Ben Carson says Jews could have averted the Holocaust if they had been armed.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Umm...no comment. (https://gma.yahoo.com/ben-carson-suggests-holocaust-less-likely-jews-were-220504283.html)[QUOTE]Republican candidate Ben Carson continued his controversial remarks about guns Thursday -- suggesting in a new interview that the Jews may have been able to diminish the likelihood of the Holocaust if they were armed.

Carson made the remarks, which drew swift condemnation -- on CNN. He said that passengers on Flight 93, which crashed on 9/11, helped avoid further tragedy by rushing the gunman.

In Carson's new book

[DCL]

touchy topic

[UK2K]

Umm...no comment. (https://gma.yahoo.com/ben-carson-suggests-holocaust-less-likely-jews-were-220504283.html)

"The small number of personal firearms available to Germany’s Jews in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state."

I love how his opinion is stated, and there's just, no rebuttal, like his word is final.

Ignoring the success of dozens and dozens of insurgent organizations against 'world powers' and 'organized armies' throughout the last several decades.... he's kind of right.

But, he's wrong. Could they have stopped it? Probably not, but I would bet anything the death toll for the Jews in Europe wouldn't have reached 6 million.

This part:


“I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed,”

Is 100% true, and undeniable. But, your average dumbass will just read the title and pretend to know what the article is about. Because Americans cant read. Or think for themselves.

[Sarcastic]

Meanwhile there was another shooting at another college today.

[senelcoolidge]

I see his point. If Jews could had arms they could have resisted. Would the Holocaust have been averted? Well I don't know. But it would have made the Nazi's plan much harder to implement.

Boy, the media is on the attack with Carson lately. I know that Carson speaks his mind and is not afraid to say controversial things. But the media also has taken some of this comments out of context in the past. They are like rabid dogs. Next week they will attack one of the other Repub candidates.

[rezznor]

I see his point. If Jews could had arms they could have resisted. Would the Holocaust have been averted? Well I don't know. But it would have made the Nazi's plan much harder to implement.

Boy, the media is on the attack with Carson lately. I know that Carson speaks his mind and is not afraid to say controversial things. But the media also has taken some of this comments out of context in the past. They are like rabid dogs. Next week they will attack one of the other Repub candidates.
it's not just that he says controversial things. he says straight up stupid shit.

[Jameerthefear]

I see his point. If Jews could had arms they could have resisted. Would the Holocaust have been averted? Well I don't know. But it would have made the Nazi's plan much harder to implement.

Boy, the media is on the attack with Carson lately. I know that Carson speaks his mind and is not afraid to say controversial things. But the media also has taken some of this comments out of context in the past. They are like rabid dogs. Next week they will attack one of the other Repub candidates.
yeah he needs to be smarter with how he talks to the media. he can't be like trump. he doesn't have the personality and he won't win the nomination that way. my mom was watching the view (complete garbage feminist nonsense) and i think carson said something like the less educated people are the ones who are getting pregnant early so it would be good to educate them and the crowd like gasped and they looked at him like he was crazy.... like that's not a completely true statement :oldlol: liberal view is crazy

[senelcoolidge]

yeah he needs to be smarter with how he talks to the media. he can't be like trump. he doesn't have the personality and he won't win the nomination that way. my mom was watching the view (complete garbage feminist nonsense) and i think carson said something like the less educated people are the ones who are getting pregnant early so it would be good to educate them and the crowd like gasped and they looked at him like he was crazy.... like that's not a completely true statement :oldlol: liberal view is crazy

Yeah, he should not talk to the media. He knows already that they are snakes, yet still talks to them. I don't think he will get the nomination, but he could make a good vice president.

[nathanjizzle]

this guy cant really be running for the president of the united states right?

[TripleA]

If the Tutsi people had weapons could they of resisted the Rwandan genocide.
We will never know. If the Hutu people were not sheep to the political elite and listened to their conscience instead of the fear mongering ideology would it happen? A lot less people would die thats for sure.

[Dbrog]

No, they just would have died in warzone conditions instead of deathcamps...which in fairness, is a better way to go. But ya....guns don't work vs tanks and airstrikes

[UK2K]

I see his point. If Jews could had arms they could have resisted. Would the Holocaust have been averted? Well I don't know. But it would have made the Nazi's plan much harder to implement.

Boy, the media is on the attack with Carson lately. I know that Carson speaks his mind and is not afraid to say controversial things. But the media also has taken some of this comments out of context in the past. They are like rabid dogs. Next week they will attack one of the other Repub candidates.

The goal, by the leftist media, is to take a big blurb of his, condense it down into one sentence taken out of context, and then put that sentence as the title in bold letters knowing 95% of people won't actually read what he said.

This has happened several times in the last two weeks or so. In context, what he said was true.

[DeuceWallaces]

The goal, by the leftist media, is to take a big blurb of his, condense it down into one sentence taken out of context, and then put that sentence as the title in bold letters knowing 95% of people won't actually read what he said.

This has happened several times in the last two weeks or so. In context, what he said was true.

What he said, in our out of context the past month, was ridiculous and stupid. His comments about the CC shooting, him telling the gun man at Popeyes that he should get the cashier and not him, no muslims for president, denying climate change, and lastly the holocaust.

I'm sorry, but a Jewish family of 5 with a gun or two will put up 0 resistance against a squad of SS rounding them up. You're a ****ing retard if you think otherwise. Jews were not corralled on aggregate, and even if they were they would not have been armed at the time. It would have made no difference even if every damn jewish father had a pistol on him at all times. You think Anne Frank's uncle hiding behind the bookcase with a pistol would have stopped anything? They would have simply been murdered on the spot in stead of months later after free labor and torture.

That's why it's stupid, terribly insensitive, and still factually incorrect.

[Akrazotile]

It wouldnt have stopped the Holocaust, but I believe his point speaks to one of the larger purposes of the second amendment.

Without arms, the government has an easier opportunity to use might to enforce rules that violate the will of the people. You know, in places like Australia and Switzerland and Norway etc they have much smaller armies and less powerful governments. The US govt has tons of financial resources and a massive army. People who are mindful of history like to have at least some ability to resist the imposition of anything radical the government may attempt to enforce on them. It's not that theyre going to DEFEAT the army, but they will at least go out firing back rather than being submissive to despotism.

Obviously this has roots from a time when "mass school shootings" were not a thing. So I'm not saying this argument ends the gun debate, but it is one of the main reasons people choose to arm themselves.

[UK2K]

What he said, in our out of context the past month, was ridiculous and stupid. His comments about the CC shooting, him telling the gun man at Popeyes that he should get the cashier and not him, no muslims for president, denying climate change, and lastly the holocaust.

