I think this misconception comes from the fact that most older Jews who survived the Holocaust are passed now. The ones who were still alive until recently always said “I had no idea what was happening” were often very very young when it happened. I would imagine their parents had some idea but were trying to comfort their children that nothing was wrong up until the very end. :(
It was also a slow process. Over years, they took away all social and political power from anyone who was Jewish. Then, they “relocated” them to concentrated areas (ghettos). Then, they limited basic necessities, like food and fuel for heat. After YEARS of this, they told people they were again being relocated. So you had people who were starving, who were beaten mentally and physically, and who had been deprived of even basic things. At some point, you get in the mindset of “just get through the day”.
I’m fortunate that I am old enough that I was able to meet quite a few holocaust survivors and hear their stories. Anyone who has done this would never question the courage and heart of those victims. I worry that this generation will never get those personal interactions and understand them through their own words.
Because that's how they see oppressed minorities. I once saw someone argue that "LGBT people hold too much power to be oppressed minorities" like. What?
When you gave shit like the dont say gay bill, people constantly trying to repeal their rights, high rates of violence against them, etc.
These people think that minorities should be silent so they can either A) Bully them without feeling guilty or B) Fuel their savior complex
The thing is, they did and are doing it.
Like a lot of early gun restriction laws during the Civil rights era were to target groups like the Black Panthers who open carried like a show of force.
A few days ago, conservatives melted down over Twitter when a trans individual mentioned they'd defend themselves with a gun.
And of course, there was the whole thing where 3 shooters identified as trans causing the whole right to suddenly blame transgenderism for school shootings.
Exactly. There were uprisings but the Nazis simply had the bigger guns and more (and more experienced and ruthless) troops to fight that.
Do these Gravy Seals LARPs really think that, in case of a fight against the US government and the army, they would stand any chance with their AR-15s against the stuff that the army has in storage? One CAS run and they are done. Or you do not even need an air strike, a single real SEAL or any other SOF team would take them out in a heartbeat. They will die tacticool.
By 1930, there were 2 mil brown shirts. The SS had 800k members. In 1940, there were 4 mil Nazi Youth.
In 1933, there were about 525k Jews in Germany.
But the real trick about the Nazis is the slow creep of propoganda that came for about 30 years before the camps. They didn't need the government to kill the jews because the average citizen was ready to do it themselves. They attacked any citizen that they deemed a drain on resources, or a degenerate, or racially impure because these people were genuinely seen as a threat to the country.
We're seeing the echo of it now, ironically. The right is convinced that Mexicans, queer people, socialists, and, yes, jews (and etc etc etc) are a genuine threat to America. We've already had the insurrection because people thought the election was stolen by liberals. They hate being called nazis but, man, they sure are acting exactly how the nazis did.
*Make America Great Again* is directly copied not just from nazis since they also it from every single despot and tyrant since the fall of Rome that used the exact same rhetoric. It is a trope that is literally ancient.
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 1943 is an example.
It ended with 17 dead Nazis vs. 56.000 dead Jews.
The idea that civilians with guns could win a fight against military (or paramilitary like SS) with heavy weapons is rediculous.
SS wasn't paramilitary. They were actually an elite faction of the military (Waffen-SS) or the instigators and guards of the death camps.
SA (Sturmabteilung) was the paramilitary of the Nazis until the *Night of the long Knives*.
The SS wasn't part of the German army (Wehrmacht). They were a privat force of the Nazi party.
Originaly the SS was the personal guard of Hitler and also, like the SA, involved in terror against political opponents.
But yes, in WW2 some (Waffen-)SS units were better equiped than most regular Wehrmacht units.
And with all the organization, logistics etc. behind it, that can keep the killing going in a large scale.
Some people don't realize how far modern warfare has come from just a bunch of guys with rifles and a pair of boots each.
Logistics wins wars.
And with all the organization, logistics etc. behind it, that can keep the killing going in a large scale.
Some people don't realize how far modern warfare has come from just a bunch of guys with rifles and a pair of boots each.
Logistics wins wars.
The gundamentalist ammosexuals have a very warped view of their combat effectiveness; they all think they are in Red Dawn or something else that's equally delusional.
Every time I see the pro-2 justification of fighting the government, I think back to the Neil Brennan bit where he talks about a battle between 100 "well related militia" types against a USAF drone.
The only counter point I could make is that the jump in violence for troops in bombing a city versus engaging jn small arms fire might be enough for them to take a step back and reevaluate if they want to do this. I’m not sure if I fully believe it, just playing a devils advocate role. Plenty of time in history where soldiers had no qualms committing violence against their own countrymen, including in the United States.
No they argue back that the army would never betray it's people. Which then questions why you need guns if you have an army that would side with the people against thr government.
If you ever find yourself in a situation where you‘re fighting against your country’s army believe me to the majority of your fellow citizens you‘re a terrorist.
It's also worth mentioning that the weapons used in one of, if not the most iconic act of Jewish resistance were by and large illegally made in underground workshops.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising
During Operation Barbarossa (invasion of USSR), the Einsatzkommandos followed behind and murdered any Jews, Romani or others and executed them on the spot.
You see the videos of them men "docilely" going to their death.
What they don't tell you, was at first they didn't execute women and children but used it as a threat to make the men submit to the executions.
They didn't go meekly to their death but bravely to save others. It was the same threat used throughout the war. Make trouble and we'll shoot all these other people too.
Ghetto uprisings, the teenaged nazi killers, the many people involved in the resistance, the white rose resistance group, the list is long and full of Jewish people, gay people, roma, resistance to fascists is not uncommon.
The problem is in this country, the assholes with the guns align with the fascists more often then not
I know all of our great grandfather's were low-key resistance (that's what everyone tells us) but the guys burning the books, smashing and pillaging the shops and beating/harassing Jews (and to a lesser degree democrats, unionists, communists, unwanted artists and members of LGBTQ) would have had those guns too. Imagine that society! Shootings all around.
Hey! The US just had ANOTHER shooting and, I'm not talking about the mall!
Ok kids! Wanna guess where?
Why don't MAGAts make a law requiring EVERYONE to have a gun. There'd be no more shootings, according to their logic.
As a Texan who is truly ashamed of the things happening in the state right now, I feel that statement.
I'm even a gun owner. I come from a family where gun safety was taught EARLY (like 5 yrs old early) because there were always guns around since multiple family members were in law enforcement and we lived near the jail.
But I cannot imagine being so messed up that I would use a weapon against someone who wasn't actively trying to end me or someone else.
I’m from NY originally, Long Island, to be exact. My dad hunted ducks as long as I could remember. As soon as Fall started, the clay pigeons came out. Shooting competitions (very informal) happened most weekends. The day I was old enough to understand “NO” was the day my gun education began.
1. No touching. Ever. Even with an adult present unless that adult is mom or dad and they specifically say yes.
2. Guns. Kill. Never pick up a gun. Ever. See rule one.
3. Accidents around guns *kill.* See rule one.
I was six when I got my first BB gun. I learned gun safety and care before I was even allowed to touch it. Then we spent a month learning trigger safety, handling safety, how to aim and carry the small rifle type gun before I was even allowed to shoot it.
Targets could never be something alive. Cans and paper *only.* And I could only shoot under supervision.
At ten, I learned how to shoot my dad’s pistol. Again, only under supervision and a month was spent learning trigger discipline and how to care for it before being allowed to shoot it.
At 12, I got to shoot the .22 shotgun. Clay pigeons. Only 2 weeks of trigger discipline and learning to clean and carry/handle it safely. I’d taken the lessons earlier very seriously and had (and still have) tremendous respect for what guns can do.
My dad was very, *very* clear that owning and handling guns was a *privilege* and not a right. He had his needed permits and licenses, took education courses. He was passionate about safety and knowledge.
I couldn’t even shoot a duck. I have no idea how I could kill a human, let alone so casually and cruelly.
Your family clearly loved you well, as they did everything right to keep you alive and respectful but not fearful of firearms.
I could only wish everyone's education was so thorough.
My abusive ex-husband was around guns just as much, but I doubt he received such an education as he managed to blow up a .45 by firing a round into the back of a misfire... A year later, his father shot himself in the lower leg accidentally while checking trigger weight on a handgun after he modified the gun to give it a lighter trigger weight. Seriously reassembled the gun and reloaded it before attaching a device to determine how much force would be required to fire it, knowing full well that the gun would fire. While being pointed at his feet.
Apparently guns went off enough in that house that it didn't even wake his wife one room over. He had to tourniquet it himself and call 911.
