wanted for any reason they could think of.

Deanimator
October 14, 2010, 04:46 PM
I don't disagree with you, but I think the debacle at Stalingrad greatly weekened popular support, but by then, the secret police had legal power to arrest and imprison any German citizen they wanted for any reason they could think of.
They'd had that power LONG before the war started. Of course Hitler never let legalities stand in the way of a goal. Hence the "Night of the Long Knives".

Pablo Escobar had plenty of supporters too... until his opponents started retaliating in kind. As with Hitler and the German populace, by that time it was too late.

Cosmoline
October 14, 2010, 04:56 PM
The Jews of Europe simply had NOTHING to lose by fighting the Nazis.

Only in hindsight. To a logical mind, it would have made sense to show the Germans that your community was no threat to them. That way they would move on. Any anti-Jewish measures or riots could be endured just as they had always been endured. Rumors of death camps could be dismissed as just rumors.

SSN Vet
October 14, 2010, 05:09 PM
They'd had that power LONG before the war started.

I don't think they had it "legally" over German citizens unitll '42

Hence the "Night of the Long Knives".

Well, for starters that was an internal fight within the Nazi movement between Earnst Rhom (Hitler' best bud and leader of the SA) and Hitler loyalist (the new SS), they were relatively isolated cases, and were totally against the law. They just happen to get away with it. No witnesses? Prosecutors and police chiefs in their pocket? Police happy to see the Nazis eating their own and hoping it would weeken them all?

None the less it shines some light on the topic at hand, as the persecution doesn't have to be directly from a government agency, it can be from idiological gangs of thugs, with the government turning a blind eye.

stchman
October 14, 2010, 05:11 PM
I would imagine if the German military or Gestapo had enough soldiers killed via armed Jews it would have been an entirely different story.

It is a lot harder to conquer someone that fights back.

jimmyraythomason
October 14, 2010, 05:19 PM
It is a lot harder to conquer someone that fights back. I once saw a cat catch a chipmunk. The chipmunk put up one heck of a fight. The cat just yawned and ate him anyway.

Deanimator
October 14, 2010, 05:38 PM
Only in hindsight. To a logical mind, it would have made sense to show the Germans that your community was no threat to them. That way they would move on. Any anti-Jewish measures or riots could be endured just as they had always been endured. Rumors of death camps could be dismissed as just rumors.
Actually contemporaneously. There were MORE than enough reports, both from Jews and from Germans to substantiate the rumors.

I can't think of an instance where whole towns disappeared, never to be heard from again, with a FAVORABLE outcome. Even if it were "only" as bad as the Armenian genocide, that itself is far more than enough to justify a scorched earth, no quarter asked or given defense.

We're not talking about "anti-Jewish measures" or "riots". We're talking about the systematic elimination of an entire group of people.

People "dismiss" 9/11. That doesn't make it a good idea to credit them.

Deanimator
October 14, 2010, 05:44 PM
I once saw a cat catch a chipmunk. The chipmunk put up one heck of a fight. The cat just yawned and ate him anyway.
Would the chipmunk have been better off for having not fought the cat?

The only one to benefit would have been the cat, just as the only ones to benefit from compliance with the Holocaust were the Nazis.

Of course the SS "troops" who first entered the Warsaw Ghetto didn't exactly "yawn" at their reception. More like they screamed like schoolgirls and RAN.

The only "harm" that could have come from a no quarter attack on the Nazis would have been more dead Nazis.

If I have to choose between 1,000 dead Jews and 1,000 dead Jews plus 50 dead Nazis, it's no choice at all... unless your goal is to avoid harm to Nazis.

jimmyraythomason
October 14, 2010, 05:51 PM
Would the chipmunk have been better off for having not fought the cat?
Was he any better off by fighting? My point isn't that he should or shouldn't fight. It is that the result is exactly the same and the chipmunk inflicted no harm on the cat. This was in direct response to this It is a lot harder to conquer someone that fights back. It wasn't one bit harder for the cat to consume the chipmunk.

labhound
October 14, 2010, 05:57 PM
But enough chipmunks putting up a fight might slow the cat down enough until the big dog got there!!!!!

coloradokevin
October 14, 2010, 06:03 PM
Interesting topic. Obviously we will never be able to know how history might have been different if the populace of Europe was better armed during the time of WWII. Germany may have been no different, but perhaps there would have been better resistance from some of the countries that were occupied by Hitler's regime.

As others have mentioned, having the will to fight is more important than having the tools that are needed to wage war. In Germany the nazis came to power thanks to a population that generally supported them. Would guns have really stopped them in that case? Definitely not at first, and probably not at all.

