Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
99% of the people weren't nazi soldiers rounding people up.
The French Resistance was only 100,000 - WAY less than 1% of the population - and were key to the Allies advance through France after the Germans took over. They didn't do that unarmed.
The bulk of that assistance was in the way of intelligence and cutting lines of communication, not engaging the Germans in pitched battles. The only significant armed uprising occurred during the German evacuation of Paris.
In recent years there has been a significant debate on whether the activities of the resistance were worth the cost wrought by German retribution.
PS - Just FYI that 100,000 figure was just the left wing/communist Francs-Tireurs et Partisans (FTP)
99% of the people weren't nazi soldiers rounding people up.
The French Resistance was only 100,000 - WAY less than 1% of the population - and were key to the Allies advance through France after the Germans took over. They didn't do that unarmed.
The French Resistance never did anything more than pester the Germans. If it hadn't been for the Germans needing to focus most of their resources on the Eastern Front, North Africa, and the Balkans, they would've wiped the French Resistance completely out in no time. As it was, they drove the French Resistance underground without even dedicating the full brunt of their resources to do it. It was a joke. Hell, the leadership of the Resistance wasn't even in the country....they had to run to England.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
Yeah. It's not like a handful of camel jockies with 50 year old Kalashnakovs could hold out against the most powerful military in the world for 10 years.
First of all, what in the hell is a Camel Jockey?
Seriously?
And to compare a conventional war to a guerrilla one isn't really useful here.
Really though...you guys don't know too much about the German War Machine in WWII.
People, they didn't conquer all of Western Europe because they were bumbling fools.
It's interesting that the Nazi's never took Switzerland. The major difference...even in that period, the Swiss were heavily armed. One story (perhaps just urban legend) is that the leader of the Swiss army was told that they were outnumbered two to one by the Nazis. What are you going to do? His answer...shoot twice and go home. Funny that the Nazis left them alone. Much like Yamamato's comments about invading America, "where there is someone with a gun behind every blade of grass".
What strategic value would taking Switzerland have had?
And from a pragmatic perspective, Switzerland, the neutral country, was an insurance policy for at least a few of Hitler's top advisors, who sent money and other valuables to Switzerland for safekeeping just in case Germany lost the war.
99% of the people weren't nazi soldiers rounding people up.
The French Resistance was only 100,000 - WAY less than 1% of the population - and were key to the Allies advance through France after the Germans took over. They didn't do that unarmed.
They did it by keeping their identities secret. They did it by having the majority of the occupied nation supporting them, even circumspectly.
The Jewish people didn't have the luxury of being anonymous. The Jewish people didn't have the support of the general population.
Yeah. It's not like a handful of camel jockies with 50 year old Kalashnakovs could hold out against the most powerful military in the world for 10 years.
The Afghani resistance is more like the French resistance. They have a level of support from the general population that the Jewish people never had. They are fighting against invaders. The Nazis weren't invaders of Germany. It was a totally different situation.
What strategic value would taking Switzerland have had?
And from a pragmatic perspective, Switzerland, the neutral country, was an insurance policy for at least a few of Hitler's top advisors, who sent money and other valuables to Switzerland for safekeeping just in case Germany lost the war.
They're trying to wrap Switzerland into their NRA worldview hoping that it fits. LOL...Switzerland could've been taken by the Germans in no time. For someone to think that the Wehrmacht would've wilted in the face of the Swiss Army is LAUGHABLE.
Like you said and i said earlier in this thread, the Germans needed the Swiss for a variety of reasons. And if the Swiss weren't a majority German country and behaved in an anti-German fashion in any way, the Germans would've taken Switzerland just for sh*ts and giggles. German aerial bombardment would've laid every Swiss major city to waste. They could've easily softened up Switzerland without putting a single soldier in the country and brought them to their knees. Turned Zurich into Rotterdamn South....in a millisecond.
Yes, but would he have said those things if he was around armed gays, foreigners, and non Whites?
Even idiots save their quotations for opportune times and places. Unless you believe that gays, "foreigners" and non-whites don't already own guns. But, Hitler played for the majority, not for the minorities.
If the Jews had guns the number killed would have been far less. The reason the Germans were so successful in killing so many was that the Jews went without question, without resistance, without fuss, and in silence.
If the Jews had guns the number killed would have been far less. The reason the Germans were so successful in killing so many was that the Jews went without question, without resistance, without fuss, and in silence.
No, they wouldn't have stood a chance, and chances are that they would have been slaughtered differently, just as gun control didn't stop Nazis from taking over Germany (they simply adopted a populist approach, instead of resorting to all-out violence). Remember, gun control in Germany pre-dates Nazi rule (but NRA loyalists aren't going to be honest anyway).
Not sure if it would have happened or not but I guarantee the soldiers would have had a harder time rounding people up if they were armed and willing to use the weapons to defend themselves. This is what Liberals want right here....another mass murder of people in America. To stop 1 school shooting they want to disarm everyone but the government who then can murder everyone...such a brilliant plan!
He is very, very wrong.
Quote:
. . .Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.
University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review . As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.
The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.
The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning? Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews? What about public works — Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not. These are merely implements that can be used for good or ill, much as gun advocates like to argue about guns themselves. If guns don’t kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide).
Besides, Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?” he told Salon.
Proponents of the theory sometimes point to the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as evidence that, as Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano put it , “those able to hold onto their arms and their basic right to self-defense were much more successful in resisting the Nazi genocide.” But as the Tablet’s Michael Moynihan points out, Napolitano’s history (curiously based on a citation of work by French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson) is a bit off. In reality, only about 20 Germans were killed, while some 13,000 Jews were massacred. The remaining 50,000 who survived were promptly sent off to concentration camps. . .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