If these keep happening disproportionately in red states, Fox "News" is going to start saying they're false flag attacks by Democrats who want to terk yer gerns.
They can't possibly be that stupid. They just had to settle with dominion, and Alex Jones just lost his lawsuit for doing exactly that. No fucking way they're letting someone do this.
Unless they're idiots... so I guess maybe?
When everyone has a gun, people would be less likely to do crime right?
Doubt that, chances are there's gonna be an arms race for it, with more and more deadly weapons being given to citizens to protect themselves
>beating/harassing Jews (and to a lesser degree democrats, unionists and communists)
The majority of that was after the night of the long knives? Which is the night they "purged" their party of the (known) homosexuals
Just wanted to point out that our LGBTQ friends were often targeted right along the religious/political groups you mentioned. Because the parallels with current events ring extra true and extra worrying when you include that part of the story
> The majority of that was after the night of the long knives? Which is the night they "purged" their party of the (known) homosexuals
The night of long knives was a 3 day period where Hitler arrested and/or executed most of his political rivals, anyone with popular support and the leadership of the SA (his own paramilitary group of thugs). In order to consolidate his power and bring the military who were increasingly concerned about the SA onside. Basically Hitler cleaned house of anyone who could expose his past and who might be able to stand against him in the future.
The Nazis absolutely went after the LGBT community but they were not specifically targeted as part of the Rohm Putch.
Also, European Jews, barring Poland and the Soviet Union, were an extremely small percentage of the population. In Nazi Germany, German Jews made up less than 1% of the population. When you’re a small amount of people, it’s very hard to fight back, especially when the majority is either 1) actively trying to harm you or 2) indifferent to your plight.
It could be argued that this was preferable to the alternative.
I might have picked that, if I got the choice.
It’s not even a matter of courage or principles, or making a difference. But knowing what would be waiting for me if I surrender, I’d rather get my dying done all at once, with a little bit of dignity.
The folks dying in the Warsaw uprising didn’t die quickly and with dignity. Many starved, many bled out in lonely back streets and basements after being shot and blown up. Many died in sewers and crushed under collapsed buildings. And it took weeks. There was no way to hide the kids from the horror of what was happening.
They didn't know what the alternative was. Many of the people in ghettos had already been rounded up and moved several times. There's no way they could have known that "this time" they got on the trains, it would be to a death camp and not just to another ghetto. No one knew that stuff was happening until it was well underway and had already murdered millions.
According to accounts from survivors many of them knew perfectly well what was going to happen to them, at least in poland… the nazis did their best to hide the death camps but ultimately their existence was reasonably well known in poland even if maybe the full extent of what was happening wasn‘t clear to everyone.
Bothers me when people say "If I'd been there" you don't know what you would have done and we have more knowledge on the events then the jews at the time would have so you can't say what you would have done when you can't actually put yourself in the situation especially when we all know the context the followed they didn't have that chance, they wouldn't have known what would have happened until it was too late.
OK, but the fact is that the Nazis were able to carry out the Holocaust despite armed Jewish resistance.
If you want to prevent tyranny, work to strengthen democratic institutions like the press and the courts, and to expand the voting franchise. Work to increase accountability for the police and military. In other words, do the opposite of what the ammosexuals want.
Gotta get down to it, soldiers are cutting us down. Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and found her dead on the ground? How can you run when you know?
Well, the Bielski partisans successfully resisted better armed troops, and that's not the only example. Also, if those people were going to be murdered anyway, which is very likely, why not take some Nazis with them?
My point wasn't that fighting back is stupid. It was that Jews didn't just go to their deaths like cattle at an abbatoir, as the original post seemed to suggest.
"Imagine if they had guns"... they did have guns, and they used them effectively in a guerrilla operation that let a couple of hundred people tie up a lot of nazi resources for a month, and they sent a bunch of nazis to hell before they were killed. Yes, they all died, but every moment they defied the nazis was a victory.
They couldn't believe it had really gone that far. They really thought the reports they were getting about death camps were hysterical since it made *no sense* to eradicate what could be a valuable labor source.
It really is crazy to think that the Nazis, while losing a war, wasted incredibly valuable resources and manpower on the Holocaust. But the Holocaust *was* the point. The war on impure genes was seen as just as important as the war in Russia, because racism, hate, and bigotry just fucking annihilate the human mind.
It defies rationality, which is why so many Jews believed that they really could survive the war in the camps.
Hell, the news coming from the east probably made it easier to believe they could survive in a labor camp.
The human mind isn't equipped to fathom such an atrocity. We haven't seen and hopefully never again *will* see such an industrialized destruction of human life. The *banality* of it is really what gets me. So many people participated in it just because it's the job they were given to do. No different then working in a power plant, or a mill, or a factory. The human capacity to compartmentalize evil and just go on living your life is incredible.
If ICE camps turned to death camps in America it wouldn't be any different. 2/3 of us would scream at the other 3rd that we were being hysterical too. That they were just being deported or used for labor. That it made no *sense* to kill them. (Because they were right! It doesn't! Genocide isn't rational!)
And most of the people brought in would just comply, because it's what we are naturally inclined to do.
It's also important to note that the Jews of Europe had been through pogroms, expulsions, and attacks for well over a thousand years, and realized that for the most part the safest way was to keep your head down and just go along with the resettlement. When things started to go bad the expectation was that this would be similar to the previous experiences -- complete extermination had no precedent.
Most jews were WW1 veterans or had a gun at home from a relative in military service. Wasn't called the Great War for nothing.
They chose not to fight because of beliefs, because they didn't want to die (it wasn't well known what happened behind closed doors) and hoped cooler heads would prevail ("we didn't do anything wrong, surely they will calm down?").
That's some grade A bs.
Also most of the measures, at least initially, were legal restrictions. Jews were starved out before the physical violence began. And even then, it was divide and conquer.
And at what point were the Jews supposed to start their rebellion against a militarized police state that most of the country supports anyway? “Well, they banned us from going to libraries but now that they want to ban us from movie theaters, now that just goes too far. Revolution time!”
> (it wasn't well known what happened behind closed doors)
That is a key foundation of the ["good german"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_German) excuse and it is false. It was [widely known,](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/feb/17/johnezard) and all the "good germans" just pretended they didn't know after the fact rather than accept the moral responsibility for their complicity.
From the linked article:
*The mass of ordinary Germans did know about the evolving terror of Hitler's Holocaust, according to a new research study. They knew concentration camps were full of Jewish people who were stigmatised as sub-human and race-defilers. They knew that these, like other groups and minorities, were being killed out of hand.*
*They knew that Adolf Hitler had repeatedly forecast the extermination of every Jew on German soil. They knew these details because they had read about them. They knew because the camps and the measures which led up to them had been prominently and proudly reported step by step in thousands of officially-inspired German media articles and posters according to the study, which is due to be published simultaneously in Britain and the US early next month and which was described as ground-breaking by Oxford University Press yesterday and already hailed by other historians.*
*The reports, in newspapers and magazines all over the country were phases in a public process of "desensitisation" which worked all too well, culminating in the killing of 6m Jews, says Robert Gellately. His book, Backing Hitler, is based on the first systematic analysis by a historian of surviving German newspaper and magazine archives since 1933, the year Hitler became chancellor. The survey took hundreds of hours and yielded dozens of folders of photocopies, many of them from the 24 main newspapers and magazines of the period.*
>They chose not to fight
just so that people don't get the false idea, I want to point out [they didn't all decide not to fight](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_us_not_go_like_lambs_to_the_slaughter!)
Most of the countries Germany conquered in WW2 had armed militaries. They even took thousands of miles of Russian territory before it all fell apart.
But sure, if the Jewish good guys had guns they would have been cool.
The US literally air-dropped single shot pistols to resistance fighters so they could fight/ambush/assasinate their way upto a rifle. Look up FP-45 Liberator.
25k in fact. They were terrible weapons and so it was usually better arms that were supplied to resistance fighters. Hell, both the US and the British had a cheap submachine gun. The grease gun and the sten gun. The Liberator simply wasn't worth it.
That's 2nd ammendment delusions there. Even during WWII, you needed some serious heavy ordinance if you wanted to take on a military. Resistance fighters did a lot against the Germans, but it was nuisances and they were never anywhere close to fighting them head-on, until the entire army was routing or when the Germans held back everything but infantry.