Obviously much of the rest of Europe soon fell under Nazi control, and it is possible that a well-armed group of citizens could have mounted a more effective defense against the foreign invaders. However, I don't believe that those hypothetical citizens (alone) would have been solely capable of entirely resisting such a well-armed and well-equipped military invasion, at least not without proper military support. I do believe that a population of well-armed citizens could've put a damper on things for the nazis, using tactics that aren't all that different than the snipers that serve in other conflicts. I believe that armed and like-minded citizens can do a lot to resist tyrany, and prevent the total occupation of a country by a foreign military. I just don't believe that the nazis would have turned their tanks around if they were only facing citizens with small arms and no heavy support.

In reality, I doubt you'll ever have an unbiased discussion on this topic in most school environments. Schools these days seem to have taken a very liberal turn, and the very idea that violence can be countered with violence is extremely objectionable to many of the teachers I've met. Moreover, the idea that citizens should be armed as a means of preventing a war is equally objectionable within the modern institutions of education, and I think you'll be fighting an uphill battle if you attempt to argue otherwise.

Deanimator
October 14, 2010, 06:04 PM
Was he any better off by fighting? My point isn't that he should or shouldn't fight. It is that the result is exactly the same and the chipmunk inflicted no harm on the cat. This was in direct response to this
Of course he was better off. When is passive acceptance of annihilation the better choice to resistance?

But of course the Jews WEREN'T "chipmunks". They inflicted not just physical harm on the Nazis, they inflicted shame and humiliation.

Rusty Shackleford
October 14, 2010, 06:09 PM
I think a huge problem with the Jews is that they did not recognize the Nazis as being predatory until it was too late.

Just like with the current administration. They are hostile towards the 2nd amendment. Hopefully not for predatory reasons, but still.

They think that since we own guns that we are a threat. In turn, they want to reduce our capabilities through anti-gun legislation. We view the legislation as a threat. We say, "See! They want to take our guns! Tyrants!" And then we buy MORE guns/ammo... They then see this as an even greater threat. "Look! The gun loons are arming to the teeth to remove us! We have to make this illegal!!! Registration, micro-stamping, assault weapon ban, waiting periods, lead ammo bans!!!!!"

And at that point, everyone on the high road takes out a second mortgage and maxes out the credit cards. Now we all have 43 pallet loads of ammo...

It turns into a vicious cycle where both sides are viewing defensive measures taken by the opposition as offensive tactics. On the one extreme, it eventually gets out of control and you get a civil war. On the other extreme, predatory actions are mistaken as defensive measures. Laws are obeyed until it is too late to effectively resist... like the Jews.

They knew Nazis were hostile to them. But they tried to prevent the escalating cycle mentioned above... they assumed that if they just obeyed, the Nazis would see that they were good people. They could show the Nazis that they had nothing to fear from the Jews and the rhetoric would die down. It was crazy to think otherwise. The concentration camp rumors couldn't be true. Those rumors were for the tin foil hat wearing Jews. Just obey the Nazis like a good little Jew, Abraham, and they'll come to their senses.

They failed to see that the Nazis were acting in a predatory fashion. Calmly going along with their demands was the opposite of what they should have done, but there was no way for them to know for sure until the situation was hopeless.

It's just like the bank robber who wants to tie everyone up. He may be doing it so he can relax while he raids the vault, or he may be planning to execute everyone and leave no witnesses. You just can't tell. It's up to everyone to decide individually what course of action to take. But keep in mind...if you go with the flow and are wrong about his intentions, you are already tied up...

That's the lesson we should learn from the Jews.

jimmyraythomason
October 14, 2010, 06:11 PM
deleted

Deanimator
October 14, 2010, 06:15 PM
It's just like the bank robber who wants to tie everyone up. He may be doing it so he can relax while he raids the vault, or he may be planning to execute everyone and leave no witnesses. You just can't tell. It's up to everyone to decide individually what course of action to take. But keep in mind...if you go with the flow and are wrong about his intentions, you are already tied up...

That's the lesson we should learn from the Jews.

At least for intelligent, educated people, Hitler was the stake through the heart for "appeasement".
At least for intelligent people, regardless of education, 9/11 was the stake through the heart for "just do what they say and you'll be alright".


But there are plenty of people who think that's crazy talk. After all, if you can't trust racist dictators and armed robbers, whom CAN you trust???

Rusty Shackleford
October 14, 2010, 06:28 PM
Exactly, Deanimator. But people have forgotten or choose to ignore cases like Nazi Germany. And in a few more generations, the same type people will say not to resist airplane hijackers. After all, they only want ransom money...

Unfortunately, a lot of these people are teachers. Not only are they misinforming kids about how the real world works (people who are willing to use violence to get what they want only respond to violence in return), but they can also crush dissenting opinions in their classroom.

