Sometimes I am a little slow...

[The Heretic]

I was watching the movie "Plan A" last night. It is about Jews who took revenge on some Germans after WWII.

One British soldier asked a camp survivor why they didn't fight back.

That brought me around to the argument I hear when discussing the Holocaust and the disarming of civilians by the Nazis in Europe; the argument is that the disarmed people could not have beaten the Nazis.

Well, all kinds of replies come to mind, most of them valid - but here is one that occurred to me last night with regards to the Jews being rounded up and slaughtered (same goes for the ghettos in Poland); is it better to die passively by letting someone murder you, or is it better to fight back - even if you are killed fighting?

Seems obvious, but like I said, I am a little slow and I get sidetracked easily. Next time the issue comes up, I will try to remember.

Read More

 

[titsonritz]

I'll take the Bielski route myself. F'em.

 

[The Heretic]

I'll take the Bielski route myself. F'em.

Good example

 

[P7M13]

When the isolation and extermination of the Polish Jews came about, the Armenian genocide, which was a model for the Holocaust, was unknown to many, if not most, Europeans.
Minority communities also forgot the pogroms and crusades throughout the centuries.
The foundational thought is that people don't think of the end game of genocide until it's upon them.
Gun owners and preppers, as a group, are viewed with skepticism, distrust and hatred because we perceive such possibilities and prepare for them.

 

[MTpockets]

Once a targeted group has been vilified within a population, it is very difficult for them to organize an action against the actual aggressors.

The portion of the populace that has not accepted the targeted group as monsters, are still hesitant to align with or render aid to the targeted.

The aggressors were in control of broadcast and private communications. It made it difficult to send a message of warning. The aggressors could control the narrative and undermine any counter-opinion and/or observation.

Edit to add: The ghettos did form a resistance, but it was short lived.

 

[sobo]

Gun owners and preppers, as a group, are viewed with skepticism, distrust and hatred because we perceive such possibilities and prepare for them.

Once a targeted group has been vilified within a population, it is very difficult for them to organize an action against the actual aggressors.

The portion of the populace that has not accepted the targeted group as monsters, are still hesitant to align with or render aid to the targeted.

The aggressors were in control broadcast and private communications. It made it difficult to send a message of warning. The aggressors could control the narrative and undermine any counter-opinion and/or observation.

All of which is happening, and has been happening, to the gun owners and prepper crowd for quite some time now. History repeats itself...

 

[The Heretic]

Edit to add: The ghettos did form a resistance, but it was short lived.

Which segues to my point - short lived or not, it is better to die with "your boots on" shooting back, than to be herded into cattle cars and shipped to a slaughterhouse, or to dig your own grave and then executed.

At the very least, you occupy the attention and time of the aggressors, giving time for others to form a resistance or at least to escape. Ukraine is a good example of this.

 

[solv3nt]

Which segues to my point - short lived or not, it is better to die with "your boots on" shooting back, than to be herded into cattle cars and shipped to a slaughterhouse, or to dig your own grave and then executed.

At the very least, you occupy the attention and time of the aggressors, giving time for others to form a resistance or at least to escape. Ukraine is a good example of this.

I don't know how much the local populace knew of what was going on. Obviously they were aware people were being taken away, and the Jews were being vilified by the government.

Keep in mind there's the basic soldier that's fighting for the fatherland. Then there's the Wehrmacht SS and the Waffen SS. Both the Wehrmacht SS and Waffen SS were incredibly brutal and effective, but one was the highly trained brutal soldiers, and one was used for the police state.

I'd like to believe that most Germans weren't aware of what was actually going on.

 

[sobo]

I'd like to believe that most Germans weren't aware of what was actually going on.

Once the ashes from the crematoriums started falling on their town, they knew...

 

[NobullSKS]

I may be even slower…..
Just thoughts, I have no real historical knowledge of what how it went down exactly nor have I seen the movie.

Still within context of the question, hopefully I understand it.

I'd imagine most would fight back, maybe just not to the very end. Consumed by a sense of defeat and great fear.

Unarmed against a well equipped and trained force….. my keyboard warrior would like to think kamikaze to the last step …… very brave my mom told me I is.

I'd imagined the "rounding up" was probably a long process of "washing" what did the government or culture lead them through up until that point?
Disarming a free people through legislation or dictatorship is an effective route…. I'm sure

Again
I don't claim to know anything about what all happened….. nor am I insensitive to the horrors.

Those populaces had to have be groomed or duped into believing what the Nazis were there doing had to be innocent to a point. In order to walk to a slaughter. In those instances.

Outside of these thoughts…… I'd like to think many tried their best fighting….. in many ways. But many were also lead to "slaughter". Probably just spent, or in shock.