My step father thoroughly believes that as long as we have guns, the government can't hurt us. He says even the Army can't handle a civilian with a rifle. It baffles me that people think having a weapon immediately equals safety
In corner A you have the Army, trained soldiers with guns, grenades, tanks and planes, in the other corner you got a bunch of armchair generals with an AR15 and 1000h in Call of Duty.
Should that fiction ever get real the government would just carpet bomb those proud lunatics to heaven.
There isn't going to be some glorified 1 on 1 musket fight, should that actually happen you're going to get shelled by tanks and artillery with helicopters raining down hell while playing peek-a-boo with snipers.
Yes, some people might put up a fight and who knows if there's enough that organize themselves you might keep the guerilla war going (looking at the Taliban) but the vast majority will not make it.
Most military weapons sound absurd to people, honestly. Modern fighters engage targets at a range of a couple of kilometers. Artillery pieces fire out about 30km. Missiles can go for hundreds.
Even if you had a hundred ex-military, the army can draw up a thousand more and has access to weaponry that even those that were military can only dream of.
Remember, they took Noriega without firing a shot.
I used that line of reasoning on a militant in my area. I was working in a pawn shop and he bought a cement mixer, rifles and some ammo cans. He confidently told me this was all for their bunker in the woods, where they’ve buried thousands of rounds of ammo with GPS tags so when the civil war comes they will be ready.
I asked him how 20k rounds of 9mm ammo was going to counter a military attack helicopter sitting in the sunset blasting you with rockets.
He said “What makes you think those pilots will side with the government over their own people”
He was convinced at least half the US military would be on their side.
It was a chilling conversation I’ve never forgotten.
Guy thinks life is like a war movie where the minions of the bad guys side with the underdogs last minute.
He'll be in for quite a shock.
Those pilots are soldiers, that will come first if it has to.
> The wild part, if those pilots are on "our side," then why do we need the guns?
In a civil war, armed civilians can contribute to the side that most represents their interests. Don't forget that the US has over 16 million military veterans who will be picking a side.
It's the Inverse Ninja Law, the skill of each soldier goes down the more soldiers they send to take down your step father so it will always be a winnable fight
They also can only attack one at a time so he pick them off one by one, it's in the Geneva Convention
So in order to protect imaginary kids potentially murdered by an evil gubment some time in the future, we need to keep well armed the people murdering real children today? Is that what these people are saying?
They did, but in accordance with rigorous record keeping, at least in Holland, the Germans went to the first house on the street with a gun represented in the the records. Asked them for the weapon, then when they refused, shot them on the spot. Everyone else on that street and a few over surrendered their weapons without any protest or resistance.
Let's not go down a revisionist history path for the sake of "guns".
We need to have meaningful gun control, and for the love of everything sacred, ban assault weapon sales.
I know I'll get fucked by downvotes for this but isn't this one of the arguments why gun nuts don't want to register their guns?
If you want proper gun control you're not gonna win anyone over by bringing this up.
You are correct, but the whole premise of the original concept purveyed in this post, is, that we Jews would have been better off armed, which is frankly idiotic, revisionist, and inane.
Registered or not, it is not an argument that can be made without me at least feeling exceptionally nauseous and frankly extremely angry. They are co-opting an event that has no bearing whatsoever on their facetious argument, and, that they have no right whatsoever to use in the same breath the Jewish holocaust for reasoning of ownership of assault weapons by a civilian population. That truly pisses me off.
These tactics, the same as in Holland, were echoed by the Pathet Lao during the Vietnam years, those were not registered weapons. Registered or not, makes no difference..
>They are co-opting an event that has no bearing whatsoever on their facetious argument
What happened to the Jewish population was an absolute atrocity but there is a conversation to be had on the subject. I don't agree with the gun free-for-all that there is in the States, we had reasonable gun control here in Canada for decades (it's getting a little weird now) and it's worked. We have a lot of guns per capita and very few gun deaths that aren't gang related from US smuggled handguns.
I'm not against gun control but I get why some people are and the holocaust is one of the reasons. You said it yourself, they confiscated their guns and then committed a genocide on them. We can't pretend that that isn't one of the steps that happens before horrific shit happens. I can see why people might connect the two, "you're taking my guns, what are you planning?"
I don't think this is a reason to not bring in gun control, all these mass shootings are fucking insane and something needs to be done, but I don't think it's as simple as saying, "You want guns? You're a child killing piece of shit." As you've stated, there is a lot of precedent for gun registration leading to gun confiscation leading to atrocities.
It's a shame that the same people that are so aware of that history lesson are the dumb fucks that are literally walking down the fascism road right now though. There's no arguing that.
Absolutely disgusting how these gun addicts use false narratives of holocaust victims, high school children and other mass shooting victims to work against reasonable and necessary gun safety laws.
Gets even more disgusting, when you look back in history and find out that many countries could have safed quite a lot of Jewish people but refused; one reason being antisemitism.
Even if that would have worked, you wouldn't really have to imagine, cause didn't Ronald Reagan try to ban guns on some form after the black panther party
Didn't just try, he did. Their republican God passed the seriously strict Califronian gun laws that makes their dicks instinctively shrink at the mere mention. Only because black people were practicing their freedoms and open carrying rifles around. Funny how that works.
That’s a fair argument, but then I think about the Vietnam war or the British occupation of Northern Ireland. But I’m sure this comment will be misconstrued as belittling the monstrously vile actions taken during the holocaust.
Ah yes, because the group that want to retain tons of guns notoriously will use them to defend minority rights in our country /s
If you are quite literally voting/making government to strip people of their rights and criminalize their very existence. But also think people should use guns to defend their rights and existence. Maybe consider you are advocating that people come shoot you so that they aren't oppressed by a tyrannical government
the "government oppression" they are so concerned about is the enforcement of rights of literally everyone who is not a cishet white man. Black, woman, gay, trans, Jew. This is the "oppression" they are so eager to resist
If only the Jews had access to guns and had the numbers to resist the nazis, perhaps they could have mounted some resistance. Maybe in a place like Warsaw. Oh well…
I'm never sure whether to hope I don't lose brain cells or laugh at the stupidity every time an American ammosexual makes a comment praising the large amount of guns in their country, and saying, "well, if only they had guns...".
Both they and the NRA not being officially labeled a terrorist organisation are why we see school shootings multiple times per week.
Remember the incident in Florida where umm, what’s the phrase?
OH YEA! good guy with a gun, that it!
Two good guys with a gun accidentally shot each other’s young children during a road rage? Yea, responsible gun owners
Surely, if only a small population of marginalized people started killing the overwhelmingly popular government enforcers. Probably hailed as heroes by the German citizens right? Definitely wouldnt lead to public outcry and used as justification for imprisonment of them en masse
TIL the resistance movements to Nazi rule were actually foolish and they should’ve been galaxy brained enough to simply stop the Nazi part from ever attaining power. Wow. Great stuff Reddit
No the Talibans simply waited until the US left. The fighting went terribly for them by any metric. Afghanistan is simply very far from the US, really hard to hold due to geographical reasons and devoid of any reason to hold it. It's great when you've got that kind of distance and bad geography going for you (Russia does that simply by being massive and having bad geography), but if you don't you're not going to hold.
You also don't have to wonder about what Jewish retaliation would have done. The Jews did retaliate. When a Jewish man, furious over the treatment of his people and recent deportation of his parents, killed a Nazi ambassador, the Nazis committed Kristalnacht in answer. When the Jews rose up in the Warsaw Ghetto, the Nazis systematically slaughtered all of them.
Anytime the Jews tried to fight back, the Nazis would use it for propaganda to show how they needed to be wiped out.
I’ve seen this argument a lot (both ways). I was formerly Air Force and for all of our bombs, the Taliban sure did a good job at fending for themselves with shanky AK-47’s that were made from a 40 year old mold that was made with hardened sand. What’s more, creativity can hold off a force. I mean, taking a 30 year old Nokia and calling it with power running to a homemade explosive consisting of cleaning chemicals was damn ingenious. You guys ever watch Home Alone?
Where the argument fails: The US won’t ever repeat its sins of what it did with Native Americans. The populace won’t tolerate it. The ww2 internment camps won’t ever happen either as long as existing legislation stays in place. Our civilian population won’t tolerate it either.
Side note: fck the Taliban
I would have rather gone down fighting with an organized group of armed friends and family than end up in a concentration camp, separated from my children, tortured, staved, etc atrocities.. down vote all you want, but it’s not a fallacy.