If lil Johnny says the Jews should have had guns, he gets a C. Susie over there who recommends being a pacifist back in Nazi Germany gets an A+.

labhound
October 14, 2010, 06:38 PM
One thing for sure, the Jews have learned from their history and aren't likely to repeat that mistake. The rest of the world should learn from it too!

staggerlee213
October 14, 2010, 06:41 PM
If someone attempts to kidnap me or shove me in a car to take me off-- I am going to do anything I can to resist. I know once they get me in that car I am pretty much as good as dead.


Side question: What might have happened had the Americans of Japanese ethnicity violently resisted their relocation during WWII?

Deanimator
October 14, 2010, 07:04 PM
If lil Johnny says the Jews should have had guns, he gets a C. Susie over there who recommends being a pacifist back in Nazi Germany gets an A+.
My kid would get the C from the teacher and the best reward I could afford from me. The teacher would get from me, as we used to say in the 2nd Infantry Division, "Something you couldn't get off with a brillo pad". I guarantee you she'd wet herself like a scared dog every time she saw me. My mother and grandmother had that kind of "conversation" with one of the nuns at St. Columbanus Catholic grammar school, somewhere around 1968. The nun told my mother to stop me from reading outside of class, because I was "too far ahead of the other children". That nun would have been better off opening the Ark of the Covenant. Between them, they reduced her to a quivering wreck. My grandmother had been an ambulance driver in WWI and all of her brothers had served in France. She had quite the gift for private speaking. R. Lee Ermey would have collapsed in a fetal position when she was done with her little "talk".

I despise fools. I especially despise fools who try to poison the minds of children.

Deanimator
October 14, 2010, 07:08 PM
Side question: What might have happened had the Americans of Japanese ethnicity violently resisted their relocation during WWII?
A better question is, "Why didn't their neighbors come to their defense?"

Pastor Niemoller's words should have been fresh in their ears when it happened. It's one of the great shameful acts of this nation... and not coincidentally, one which I've seen defended by more than a few anti-gunners. But then they're never happy unless there's a boot on SOMEBODY'S neck.

xcgates
October 14, 2010, 07:19 PM
Deanimator:
Let me provide a couple of answers, not necessarily his, but which I've encountered for decades.
In left, and especially left academic circles, there is an obsession with "nonviolence" on the part of the VICTIMS of the most horrific violence.
[SNIP]
... and less threatening as "honored dead" than as independent actors with the ability and will to harm their assailants.

I was astounded the first time I ran across someone who stated they would not use any level of force that even had the POTENTIAL to cause harm against an aggressor. This was in response to a question of walking with his sister/mother/(future)daughter, and encountering someone who would attempt to rob/rape/murder. He actually thought I was un-Christian and a bad person because I would indeed use whatever level of force necessary to protect someone (I just like using the female family member, as it drives the point home better) even if it had the potential to result in the death of the aggressor. Or even significant injury, claiming that I could have no idea what God had in mind, and that he could turn the aggressor's heart at the last moment. Literally even if the aggressor was lunging with a knife.:what:

This is not something I will apologize for, I will stand for my morals and ethics, which does actually include something shocking to one writer. I will (I sure hope, haven't had to test it, and hope to never have to) refuse an order that goes counter to my oath (USAF). This was a short remark in the TIME article in the recently closed thread where there was a comment about concern over some law officers and military members that would not follow unconstitutional orders. Personally that is exactly what one should do. We do not want mindless order-followers. Just one more indicator that people don't expect anyone to think for themselves anymore.

At least I like to think that I would stand so well, I haven't had to really put anything really major on the line.

Rusty Shackleford
October 14, 2010, 09:29 PM
Holy freaking cow. There are actually people who would WANT the military and police to ignore the Constitution if asked to take away their rights?

If you want the military/police to follow all orders irrespective of whether those orders take away your personal rights as a human being, you are undeniably insane.

The fact that there are "Oath Keepers" in the military/police at all should make free people sleep better at night while making tyrants toss and turn.

hardworker
October 14, 2010, 10:12 PM
The military is trained to follow orders. Unless we have a severe breakdown of military discipline, or high ranking officers countermanding orders from even higher ranking officers I wouldn't count on military resistance to government policies.

Deanimator
October 14, 2010, 10:32 PM
The military is trained to follow orders. Unless we have a severe breakdown of military discipline, or high ranking officers countermanding orders from even higher ranking officers I wouldn't count on military resistance to government policies.
I subverted military orders when I knew that they would both unlawfully destroy government property and endanger life.

There's a long tradition of disobedience of unlawful orders, going back at least to the Philippine Insurrection, when a local commander disregarded orders to massacre civilians on the Island of Samar. I used to teach Code of Conduct and Law of Land Warfare. I taught all of my trainees to disobey unlawful orders.

Hatterasguy
October 14, 2010, 10:43 PM
That very thing was what I discussed with the few fellow students after class. When do you actually fight?

