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.
And the imagination can conjure up some other possibilities. Were I trying to sneak into Switzerland or get to some other place, having a loaded Luger might just be helpful.
Depends on the encounter you expect. Sometimes, forged papers and a convincing cover story may save you, whereas shooting it out with an armed patrol probably won't. And if a weapon is found on your person, you're done.
High-profile resistance people would sometimes go armed, because their faces were known and their lives forfeit no matter what - no cover story would save them, a firearm gave them a slim chance. But in general, pretending to be Mr. Norman Normal - a not-too-bright factory worker traveling by train to deal with a family situation two towns over - would increase your chances.
Yes, much of the push for gun control is idiocy. But the worst of it is not idiocy, its calculated and malevolent.
Historicly, Leftists murder their opposition. With an armed American populace, their losses would be too high for them to consider this, hence the push for gun control.
Out of 15,000 children sent to Auschwitz (not the death camp Auschwitz-Birkenau mind you) 100 survived. So 150:1 odds.
Of 1.1 Million (estimated) people interred in the entire Auschwitz complex 20,000 were freed when they were marched to Belsen, and 144 successful escapes occurred. So 55 to one odds of survival, Just less than overall 3:1 odds compared with child survival.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
You can posit the what-ifs forever, but in the end your problem remains, the Jewish people were outnumbered and outgunned, and the rest of the population was not sympathetic. They were in a horrible situation, and the outcome was horrible. What you and others seem to be arguing is that since death was inevitable, better to die in a shoot-out. Which may be true if you don't have a family. If you have a family you'd grasp at any chance, no matter how slim, to save your children. You'd want to live as long as possible to protect your child as much as you can. You'd submit to any indignity if it increased the chance that your child would survive. And the camps were that chance. The Nazis didn't inform the German people or the Jews that these camps were extermination camps. The Nazis played on the existing distrust of the general population for the Jewish people. Many of the Jews didn't know what awaited them. They expected terrible conditions, but the horror went well beyond terrible. The horror was so unimaginable that even today we have people who denied it ever happened.
So what, the statistics show that internment led to a at most a 2% survival chance (and that's for the full life of Auschwitz, I'd bet the farm on the survivors being recent arrivals), except for kids who had a 0.66% chance of survival.
There was no chance more or less of survival going to a death camp, and by July 1942 the Polish Government in absentia was publicizing in Poland that the Germans were exterminating Polish Jews and others taken to "relocation camps" the allies were told the same, but did not believe the Polish Government.
I'm not sure you're getting what death camps were, Auschwitz wasn't a death camp per se, Birkenau (Auschwitz II) was a death camp, but places like Treblinka and Chelmno, Treblinka was between 33 acres and 44 acres in total size and per day up to 14,000 people were deposited there 7,000 per train. Now if you're on a train with 7,000 other people and you pull up at an, at most, 44 acre camp aren't you going to be a little suspicious?
No in real terms there was no surviving death camps, I mean sure 20,144 people survived Auschwitz, but 20,000 of them were freed and were almost certainly not there from 1938, probably arrived at earliest mid 1944 (and not going to Birkenau). Treblinka used a facade of delousing to get people into the chambers, everyone was forced to undress and get into the chamber (men, women, children, infants) and engines were run to create carbon monoxide that then poisoned/suffocated the chambers occupants. That's all they did, there wasn't any internment, there wasn't any imprisonment, people got off the train and around 30 minutes later were being hauled out into the cremation pits.
So don't tell me, that in that kind of situation people were thinking that if they complied then their family might stand a chance of survival, because you would be able to tell easily from leaving the train the stench of burning flesh, there's no other smell quite like it and you can smell it for miles. No, the people complied because they had no option, if they were armed, would they have another option? Who knows, but at least people could put up a resistance and perhaps have a better than 0.66% chance of having their children survive.
Consider Treblinka had an uprising, it involved 700 Jews with 20-25 rifles and 20 grenades, 100 people successfully escaped 14% of the people involved survived entirely, helped by Polish Partisans after they escaped that's a hell of a lot better than a 2% chance.
So no I don't agree that people being disarmed did not assist in the extermination of other human beings. Of course it assisted, and if they were armed it may have turned out differently, at absolute worst case it couldn't have been any worse than what happened. You may think differently, that's your prerogative, personally I'd prefer it never happen again, but it has happened again more than once and on at least three continents, and in each case it happened it happened to people who were not armed. Now that may be coincidence, but if people with blond hair get struck by lightning 50 times more frequently than people with brown hair, I might be dying my hair brown before going out in a thunderstorm.
out of 15,000 children sent to auschwitz (not the death camp auschwitz-birkenau mind you) 100 survived. So 150:1 odds.
Of 1.1 million (estimated) people interred in the entire auschwitz complex 20,000 were freed when they were marched to belsen, and 144 successful escapes occurred. So 55 to one odds of survival, just less than overall 3:1 odds compared with child survival.
So what, the statistics show that internment led to a at most a 2% survival chance (and that's for the full life of auschwitz, i'd bet the farm on the survivors being recent arrivals), except for kids who had a 0.66% chance of survival.
There was no chance more or less of survival going to a death camp, and by july 1942 the polish government in absentia was publicizing in poland that the germans were exterminating polish jews and others taken to "relocation camps" the allies were told the same, but did not believe the polish government.
I'm not sure you're getting what death camps were, auschwitz wasn't a death camp per se, birkenau (auschwitz ii) was a death camp, but places like treblinka and chelmno, treblinka was between 33 acres and 44 acres in total size and per day up to 14,000 people were deposited there 7,000 per train. Now if you're on a train with 7,000 other people and you pull up at an, at most, 44 acre camp aren't you going to be a little suspicious?
No in real terms there was no surviving death camps, i mean sure 20,144 people survived auschwitz, but 20,000 of them were freed and were almost certainly not there from 1938, probably arrived at earliest mid 1944 (and not going to birkenau). Treblinka used a facade of delousing to get people into the chambers, everyone was forced to undress and get into the chamber (men, women, children, infants) and engines were run to create carbon monoxide that then poisoned/suffocated the chambers occupants. That's all they did, there wasn't any internment, there wasn't any imprisonment, people got off the train and around 30 minutes later were being hauled out into the cremation pits.
So don't tell me, that in that kind of situation people were thinking that if they complied then their family might stand a chance of survival, because you would be able to tell easily from leaving the train the stench of burning flesh, there's no other smell quite like it and you can smell it for miles. No, the people complied because they had no option, if they were armed, would they have another option? Who knows, but at least people could put up a resistance and perhaps have a better than 0.66% chance of having their children survive.
Consider treblinka had an uprising, it involved 700 jews with 20-25 rifles and 20 grenades, 100 people successfully escaped 14% of the people involved survived entirely, helped by polish partisans after they escaped that's a hell of a lot better than a 2% chance.
So no i don't agree that people being disarmed did not assist in the extermination of other human beings. Of course it assisted, and if they were armed it may have turned out differently, at absolute worst case it couldn't have been any worse than what happened. You may think differently, that's your prerogative, personally i'd prefer it never happen again, but it has happened again more than once and on at least three continents, and in each case it happened it happened to people who were not armed. Now that may be coincidence, but if people with blond hair get struck by lightning 50 times more frequently than people with brown hair, i might be dying my hair brown before going out in a thunderstorm.
they didn't know beforehand that they were going to death 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.