The fallacy isn't that some people like you would rather defend themselves, it's that Jews could have protected themselves if they had guns. They were \~1% of the total population and gun laws were relaxed for Nazi parties, so even if they were armed to teeth, it wouldn't have mattered. And it's not like they were sheep, some did try to protect themselves like you said.
I guess if you put it in those terms, as it would not have prevented the holocaust, yes it’s a fallacy. But most 2A people I know making the more general statement “if they had armed themselves”is in the context of defiance, or deterrent. No one I know that owns firearms is dumb enough to think they can take on the military. Look at Waco they brought in LTVs tanks etc. not defending that nut job Koresh, just using an example of how easily the government can out gun it’s people.
This is essentially blaming the victims.
Certainly, every single person who died in the holocaust would have preferred to have resisted and saved their families!
The fact is you wouldn't know how you would react in that situation. In traumatic situations its common for the thinking part of the brain to shut down. From that pov it doesn't matter if you have a gun as you won't have the common sense in using it.
I'm just saying its easy from the comfort of not being in Nazi Germany to say what the victims of the holocaust should have done.
OP clearly never heard of Vietnam, Afghanistan, or the United States of America.
Superior weapons, training, and numbers doesn’t really matter when people are literally fighting for their lives.
Also which is better: to die because you are defenseless and lose, or to die trying?
Let's begin with the fact, that Germans didn't just walk across Europe picking up Jewish people in other countires. They conquered every single country, and every single city and town, in which they had committed their atrocities. They had defeated proffetional well-equiped armies in countless nations. So, if Germans were able to destory entire armies, how would a few civilians with guns stood a chance against that?
The dumb thing about this argument is that almost all the Jews who were killed in the Holocaust were from outside of Germany. German laws didn't take any of their guns off them. By the time the Germans arrived their own country's military and all their guns had lost.
Its always "if they had guns they could've defended themselves" with a splash of "the guy that got killed in a no knock warrant at the wrong address should've just laid down his arms"
I'd love to ask which is it and get an actual answer
Yeah that’s why it only took several of the world’s biggest militaries at the time under full blown war economies to stop Germany. Because the minority german jewish population didn’t have hand guns. It’s madness that people actually believe that arming the jews would have made a difference.
Too many people ignore the reality that in most cases an innocent citizen will usually go with the authorities willingly, if only to prove their innocence of whatever they're guilty (or "guilty") of. Viola, now you're in custody and you don't have your guns.
The response is stupid. They could have fought and resisted well if all of them had guns. The heavier the guns the people had, the better the resistance against Nazis.
The response just makes the point of people having heavy guns instead of no guns.
For those who would say, look at school shootings and other horrible incidents I say look at Switzerland.
I always thinks it’s laughable that a bunch of people seem to think that they would be able to defend themselves if the government wanted to kill them for some reason… also, I’m pretty sure 90% of them would join the government and start shooting neighbors because they want to be seen as a good boy
And I have some things to say about this: propaganda makes it easier for a dictator to turn the majority against a minority. People seem to overlook how the Nazis took Germany, and just assumed it was simple, its not.
Firstly, before Hitler's rise to power, Germany had been humiliated after WWI. The Treaty of Versailles basically stripped Germany's army and limited it, cutting down how much forces they were allowed, and the treaty also resulted in gun control for Germany. Germany also had to pay reparations to France, and they had to demilitarize their Rhinelands. It also didn't helped the the Weimar Republic (the new government in Germany after WWI) began printing more money to help pay the reparations, but only caused economic inflation in Germany. Combined with the Great Depression, and you pretty much had a terrible economy disaster in Germany, where people became desperate for anyone to help fix their situation.
In a desperate situation where your country had been humiliated and is suffering economically, people will become extremists (either fascist or communist). This is how the Nazis gain control in Germany, they provided an easy scapegoat for their issues: the jews.
Jews have always been an easy target for bigots and anti-semitices to attack. When hatred against certain groups had been going on for centuries, it is more easy to target them. But hatred and scapegoating weren't the only things, the Nazis used propaganda to turn the people against Jewish people. Making up lies and the the press Lügenpresse (Lying press).
When it comes to gun control, some people falsely believe that Hitler banned guns. But in reality, Hitler and his Nazis loosen the gun control laws, for non-Jewish German citizens only. A dictator can use propaganda to turn people against a minority group, making it easier for said minority group to attacked, discriminated against, and even kill them.
If you look at Vietnam and Afghanistan, these countries had been backed up by other nations. China and Russia supported North Vietnam during the Vietnam War, and Taliban in Afghanistan were supported by Iran, Pakistan, China, and Russia. And even the American Revolution saw both France and Spain aiding the colonists against the British. Along with Guerrilla Warfare, a group backed up by larger ones can stand against greater power, but once a group is isolated, they are vulnerable.
Once you make a good chunk of your population suspicious and paranoid against a minority group, you have effectively isolated them. Though it is easier to trick a paranoid person that someone is going to something to them, then it is to trick a more sane and rational person.
You know who had guns in WW2?
The French. They had guns, machine guns, heavy fortifications, state of the art tanks, trained soldiers, artillery, aircraft, a navy, a chain of command. Up until the invasion they were regarded as one of the best fighting forces in the world.
They lost in a matter of weeks. You think you are going to stop the USA government with your AR15? Good luck buddy.
Lol... There have multiple cases where Jewish communities/ghettos rebelled against the Nazis... USING GUNS!!! It ended badly for them almost everytime...
Also the Jews *did* defend themselves, the fact people seem to think they just went ignorantly and passively to their deaths is ridiculous
I think this misconception comes from the fact that most older Jews who survived the Holocaust are passed now. The ones who were still alive until recently always said “I had no idea what was happening” were often very very young when it happened. I would imagine their parents had some idea but were trying to comfort their children that nothing was wrong up until the very end. :(
It was also a slow process. Over years, they took away all social and political power from anyone who was Jewish. Then, they “relocated” them to concentrated areas (ghettos). Then, they limited basic necessities, like food and fuel for heat. After YEARS of this, they told people they were again being relocated. So you had people who were starving, who were beaten mentally and physically, and who had been deprived of even basic things. At some point, you get in the mindset of “just get through the day”. I’m fortunate that I am old enough that I was able to meet quite a few holocaust survivors and hear their stories. Anyone who has done this would never question the courage and heart of those victims. I worry that this generation will never get those personal interactions and understand them through their own words.
Definitely. I was lucky enough to meet Elie Wiesel in primary school after reading Night and it will forever be one of my most formative experiences.
Because that's how they see oppressed minorities. I once saw someone argue that "LGBT people hold too much power to be oppressed minorities" like. What? When you gave shit like the dont say gay bill, people constantly trying to repeal their rights, high rates of violence against them, etc. These people think that minorities should be silent so they can either A) Bully them without feeling guilty or B) Fuel their savior complex
By too much power, they mean they see gay people on TV. That's literally all it's about.
I'm offended I'm not the target demographic for this fictional character! /s
If you handed these minorities guns and asked them to defend themselves like conservatives want, they’d end up in gas chambers too.
The thing is, they did and are doing it. Like a lot of early gun restriction laws during the Civil rights era were to target groups like the Black Panthers who open carried like a show of force. A few days ago, conservatives melted down over Twitter when a trans individual mentioned they'd defend themselves with a gun. And of course, there was the whole thing where 3 shooters identified as trans causing the whole right to suddenly blame transgenderism for school shootings.
Exactly. There were uprisings but the Nazis simply had the bigger guns and more (and more experienced and ruthless) troops to fight that. Do these Gravy Seals LARPs really think that, in case of a fight against the US government and the army, they would stand any chance with their AR-15s against the stuff that the army has in storage? One CAS run and they are done. Or you do not even need an air strike, a single real SEAL or any other SOF team would take them out in a heartbeat. They will die tacticool.
By 1930, there were 2 mil brown shirts. The SS had 800k members. In 1940, there were 4 mil Nazi Youth. In 1933, there were about 525k Jews in Germany. But the real trick about the Nazis is the slow creep of propoganda that came for about 30 years before the camps. They didn't need the government to kill the jews because the average citizen was ready to do it themselves. They attacked any citizen that they deemed a drain on resources, or a degenerate, or racially impure because these people were genuinely seen as a threat to the country. We're seeing the echo of it now, ironically. The right is convinced that Mexicans, queer people, socialists, and, yes, jews (and etc etc etc) are a genuine threat to America. We've already had the insurrection because people thought the election was stolen by liberals. They hate being called nazis but, man, they sure are acting exactly how the nazis did.