I think of that as the most difcult thing to figure out. Do you do it because a government you elected raises taxes by a few percent? Most Americans (myself included) would laugh @ the idea of going to war over that.... though that is exactly how the USA was founded.

Do you do it when they are trying to put you into a gas chamber? Well, virtually everyone would fight, but they wouldn't be able at that point.

It's somewhere inbetween, and something everyone has to decided for themselves, and hope most people agree with them. (one man with a rifle is nothing, millions with rifles are everything).

My belief on this matter is that "the steps" to genocide are the following:

1.) Attempts to limit the rights of the First Amendment.

2.) Taking of actual property (whether it be cash, real estate, shares of stock, anything) without just compensation, and without even the pretense of providing services.

3.) Attempts @ disarmament.

Those three things happen, and you start getting ready. Even if genocide is not the goal, slavery is. If you can't express yourself, can't own anything, and can't defend yourself, you haven't got human rights anymore.

Its actually quite simple. You fight when their is no better option, when not fighting is worse than dieing. Thankfully we have a far better outlet in this country even though a large portion of Americans chose to be lazy disloyal SOB's and not do it, its called voting. The right to vote was paid for and defended with a lot of blood and its a sacred right which we must take full advantage of.

Now take China for instance, they are not able to vote so most citizens can't do much, hence the protests and the military being needed to keep the unrepresented majority inline.

SSN Vet
October 14, 2010, 10:43 PM
It's just like the bank robber who wants to tie everyone up. He may be doing it so he can relax while he raids the vault, or he may be planning to execute everyone and leave no witnesses. You just can't tell. It's up to everyone to decide individually what course of action to take. But keep in mind...if you go with the flow and are wrong about his intentions, you are already tied up...

But like the bank hostages, German Jews knew very well that their individual decision to resist would almost certainly lead to reprisals against their fellow hostages/Jews.

There is, imho, a failure to distinguish between first and second causes and to assign the rightful blame where it belongs. If one hostage exercises their "individual decision" and that leads to ten others getting axed, who's got blood on their hands?

The rank & file THR type guy will probably have little problem pinning the bank robber exclusively with the responsibility, but I think you'll find a lot of well meaning people out there who cringe at the thought of being a secondary or tertiary cause of innocent suffering.

I'm no expert, but my sense is that the European Jews, being an oft persecuted minority, had a tight sense of community and family, and perhaps saw themselves as being more "culturally & intellectually sophisticated" such that they wouldn't dream of stooping to such base behavior.

Also, if you see yourself as your brother's keeper, and you know that the oppressor will axe your brother if you resist yourself, you're in an awful situation.

Certainly, choosing to suffer yourself, so that your kinsman has a chance at survival or escape, is not such a foolish or ignoble course of action. Nor is people of faith hoping, trusting and believing in divine deliverance. Nor is the righteous and innocent believing that their hastened eternal destiny will be better secured if they endure persecution unto death, rather than lash out in anger at their oppressors.

Also, don't underestimate the psychological affect that intimidation and fear can have on a terrorized group of people.

Should the Jews have seen the writing on the wall and resisted the Nazis? Maybe. Maybe not.

I won't be the one to tender such a judgment, as there but for the grace of God go I.

mack
October 14, 2010, 10:44 PM
As has been said many times a firearm or weapon is merely a tool - useless by itself - possessed of no moral value good or ill - its only value being the purpose and skillful use that its user assigns it.

Tyrants use weapons against those who oppose them - violating the most basic of human rights - without compunction - in pursuit of power and control. Those who support tyranny through their actions or inactions cite fear or that they were "just following orders."

The understanding of the sanctity of individual rights and the personal responsibility that each individual has to defend those rights - not just for themselves but for one another and their posterity is central to the preservation of freedom. As it says in the Declaration of Independence - "it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government..."

That is the antidote to the purveyors of fear to the those that say - why should we resist - we could lose our lives and all we have, the risk is too great and the cost is too high- because it is our duty. Because the price of freedom is responsibility.

The fundamental principles on which America was imperfectly founded have ensured that basic liberty has survived - (yes slavery, restrictions on the right to self-defense, violations of basic property rights have in the past and in some ways in the present seriously besmirched the true practice of liberty and individual rights) but the general rule - with some significant ups and downs has been to honor that liberty. It is each of our responsibilities to teach the next generation about duty and freedom. That is the foundation of maintaining freedom. It is easy to be cynical and to say it is too late, it is too hard, it is too risky, it is too little too late - after all I am only one person what can I do?

Well, one person can do a lot - and one person can join with one more person and one more and one more - until there are a lot of people. Look at how some supposedly ignorant uneducated and stupid people got together one after another to start tea parties that now have the worried attention of both bought and sold political parties. Or look specifically at the Appleseed project - it teaches the traditions of freedom and duty - and how to become a rifleman.