 

[Longwalkhome]

From my study of history and events I have come to the conclusion that the jews died because they believed the lies their government told them. Nobody would have gotten on the trains and death busses if they knew they were going to be murdered.

 

[solv3nt]

From my study of history and events I have come to the conclusion that the jews died because they believed the lies their government told them. Nobody would have gotten on the trains and death busses if they knew they were going to be murdered.

I'm 99% confident that at least one gun was used as persuasion.

 

[Longwalkhome]

I'm 99% confident that at least one gun was used as persuasion.

Maybe a modern day example of persuasive government might help.

Millions were murdered with covid, by covid and not a shot fired. It isn't over yet.

 

[The Heretic]

I don't know how much the local populace knew of what was going on. Obviously they were aware people were being taken away, and the Jews were being vilified by the government.

Keep in mind there's the basic soldier that's fighting for the fatherland. Then there's the Wehrmacht SS and the Waffen SS. Both the Wehrmacht SS and Waffen SS were incredibly brutal and effective, but one was the highly trained brutal soldiers, and one was used for the police state.

I'd like to believe that most Germans weren't aware of what was actually going on.

But we know now. And the counter point (to the argument that guns would not have helped them) is that it is better (philosophically, strategically/tactically) to go down fighting than to be slaughtered passively. So to say guns would not have helped is a false assertion, yet one I keep hearing, both from the "sheep" who are for gun control, and the wolves who would see us disarmed.

 

[The Heretic]

I may be even slower…..
Just thoughts, I have no real historical knowledge of what how it went down exactly nor have I seen the movie.

Still within context of the question, hopefully I understand it.

I'd imagine most would fight back, maybe just not to the very end. Consumed by a sense of defeat and great fear.

Unarmed against a well equipped and trained force….. my keyboard warrior would like to think kamikaze to the last step …… very brave my mom told me I is.

I'd imagined the "rounding up" was probably a long process of "washing" what did the government or culture lead them through up until that point?
Disarming a free people through legislation or dictatorship is an effective route…. I'm sure

Again
I don't claim to know anything about what all happened….. nor am I insensitive to the horrors.

Those populaces had to have be groomed or duped into believing what the Nazis were there doing had to be innocent to a point. In order to walk to a slaughter. In those instances.

Outside of these thoughts…… I'd like to think many tried their best fighting….. in many ways. But many were also lead to "slaughter". Probably just spent, or in shock.

The actual context of the question in the movie, was why the thousands of prisoners, guarded by the dozens (maybe a hundred) of Nazis, in the death camps where they knew they were being slaughtered because they saw it day in and day out, did not rebel even though they were not armed?

Now that is a bit more complex, but it got me to thinking on the issue relative to gun control today and the argument about whether guns are effective against a totalitarian government bent on control, possibly mass genocide - which is the context of the debate often seen in social media and by gun grabbers who argue that guns are ineffective against powerful government military/police forces.

 

[Longwalkhome]

But we know now. And the counter point (to the argument that guns would not have helped them) is that it is better (philosophically, strategically/tactically) to go down fighting than to be slaughtered passively. So to say guns would not have helped is a false assertion, yet one I keep hearing, both from the "sheep" who are for gun control, and the wolves who would see us disarmed.

When the jews were being loaded on the busses and trains they were being lied to that they were going to work camps. There was no media to tell them the truth. Had they known the truth then there would have been more uprisings like the Polish Gethos.

Biggest tool the Nazi had was the lie and like today the herd believes all its told.

 

[sobo]

But we know now. And the counter point (to the argument that guns would not have helped them) is that it is better (philosophically, strategically/tactically) to go down fighting than to be slaughtered passively. So to say guns would not have helped is a false assertion, yet one I keep hearing, both from the "sheep" who are for gun control, and the wolves who would see us disarmed.

Because they want you to hear that false assertion and then to believe it is true. It makes it easier for them to control and pacify you/the free.

 

[solv3nt]

I had a gun guy try to tell me that small arms could never be used to overthrow the government. I asked him how Vietnam, Afghanistan and Somalia went for the US forces. He tried to claim that the US would nuke its civilians.

 

[The Heretic]

Because they want you to hear that false assertion and then to believe it is true. It makes it easier for them to control and pacify you/the free.

The sheep hear and want to believe it, so they repeat it.

The wolves say it and want you to believe it, so they repeat it.

The guard dogs hear it and prepare themselves for a fight.

 

[Longwalkhome]

I had a gun guy try to tell me that small arms could never be used to overthrow the government. I asked him how Vietnam, Afghanistan and Somalia went for the US forces. He tried to claim that the US would nuke its civilians.