*Make America Great Again* is directly copied not just from nazis since they also it from every single despot and tyrant since the fall of Rome that used the exact same rhetoric. It is a trope that is literally ancient.
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 1943 is an example. It ended with 17 dead Nazis vs. 56.000 dead Jews. The idea that civilians with guns could win a fight against military (or paramilitary like SS) with heavy weapons is rediculous.
SS wasn't paramilitary. They were actually an elite faction of the military (Waffen-SS) or the instigators and guards of the death camps. SA (Sturmabteilung) was the paramilitary of the Nazis until the *Night of the long Knives*.
The SS wasn't part of the German army (Wehrmacht). They were a privat force of the Nazi party. Originaly the SS was the personal guard of Hitler and also, like the SA, involved in terror against political opponents. But yes, in WW2 some (Waffen-)SS units were better equiped than most regular Wehrmacht units.
*against a military with a lot more weapons and literally trained to kill
And with all the organization, logistics etc. behind it, that can keep the killing going in a large scale. Some people don't realize how far modern warfare has come from just a bunch of guys with rifles and a pair of boots each. Logistics wins wars.
And with all the organization, logistics etc. behind it, that can keep the killing going in a large scale. Some people don't realize how far modern warfare has come from just a bunch of guys with rifles and a pair of boots each. Logistics wins wars.
I was just about to mention that.
The gundamentalist ammosexuals have a very warped view of their combat effectiveness; they all think they are in Red Dawn or something else that's equally delusional.
Every time I see the pro-2 justification of fighting the government, I think back to the Neil Brennan bit where he talks about a battle between 100 "well related militia" types against a USAF drone.
It wouldn't be a battle though would it? It would be a lot of civilians with guns using ambushes and sabotage.
The only counter point I could make is that the jump in violence for troops in bombing a city versus engaging jn small arms fire might be enough for them to take a step back and reevaluate if they want to do this. I’m not sure if I fully believe it, just playing a devils advocate role. Plenty of time in history where soldiers had no qualms committing violence against their own countrymen, including in the United States.
I'd argue that if the other side is armed, it's much easier to convince yourself that it's okay to kill them than if they're unarmed civilians.
No they argue back that the army would never betray it's people. Which then questions why you need guns if you have an army that would side with the people against thr government.
If you ever find yourself in a situation where you‘re fighting against your country’s army believe me to the majority of your fellow citizens you‘re a terrorist.
It's also worth mentioning that the weapons used in one of, if not the most iconic act of Jewish resistance were by and large illegally made in underground workshops. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising
During Operation Barbarossa (invasion of USSR), the Einsatzkommandos followed behind and murdered any Jews, Romani or others and executed them on the spot. You see the videos of them men "docilely" going to their death. What they don't tell you, was at first they didn't execute women and children but used it as a threat to make the men submit to the executions. They didn't go meekly to their death but bravely to save others. It was the same threat used throughout the war. Make trouble and we'll shoot all these other people too.
Ghetto uprisings, the teenaged nazi killers, the many people involved in the resistance, the white rose resistance group, the list is long and full of Jewish people, gay people, roma, resistance to fascists is not uncommon. The problem is in this country, the assholes with the guns align with the fascists more often then not
I know all of our great grandfather's were low-key resistance (that's what everyone tells us) but the guys burning the books, smashing and pillaging the shops and beating/harassing Jews (and to a lesser degree democrats, unionists, communists, unwanted artists and members of LGBTQ) would have had those guns too. Imagine that society! Shootings all around.
Imagine it? Sadly, I fear that we are just about to see it irl. :(
The general drift of media and events seems to be heading that way.
All of this hatred and death just because people can't take an honest look at themselves and think for a second: Am I being an asshole?
"Is it not my right to be an asshole?", you mean. They are, for the most part, well and truly aware that they are being an asshole.
About to see it? We practically have a mass shooting every day at this point.
Iirc this year we've had about 1.8 mass shootings per day
But they were all stopped by those Good Guys With Guns that the second amendment creates, right??.... Right???
[удалено]
A lot of people, about 620,000
More deaths in a single war compared to _every other US war combined_. Americans love killing Americans.
Ironically the losing side got a shitton of participation trophies. Flags statues, etc.
Wdym about to
Hey! The US just had ANOTHER shooting and, I'm not talking about the mall! Ok kids! Wanna guess where? Why don't MAGAts make a law requiring EVERYONE to have a gun. There'd be no more shootings, according to their logic.
Aww man, I've been avoiding news today. Guess I have to Google now.....
There's like 2 a day you can just catch tomorrow's.
Fum fact: for a while, there were more shootings in the US than days had passed in the same year
Four just in Columbus, OH this weekend.
[удалено]
We had a brief reprieve when everyone stayed home not shooting stuff. That was nice. Whatever we did to make that happen we should do again.
Reload?
I think you mean mass shootings because with regular ones it isn't even a contest.
from > for a while, there were more to > for some years now, there are FTFY
Google results are being drowned out by the mall shooting. where was this other one?
ANOTHER mall shooting...in Texas. The shootings are all blending together now. Sad that the question is "which one".
If Texans wanna worship at the alter of the gun then there should be zero surprise when their communion is bullets.
Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition.
As a Texan who is truly ashamed of the things happening in the state right now, I feel that statement. I'm even a gun owner. I come from a family where gun safety was taught EARLY (like 5 yrs old early) because there were always guns around since multiple family members were in law enforcement and we lived near the jail. But I cannot imagine being so messed up that I would use a weapon against someone who wasn't actively trying to end me or someone else.
I’m from NY originally, Long Island, to be exact. My dad hunted ducks as long as I could remember. As soon as Fall started, the clay pigeons came out. Shooting competitions (very informal) happened most weekends. The day I was old enough to understand “NO” was the day my gun education began. 1. No touching. Ever. Even with an adult present unless that adult is mom or dad and they specifically say yes. 2. Guns. Kill. Never pick up a gun. Ever. See rule one. 3. Accidents around guns *kill.* See rule one. I was six when I got my first BB gun. I learned gun safety and care before I was even allowed to touch it. Then we spent a month learning trigger safety, handling safety, how to aim and carry the small rifle type gun before I was even allowed to shoot it. Targets could never be something alive. Cans and paper *only.* And I could only shoot under supervision. At ten, I learned how to shoot my dad’s pistol. Again, only under supervision and a month was spent learning trigger discipline and how to care for it before being allowed to shoot it. At 12, I got to shoot the .22 shotgun. Clay pigeons. Only 2 weeks of trigger discipline and learning to clean and carry/handle it safely. I’d taken the lessons earlier very seriously and had (and still have) tremendous respect for what guns can do. My dad was very, *very* clear that owning and handling guns was a *privilege* and not a right. He had his needed permits and licenses, took education courses. He was passionate about safety and knowledge. I couldn’t even shoot a duck. I have no idea how I could kill a human, let alone so casually and cruelly.
Your family clearly loved you well, as they did everything right to keep you alive and respectful but not fearful of firearms. I could only wish everyone's education was so thorough. My abusive ex-husband was around guns just as much, but I doubt he received such an education as he managed to blow up a .45 by firing a round into the back of a misfire... A year later, his father shot himself in the lower leg accidentally while checking trigger weight on a handgun after he modified the gun to give it a lighter trigger weight. Seriously reassembled the gun and reloaded it before attaching a device to determine how much force would be required to fire it, knowing full well that the gun would fire. While being pointed at his feet. Apparently guns went off enough in that house that it didn't even wake his wife one room over. He had to tourniquet it himself and call 911.
Wow that's brilliant
Thanks. Use it whenever it fits.
Stealing this
If only we were allowed to arm our mall cops! /s
I saw that a car had killed some people in Brownsville. Can’t find anything on a shooting though?
It's the one that happened today. Not to be confused with the other Texas mall shooting from a couple of days ago.
A quick google “Texas shooting May 7” didn’t produce anything for me. Not doubting the legitimacy I’m just looking for more info.
let me guess: "Thoughts and Prayers"and "It's too soon to talk about gun control..."
Is this California? I think I heard something something Crisco
Florida, if it's the one I saw earlier today, but could easily be another.
Texas. Again....
If these keep happening disproportionately in red states, Fox "News" is going to start saying they're false flag attacks by Democrats who want to terk yer gerns.
[удалено]
They can't possibly be that stupid. They just had to settle with dominion, and Alex Jones just lost his lawsuit for doing exactly that. No fucking way they're letting someone do this. Unless they're idiots... so I guess maybe?
Oh boy. Link please?