What do you -want your legacy to be? Do you want your children or grandchildren to live under tyranny or to have to resort to the cartridge box? When you get up each day and you look in the mirror, what do you see, who looks back at you? Is there fear in the eyes, a look of defeat, a cynical acceptance of the evil in this world, a hollow victim of a man. That is easy in the short term - to give up - but for a man it will eat his soul and his heart.

Resistance starts with one simple word - known by every two year old in the world - no. No, I will not go gentle into that good night - I will rage against the dying of the light. We each have a duty to ourselves and to each other to hold ourselves to a higher standard - to get up off the floor and stand up and to live as free men and women. We will all surely die - that is a given - the only question is how we choose to live.

If we truly want to ensure that freedom and individual liberty survive our watch then we must get over the pettiness of ourselves - our fear - our cynical excuses - our tendency to see ourselves as powerless victims and start doing what needs to be done - as our fathers and our fathers fathers did.

We speak out clearly that freedom and individual liberty are the primary principles by which all things are to be judged. We stand up and make our voices heard - in our families - with our friends - in our communities - and in our nation. We clearly draw lines in the sand - the right to keep and bear arms - the right to speak - the right to own property - the right to worship - the right to be free individuals and to accept responsibility for our individual actions and choices. That our rights are not granted by government, nor may they be taken by government. That a government that does not allow or accept the free exercise of those rights is not a legitimate government and that it is our right and our duty to throw off such government.

We speak out, we protest, we use all the tools of government and community to promote liberty - and if need be we resist force with force. In the end, we do the right thing because it is the right thing - because as free men and women - we could not bear to look in the mirror and see that we did not.

SSN Vet
October 14, 2010, 10:45 PM
Heck, the Commanding Officer of my first submarine subverted military orders at the prospect of bringing duty free rum back from Peurto Rico to South Carolina.

You'd be surprised how many cases can be squirreled away in a torpedo tube.... with hopes that the crew will cooperate with other military orders and not break 'rig for dive' to indulge in a nightcap.

happygeek
October 15, 2010, 03:35 AM
How many other people watched The Nazis: A Warning From History (http://www.amazon.com/Nazis-Warning-History-Samuel-West/dp/B00097DY66/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1284439369&sr=8-1)?

Quoting myself from another forum


They've been advertising this DVD set a LOT on the History Channel, acting like $20 off from the original $60 for using your credit card is a good deal. It's been selling for between $20 and $23 on Amazon. The wife and I procured it and started watching.

We've only watched the first disc of 3 so far, but it's shaping up to be a good series. They interviewed a lot of people for the series, everyone from members of the German Communist party [prior to 1934 of course] to a guy who was in the SA to a German lady who had denounced her neighbor.

That part on disc 2 was rather interesting. After the war the Allies had uncovered some Gestapo files that weren't destroyed which gave a lot of insight into how the Gestapo operated and kept an eye on people. The city in question only had about two dozen Gestapo agents, who mostly spent their time sorting through denunciations and picking out the people from those that they thought merited looking into.

The lady from the interview had denounced a neighbor for 'acting strange and having a Jewish friend'. The neighbor was eventually picked up and died in a concentration camp. The interviewer read a copy of the denunciation to the lady [now in her 70s], showed her the signature at the bottom, and asked her about it.

The only thing the lady could really say for herself was "well, the whole country was doing it". They talked to another German lady from the time in a separate interview on disc 2 who said much the same thing. "Everyone was doing it, what could I do? I just went with the flow".

The National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP, better known in the West as the Nazis) won 37.4% and became the largest party in the Reichstag by a wide margin in July 1932. In November 1932, in what would be their last free election, the NSDAP won 33% of the vote. On 30 Jan 1933 Pres. Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler Chancellor, on 23 March 1933 the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act [effectively making Hitler a dictator], and on 19 August 1934, following the death of Pres. Hindenburg, Hitler merged the offices of Chancellor and President making himself Der Fuhrer.

Would the National Socialists have come to power without the widespread anger over the Treaty of Versailles, the Great Depression, and the fear of a Communist takeover? Would they have come to power without the enthusiastic backing of at least 1/3 of the German population [arguably well over 2/3 after they seized power]?


It's downright scary how the National Socialists seized power; as pointed out in this thread it wasn't in an armed coup in the dead of the night.

To answer the OP's question, probably the best thing the Jews of Germany could have done was to flee anywhere outside Europe. Sadly, it seems there weren't many welcoming countries.

The Germans still seem rather ashamed of their time as National Socialists, at least that's the impression I got. I got to visit Dachau while I was there. The irony of the place was that there's a monument just inside the gate that says "Never Again" in 4 or 5 different languages, yet most of Europe stood by while it has happened again rather near by.