I'm sorry, but a Jewish family of 5 with a gun or two will put up 0 resistance against a squad of SS rounding them up. You're a ****ing retard if you think otherwise. Jews were not corralled on aggregate, and even if they were they would not have been armed at the time. It would have made no difference even if every damn jewish father had a pistol on him at all times. You think Anne Frank's uncle hiding behind the bookcase with a pistol would have stopped anything? They would have simply been murdered on the spot in stead of months later after free labor and torture.

That's why it's stupid, terribly insensitive, and still factually incorrect.

Ahh...

Interesting. Well, unfortunately for you, history shows that even impoverished people with guns, as a group, can defeat much larger, much more organized forces.

You, with your anti American views, should be willing to admit to that much.

[TripleA]

Ahh...

Interesting. Well, unfortunately for you, history shows that even impoverished people with guns, as a group, can defeat much larger, much more organized forces.

You, with your anti American views, should be willing to admit to that much.

It depends if the larger more organized group is bent on genocide your screwed. But if they trying to put you in submission or control you have a chance.

[Dbrog]

Ahh...

Interesting. Well, unfortunately for you, history shows that even impoverished people with guns, as a group, can defeat much larger, much more organized forces.

You, with your anti American views, should be willing to admit to that much.

Dude those are in like...guerrilla warfare scenarios or over extremely large landmasses with a bunch of small villages. Not modern cities.

[Akrazotile]

Ahh...

Interesting. Well, unfortunately for you, history shows that even impoverished people with guns, as a group, can defeat much larger, much more organized forces.



And a lot of it has to do with how willing the large govt army is to get shot at. If you send them off to a foreign land in an official war, ofc theyre going to do what theyre hired to do and all that. If youre asking them to round up fellow countrymen or impose harsh restrictions on fellow citizens, they may do it if theres little resistance since uncle sam is signing the paychecks, but if theyre getting shot at by civilians trying to enforce something they shouodnt be anyway, they might be more inclined to say 'fvck it, im not doin this'

Just depends on the circumstance really.

[UK2K]

Dude those are in like...guerrilla warfare scenarios or over extremely large landmasses with a bunch of small villages. Not modern cities.
Ahh, so the French Resistance was a made up story then.

Got it.

[UK2K]

It depends if the larger more organized group is bent on genocide your screwed. But if they trying to put you in submission or control you have a chance.
Easiest way to defeat an army...

Make it too costly to continue. America has been beat over and over that way.

Now in DW's example, obviously one person with a pistol won't stop the German Army. That's stupid and wasn't even remotely close to the point.

But 6 million people with pistols, then it becomes a cost/benefit issue. I highly doubt they try to round up 6 million Jews for slaughter if they're being shot at every time they go take a piss. Something tells me, they'd probably give up on the idea.

[DeuceWallaces]

Ahh, so the French Resistance was a made up story then.

Got it.

It was mostly a propaganda machine until Normandy.

[DonDadda59]

What? :lol

The Nazis took out whole countries that had armies, air forces, a navy, etc in literally a few weeks. They would've turned their full military might against Jews with some pop guns and framed the extermination as putting down a Jewish conspiracy to take over the government.

[TripleA]

And a lot of it has to do with how willing the large govt army is to get shot at. If you send them off to a foreign land in an official war, ofc theyre going to do what theyre hired to do and all that. If youre asking them to round up fellow countrymen or impose harsh restrictions on fellow citizens, they may do it if theres little resistance since uncle sam is signing the paychecks, but if theyre getting shot at by civilians trying to enforce something they shouodnt be anyway, they might be more inclined to say 'fvck it, im not doin this'

Just depends on the circumstance really.

It really matters whats mattes the purpose. If the purpose is kill the people than the smaller group is done.

[DeuceWallaces]

Easiest way to defeat an army...

Make it too costly to continue. America has been beat over and over that way.

Now in DW's example, obviously one person with a pistol won't stop the German Army. That's stupid and wasn't even remotely close to the point.

But 6 million people with pistols, then it becomes a cost/benefit issue. I highly doubt they try to round up 6 million Jews for slaughter if they're being shot at every time they go take a piss. Something tells me, they'd probably give up on the idea.

Do you have any understanding of the holocaust? Jews were not a unified group, army, militia or anything resembling that.

[UK2K]

Do you have any understanding of the holocaust? Jews were not a unified group, army, militia or anything resembling that.
And why would they be?

With no way to defend themselves, what's the point?

But thousands upon thousands enlisted in foreign militaries, or joined insurgent type groups. I guess they did want to be able to fight back after all.

[UK2K]

It was mostly a propaganda machine until Normandy.
Agreed.

But they were there nonetheless. They still diverted troops from the front lines (with allied arms and supplies).

And most importantly, they didn't roll over and die like some in this country would have us do.

I get it. If someone kicks in your door ,you'd rather hide and hope for the best.

Not me. I wouldn't.

[TripleA]

Easiest way to defeat an army...

Make it too costly to continue. America has been beat over and over that way.

Now in DW's example, obviously one person with a pistol won't stop the German Army. That's stupid and wasn't even remotely close to the point.

But 6 million people with pistols, then it becomes a cost/benefit issue. I highly doubt they try to round up 6 million Jews for slaughter if they're being shot at every time they go take a piss. Something tells me, they'd probably give up on the idea.

In the Rwandan Genocide the political elite indoctrinated the Hutu people into almost killing a entire group of people. They had the miltia aid in the killing and killed any Hutus who opposed the genocide. If the Tutsi people were killed by their neighbors with machetes. Guns would not make a big difference if they wanted to wipe you out.

[TripleA]

Eventually the moderate Hutus and remaining Tutsi reformed the RGF and regain control of Rwanda. Stopped the violence but it went for 100 days before it ended.

[DeuceWallaces]

Agreed.

But they were there nonetheless. They still diverted troops from the front lines (with allied arms and supplies).

And most importantly, they didn't roll over and die like some in this country would have us do.

I get it. If someone kicks in your door ,you'd rather hide and hope for the best.

Not me. I wouldn't.

What the hell are you talking about? You sound like an idiot. No is saying stand by and let genocide take place without resistance.

The point is no number of guns in the hands of European jews would have changed anything. Ben Carson says it would have. Hence, he is an insensitive moron who is rightly being criticized in the media and this thread for the aforementioned comments; which were not taken out of context.

[Nick Young]

Look anti-gun nuts, do you honestly think the American people are going to vote to change the Second Amendment? Be realistic. A majority of Americans love the second amendment. You can either continue to white about something that will never change, similar to a child whining that he wishes the sun would stop going down every day and the moon will stop coming up, or you can accept things are the way they are and learn to deal.

[longtime lurker]

If only all the Jews had just had the balls to charge at the soldiers while yelling "they can't take us all!" then there would be more alive today. I also love how the Conservatives solution to the problem isn't to educate people on the horrors of indoctrination and propaganda but rather to play out their faux tough guy fantasies

[bladefd]

Carson is a fool.

