Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-09-2018, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,348 posts, read 8,567,170 times
Reputation: 16693

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MMS02760 View Post
The jist of this thread is offensive as it has nothing to back it up. If the Jews had guns, they still would have been slaughtered. They, even with guns, would have been no match for the weapons of the Nazis.
I don't know. Russia has a pretty significant military machine and they were not doing well in Afghanistan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-09-2018, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,348 posts, read 8,567,170 times
Reputation: 16693
I'll also,add if something happened in America, would the military really have a strong mindset fighting and killing relatives, friends, neighbors?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2018, 10:38 AM
 
46,948 posts, read 25,984,404 times
Reputation: 29441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
The strategy wasn't good.
Ya think?

Quote:
They were also outgunned when they fighting began.
Char B1s took on the Panzers of the time without breaking a sweat. Matilda IIs were impervious to any anti-tank gun fielded by the German army. The German troops called their 37mm antitank gun the "Heeresanklopfgerat", "Army device for knocking politely", and that was not a term of endearment. The Wehrmacht didn't put their conspicuously large, heavy and expensive anti-aircraft guns into anti-tank service as a first choice.

Quote:
Avoiding losses was in Germanys strategy.
"Avoiding losses" is sorta critical to any strategy.

Quote:
But the German big guns were. That's the point. When the fur started to fly they were out gunned.
Completely wrong. It was not a victory primarily based on superior firepower. In one engagement, a Char B1 bis took on a column of Panzer IIIs and IVs, knocked out 13 in a matter of minutes, took 100+ hits to its armor, coolly disengaged and returned to reload and refuel. Does that count as fur flying?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2018, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,218 posts, read 22,361,490 times
Reputation: 23853
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinm View Post
They would have had plenty of opportunity in the years BEFORE 1938 when the Nazi's were just a radical mob fighting with the communists for control of the government.
History says otherwise.

The most mistaken thing in your sentence was the apparent belief the Nazis were the only radical right-wing mob that existed. The fact is the National Socialists were only one of many small mobs that were all the same.

The Communists were the same. There were dozens of factions in each side, and in the middle, was the Weimar Republic.

Most Germans sincerely supported the Republic. It was fragile and weak, but the German people really wanted it to succeed. It was seen as their last, best hope for the survival of their race, culture, and nation.

The Jews were the most fervent Republic supporters of them all. Germany had been good to the Jews for a long time. It was the land where a Jew could realize his ambitions in safety and with support in a country that tolerated them and allowed them to prosper.

But because the Jews believed themselves to be Germans, and they shared the same national passions as the Christian Germans, there were Jews who were members of far-right fascist groups, and Jews who joined Communist groups. They all fought against other Jews, just as the Christians did.

Post-war Germany after its crushing defeat of WWI was a very delicate balance between civilization and anarchy. The scales only had to tip very slightly, and they did. Anarchy prevailed. And the Jews, always the late-coming outsiders, were trapped in the middle. Along with the rest of the Republic's supporters.

Once the scales tipped, the events that followed only escalated the slide into anarchy. The despots stopped the slide.

But for a few small events, and the deaths of a few people, the scales could have stayed centered, with the Republic ruling Germany, or it could have tipped to the left, and Germany could have become Communist.

Guns could never have saved the Jews. They all had plenty of guns, and they all warmed their guns many times. The only thing that could have saved the German Jews was many more German Jews. In a nation of many factions, the Jews were always the smallest, most different, and most united minority.

Because they were so few, they made the easiest targets for all the others. It's very possible that the Communists may have tried to exterminate them if they had won the day. That's why the Jews clung to the Weimar Republic so loyally and desperately as the events slowly unfolded.

1938 was not the beginning of the struggle. It was the end. The factional struggle began in 1919, and it took the Nazis over 10 years to triumph. 1930 was the year the scales tipped in their favor. By 1938, the Nazis' hold on power was secure, and in 1939, as a way to hold their power, the Nazis invaded Poland, starting World War II.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2018, 08:21 AM
 
Location: Illinois USA
1,306 posts, read 852,147 times
Reputation: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATXIronHorse View Post
I'd say "would have saved".

Guns could have saved Jews from holocaust, Alaska congressman says | The News Tribune

First thing a despot does is disarm the people so they cannot fight back.

For this reason, our founders wrote the second amendment not for hunting or home protection, but rather GOVERNMENT TYRANNY, as the last line of defense in a democracy. Few seem to get that. The second amendment is NOT obsolete.

For the reason of defense of liberty, we need regular people well armed, the danger associated thereof must be tolerated, regardless of the (sometimes tragic) effect on short-term safety. Ben Franklin & James Madison spoke eloquently of this matter.


I support gun rights but this argument is TOTALLY ridiculous
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:32 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top