Sky
October 15, 2010, 10:17 AM
This has been one of the better thought provoking threads I have read anywhere in a long time. Some/most of you guys, "Salute"!

SSN Vet
October 15, 2010, 11:22 AM
Somebody mentioned Oath Keepers earlier in the thread....

I posted a new thread today linking a news story in which the NH child protective services snatched the new borne child of a guy right out of the hospital and sited the fathers ownership of a rifle and affiliation with Oath Keepers in their court affidavit.

I think it dovetails into this thread in that it illustrates how the power of the state can be wielded to suppress dissent.

This guy has other problems, but DCYF felt their case was greatly bolstered by his "militia" affililiation....

Oath Keepers is a militia group now?? :confused:

Onward Allusion
October 15, 2010, 11:51 AM
:evil:I guess you could have beaten him senseless and then thanked him for being such a good Christian.



<SNIP>He actually thought I was un-Christian and a bad person because I would indeed use whatever level of force necessary to protect someone (I just like using the female family member, as it drives the point home better) even if it had the potential to result in the death of the aggressor. Or even significant injury, claiming that I could have no idea what God had in mind, and that he could turn the aggressor's heart at the last moment. Literally even if the aggressor was lunging with a knife.:what:<SNIP>

danprkr
October 15, 2010, 08:35 PM
After class, several folks asked me questions. I feel good. Number one, no one ever seemed to be that interested in history in this class till now. Number two, the connection is there in their minds.

Both out comes so important that I'd hate have to rank them. But, I will go to cliche, "those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." And, you have hopefully sparked that learning on both fronts.

Good job.

Carl N. Brown
October 16, 2010, 12:58 PM
When Don B. Kates was a civil rights lawyer crusading for black voting rights in the 1960s, he went to Mississippi armed in self defense. When one of his traveling companions, a idealistic pacifist, learned he was armed, the pacifist was appalled. Months later after meeting resistence from the Klan and other racists, Kates was still a believer in both civil disobedience and self-defense; the former pacifist had become a bomb-throwing radical.

I was tempted to post the whole passage, but (c). The details can be found in
Don B. Kates Jr. Restricting Handguns: the Liberal Skeptics Speak Out,
Don B. Kates editor, North River Press, 1979: on pages 186-187,
Section VI: Constitutional and Civil Liberties Implications of Handgun
Prohibition, article: "The Necessity of Access to Firearms by Dissenters
and Minorities Whom Government is Unwilling or Unable to Protect" by
John R. Salter Jr. and Don B. Kates Jr.

SlamFire1
October 16, 2010, 01:42 PM
As I understand it, the Jews had by long practice developed a tradition of enduring whatever hardships the European states inflicted on them. Sort of a "this too shall pass" attitude. And it served them very well. They were able to endure and even thrive by making lemonade from lemons. Many saw the new wave of persecution coming with the Nazis. It would have been hard not to. But they assumed that it would be like all the other pogroms and purges. Bloody, yes, but temporary and survivable. They did not see the death camps coming.

In that context, the notion of taking up arms was anathema to most Jews. It would only invite reprisals and make things worse. Even in Warsaw there was considerable resistance to the idea of resistance. So most just clung to their community and traditions in the hopes of enduring.

I just finished reading the book “The Avengers”, http://www.amazon.com/Avengers-Rich-Cohen/dp/0375705295/ref=pd_sim_b_1, and this post is dead on about the attitude of the Jews in this Polish Getto.

There were a few Jewish survivors of death pits but the majority of Jews thought they were mad. As a group they did not want to believe.

The Jewish leadership thought by bending with the wind they would survive as a group. They bent with the wind so much they really became Nazi collaborators. Doing such things as turning in Jewish resistance fighters, and meeting "worker quotas" by filling trains full of Jews. The theme in this Getto was be useful to the Nazi’s, and that by being useful that would keep them alive.

This Getto was wiped out. All the "workers" were transported to death camps. The Jewish Police who rounded them up were sent to the gas chambers. Those leaders who were not shot, for not meeting their "quotas", were later shipped to the death camps. They all died.

It is hard to convince a population that there is no alternative to death.

Incidentally, all of Europe was anti Jewish. When you toss in greed, that is turn in your neighbor and get a free house, a free cow, maybe some land, greed will make people do some very bad things.

The Dutch have a history of tolerance, more so than most Nations. Anne Frank and her family were hidden at great risk for two years. Yet in the end, it was a Dutch person who betrayed them.

The Poles wiped out their Jews, the French turned them in, so did Czechoslovakia, Greece, Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Hungary, Romania, Belarus and Ukraine. The list of Nations that did not kill their Jewish population is a lot smaller than the list of those who did.