Even if every male Jewish-descendant had a gun, would they be willing to get their entire family killed to shoot 2-3 nazis at most before the nazis kill them & their entire families? The SS was brutal as in they didn't just kill you but your whole family. More than half of the 6 million killed were women/children so the 6 million dwindles down ever further.

These Jews also went in thinking the Nazis were good and would treat them humanely. They reached the extermination camps and they kept hoping even AFTER they reached places like Austwitz. Most would have willingly given up their weapons in the name of 'HOPE'. Hope is a very powerful inspirational emotion, but it is also dangerous.

I cannot take Ben Carson serious. He doesn't know basic history and cannot reason rationally. He has no shot of winning an election. He can keep trying hard to get the Conservative votes, but you need more than that to win an election.

[TripleA]

Look anti-gun nuts, do you honestly think the American people are going to vote to change the Second Amendment? Be realistic. A majority of Americans love the second amendment. You can either continue to white about something that will never change, similar to a child whining that he wishes the sun would stop going down every day and the moon will stop coming up, or you can accept things are the way they are and learn to deal.

Guns are fine. Why would someone want guns to be taken away.

[niko]

Look anti-gun nuts, do you honestly think the American people are going to vote to change the Second Amendment? Be realistic. A majority of Americans love the second amendment. You can either continue to white about something that will never change, similar to a child whining that he wishes the sun would stop going down every day and the moon will stop coming up, or you can accept things are the way they are and learn to deal.
Yeah, all the parents of the kids who got killed should just deal with it. Never complain about anything that can't change. It's not like you post about things like that endlessly...

[Nanners]

Carson is a fool.

I cannot take Ben Carson serious. He doesn't know basic history and cannot reason rationally. He has no shot of winning an election. He can keep trying hard to get the Conservative votes, but you need more than that to win an election.

carson is not really a fool, in reality he is extremely intelligent.

unfortunately carson is running for a party that actually thought it was a good idea to put sarah palin on a presidential ticket. the gop doesnt want an intelligent candidate.

[DeuceWallaces]

Guns are fine. Why would someone want guns to be taken away.

So they stop killing people?

[DeuceWallaces]

carson is not really a fool, in reality he is extremely intelligent.

unfortunately carson is running for a party that actually thought it was a good idea to put sarah palin on a presidential ticket. the gop doesnt want an intelligent candidate.

Well he has very specialized knowledge. I don't think being an MD and a fool are mutually exclusive.

[Nick Young]

If only all the Jews had just had the balls to charge at the soldiers while yelling "they can't take us all!" then there would be more alive today. I also love how the Conservatives solution to the problem isn't to educate people on the horrors of indoctrination and propaganda but rather to play out their faux tough guy fantasies
Ben Carson is retarded.

But do you really believe the Republicans are different from the Democrats?

Both parties are moderate conservative parties.

[Nick Young]

Yeah, all the parents of the kids who got killed should just deal with it. Never complain about anything that can't change. It's not like you post about things like that endlessly...
You're constantly trying to use emotion to override logical arguments.

Of course it sucks for parents whose kids get shot by nutters. That doesn't change the fact that the American people are going to vote to change the second amendment.




Do you expect Obama to become a dictator and wield his executive power to veto the Second Amendment and threaten the Supreme Court with death if they overrule his veto?

What do you think your whining is going to accomplish, long term and short term?

[~primetime~]

It wouldn't have stopped the Holocaust but it most definitely would have made it more difficult. Significantly more difficult.

If his overall point is that firearms would have been a benefit to those people then I agree with him. Don't see how you can't.

I do disagree that it literally would have prevented the Holocaust though.

[niko]

You're constantly trying to use emotion to override logical arguments.

Of course it sucks for parents whose kids get shot by nutters. That doesn't change the fact that the American people are going to vote to change the second amendment.




Do you expect Obama to become a dictator and wield his executive power to veto the Second Amendment and threaten the Supreme Court with death if they overrule his veto?

What do you think your whining is going to accomplish, long term and short term?

There are gun laws tougher than those in the 2nd amendment. I live in a state where they are tougher due to the state laws. The reason they are tougher in NY is primarily due to the populace here wanting that to be the case.

You're just wrong. But not really because 90% of what you post is designed to engender an argument, and i engaged you, so bad on me.

[Nick Young]

There are gun laws tougher than those in the 2nd amendment. I live in a state where they are tougher due to the state laws. The reason they are tougher in NY is primarily due to the populace here wanting that to be the case.

You're just wrong. But not really because 90% of what you post is designed to engender an argument, and i engaged you, so bad on me.
Good job resorting to logical fallacies and personal attacks.

You want guns banned. How will this be accomplished?

New York might want stricter gun regulations, but do you have any empathy or knowledge of what the people of Texas, Missouri, Alabama or Mississippi might want?

Please explain what you think should happen in your ideal scenario here.

[~primetime~]

Guns will never be banned here, nor should they be. They just need to be more heavily regulated.

[Nanners]

Well he has very specialized knowledge. I don't think being an MD and a fool are mutually exclusive.

I suppose thats possible, but I think that it takes a lot more than specialized knowledge to achieve everything that Carson has achieved in science. His resume is just insane, its hard to believe a fool could have done the things this guy has done.

I think Carsons stupid comments about climate change, evolution, gun control, etc... are just pandering. He knows the GOP will never elect an intelligent moderate black man, so he is presenting himself as if he were just as much of a loony as the jabronies he is running against.

[Monta Ellis MVP]

Everyone should read The Gulag Archipelago (http://www.thechristianidentityforum.net/downloads/Gulag1.pdf). This happened only 60 years ago and if there is anything we have learned, it is that history often repeats itself.

[bladefd]

I think Carsons stupid comments about climate change, evolution, gun control, etc... are just pandering. He knows the GOP will never elect an intelligent moderate black man, so he is presenting himself as if he were just as much of a loony as the jabronies he is running against.

He can't win the presidency with those comments though. It's more than just winning the GOP nomination. I'm not saying he can't win the GOP nomination.

Is he going to change his views once he is nominated as GOP runner-up? "Climate change false? Evolution not real? Oh right, that was when I was running for GOP nomination. Here's my real views... [....]"

:oldlol:

[Nanners]

He can't win the presidency with those comments though. It's more than just winning the GOP nomination. I'm not saying he can't win the GOP nomination.

Is he going to change his views once he is nominated as GOP runner-up? "Climate change false? Evolution not real? Oh right, that was when I was running for GOP nomination. Here's my real views... [....]"

:oldlol:

if he wins the nomination he will no doubt attempt to backpeddle and soften his stances by releasing some statement "clarifying" how his comments were taken out of context, just as many politicians before him have done.

[lil jahlil]

Meanwhile there was another shooting at another college today.

