Holocaust Day in History Class

[mack]

"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]

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.

1. 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.
   
2. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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??

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 .....

 

[SSN Vet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

But enough chipmunks putting up a fight might slow the cat down enough until the big dog got there!!!!!

 

[coloradokevin]

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]

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.