It is hard to survive in an environment like that.

hso
October 16, 2010, 02:19 PM
We have a thread running on the JPFO video supporting 2A http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=548209 .

If you have the email of everyone in the class you could send the video link to them and see just how many people ask questions about it in class.

It might be interesting to hear the instructor's opinion after seeing the video on 2A presented from Holocaust survivors.

xcgates
October 16, 2010, 02:43 PM
Rusty Shackleford:Holy freaking cow. There are actually people who would WANT the military and police to ignore the Constitution if asked to take away their rights?

If you want the military/police to follow all orders irrespective of whether those orders take away your personal rights as a human being, you are undeniably insane.

The fact that there are "Oath Keepers" in the military/police at all should make free people sleep better at night while making tyrants toss and turn.

Here is the quote from the TIME article. I'll leave out a link, as the thread I got if from was shut down, just to be safe. (PM me if you can't find it, or I need the link for the copyright policies)
Investigators are keeping a wary eye on a related trend, which has yet to progress beyond words, in which law officers and military service members vow to refuse or resist orders they deem unconstitutional. About a dozen county sheriffs and several candidates for sheriff in the midterm elections have threatened to arrest federal agents in their jurisdictions.
I can understand why that would make feds or those invested in the federal government nervous. A challenge to their "ultimate" authority. But my parent's always told me that a little humility is good.

hardworkerThe military is trained to follow orders. Unless we have a severe breakdown of military discipline, or high ranking officers countermanding orders from even higher ranking officers I wouldn't count on military resistance to government policies.

Yes, we have (usually) good order and discipline. However it is also beat into us at the same time that "I was just following orders" means diddly squat at the end of the day, and you had better start using your brain if funky stuff is happening. Just check out the UCMJ.

daorhgih
October 16, 2010, 05:24 PM
By saying, "Never Again!", Jews mean to make it clearly understood, "Never Again, Now That We Have The Guns!"

Old krow
October 16, 2010, 05:41 PM
The military is trained to follow orders.

Very true. What's the first order? The very first order that we vowed to keep? How does that Oath go again?

JoeSlomo
October 16, 2010, 06:18 PM
When people own arms, they (may) practice with arms, and through that practice they are not only developing/maintaining physical skill with weapons, but as well stoking the "spiritual" fire that reminds us that we are, somewhere deep inside maybe, able and responsible to act with necessary violence to defend our freedom and lives.

Excellent point.

Lost on many, if not most, imo.

Very true. What's the first order? The very first order that we vowed to keep? How does that Oath go again?

WHO determines what is constitutional?

THAT seems to be the problem we are having today...

jonnyc
October 19, 2010, 03:36 PM
"In reality, I doubt you'll ever have an unbiased discussion on this topic in most school environments. Schools these days seem to have taken a very liberal turn, and the very idea that violence can be countered with violence is extremely objectionable to many of the teachers I've met. Moreover, the idea that citizens should be armed as a means of preventing a war is equally objectionable within the modern institutions of education, and I think you'll be fighting an uphill battle if you attempt to argue otherwise."

"Unfortunately, a lot of these people are teachers. Not only are they misinforming kids about how the real world works (people who are willing to use violence to get what they want only respond to violence in return), but they can also crush dissenting opinions in their classroom.
If lil Johnny says the Jews should have had guns, he gets a C. Susie over there who recommends being a pacifist back in Nazi Germany gets an A+."

Well, not in my classes; a gun-loving, Jewish, History teacher. My Juniors are actually starting the 2nd Amendment tomorrow...always an intereating unit.

Sgt.Saputo
October 19, 2010, 03:45 PM
Unfortunately many teachers have a view point that is far left. Know your facts, politely state your facts, and the open thinking minds will listen. As stated above way to go son.

^ This. I had a teacher who told me we no longer print money. Yes, because the new money comes from a magic money pixie.

mordechaianiliewicz
October 19, 2010, 10:52 PM
The point I believe for the Jews was after Kristallnacht. Combine armed resistance with a pipeline out of Germany.

But, imagine the dificulty of armed resistance combined with a "pipeline out of Germany"... not easy. In fact, very dificult.

Basically, the means to resist need to be present even when it appears that you are safer than ever. In fact, after WWI, France would have been the suspected "home of the Holocaust." (Look at the trial of Dreyfus).

Many would think it paranoid to think in this manner, but it fits in with reality.

Deanimator
October 19, 2010, 11:20 PM
Basically, the means to resist need to be present even when it appears that you are safer than ever. In fact, after WWI, France would have been the suspected "home of the Holocaust." (Look at the trial of Dreyfus).
If I'd been alive in 1914, if somebody had asked me which country would have been most likely to try to totally eliminate the Jews, my first choice would have been Russia and my second France. Germany wouldn't have been in the top ten.

The Holocaust was the result of the alignment of a perfect storm of psychopathologies in Germany.