And it was out of anger, not out of a planned attack. People get angry and temporarily lose their minds. If more people had guns, this would happen even more frequently.

[bdreason]

Hitler's military almost conquered Europe. A few Jews with guns would have been a speed bump at best.

[Jailblazers7]

Only difference guns would have made is that more Jews would have died by gunfire in the streets instead of concentration camps, which would probably have been a net benefit to those that suffered immensely before death.

[NumberSix]

What he said, in our out of context the past month, was ridiculous and stupid. His comments about the CC shooting, him telling the gun man at Popeyes that he should get the cashier and not him, no muslims for president, denying climate change, and lastly the holocaust.

I'm sorry, but a Jewish family of 5 with a gun or two will put up 0 resistance against a squad of SS rounding them up. You're a ****ing retard if you think otherwise. Jews were not corralled on aggregate, and even if they were they would not have been armed at the time. It would have made no difference even if every damn jewish father had a pistol on him at all times. You think Anne Frank's uncle hiding behind the bookcase with a pistol would have stopped anything? They would have simply been murdered on the spot in stead of months later after free labor and torture.

That's why it's stupid, terribly insensitive, and still factually incorrect.
Why would you think that if the German population was armed, everything up to that exact point would have happened identically the same?

[ThePhantomCreep]

The Red Army alone lost 7 million soldiers in their war with Nazi Germany. Anyone who thinks armed citizens, uncoordinated and largely untrained, would stand a chance in hell, needs to lay off listening to Alex Jones and grow a brain.

[~primetime~]

Only difference guns would have made is that more Jews would have died by gunfire in the streets instead of concentration camps, which would probably have been a net benefit to those that suffered immensely before death.
Lots of Nazis also would have died.

All in all it would have been a much better situation for them.

[Nick Young]

Yeah, an average Jewish baker is just going to no scope 10 SS members on the way to work.
We're the chosen people, dawg. Wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

[~primetime~]

Yeah, an average Jewish baker is just going to no scope 10 SS members on the way to work.
?

Instead of hiding Anne Frank style they would have had the option of shooting back. Or instead of just submitting without a fight they would have been able to fight. Obviously they would have preferred to have firearms.

Now some didn't know what was going on...just showed up at concentration camps not knowing what they were, but for many that was not the case.

[~primetime~]

And going into the homes of armed people is very hard for anyone, even a modern swat team has issues with that. Ask soldiers that fought in Iraq if going door to door is easy stuff. Nazis might have been left with rolling tanks down the streets and demolishing everything which would have been a mess for them to deal with vs. just taking in Jews without a fight by the millions.

[Jailblazers7]

Lots of Nazis also would have died.

All in all it would have been a much better situation for them.

It's pure speculation but I doubt it would have accomplished much given Hitler's scope of power in Germany. Stalin killed whoever he wanted to as well and it's not like he was only targeting unarmed Jews.

[~primetime~]

It's pure speculation but I doubt it would have accomplished much given Hitler's scope of power in Germany. Stalin killed whoever he wanted to as well and it's not like he was only targeting unarmed Jews.
It wouldn't have prevented the Holocaust, and that is where Carson fcked up. Had he just said it would have benefited the Jewish greatly he would have been spot on.

It would have been 20x harder for the Nazis to round up millions of armed jews vs unarmed.

[DonDadda59]

The nazis took out France in a month and change. The French had one of the best and well equipped militaries on the planet. They had 3.3 million soldiers and thousands of tanks and aircraft.

They lasted one month.

But some Jewish civilians would last longer if they had revolvers.

Strong logic is strong.

[UK2K]

The Red Army alone lost 7 million soldiers in their war with Nazi Germany. Anyone who thinks armed citizens, uncoordinated and largely untrained, would stand a chance in hell, needs to lay off listening to Alex Jones and grow a brain.

Serious question.

If you had the option of hiding in your attic, or being armed in order to protect yourself, which would you choose?

Let's make it a modern day question. If someone kicked in your door while you're sleeping, would you want your wife and kids to hide and hope for the best, or would you prefer to protect them?

It seems many beta males on the left in this country would prefer to hide. I just want to hear someone actually say so.

[DeuceWallaces]

Why would you think that if the German population was armed, everything up to that exact point would have happened identically the same?

1. Germans? You realize they were the aggressors? They did not need to be armed.

2. France had a national army. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that farmers and bakers with pistols would not have changed the outcome of the early war considering their armies were defeated.

3. Germany nearly conquered all of Europe while fighting on several fronts against every other major world power except Japan; I don't think a handful of dispersed jews with guns would have changed much.

I know this doesn't fit your right wing gun toting narrative, but there are better pro gun arguments than "we could have stopped the holocaust."

[DeuceWallaces]

The nazis took out France in a month and change. The French had one of the best and well equipped militaries on the planet. They had 3.3 million soldiers and thousands of tanks and aircraft.

They lasted one month.

But some Jewish civilians would last longer if they had revolvers.

Strong logic is strong.

It's a mind numbingly retarded argument. Might be dumber than armed kindergarten teachers to prevent shootings.

[~primetime~]

Germany basically took France without a fight...then the Allies took it back.

And yes, I am sure the Germans would have taken down millions of armed jews too...but obviously it wouldn't have been the cake walk it was.

[~primetime~]

Also, blowing up cities and taking over is different than trying to cleanse the world of a race of people...it's a different situation.

After Blitzkrieg the French surrendered and the Nazis just walked into Paris and claimed France as theirs...that is different than going door to door and exterminating a race of human.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Serious question.

If you had the option of hiding in your attic, or being armed in order to protect yourself, which would you choose?

Let's make it a modern day question. If someone kicked in your door while you're sleeping, would you want your wife and kids to hide and hope for the best, or would you prefer to protect them?

It seems many beta males on the left in this country would prefer to hide. I just want to hear someone actually say so.

Here he comes to save the day! Scenarios like this are just as likely to occur whenever a gun nut tries to play hero: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/virginia-father-accidentally-shoots-daughter

Beta = Paranoid right-wingers who only feel safe when they have six-shooter by their side at all times. They live their lives in constant fear.

How does your question relate to the thread topic btw? Are you saying you'd played hero if a group of SS soldiers came knocking on your door? You kill one of theirs, they wipe out everyone in the entire building. Brilliant move, chief.

[UK2K]

1. Germans? You realize they were the aggressors? They did not need to be armed.

2. France had a national army. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that farmers and bakers with pistols would not have changed the outcome of the early war considering their armies were defeated.

3. Germany nearly conquered all of Europe while fighting on several fronts against every other major world power except Japan; I don't think a handful of dispersed jews with guns would have changed much.

I know this doesn't fit your right wing gun toting narrative, but there are better pro gun arguments than "we could have stopped the holocaust."

