Guncite
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.
The simple conclusion is that there are no lessons about the efficacy of
gun control to be learned from the Germany of the first half of this
century. It is all too easy to forget the seductive allure that fascism
presented to all the West, bogged down in economic and social morass.
What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of
popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking
for themselves. There is the danger to which we should pay great heed.
Not fanciful stories about Nazi's seizing guns.
Fair enough, but "never again" is much easier to achieve when it's a statement rather than a request.
ReplyDelete"What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. "
ReplyDeleteHmmm, sounds like the antis, huh?
Like control freaks of all kinds. When they're given no power, they throw fits like children. It's amusing to watch.
DeleteLet's not forget the 'end note' to that piece.
ReplyDeleteThis is not to say Hitler did not value gun control. After having occupied Russian territory Hitler said:
[The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.]
--- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
And speaking of gun control, some of you may be interested in this"
http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian
orlin sellers
Who rearms their enemies in the first place?
DeleteI will be the first person to say that firearms are useless in the hands of people that are not willing to use them. Whoever has the strongest gang AND THE WILL TO ACT wins. The Nazis had a strong gang and the will to act. It would appear that the Jews in Germany (and German occupied countries) did not have either the means nor the will to act.
ReplyDeleteThere was another element working against German Jews: German culture. It is deeply ingrained in German culture to follow the rules at all times. Most Germans will wait until the crosswalk signal says "Walk" even if it is 3 a.m. and there is absolutely no traffic whatsoever. Thus German Jews would have been incredibly reluctant to rebel and "break" rules. U.S. culture does not have that shortcoming on the other hand. Thus the armed citizenry would respond quite differently to a similar situation than German Jews.
One of the worst slurs to come out of WW II, is the Jews went willingly to the gas chambers, or gave no resistance. Jews did give armed resistance, and were quickly murdered.
ReplyDeleteIf a squad of military men came to your house (armed with machine guns) and ordered you to pack, leave, and get on a certain train, how would you resist?Germans would shoot Jews in public, for no reason than being Jewish. Given that reality and acceptance by the German people, "resistance is futile."
Better to take some of the evil bastards with you than to go out alone.
DeleteThey had machine guns, the Jews had nothing. How are you going to sake some with you?
DeleteThat's the point--unarmed people don't have much of a choice. People with firearms have more options.
DeleteLame idiots, there was no gas chambers designed to kill Jews. It was already declared that they were going to deport the Jews and they knew it as well. Also Jews became enemies of the nation after a murdered diplomat and "Judea Declares War On Germany", so go f*cking figure. The propaganda push of Jews being innocent is just a lie and most dumb ass Americans believe it.
DeleteWe're lame idiots because we were foolish enough to believe in the Holocaust, is that it? You're a Holocaust denier and we're idiots?????
DeleteNo, your point was, going to die anyways, might as well take some with me. So you die whether you have a gun or not.
ReplyDeleteGiven the situation being described, I'd take that over being an unarmed victim. Tyrants don't have enough supporters to kill the whole population. Imagine what could have happened if every Jew being taken to the camps had instead killed several soldiers before dying. Eventually, the tyrant runs out of people to die for him.
DeleteMy point was the pro-gun argument is full of lies. They lie about the Jews, the UK, about Australia. Then through tremendous repetition, the lies take on a life of themselves.
ReplyDeleteYou claim that the pro-gun argument is full of lies, and to prove your point, you quote from an article on a pro-gun website.
DeleteBoth sides tend to use half-truths rather frequently. My experience is that the anti-gun side takes it to an art form.
DeleteThe kill mentality
DeleteWhat better credibility than quoting from a pro-gun website?
DeleteMikeb, you said that the pro-gun argument is full of lies. You quoted from a pro-gun argument. Therefore, you are quoting lies. Q.E.D.
DeleteIf that logic is too hard for you, consider this. You said that the pro-gun argument is full of lies, and yet you cite an example of a pro-gun web page that challenges a misconception. Is that challenge correct? If so, doesn't that mean that a pro-gun advocate told the truth?
Greg, are you trying to be as tedious as possible. This pro-gun site puts the lie to the very popular pro-gun remarks about how Hitler disarmed the Jews so he could do genocide on them. The Guncite people to their credit explained how their fellow gun rights fanatics are wrong to say that.
DeleteWhy can't you accept anything? Even Frail Liberty acquiesced to a point.
Accept what? Haven't we agreed all along that Guncite is a pro-gun website? You constantly accuse those of us who advocate for gun rights of being mendacious, but you then use a pro-gun site to support your argument. That's called irony.
DeleteIrony, yes. But the joke's on you and all the other NRA followers who have used those silly Nazi/Jews argument.
DeleteI've always been suspicious of the "Nazis disarmed the Jews" argument. What I've said is that if the Jews had been armed, things could have gone a different way.
DeleteThat's the same argument, Greg and it's bogus.
DeleteIt is not the same argument. The Jews fought back and could have fought back more effectively if they were armed. Look it up:
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto_uprising
What's bogus is the idea that separating the ability to resist and the willingness to resist is proof that neither of these matter. Zelman, one of the sources referenced in the above quote (of which you chose to present only a portion) and others lay a major part of the blame for the Jews reluctance to resist at the feet of their leaders. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising makes it legitimate to suggest that greater civilian armament, coupled with a willingness to resist could have resulted in a somewhat different outcome.
ReplyDelete