Sky
November 5, 2010, 09:58 AM
It is hard to have any type of resistance without communication/organization.

Ten like minded guys get together and so what? Add more and their will be a spy some where in the wood pile. Look at what happens to the Militias here in this country over and over again. The Jews had their own people tattling on them for personal gain so has anything changed? Any group who opposes the status quo is usually the minority. We had colonialist tattling to the Britts for personal gain and the fear of change of status quo.

The Jews had the same problem. If six million of them could have stood as a united front then maybe they would have had a chance but I doubt it. Were there not twenty five million Russians killed or was that Stalin who had his own country men killed? Seems to me when it's killin time if a tyrant has the backing then it is already to late. Genocide has not stopped and is going on to this day. Never again sounds like from my cold dead hands. Beautiful words but hollow without the will and the force to back them up.

German military and even the police were very well armed. What the Jews were to take their knives to the gun fight?

Evil is evil and a population is easy to pick and choose who dies.

OK tonight we are going to the east side and round up everyone who drives a Ford for we all know Fords are ??? pick an excuse. Be aggressive and be safe now load up!

Some countries where the population is armed you wouldn't capture all the citizens at once no need to.

Intimidate, infiltrate, and exterminate those who oppose your will. Sound familiar? It has only happened since the beginning of recorded time.

Zombie_Flesh
November 5, 2010, 01:16 PM
I remember vividly being outside with my grandfather - he was teaching me about the constellations. He said if you look real closely at the moon you can see a golf cart. I didn't believe him he said that in 1969 we flew a man to the moon and he got to drive around in a golf cart and they didn't need to bring it back so they left it there.

He then went on to tell me that when he was my age (12ish) his teacher told him that the moon was SOOO far away that it would be impossible to go there.

He then said "So what I am trying to tell you is that nothing is impossible and your teachers are full of <blank>"... "Lets go back inside its cold out here"

mack
November 5, 2010, 06:11 PM
The armed resistance to tyranny and genocide has a long history - some successful and some not - but resistance is better than going like cattle to the slaughter - "Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves." Churchill

As always culture and heritage are the keys - enough of the population must have sufficient emotional and mental commitment to freedom that they will protest and speak out and organize to resist before physical violence or the "final solution" is initiated by the government or the powers that be. That is what is so encouraging about things like the tea party movement and the Appleseed project - they from my experience are very focused on teaching the precepts of liberty and their history and the tools - voting - organizing - and marksmanship - to maintain freedom. Unfortunately the victims of the Holocaust did not have the mindset of freedom - more one of survivors through enduring and suffering which doesn't work when you are being exterminated. I guess the boy scouts are right about always being prepared. Or what is the old roman quote: “Si vis pacem, para bellum” - If you want peace, prepare for war.

GambJoe
November 5, 2010, 06:22 PM
Had the Jews fought it probably would not have mattered. The brutality inflicted on them in Europe and the Middle East since the the Caesars taught them that figthing back wasn't the way they could survive. They had no way of escaping Europe. The US and others restricted imigration, and no one actually believed what the Nazi's and their sympathiser's in Europe were about to do.

If it weren't for the Japanesse attacking Pearl Harbor, and the America entering the war, I'm afraid there wouldn't be any Jew's left in Europe, Russia and the Middle East and maybe the world.

xcgates
November 5, 2010, 06:47 PM
Seems as good as any place to roll out what just may be my favorite quote of all time:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stuart Mills

sniper5
November 5, 2010, 08:20 PM
One thing I was taught from an early age by a very intelligent self educated man with a 3rd grade education (my grandfather): "Your education is the only thing you ever really own. It's yours. What you put in your head is something no one can take away from you." His greatest gift, it taught me the power of knowledge. Another thing he taught me: "What decides the outcome of a battle is the difference between how good you are and how good your enemy THINKS you are."

What I taught both my boys:

You don't win wars by just mindlessly shooting and stabbing each other. You win wars by attacking and destroying an enemy's supply lines and communications.

The main tool you use to do that is intel. As an adult you get your intel from reading. You read to get an education, you go to school to get a degree. If someone tells you not to read something, they are trying to deprive you of intel. So, if someone tells you that you can't read something, for whatever reason, you read it. As soon as you can, before they take it away. Then store it in your head for the day you may need it. No one EVER, ANYWHERE, has learned themselves to death. And no one has ever wished they were dumber. And NEVER let anyone know your real capabilities. Don't show off or try to impress. My oldest son is a martial artist, boxer, pistol shooter and shotgunner, and denies any knowledge of any of it.

Jeff Cooper said it very succinctly: "You don't fight with a gun, you fight with your mind. The gun is just the cutting edge." My source for the quote is that I watched him say it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Holocaust Day in History Class" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!