Way take what Carson said, and then stretch it waaaaayyyyy out there to make it seem like a ridiculous point of view that six million citizens should have had a right to defend themselves.

If you don't want to defend yourself, or your family, fine. That's your MO, and I won't hate you for it, and I won't bash you for it, because I believe we are (more or less) free to make our own choices.

[~primetime~]

I advise you to read more about how the Nazis operated.
I've read plenty trust me

[UK2K]

Here he comes to save the day! Scenarios like this are just as likely to occur whenever a gun nut tries to play hero: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/virginia-father-accidentally-shoots-daughter

Beta = Paranoid right-wingers who only feel safe when they have six-shooter by their side at all times. They live their lives in constant fear.

Answer my question.

Stop trying to deflect. Its a simple question. People make mistakes all the time.

I can post links too.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/10/07/craigslist-ruse-urbandale/73501614/

[QUOTE]

[bdreason]

If the U.S. Government came knocking on my door, I would put my guns down, and take my chances with whatever they wanted to do with me. Unless you have a heavily supplied, fortified bunker, any other course of action is suicide, for you and your family. I expect most Jewish families, armed or not, would have done the same.

[DonDadda59]

Serious question.

If you had the option of hiding in your attic, or being armed in order to protect yourself, which would you choose?

Let's make it a modern day question. If someone kicked in your door while you're sleeping, would you want your wife and kids to hide and hope for the best, or would you prefer to protect them?

It seems many beta males on the left in this country would prefer to hide. I just want to hear someone actually say so.

Your best option is most likely using the money you had earmarked for your Rambo/Terminator roleplay fantasy to buy a top notch security system for your home.

[9erempiree]

If Jews were armed than a lot less of them would have been killed. It is quite obvious. They could have fought and escaped.

It's a lot better than surrendering and being lined up in front of a human oven.

[~primetime~]

If the U.S. Government came knocking on my door, I would put my guns down, and take my chances with whatever they wanted to do with me. Unless you have a heavily supplied, fortified bunker, any other course of action is suicide, for you and your family. I expect most Jewish families, armed or not, would have done the same.
Maybe at first...

What if you knew ahead of time that they were planning to throw you in an oven?

[UK2K]

Your best option is most likely using the money you had earmarked for your Rambo/Terminator roleplay fantasy to buy a top notch security system for your home.

So your answer is hide? Right? Let the alarm go off wait until police arrive?

[9erempiree]

I see a lot of damn cowards on here.

'if so and so knocked on the door, i will take my chances and surrender.'

In the context of the Holocaust, that would mean death.

[~primetime~]

Yeah if soldiers showed up at my door and asked me to go with them then I certainly would...but if I had word that an citizens were being slaughtered in other states then I take off in the woods and form a team Red Dawn style...Wolverines!!!

[DeuceWallaces]

Way take what Carson said, and then stretch it waaaaayyyyy out there to make it seem like a ridiculous point of view that six million citizens should have had a right to defend themselves.

If you don't want to defend yourself, or your family, fine. That's your MO, and I won't hate you for it, and I won't bash you for it, because I believe we are (more or less) free to make our own choices.

No one is saying they shouldn't have the right to defend themselves. What everyone with half a brain is saying, is that it wouldn't have changed a damn thing. If you think otherwise you would appear to have no understanding of WWII and how the Germans, specifically the SS, operated.

Just another loony conservative pro gun "argument."

[NumberSix]

1. Germans? You realize they were the aggressors? They did not need to be armed.

2. France had a national army. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that farmers and bakers with pistols would not have changed the outcome of the early war considering their armies were defeated.

3. Germany nearly conquered all of Europe while fighting on several fronts against every other major world power except Japan; I don't think a handful of dispersed jews with guns would have changed much.

I know this doesn't fit your right wing gun toting narrative, but there are better pro gun arguments than "we could have stopped the holocaust."
So, if for some reason the United States government decided it was going to kill all the Jews in America, what do you think would happen? Do you think that the fact that the American public is armed with at least 300,000,000+ guns (that we know of) would have any affect on the governments ability to do that?

You guys keep using Germany being controlled by a completely totalitarian, genocidal regime as a starting point. What makes you think that if the German population was armed, that a totalitarian, genocidal regime wielding absolute power would be the situation in the first place?

[DonDadda59]

So your answer is hide? Right? Let the alarm go off wait until police arrive?

No, my answer is improving the security infrastructure of my home.

In your little Rambo fantasies, are the dudes kicking down your door armed too or is it just you?

See it'd be a lot harder to impossible to kick down a fortified door or a metal gate in front of said door IMO.

But having OK Coral shootouts with your wife and kids in the same house seems like the better option. :applause:

[9erempiree]

No one is saying they shouldn't have the right to defend themselves. What everyone with half a brain is saying, is that it wouldn't have changed a damn thing. If you think otherwise you would appear to have no understanding of WWII and how the Germans, specifically the SS, operated.

Just another loony conservative pro gun "argument."

I would expect you to own a gun because you look like a wimp. Then again I don't think you can handle one or know how to use it in a survival situation.

You would gladly watch someone rape your family in front of you.

In the words of Jameer, cuck.

[~primetime~]

No, my answer is improving the security infrastructure of my home.

In your little Rambo fantasies, are the dudes kicking down your door armed too or is it just you?

See it'd be a lot harder to impossible to kick down a fortified door or a metal gate in front of said door IMO.

But having OK Coral shootouts with your wife and kids in the same house seems like the better option. :applause:
They couldn't even operate that way...so you look down your street in the burbs and every home has soldiers out front kicking down doors? Every apartment door too? They wouldn't use that method.

Honestly if the US wanted to round up all the civilians I am not sure how they could do it...if they just wanted to kill everyone then I guess they start bombing...

[DeuceWallaces]

You guys keep using Germany being controlled by a completely totalitarian, genocidal regime as a starting point. What makes you think that if the German population was armed, that a totalitarian, genocidal regime wielding absolute power would be the situation in the first place?

Do you know anything about pre-war Germany?

[UK2K]

No, my answer is improving the security infrastructure of my home.

In your little Rambo fantasies, are the dudes kicking down your door armed too or is it just you?

See it'd be a lot harder to impossible to kick down a fortified door or a metal gate in front of said door IMO.

But having OK Coral shootouts with your wife and kids in the same house seems like the better option. :applause:

Your solution is to buy a fortified door. Really? What happens if they follow you into your garage? Then what? Bar the windows too, so my house looks like a liquor store in downtown Detroit? Should I build a moat too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ-z-om7PRU

I mean this, and am as sincere as can be, if you don't own a gun, I hope you never need one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0

I can go on and on.

[Nick Young]

No one is saying they shouldn't have the right to defend themselves. What everyone with half a brain is saying, is that it wouldn't have changed a damn thing. If you think otherwise you would appear to have no understanding of WWII and how the Germans, specifically the SS, operated.

Just another loony conservative pro gun "argument."
You have zero idea how history would turn out if the German people were armed.

For example, if Obama suddenly told the National Guard to go in to streets and kidnap and arrest all of the illegal immigrants/undocumented workers (whichever term you use to describe the same thing), do you think the American people would just allow it to happen without a fight?

Maybe they would. Maybe some would organize a resistance. Maybe there would be open rebellion.
Who knows.

It is a bit extreme, but citizens allowed to wield arms is part of the system of checks and balances in America that helps to ensure the government never becomes too powerful/a dictatorship.


I don't even personally like guns. In my ideal world, there would be no guns in America, but I also accept it's a fundamental right of all Americans, and one of the foundational laws of America. I'm just being realistic here. The right to bare arms is not going to go away any time soon.

No system or law is perfect.

[~primetime~]

Then explain why a few non-militarily trained Jews with handguns would stand a chance against a military force? A force that used propoganda, fear, intimidation, and bureaucratic efficiency to get what they wanted...

How would these Jews, with no real network in place, coordinate strikes?

How would killing 2 secret police members change anything?

How would a few guns stop them from being rounded up and moved?

If anything more guns would've made it worse. German newspapers running stories about Jews slaughtering Germans would only help them.

Also, newsflash, they could've bought guns before 1938.
I didn't say they would stand a chance or that they could "coordinate strikes"

I said rounding up millions of armed civilians vs unarmed is 20x more difficult.

It certainly would have resulted in many dead nazis as well...probably thousands

[NumberSix]

Do you know anything about pre-war Germany?
Yes. My knowledge of history is actually very in-depth. I know you don't agree with my political opinions and the conclusions that I draw, but I'm well aware of history, including the history of the Weimar Republic, the Holy Roman Empire, etc...

[DonDadda59]

They couldn't even operate that way...so you look down your street in the burbs and every home has soldiers out front kicking down doors? Every apartment door too? They wouldn't use that method.

Honestly if the US wanted to round up all the civilians I am not sure how they could do it...if they just wanted to kill everyone then I guess they start bombing...

I don't think UK was even talking about a government takeover. Just the usual living room shootout with bad guys as the wife and kids sit patiently in the other room fantasy.

Just pointing out if you're really worried about your family's safety, you'd invest in upgrading your security infrastructure. I saw one of those swat tv shows where a drug dealer had fortified his doors and windows and it took the swat team with professional tools a full 20 minutes to break down the door.

Some crackhead looking for spare change or your microwave to sell would never come close to breaching.

But the OK Coral method makes the most sense.

[DeuceWallaces]

You have zero idea how history would turn out if the German people were armed.

For example, if Obama suddenly told the National Guard to go in to streets and kidnap and arrest all of the illegal immigrants/undocumented workers (whichever term you use to describe the same thing), do you think the American people would just allow it to happen without a fight?

Maybe they would. Maybe some would organize a resistance. Maybe there would be open rebellion.
Who knows.

It is a bit extreme, but citizens allowed to wield arms is part of the system of checks and balances in America that helps to ensure the government never becomes too powerful/a dictatorship.


I don't even personally like guns. In my ideal world, there would be no guns in America, but I also accept it's a fundamental right of all Americans, and one of the foundational laws of America. I'm just being realistic here.

1. There's nothing analogous about modern US and pre-war Germany.

2. The French resistance were armed and had a couple hundred thousand members across an established network for propaganda and communication; they couldn't do shit until Normandy.

It would have changed nothing.

[Nick Young]

I don't think UK was even talking about a government takeover. Just the usual living room shootout with bad guys as the wife and kids sit patiently in the other room fantasy.

Just pointing out if you're really worried about your family's safety, you'd invest in upgrading your security infrastructure. I saw one of those swat tv shows where a drug dealer had fortified his doors and windows and it took the swat team with professional tools a full 20 minutes to break down the door.

Some crackhead looking for spare change or your microwave to sell would never come close to breaching.

But the OK Coral method makes the most sense.
That shit doesn't work though. Loads of people have security set ups like that in South Africa and random thugs with no special equipment are still able to get through their security systems to rob and kill people. ALSO, castling up and bunkering down in your home is no way to live your life.

[UK2K]

That shit doesn't work though. Loads of people have security set ups like that in South Africa and random thugs with no special equipment are still able to get through their security systems to rob and kill people. ALSO, castling up and bunkering down in your home is no way to live your life.

All those people on welfare should be out buying $600 security systems, steel doors, bars for their windows, and have memberships to ADT as opposed to buying a $200 shotgun.

And that is when I post THIS sign:

http://www.hayabusa.org/forum/attachments/playground/180212d1268308488-neighbor-unarmed-neighbor-not-armed.jpg

Which I think is funny, considering one will preach about not owning guns on a website, but is too afraid to announce it to passerby's.

If you're gunless, be loud and proud!

[Nick Young]

1. There's nothing analogous about modern US and pre-war Germany.

2. The French resistance were armed and had a couple hundred thousand members across an established network for propaganda and communication; they couldn't do shit until Normandy.

It would have changed nothing.
Are you Nostradamus? The French Resistance was not able liberate France, but they certainly didn't "do nothing". Fighting and saving some is much better than giving up and surrendering instantly.

The idiotic mistake you are making is to assume we as Americans are any different from the German people who were swept up in Hitler's mob mentality.

Educate yourself (http://psychcentral.com/news/2008/02/15/herd-mentality-explained/1922.html)

It is a fundamental and idiotic mistake where people assume we today are different from people in the past. Germany was one of the most advanced and scientifically advanced nations in the world and look what they became in a short amount of time. The people who lead the French Revolution were driven by ideas of logic, enlightenment and reason and look what that turned in to in a short amount of time.

If history teaches anything, it's that we don't learn from our mistakes. Look at today. People who share your political beliefs are crying for the censorship of freedom of speech-aka book burning, but justifying it by saying it "protects people." People have the ability to spin and justify any sort of behavior, no matter how crazy it is. Already you and many people like yourself are living under the ignorant and mistaken believe that "America will never be like that. We're a modern people driven by logic and rationality."

Guess who else was driven by logic and rationality in the beginning. Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Napoleon.

The right to bare arms is what prevents this type of thing from occurring, and it's what prevents these kinds of people from rising up and seizing power.

[NumberSix]

http://www.hayabusa.org/forum/attachments/playground/180212d1268308488-neighbor-unarmed-neighbor-not-armed.jpg
If that's a real sign, that's a terrible thing to do.

[DeuceWallaces]

Are you Nostradamus? The French Resistance was not able liberate France, but they certainly didn't "do nothing". Fighting and saving some is much better than giving up and surrendering instantly.

The idiotic mistake you are making is to assume we as Americans are any different from the German people who were swept up in Hitler's mob mentality.

Educate yourself (http://psychcentral.com/news/2008/02/15/herd-mentality-explained/1922.html)

It is a fundamental and idiotic mistake where people assume we today are different from people in the past. Germany was one of the most advanced and scientifically advanced nations in the world and look what they became in a short amount of time. The people who lead the French Revolution were driven by ideas of logic, enlightenment and reason and look what that turned in to in a short amount of time.



The right to bare arms is what prevents this type of thing from occurring.

If there's one thing I don't lack it's education.

There is nothing analogous about the situation in pre-war Germany and modern USA.

[UK2K]

If that's a real sign, that's a terrible thing to do.

Is it? Why?

[Nick Young]

If there's one thing I don't lack it's education.

There is nothing analogous about the situation in pre-war Germany and modern USA.

You may have an education, but that doesn't make you intelligent. The ability to memorize and regurgitate textbook facts does not make one intelligent. The inability to come up with ideas of your own and think for yourself does not point to some one who is intelligent.

Your pride in your "education" only serves to display your ignorance.

You argue semantics and are unable to see the big picture. A university education does not mean some one is intelligent. Your smugness in your ignorance is another sign of your lack of both wisdom and knowledge.

[DonDadda59]

All those people on welfare should be out buying $600 security systems, steel doors, bars for their windows, and have memberships to ADT as opposed to buying a $200 shotgun.

And that is when I post THIS sign:

http://www.hayabusa.org/forum/attachments/playground/180212d1268308488-neighbor-unarmed-neighbor-not-armed.jpg

Which I think is funny, considering one will preach about not owning guns on a website, but is too afraid to announce it to passerby's.

If you're gunless, be loud and proud!

People on welfare should have a thousand more pressing worries beyond shitguns. But like I said if you truly are worried about protecting your family from intruders... Do all you can to make sure they don't become intruders in the first place. If 4 guys waltz in your house with guns and there's only you to stop them, chances are extremely high you will get lit up... Then what good was your little toy?

And speaking of South Africa... Some of the most lax gun laws in the world. Look at the crime and murder rate. I know firsthand. The crime rate has improved some as more regulations have been introduced over the past 15 years or so.

Also... Oscar Pistorius. Really showed those phantom bad guys who was boss :applause:

[NumberSix]

Is it? Why?
Because the person who put the sign up knows better. They know fully well the danger of signalling to criminals that a house is not protected.

If your neighbor put up a sign announcing that their own house was not protected, even if they're too stupid to understand what a bad idea that is, you would have the common sense to understand what a bad idea it is.

These people don't believe in protecting themselves, but someone who knows better should add to the danger by telling everybody that their neighbor isn't protected.

If you knew your neighbor was an idiot who doesn't lock their doors, would you put up a sign letting everybody else know that they don't lock their doors? Of course not. Because you know better.

[~primetime~]

Not if the civilians don't know what the f*ck they're doing, which is the case. Normal people don't know how to defend themselves, hold a defensive position in a building, or possess any tactical decision making abilities.

The only way it would make a significant difference is if you time travelled, trained them, gave them all guns, and proved what was happening in camps and ghettos (which was only rumors to most people at the time). Then they still have no network to communicate, are outnumbered, out-gunned, and are facing military minds.
So you think it would have been just as easy for the nazis to go door to door and round up millions of jews with guns because they aren't trained?

No dude...

It is fine and dandy to say that the Holocaust still would have happened, the jews still would have died, Carson is wrong, etc etc

But what you are doing is acting as though there is absolutely no difference between armed civilians and unarmed civilians.

[~primetime~]

They didn't just 'go door to door'. You're acting like they 'breach and cleared' every Jewish residence like it was a video game.
what game is that?

That is what they did...they went to door to door in neighborhoods and rounded everyone up and drove them to camps.

[~primetime~]

http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/photo/lc/image/45/45170.jpg

http://www.certifiedchinesetranslation.com/openaccess/dgraf/ww2167a.jpg

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/jeff/german-occupation.jpg

[ThePhantomCreep]

I'm sure small arms were freely available to Soviet citizens after the German invasion of 1941.

13.6 million perished. That's more than two Holocausts.

You could argue it's better to die on your feet than on your knees, but the result is still the same: death.

Also keep in mind that there were 9.5 million Jews in Europe in 1933, so not all of them perished during the war. Some where able to escape Europe, hide, etc., and thus avert death.

Coming out of their Warsaw tenements guns a'blazin' would have offered them no such chances of survival.

[~primetime~]

5,000,000+ jewish people died in holocaust


Lets say all 5 mill had a fire arm.

Now let's say just 1 in a 100 was able to kill a nazi before dying


That would have resulted in the death of 50,000 nazi soldiers...which is significant.

[ThePhantomCreep]

5,000,000+ jewish people died in holocaust


Lets say all 5 mill had a fire arm.

Now let's say just 1 in a 100 was able to kill a nazi before dying


That would have resulted in the death of 50,000 nazi soldiers...which is significant.

6 million Jewish people perished in the holocaust, but one million of them were children.

Now I'm sure there are a few batshit crazy right-wingers who think arming minors is a great deterrent against crime, but most would argree that isn't case. Many of the victims were elderly and feeble, not up for the rigors of armed combat.

The Jewish "Army" is looking less impressive by the minute.

If anything, a mass resistance would have expedited the Holocaust, not prevented it. Remember, the mass killings didn't really begin until The Final Solution was put in place in January 1942.

[9erempiree]

You may have an education, but that doesn't make you intelligent. The ability to memorize and regurgitate textbook facts does not make one intelligent. The inability to come up with ideas of your own and think for yourself does not point to some one who is intelligent.

Your pride in your "education" only serves to display your ignorance.

You argue semantics and are unable to see the big picture. A university education does not mean some one is intelligent. Your smugness in your ignorance is another sign of your lack of both wisdom and knowledge.

Don't do him like that.:lol

[~primetime~]

6 million Jewish people perished in the holocaust, but one million of them were children.

Now I'm sure there are a few batshit crazy right-wingers who think arming minors is a great deterrent against crime, but most would argree that isn't case. Many of the victims were elderly and feeble, not up for the rigors of armed combat.

The Jewish "Army" is looking less impressive by the minute.

If anything, a mass resistance would have expedited the Holocaust, not prevented it. Remember, the mass killings didn't really begin until The Final Solution was put in place in January 1942.
If you think that the jews were actually better off without guns I highly disagree with that. It's difficult for modern troops in the middle east to deal with armed civilians.

I don't think for a second that the current US military, who are much more powerful than Nazi Germany, are even capable of forcefully rounding up every civilian and cooking us in camps...it would be too difficult for them because we are so heavily armed. If they wanted to kill us all they would just have to bomb us.

[9erempiree]

Also, I may point out that giving people guns may have not prevented the deaths because it goes further than just arming people. It is a mindset.