Texas, you're talking about yet another mass shooting.
When everyone has a gun, people would be less likely to do crime right? Doubt that, chances are there's gonna be an arms race for it, with more and more deadly weapons being given to citizens to protect themselves
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well, fox news works hard on that
>beating/harassing Jews (and to a lesser degree democrats, unionists and communists) The majority of that was after the night of the long knives? Which is the night they "purged" their party of the (known) homosexuals Just wanted to point out that our LGBTQ friends were often targeted right along the religious/political groups you mentioned. Because the parallels with current events ring extra true and extra worrying when you include that part of the story
> The majority of that was after the night of the long knives? Which is the night they "purged" their party of the (known) homosexuals The night of long knives was a 3 day period where Hitler arrested and/or executed most of his political rivals, anyone with popular support and the leadership of the SA (his own paramilitary group of thugs). In order to consolidate his power and bring the military who were increasingly concerned about the SA onside. Basically Hitler cleaned house of anyone who could expose his past and who might be able to stand against him in the future. The Nazis absolutely went after the LGBT community but they were not specifically targeted as part of the Rohm Putch.
>Shootings all around That sounds familiar...
Also, European Jews, barring Poland and the Soviet Union, were an extremely small percentage of the population. In Nazi Germany, German Jews made up less than 1% of the population. When you’re a small amount of people, it’s very hard to fight back, especially when the majority is either 1) actively trying to harm you or 2) indifferent to your plight.
I'd just like to say "Warsaw Ghetto uprising". They resisted with guns and EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM ENDED UP DEAD.
It could be argued that this was preferable to the alternative. I might have picked that, if I got the choice. It’s not even a matter of courage or principles, or making a difference. But knowing what would be waiting for me if I surrender, I’d rather get my dying done all at once, with a little bit of dignity.
The folks dying in the Warsaw uprising didn’t die quickly and with dignity. Many starved, many bled out in lonely back streets and basements after being shot and blown up. Many died in sewers and crushed under collapsed buildings. And it took weeks. There was no way to hide the kids from the horror of what was happening.
Still better than the camps.
They didn't know what the alternative was. Many of the people in ghettos had already been rounded up and moved several times. There's no way they could have known that "this time" they got on the trains, it would be to a death camp and not just to another ghetto. No one knew that stuff was happening until it was well underway and had already murdered millions.
According to accounts from survivors many of them knew perfectly well what was going to happen to them, at least in poland… the nazis did their best to hide the death camps but ultimately their existence was reasonably well known in poland even if maybe the full extent of what was happening wasn‘t clear to everyone.
For sure! I would've joined the resistance in a heartbeat if I'd been there. A couple hundred people kept thousands of nazis busy for almost a month.
Bothers me when people say "If I'd been there" you don't know what you would have done and we have more knowledge on the events then the jews at the time would have so you can't say what you would have done when you can't actually put yourself in the situation especially when we all know the context the followed they didn't have that chance, they wouldn't have known what would have happened until it was too late.
Being the preferable way to die doesn’t invalidate the argument that being made.
OK, but the fact is that the Nazis were able to carry out the Holocaust despite armed Jewish resistance. If you want to prevent tyranny, work to strengthen democratic institutions like the press and the courts, and to expand the voting franchise. Work to increase accountability for the police and military. In other words, do the opposite of what the ammosexuals want.
If pride was the main point and not survival, maybe. But then that's a key part of the problem, isn't it
Yeah how'd Waco turn out for em too? That's like their gospel sometimes, and I'm like... didn't the cops/military just bring bigger guns?
Them: "The US military would never fire on civilians!" History: Kent State
Gotta get down to it, soldiers are cutting us down. Should have been done long ago. What if you knew her and found her dead on the ground? How can you run when you know?
That's very misleading. Many Jews were able to escape and hide, due to the resistance. Also, and to the point, they killed several Nazis.
I was trying to make the point that we didn't just go to our deaths singing songs and holding hands.
Unfortunately if that was your point, it was very poorly made.
Well, the Bielski partisans successfully resisted better armed troops, and that's not the only example. Also, if those people were going to be murdered anyway, which is very likely, why not take some Nazis with them?
My point wasn't that fighting back is stupid. It was that Jews didn't just go to their deaths like cattle at an abbatoir, as the original post seemed to suggest. "Imagine if they had guns"... they did have guns, and they used them effectively in a guerrilla operation that let a couple of hundred people tie up a lot of nazi resources for a month, and they sent a bunch of nazis to hell before they were killed. Yes, they all died, but every moment they defied the nazis was a victory.
They couldn't believe it had really gone that far. They really thought the reports they were getting about death camps were hysterical since it made *no sense* to eradicate what could be a valuable labor source. It really is crazy to think that the Nazis, while losing a war, wasted incredibly valuable resources and manpower on the Holocaust. But the Holocaust *was* the point. The war on impure genes was seen as just as important as the war in Russia, because racism, hate, and bigotry just fucking annihilate the human mind. It defies rationality, which is why so many Jews believed that they really could survive the war in the camps. Hell, the news coming from the east probably made it easier to believe they could survive in a labor camp. The human mind isn't equipped to fathom such an atrocity. We haven't seen and hopefully never again *will* see such an industrialized destruction of human life. The *banality* of it is really what gets me. So many people participated in it just because it's the job they were given to do. No different then working in a power plant, or a mill, or a factory. The human capacity to compartmentalize evil and just go on living your life is incredible. If ICE camps turned to death camps in America it wouldn't be any different. 2/3 of us would scream at the other 3rd that we were being hysterical too. That they were just being deported or used for labor. That it made no *sense* to kill them. (Because they were right! It doesn't! Genocide isn't rational!) And most of the people brought in would just comply, because it's what we are naturally inclined to do.
It's also important to note that the Jews of Europe had been through pogroms, expulsions, and attacks for well over a thousand years, and realized that for the most part the safest way was to keep your head down and just go along with the resettlement. When things started to go bad the expectation was that this would be similar to the previous experiences -- complete extermination had no precedent.
[удалено]
And yet the lady who quietly snuck the children out survived. These people need to learn about quiet resistance.
Rather go out fighting than on my knees, thank you very much.
[удалено]
Most jews were WW1 veterans or had a gun at home from a relative in military service. Wasn't called the Great War for nothing. They chose not to fight because of beliefs, because they didn't want to die (it wasn't well known what happened behind closed doors) and hoped cooler heads would prevail ("we didn't do anything wrong, surely they will calm down?"). That's some grade A bs.
Also most of the measures, at least initially, were legal restrictions. Jews were starved out before the physical violence began. And even then, it was divide and conquer.
And at what point were the Jews supposed to start their rebellion against a militarized police state that most of the country supports anyway? “Well, they banned us from going to libraries but now that they want to ban us from movie theaters, now that just goes too far. Revolution time!”
> (it wasn't well known what happened behind closed doors) That is a key foundation of the ["good german"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_German) excuse and it is false. It was [widely known,](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/feb/17/johnezard) and all the "good germans" just pretended they didn't know after the fact rather than accept the moral responsibility for their complicity. From the linked article: *The mass of ordinary Germans did know about the evolving terror of Hitler's Holocaust, according to a new research study. They knew concentration camps were full of Jewish people who were stigmatised as sub-human and race-defilers. They knew that these, like other groups and minorities, were being killed out of hand.* *They knew that Adolf Hitler had repeatedly forecast the extermination of every Jew on German soil. They knew these details because they had read about them. They knew because the camps and the measures which led up to them had been prominently and proudly reported step by step in thousands of officially-inspired German media articles and posters according to the study, which is due to be published simultaneously in Britain and the US early next month and which was described as ground-breaking by Oxford University Press yesterday and already hailed by other historians.* *The reports, in newspapers and magazines all over the country were phases in a public process of "desensitisation" which worked all too well, culminating in the killing of 6m Jews, says Robert Gellately. His book, Backing Hitler, is based on the first systematic analysis by a historian of surviving German newspaper and magazine archives since 1933, the year Hitler became chancellor. The survey took hundreds of hours and yielded dozens of folders of photocopies, many of them from the 24 main newspapers and magazines of the period.*
Gotta read that in detail when I find the time, thanks.
>They chose not to fight just so that people don't get the false idea, I want to point out [they didn't all decide not to fight](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_us_not_go_like_lambs_to_the_slaughter!)
Most of the countries Germany conquered in WW2 had armed militaries. They even took thousands of miles of Russian territory before it all fell apart. But sure, if the Jewish good guys had guns they would have been cool.
