Vyacheslav
member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2010
- Messages
- 196
gestapo getting shot as soon as they kicked down a door would have altered the outcome plenty
Holocaust Day in History Class
- Thread starter mordechaianiliewicz
- Start date
- Status
gestapo getting shot as soon as they kicked down a door would have altered the outcome plenty
jimmyraythomason
Member
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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
member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2010
- Messages
- 196
better to get shot than starve to death or be gassed
Cosmoline
Member
Quite a few of the fighters and even leaders actually escaped and survived. Resistance is not futile.
KBintheSLC
Member
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
"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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
Fighting back with what?
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
Member
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
Member
memories
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?
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just finished reading "Paul Revere's Ride" (great book) and that's the message I took away, FWIW.
Onward Allusion
Member
While that may be true, there are a lot more sheep among the herd than shepherd dogs willing to tangle with a wolf.
SSN Vet
Member
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.
Last edited:
Nico Testosteros
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,604
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.
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.
Last edited:
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
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
Last edited:
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked