If the Jews had guns would that affected the Holocaust?

[jamesrage]

He kept them unarmed.

And how is that any better than disarming the Jews?

 

[Chagos]

No.

The number of Jews in Germany (where it all started) amounted to barely half a million, equating to 0.8 pct of the overall German population, in 1933.

Apart from WWI veterans (few at even that time) none of them were fight trained.

A pipe dream.

 

[matchlight]

If most of the Jews the Germans placed in camps in Europe had had at least one firearm--and were aware they were likely going to be killed anyway--of course it would have made a big difference. That many armed people could have killed hundreds of thousands of German troops, if they were willing to fight to the end. That's why the British, when the threat of an invasion seemed all too real in 1940, spread the slogan "You can take one with you," and urged civilians to use an axe, spade, pitchfork, or anything else they could lay their hands on if it came to a last ditch stand.

The design of the whole concentration camp program, from the way being removed from their homes was sugar-coated for the victims as "relocation" to the various deceptions used at the camps themselves, shows the Nazis were concerned about the problems resistance would pose. The reason for making all those people think they were only going to take a shower, for example, was to avoid the resistance that could be expected if they knew they were going to be murdered once inside.

 

[Chagos]

I think my post is spot on in regards to SD's post. The Germans showed no leniency towards the Jews because they were "unarmed " nor would your fellow American who broke into your home show you any leniency just because you were unarmed. To think otherwise is pure folly.

They didn't show any leniency towards the Warsaw Ghetto either, when that rose with weapons smuggled in.

They showed no leniency when taking France. Against an army that was in individual fields better armed.

They showed no leniency, period. Armed opponents, unarmed opponents, no matter. Red Army, US army, Brit army, partisans all over the place.
Zilch.

Your point appears to fall somewhat flat.

 

[Gringo allstar]

They didn't show any leniency towards the Warsaw Ghetto either, when that rose with weapons smuggled in.

They showed no leniency when taking France. Against an army that was in individual fields better armed.

They showed no leniency, period. Armed opponents, unarmed opponents, no matter. Red Army, US army, Brit army, partisans all over the place.
Zilch.

Your point appears to fall somewhat flat.

It will always "fall flat" when you miss it.

 

[VanceMack]

TD, you brought up the 600k figure in Germany, and I pointed out that it wasn't accurate and that it included women, children, the old, infirm.

And for the Jews to be heavily armed BEFORE the idiocy started probably would require a rewrite of the world post WWI, after which nearly ALL regular German citizens were disarmed. Maybe we just assume WWI out of the equation too. Then Hitler doesn't come to power at all, most likely. Etc.

The point is the question assumes a total rewrite of the history that actually WAS to an entirely different reality. I don't see what we're learning here. It's mostly just an attempt to use Hitler and the Jews to defend against gun control here in the U.S. and the situations are nothing alike. And it more than a little places the blame on Jews in Germany and elsewhere for not, first, realizing that they weren't being sent to camps but to die, then to arm before then in anticipation of it, then to fight to certain death and watch themselves and their families die to prevent the genocide they had no real way of knowing was to come.

Isnt this thread based on the premise of a "rewrite of history"?

 

[VanceMack]

This whole thread is a mind bender to me. I truly dont understand some people.

I do not know what would have happened had Jews been armed prior to the Holocaust. I DO KNOW what happened with them unarmed.

This thread relates back to the recent school shooting. I KNOW what happens when people lay down and die. I also know what happens when shooters encounter armed resistance. I dont want that armed resistance to come 40-50 people after the fact. You are more comfortable being a victim...hey...bless your heart.

 

[Chagos]

If most of the Jews the Germans placed in camps in Europe had had at least one firearm--and were aware they were likely going to be killed anyway--of course it would have made a big difference. That many armed people could have killed hundreds of thousands of German troops, if they were willing to fight to the end. That's why the British, when the threat of an invasion seemed all too real in 1940, spread the slogan "You can take one with you," and urged civilians to use an axe, spade, pitchfork, or anything else they could lay their hands on if it came to a last ditch stand.