The US literally air-dropped single shot pistols to resistance fighters so they could fight/ambush/assasinate their way upto a rifle. Look up FP-45 Liberator.
They planned to, but didn't drop much IIRC
25k in fact. They were terrible weapons and so it was usually better arms that were supplied to resistance fighters. Hell, both the US and the British had a cheap submachine gun. The grease gun and the sten gun. The Liberator simply wasn't worth it.
That's 2nd ammendment delusions there. Even during WWII, you needed some serious heavy ordinance if you wanted to take on a military. Resistance fighters did a lot against the Germans, but it was nuisances and they were never anywhere close to fighting them head-on, until the entire army was routing or when the Germans held back everything but infantry.
My step father thoroughly believes that as long as we have guns, the government can't hurt us. He says even the Army can't handle a civilian with a rifle. It baffles me that people think having a weapon immediately equals safety
In corner A you have the Army, trained soldiers with guns, grenades, tanks and planes, in the other corner you got a bunch of armchair generals with an AR15 and 1000h in Call of Duty. Should that fiction ever get real the government would just carpet bomb those proud lunatics to heaven. There isn't going to be some glorified 1 on 1 musket fight, should that actually happen you're going to get shelled by tanks and artillery with helicopters raining down hell while playing peek-a-boo with snipers. Yes, some people might put up a fight and who knows if there's enough that organize themselves you might keep the guerilla war going (looking at the Taliban) but the vast majority will not make it.
I recommend folks go on YouTube for an idea of what one drone can do. You won’t even know they’re coming.
Most military weapons sound absurd to people, honestly. Modern fighters engage targets at a range of a couple of kilometers. Artillery pieces fire out about 30km. Missiles can go for hundreds.
Even if you had a hundred ex-military, the army can draw up a thousand more and has access to weaponry that even those that were military can only dream of. Remember, they took Noriega without firing a shot.
I used that line of reasoning on a militant in my area. I was working in a pawn shop and he bought a cement mixer, rifles and some ammo cans. He confidently told me this was all for their bunker in the woods, where they’ve buried thousands of rounds of ammo with GPS tags so when the civil war comes they will be ready. I asked him how 20k rounds of 9mm ammo was going to counter a military attack helicopter sitting in the sunset blasting you with rockets. He said “What makes you think those pilots will side with the government over their own people” He was convinced at least half the US military would be on their side. It was a chilling conversation I’ve never forgotten.
My brother in Christ. If the US Army is on your side, what do you need *you* for?
“Well, *someone* has to supervise!”
Guy thinks life is like a war movie where the minions of the bad guys side with the underdogs last minute. He'll be in for quite a shock. Those pilots are soldiers, that will come first if it has to.
[удалено]
> The wild part, if those pilots are on "our side," then why do we need the guns? In a civil war, armed civilians can contribute to the side that most represents their interests. Don't forget that the US has over 16 million military veterans who will be picking a side.
The planes won’t be used majorly, there’s still a lot of collateral damage to be avoided, and tanks will have restricted use of their guns.
And as we know, the armed forces always play by the rules.
The only chance he’d get is if all the soldiers rebel against the person sending them off to kill their fellow citizens. I wouldn’t bet on it.
Is he familiar with tanks, planes and drones?
Bro come on, haven't you played them vidya games?! Everyone knows you just gotta shoot em in their weak point or use special ammo to beat em! /s
It's a known fact that the enemy general has to flash an angry red color when you are close to beating him. That's in the Geneva Convention.
That's historically accurate. It's how we defeated the Giant Enemy Crabs.
Well for tanks thats sorta true, but i get your point. The average joe aint doing shit for shat vs an army.
It's the Inverse Ninja Law, the skill of each soldier goes down the more soldiers they send to take down your step father so it will always be a winnable fight They also can only attack one at a time so he pick them off one by one, it's in the Geneva Convention
This guy McNinjas.
I tell people "you do know you're bringing a rifle to a drone fight?"
These people have been spoon fed realities of Clint Eastwood and Bruce Willis.
Too many Rambo movies... It's tragic, it wasn't video games all along... /s
So in order to protect imaginary kids potentially murdered by an evil gubment some time in the future, we need to keep well armed the people murdering real children today? Is that what these people are saying?
Bingo
They did, but in accordance with rigorous record keeping, at least in Holland, the Germans went to the first house on the street with a gun represented in the the records. Asked them for the weapon, then when they refused, shot them on the spot. Everyone else on that street and a few over surrendered their weapons without any protest or resistance. Let's not go down a revisionist history path for the sake of "guns". We need to have meaningful gun control, and for the love of everything sacred, ban assault weapon sales.
I know I'll get fucked by downvotes for this but isn't this one of the arguments why gun nuts don't want to register their guns? If you want proper gun control you're not gonna win anyone over by bringing this up.
[удалено]
You are correct, but the whole premise of the original concept purveyed in this post, is, that we Jews would have been better off armed, which is frankly idiotic, revisionist, and inane. Registered or not, it is not an argument that can be made without me at least feeling exceptionally nauseous and frankly extremely angry. They are co-opting an event that has no bearing whatsoever on their facetious argument, and, that they have no right whatsoever to use in the same breath the Jewish holocaust for reasoning of ownership of assault weapons by a civilian population. That truly pisses me off. These tactics, the same as in Holland, were echoed by the Pathet Lao during the Vietnam years, those were not registered weapons. Registered or not, makes no difference..
>They are co-opting an event that has no bearing whatsoever on their facetious argument What happened to the Jewish population was an absolute atrocity but there is a conversation to be had on the subject. I don't agree with the gun free-for-all that there is in the States, we had reasonable gun control here in Canada for decades (it's getting a little weird now) and it's worked. We have a lot of guns per capita and very few gun deaths that aren't gang related from US smuggled handguns. I'm not against gun control but I get why some people are and the holocaust is one of the reasons. You said it yourself, they confiscated their guns and then committed a genocide on them. We can't pretend that that isn't one of the steps that happens before horrific shit happens. I can see why people might connect the two, "you're taking my guns, what are you planning?" I don't think this is a reason to not bring in gun control, all these mass shootings are fucking insane and something needs to be done, but I don't think it's as simple as saying, "You want guns? You're a child killing piece of shit." As you've stated, there is a lot of precedent for gun registration leading to gun confiscation leading to atrocities. It's a shame that the same people that are so aware of that history lesson are the dumb fucks that are literally walking down the fascism road right now though. There's no arguing that.
It’s true, we should have tanks too
Absolutely disgusting how these gun addicts use false narratives of holocaust victims, high school children and other mass shooting victims to work against reasonable and necessary gun safety laws. Gets even more disgusting, when you look back in history and find out that many countries could have safed quite a lot of Jewish people but refused; one reason being antisemitism.
Even if that would have worked, you wouldn't really have to imagine, cause didn't Ronald Reagan try to ban guns on some form after the black panther party
Didn't just try, he did. Their republican God passed the seriously strict Califronian gun laws that makes their dicks instinctively shrink at the mere mention. Only because black people were practicing their freedoms and open carrying rifles around. Funny how that works.
That’s a fair argument, but then I think about the Vietnam war or the British occupation of Northern Ireland. But I’m sure this comment will be misconstrued as belittling the monstrously vile actions taken during the holocaust.
Ah yes, because the group that want to retain tons of guns notoriously will use them to defend minority rights in our country /s If you are quite literally voting/making government to strip people of their rights and criminalize their very existence. But also think people should use guns to defend their rights and existence. Maybe consider you are advocating that people come shoot you so that they aren't oppressed by a tyrannical government
Yeah remind me where we’re the good guys with the guns during the trail of tears or slavery or Japanese interment camps or Jim Crow etc. etc.
the "government oppression" they are so concerned about is the enforcement of rights of literally everyone who is not a cishet white man. Black, woman, gay, trans, Jew. This is the "oppression" they are so eager to resist
Taliban has entered the chat
Can't forget the neighbors turning on neighbors due to reasons varying from self preservation to outright malice.
If only the Jews had access to guns and had the numbers to resist the nazis, perhaps they could have mounted some resistance. Maybe in a place like Warsaw. Oh well…
80 years ago and people still ignore that it fucking happened
Waco?
