Holocaust Day in History Class

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...

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 )

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.

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.

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.

Thanks to the USA!

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

Thanks to the USA!

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

hso posted a link to a video here, that would have been good for that history class.

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?!"

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.

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.

What won wwii?

(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.

well, a lot of people in eastern europe was armed, thats why they made it to berlin first, lol

Mordachai, well done,good luck!
robert

Well Done!

IIRC, the Warsaw Ghetto had a few weapons and occupied a significant number of German troops for months.

Lesson #2: The Japanese didn't invade the USA because EVERYONE was armed.

Captcurt said:

Lesson #2: The Japanese didn't invade the USA because EVERYONE was armed.

Click to expand...

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!

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.

I'm not sure there's anything more inspiring in human history than the Warsaw Uprising.

Good for you!

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.

IMO, it wouldn't have mattered if the Jews did have guns. Do you really think that would have altered the outcome in Germany?