The design of the whole concentration camp program, from the way being removed from their homes was sugar-coated for the victims as "relocation" to the various deceptions used at the camps themselves, shows the Nazis were concerned about the problems resistance would pose. The reason for making all those people think they were only going to take a shower, for example, was to avoid the resistance that could be expected if they knew they were going to be murdered once inside.

As pointed out, German Jews in 1933 made up 0.8 pct of the population (barely 500 thou). European Jews overall is something where the figures differ but if we go by overall victim figures (also in controversy) let's say 6 million in reach of the Nazi arm. The smallest part able bodied men, very few trained in fighting.

Overall German casualties in WWII (women, kids, old people included) around 7 million. Overall Russian casualties alone (same parameters) upwards of 20 million.

Let's try something else:

Warsaw ghetto rising..................12000 dead, around 600 of those fighting Jews and maybe 200 German fighters (the German command stated merely 16 but that's not very credible).

So if you extrapolate the figures upwards onto Germany alone and assume that every 3rd German Jew would have killed a Jerry (assuming all Jews were fighting men)....................? So a 165,000 dead Germans would have foiled the Holocaust, let alone Nazi aggression world wide?

You ever seen any combat? More specifically that which extends into civilian zones? As it invariably does?

Dream something nice:mrgreen:

 

[Hard Truth]

Some had guns. There was some violent resistance to the Nazis in some ghettos. It did not end well for the Jews. More active Jewish resistance would probably have accelerated their near extinction since the Nazi practice was revenge significantly multiplied. The Jews just didn't have the numbers to pull it off, even if they were better armed. They might have eventually succeeded in winning some territory via a long, long guerrilla (terror) war if the allies hadn't prevailed, with or without a lot more arms.

 

[VanceMack]

As pointed out, German Jews in 1933 made up 0.8 pct of the population (barely 500 thou). European Jews overall is something where the figures differ but if we go by overall victim figures (also in controversy) let's say 6 million in reach of the Nazi arm. The smallest part able bodied men, very few trained in fighting.

Overall German casualties in WWII (women, kids, old people included) around 7 million. Overall Russian casualties alone (same parameters) upwards of 20 million.

Let's try something else:

Warsaw ghetto rising..................12000 dead, around 600 of those fighting Jews and maybe 200 German fighters (the German command stated merely 16 but that's not very credible).

So if you extrapolate the figures upwards onto Germany alone and assume that every 3rd German Jew would have killed a Jerry (assuming all Jews were fighting men)....................? So a 165,000 dead Germans would have foiled the Holocaust, let alone Nazi aggression world wide?

You ever seen any combat? More specifically that which extends into civilian zones? As it invariably does?

Dream something nice:mrgreen:

Do you realize how many German citizens were members of the resistance? If Germany was an armed populace (not just the Jews) the world is a radically different place.

Regardless...we KNOW what happened with an unarmed populace.

 

[Chagos]

It will always "fall flat" when you miss it.

You saying there is a point and I'm missing it or that it's fallen completely flat and that's why it's not recognizable as being one?

Curious minds and all that.

Or are you seriously endeavoring to insist that the one you made has NOT been flattened?

 

[VanceMack]

Some had guns. There was some violent resistance to the Nazis in some ghettos. It did not end well for the Jews.

How did it work out for the rest?

 

[Chagos]

..................And for the Jews to be heavily armed BEFORE the idiocy started probably would require a rewrite of the world post WWI, after which nearly ALL regular German citizens were disarmed..................

Not to argue one way or the other here (I find the thread to be abstruse, mildly speaking, or better said, Carson's pipe dream)......if you were not aware that Hitler almost completely relaxed gun laws in Germany after coming to power, here's me telling it.

Needless to say, NOT for Jews.

