And then I found this:
Anyway, this find comes on top of reading this blog post.
"Oh, that Mr. Hitler couldn't mean all the things he says in Mein Kampf about the Jews. Anyway, what could he do? Try and kill us all?"
I guess we can add to that line of thinking: "Well, we have guns this time".
As N. A. Browne said in The Myth of Nazi Gun Control:
A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves “patriotic Germans” for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Nor were they alone in this mode of appeasement. The defiance of “never again” is not so much a warning to potential oppressors as it is a challenge to Jews to reject the passive response to pogrom. Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided.in short, those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
Showing what looks like an anti-Semitic rant and then going on to talk about how the Jews couldn't have fought back doesn't do any good for your cause, Laci.
ReplyDeleteBut answer me these questions:
1. Did the Warsaw Ghetto uprising force the Germans to hold back troops that could have been used on the Eastern Front?
2. Did the people of Lybia succeed in overthrowing their dictator?
3. Are the people of Syria in the process of doing the same?
4. Did the Americans, the Vietnamese, and the Afghans defeat the military might of a large and modern nation?
1. Wow. So ignorant of history. Do you have any idea of how many troops the Germans sent to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising in 1942-1943?
ReplyDeleteLet me help you: 2100. And these weren't German "regular army." The Nazis called in the equivalent of the State Police and the National Guard and Reserve there.
Also, I hope you aren't referring to the 1944 Warsaw operation, which was a FULL SCALE MILITARY OPERATION involving the British, Russians, the Polish Army, and the Americans? Which was occurring at the same time Allied Forces invading/liberating France? Along with the Russians already pushing back the German forces from the Eastern Front, which had fallen apart because of poor military planning?
At this point of the war, 10,000 troops sent to the "Eastern Front" would not have stopped the Russian advance from the East. Just like 10,000 troops would not have stopped the French/UK/US advance from the West.
But please, continue to believe that a non-existent "Nazi Ban on Guns" is in play here.
2. No. But NATO cruise missiles, NATO airstrikes, and weapons freely provided by France/UK/US (and always through back-channels) did.
3. Nope. The same "Islamic Extremists" responsible for the Libyan "rebellion" are responsible for Syria. The difference here is that NATO cannot provide airstrikes (Syria has a modern Air Defense network) or cruise missile attacks against Assad's government (hard to hit "targets" when Russia has warships parked in Syrian ports) - and every attempt to bring in NATO via a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident (shelling Turkey, Chemical Weapon "scares", screaming about Assad's "atrocities") has failed.
4. This actually has nothing to with your screed about "Gun Control."
But let's indulge for a second:
The Afgans were heavily assisted by the US. The Mujaheddin, precursor to the Taliban, were given modern anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, as well advanced training and tactics by US advisors. The Russians continuously poured weapons, troops, and money into a conflict that was increasingly open-ended, had no terms of victory, and no reason for existing.
The Vietnamese in the North were assisted by Russian weapons, training, and advisors. The US was also half a world away, continually pouring troops, weapons, and money into a conflict that was open-ended, had no real tactical goals, no strategic vision, and no reason for existing.
The "Colonials" were assisted heavily by the French. The British could not continuously resupply and hope to maintain its Imperial ambitions. This became apparent after 1812.
Give me another one.
Thanks for joining in, Heavyarmor. Laci, typically, refuses to address anything raised against his arguments.
DeleteBut since you're entering a conversation that's been going on for a while now, let me bring you up to speed. The assertion has been made before that an armed populace cannot effectively resist their government. What you've done is show exactly how that can work. If this nation ever sinks into civil war again, there would be many groups and nations happy to supply weapons.
I thought the post was about the fascinating Adam Kokesh.
ReplyDeleteMikeb, you express your suspicions of racism about anyone who disagrees with Obama, but here you miss an obvious case. The video shows Kokesh, Feinstein, and Netanyahu and offers warnings about how Jews get involved in movements to undermine governments so as to gain control.
DeleteI'm not surprised that Laci would approve of such evil, but I am disappointed that you aren't troubled by it.