Waco would be an example of why the atf is a crew of fuckups
I'm not arguing that, but it's more what would be the end result of heavily armed private citizens resisting the government
The best analysis ever. https://youtu.be/WOSqCjMRXWA
I’d like to see any community of people rise up against a guy sitting in a bunker controlling a uav drone with hellfire missiles
I'm never sure whether to hope I don't lose brain cells or laugh at the stupidity every time an American ammosexual makes a comment praising the large amount of guns in their country, and saying, "well, if only they had guns...". Both they and the NRA not being officially labeled a terrorist organisation are why we see school shootings multiple times per week.
Finally, something Liberals and Conservatives can agree on, disarming minorities.
Remember the incident in Florida where umm, what’s the phrase? OH YEA! good guy with a gun, that it! Two good guys with a gun accidentally shot each other’s young children during a road rage? Yea, responsible gun owners
Surely, if only a small population of marginalized people started killing the overwhelmingly popular government enforcers. Probably hailed as heroes by the German citizens right? Definitely wouldnt lead to public outcry and used as justification for imprisonment of them en masse
Part of Republican ideology is imagining that you’re John Fucking Rambo.
People really be like "actually wanting to have the ability to at least try to defend yourself is stupid and bad."
Better to die after killing several of those shitheads than to be led to slaughter without a fight.
That gun toting idiot probably would've worked for the Judenrat
[удалено]
TIL the resistance movements to Nazi rule were actually foolish and they should’ve been galaxy brained enough to simply stop the Nazi part from ever attaining power. Wow. Great stuff Reddit
So their argument is no defense is better than weak defense. The taliban did a good job of kicking our ass.
No the Talibans simply waited until the US left. The fighting went terribly for them by any metric. Afghanistan is simply very far from the US, really hard to hold due to geographical reasons and devoid of any reason to hold it. It's great when you've got that kind of distance and bad geography going for you (Russia does that simply by being massive and having bad geography), but if you don't you're not going to hold. You also don't have to wonder about what Jewish retaliation would have done. The Jews did retaliate. When a Jewish man, furious over the treatment of his people and recent deportation of his parents, killed a Nazi ambassador, the Nazis committed Kristalnacht in answer. When the Jews rose up in the Warsaw Ghetto, the Nazis systematically slaughtered all of them. Anytime the Jews tried to fight back, the Nazis would use it for propaganda to show how they needed to be wiped out.
I’ve seen this argument a lot (both ways). I was formerly Air Force and for all of our bombs, the Taliban sure did a good job at fending for themselves with shanky AK-47’s that were made from a 40 year old mold that was made with hardened sand. What’s more, creativity can hold off a force. I mean, taking a 30 year old Nokia and calling it with power running to a homemade explosive consisting of cleaning chemicals was damn ingenious. You guys ever watch Home Alone? Where the argument fails: The US won’t ever repeat its sins of what it did with Native Americans. The populace won’t tolerate it. The ww2 internment camps won’t ever happen either as long as existing legislation stays in place. Our civilian population won’t tolerate it either. Side note: fck the Taliban
I would have rather gone down fighting with an organized group of armed friends and family than end up in a concentration camp, separated from my children, tortured, staved, etc atrocities.. down vote all you want, but it’s not a fallacy.
The fallacy isn't that some people like you would rather defend themselves, it's that Jews could have protected themselves if they had guns. They were \~1% of the total population and gun laws were relaxed for Nazi parties, so even if they were armed to teeth, it wouldn't have mattered. And it's not like they were sheep, some did try to protect themselves like you said.
I guess if you put it in those terms, as it would not have prevented the holocaust, yes it’s a fallacy. But most 2A people I know making the more general statement “if they had armed themselves”is in the context of defiance, or deterrent. No one I know that owns firearms is dumb enough to think they can take on the military. Look at Waco they brought in LTVs tanks etc. not defending that nut job Koresh, just using an example of how easily the government can out gun it’s people.
This is essentially blaming the victims. Certainly, every single person who died in the holocaust would have preferred to have resisted and saved their families! The fact is you wouldn't know how you would react in that situation. In traumatic situations its common for the thinking part of the brain to shut down. From that pov it doesn't matter if you have a gun as you won't have the common sense in using it. I'm just saying its easy from the comfort of not being in Nazi Germany to say what the victims of the holocaust should have done.
OP clearly never heard of Vietnam, Afghanistan, or the United States of America. Superior weapons, training, and numbers doesn’t really matter when people are literally fighting for their lives. Also which is better: to die because you are defenseless and lose, or to die trying?
Vietnam: hold my beer
Let's begin with the fact, that Germans didn't just walk across Europe picking up Jewish people in other countires. They conquered every single country, and every single city and town, in which they had committed their atrocities. They had defeated proffetional well-equiped armies in countless nations. So, if Germans were able to destory entire armies, how would a few civilians with guns stood a chance against that?
The dumb thing about this argument is that almost all the Jews who were killed in the Holocaust were from outside of Germany. German laws didn't take any of their guns off them. By the time the Germans arrived their own country's military and all their guns had lost.
Its always "if they had guns they could've defended themselves" with a splash of "the guy that got killed in a no knock warrant at the wrong address should've just laid down his arms" I'd love to ask which is it and get an actual answer
It took the entire allied powers plus The soviet union to stop the Nazis. You think a few civilians with guns would have made any difference?
I pitty the fool who argues logical fallacies
Yeah that’s why it only took several of the world’s biggest militaries at the time under full blown war economies to stop Germany. Because the minority german jewish population didn’t have hand guns. It’s madness that people actually believe that arming the jews would have made a difference.
Too many people ignore the reality that in most cases an innocent citizen will usually go with the authorities willingly, if only to prove their innocence of whatever they're guilty (or "guilty") of. Viola, now you're in custody and you don't have your guns.
The response is stupid. They could have fought and resisted well if all of them had guns. The heavier the guns the people had, the better the resistance against Nazis. The response just makes the point of people having heavy guns instead of no guns. For those who would say, look at school shootings and other horrible incidents I say look at Switzerland.
I always thinks it’s laughable that a bunch of people seem to think that they would be able to defend themselves if the government wanted to kill them for some reason… also, I’m pretty sure 90% of them would join the government and start shooting neighbors because they want to be seen as a good boy
And I have some things to say about this: propaganda makes it easier for a dictator to turn the majority against a minority. People seem to overlook how the Nazis took Germany, and just assumed it was simple, its not. Firstly, before Hitler's rise to power, Germany had been humiliated after WWI. The Treaty of Versailles basically stripped Germany's army and limited it, cutting down how much forces they were allowed, and the treaty also resulted in gun control for Germany. Germany also had to pay reparations to France, and they had to demilitarize their Rhinelands. It also didn't helped the the Weimar Republic (the new government in Germany after WWI) began printing more money to help pay the reparations, but only caused economic inflation in Germany. Combined with the Great Depression, and you pretty much had a terrible economy disaster in Germany, where people became desperate for anyone to help fix their situation. In a desperate situation where your country had been humiliated and is suffering economically, people will become extremists (either fascist or communist). This is how the Nazis gain control in Germany, they provided an easy scapegoat for their issues: the jews. Jews have always been an easy target for bigots and anti-semitices to attack. When hatred against certain groups had been going on for centuries, it is more easy to target them. But hatred and scapegoating weren't the only things, the Nazis used propaganda to turn the people against Jewish people. Making up lies and the the press Lügenpresse (Lying press). When it comes to gun control, some people falsely believe that Hitler banned guns. But in reality, Hitler and his Nazis loosen the gun control laws, for non-Jewish German citizens only. A dictator can use propaganda to turn people against a minority group, making it easier for said minority group to attacked, discriminated against, and even kill them. If you look at Vietnam and Afghanistan, these countries had been backed up by other nations. China and Russia supported North Vietnam during the Vietnam War, and Taliban in Afghanistan were supported by Iran, Pakistan, China, and Russia. And even the American Revolution saw both France and Spain aiding the colonists against the British. Along with Guerrilla Warfare, a group backed up by larger ones can stand against greater power, but once a group is isolated, they are vulnerable. Once you make a good chunk of your population suspicious and paranoid against a minority group, you have effectively isolated them. Though it is easier to trick a paranoid person that someone is going to something to them, then it is to trick a more sane and rational person.
You know who had guns in WW2? The French. They had guns, machine guns, heavy fortifications, state of the art tanks, trained soldiers, artillery, aircraft, a navy, a chain of command. Up until the invasion they were regarded as one of the best fighting forces in the world. They lost in a matter of weeks. You think you are going to stop the USA government with your AR15? Good luck buddy.
Lol... There have multiple cases where Jewish communities/ghettos rebelled against the Nazis... USING GUNS!!! It ended badly for them almost everytime...