He didn't disarm Jews (they had no guns anyway) he just armed the rest.

The result is of course the same.

Just saying.

 

[plutonium]

the almighty gun gives you life and death at your finger tips makes some people feel and act like they are a god over other humans so it does give you a certain amount of control over what happens in a life or death struggle ..wonder if blacks had guns would there have been slavery??? guess it depends on how many guns the blacks had and if they were all killed fighting the slave masters then the whites would have no slaves...hmmmmmm

 

[dimensionallava]

if you google "hitler myth" google will auto fill the words "gun gontrol"

Bartov added that this misreading of history is not only intellectually dishonest, but also dangerous. “I happen to have been a combat soldier and officer in the Israeli Defense Forces and I know what these assault rifles can do,” he said in an email.

He continued: “Their assertion that they need these guns to protect themselves from the government — as supposedly the Jews would have done against the Hitler regime — means not only that they are innocent of any knowledge and understanding of the past, but also that they are consciously or not imbued with the type of fascist or Bolshevik thinking that they can turn against a democratically elected government, indeed turn their guns on it, just because they don’t like its policies, its ideology, or the color, race and origin of its leaders.”

The Hitler gun control lie - Salon.com

 

[Hard Truth]

the almighty gun gives you life and death at your finger tips makes some people feel and act like they are a god over other humans so it does give you a certain amount of control over what happens in a life or death struggle ..wonder if blacks had guns would there have been slavery??? guess it depends on how many guns the blacks had and if they were all killed fighting the slave masters then the whites would have no slaves...hmmmmmm

If metal items like swords and guns were in widespread use in Africa before they were in Europe there wouldn't have been the slavery and imperialism that did happen to Africa. It might have gone the other way.

 

[Chagos]

Do you realize how many German citizens were members of the resistance? If Germany was an armed populace (not just the Jews) the world is a radically different place.

I do realize and I also realize that there were far too few.

Regardless...we KNOW what happened with an unarmed populace.

As pointed out previously a misrepresentation of fact that doesn't become any less false by constant mantra-ing, be that in pursuit of a totally unrelated agenda or not.

That it won't die by the likes of you (no offense intended) repeating it, doesn't alter that either. If you're arguing for "the right of the people to be armed", I'd advise not to use that thing anymore. Others tend to dismiss whole propositions on the basis of one single falsity (sadly).

 

[Gringo allstar]

You saying there is a point and I'm missing it or that it's fallen completely flat and that's why it's not recognizable as being one?

Curious minds and all that.

Taken in context, my point is vaild and logical.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Let me modify that for you:

"I would have rather been a dead jew with a Gun back then than a dead Jew without one."

Why do some people prefer to be a victim rather than being able to defend oneself?

 

[Cephus]

It depends on the guns that they had and their willingness to use them, of course. In most cases, they were outnumbered and refused to believe that any of the things that were happening were real. Had they formed a strong armed resistance within Germany? Maybe. Had they all hightailed it out of Germany and German controlled areas? Sure. But what good does playing the "what if" game really do?

 

[Cephus]

If metal items like swords and guns were in widespread use in Africa before they were in Europe there wouldn't have been the slavery and imperialism that did happen to Africa. It might have gone the other way.

Except that you had blacks in Africa selling their brethren into slavery, so probably, the same thing would have happened regardless.

 

[Chagos]

And how is that any better than disarming the Jews?

Logistically it's less work.

 

[Chagos]

How did it work out for the rest?

It didn't work out all that well for anyone.

Mind you, some of the Warsaw ghetto fighters made it to the forests. A dozen at most.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

I told you, the gun restrictionists don't want to ever admit there is a good reason to own guns.

It seems death by gas is preferred.

 

[sangha]

And how is that any better than disarming the Jews?

I made no judgements as far as better or worse. I merely pointed out that the Jews in Nazi Germany were already unarmed and so there was no need to disarm them.