America's mindset about guns and the right to own them gives us a different frame of mind that would allow us to combat Nazi's where a Jew wouldn't know what to do or even have the proper attitude to go about with said guns.

We have a mindset of defending ourselves and its part of our DNA. At the time the Jews never thought of defending themselves and they were up against a super military.

For Americans it's like....'this shit again...lets kill them.' Another day at the office.

[TripleA]

If the Jews had weapons. They still would be killed but some would be able to live. The Germans would probable bomb the synagogues.

Genocide is a scary thing my friends. It's not war to gain land. Not ideological difference leading to civil war. Not a colony fighting against their mother country. It's pure hatred. Their no qualms in killing civilians because the goal is to kill all the civilians.

Tutsi in Rwanda, The Fur people in Sudan, The Armenian in the Ottoman Empire.What do these people all have in common with the Jews they were seen as lesser and blamed for problems in these places.

The Tutsi people even had power in Rwanda but guess what people their were indoctrinated into killing their neighbors with machetes. Militia killed anyone who opposed killings of Tutsi.

Guns are not the problem or the solution but the problem how people can become sheep to their government into thinking a act so vile is ok. That the government is your God and what ever he says is trustworthy and right.

[~primetime~]

They knocked on doors and told people to leave. Many went without a fight because they didn't know what was happening. They didn't go guns blazing into every damn house.
that is true...those that were 'tricked' would have still been tricked with or without firearms...I won't argue that

[Cactus-Sack]

Smh, the revisionist nonsense in this thread...:facepalm

[NumberSix]

If the Jews had weapons. They still would be killed but some would be able to live. The Germans would probable bomb the synagogues.

Genocide is a scary thing my friends. It's not war to gain land. Not ideological difference leading to civil war. Not a colony fighting against their mother country. It's pure hatred. Their no qualms in killing civilians because the goal is to kill all the civilians.

Tutsi in Rwanda, The Fur people in Sudan, The Armenian in the Ottoman Empire.What do these people all have in common with the Jews they were seen as lesser and blamed for problems in these places.

The Tutsi people even had power in Rwanda but guess what people their were indoctrinated into killing their neighbors with machetes. Militia killed anyone who opposed killings of Tutsi.

Guns are not the problem or the solution but the problem how people can become sheep to their government into thinking a act so vile is ok. That the government is your God and what ever he says is trustworthy and right.
I disagree. Genocide at its core is really about land. It's basically a group of people saying "this land is for us and we don't want you here".

[TripleA]

I disagree. Genocide at its core is really about land. It's basically a group of people saying "this land is for us and we don't want you here".

Yeah But to kick someone out of your land you don't have murder a entire group of people. The Spanish did not kill all the Jews they just forced them to leave Spain.

[Timmy D for MVP]

:oldlol:

Does anyone ever notice that when he talks he looks like he's about to piss his pants? Do these candidates have people on their staff to train them out of their ticks?

[Nick Young]

They knocked on doors and told people to leave. Many went without a fight because they didn't know what was happening. They didn't go guns blazing into every damn house.
That's because the soldiers knew no one was armed and they didn't have to fear violent retribution from the people whose homes they were invading.

[Nick Young]

I disagree. Genocide at its core is really about land. It's basically a group of people saying "this land is for us and we don't want you here".
In the case of Hitler's genocide of Jews, gypsies and homosexuals, it wasn't about land. It was literally about extermination. Look at the language the nazis use in their speeches and private letters and journals. They were hellbent on exterminating certain ethnic groups, and the vast majority of the German people got hyped up because of it.

It is not always about land.

[KellhitEmup15]

If the Jews had weapons. They still would be killed but some would be able to live. The Germans would probable bomb the synagogues.

Genocide is a scary thing my friends. It's not war to gain land. Not ideological difference leading to civil war. Not a colony fighting against their mother country. It's pure hatred. Their no qualms in killing civilians because the goal is to kill all the civilians.

Tutsi in Rwanda, The Fur people in Sudan, The Armenian in the Ottoman Empire.What do these people all have in common with the Jews they were seen as lesser and blamed for problems in these places.

The Tutsi people even had power in Rwanda but guess what people their were indoctrinated into killing their neighbors with machetes. Militia killed anyone who opposed killings of Tutsi.

Guns are not the problem or the solution but the problem how people can become sheep to their government into thinking a act so vile is ok. That the government is your God and what ever he says is trustworthy and right.


Damn son.:applause:

[Nick Young]

If anyone has an hour to burn, they should watch this. It's a massive social experiment from Darren Brown where he creates a fake hidden camera game show where people in the audience get to vote and control what happens to a random dude on his birthday party.

Brown gives the audience the option to give this guy the coolest birthday night ever, or the worst. Guess which one the audience chooses.

These are all modern British people-basically the European versions of Americans.


It's a very interesting show, check it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scOJqyiYVtk

It's a good illustration to show that herd mentality, anonymity and peer pressure can turn ANYONE, even random english house wives, in to sadistic fascists.

[Patrick Chewing]

it's not just that he says controversial things. he says straight up stupid shit.


He's a neurosurgeon. Anything he says is 100000x smarter than you or anyone in your troglodytic family can say.

[NumberSix]

In the case of Hitler's genocide of Jews, gypsies and homosexuals, it wasn't about land. It was literally about extermination. Look at the language the nazis use in their speeches and private letters and journals. They were hellbent on exterminating certain ethnic groups, and the vast majority of the German people got hyped up because of it.

It is not always about land.
Actually, in the nazis case, it was about removing various groups of people from the German gene pool.

Always remember, the first people they came for weren't the Jews. It was the handicapped. They were trying to "purify" the German gene pool. They wanted all those that believed would taint the gene pool gone. Whether it was the handicapped, Jews, Slavs, gays, mentally ill, gypsies, etc...

If you read about the SS, you'll see that the head of the SS Heinrich Himmler had some pretty wacky beliefs. He truly believed that if the "aryan" gene pool was purified and the purified Germans went back to their ancient pagan culture, they would regain superhuman powers that they believe the aryan race had before the Romans and Christianity came along. These were nutty people.

We always talk about the holocaust, but we never talk about why the nazis did the things they did. The most you ever hear is, they hated Jews because.... reasons. We should focus more on how wacky their beliefs were. Insane beliefs lead to insane actions.

[Nick Young]

Yep, they were loony toons and many of the leaders believed in supernatural shit. And the rational, scientific, logical German people bought in to it all hook, line and sinker.

Nazi ideology goes beyond purifying the Aryan race though. They didn't just want to exterminate all the Jews from Germany. They actively went in to Poland and the Balkans to exterminate those Jews as well, and were working on plans to create death camps in Palestine and Syria to exterminate the Arab Jews there. It started out with the idea of purifying the german bloodline but it became about full on extermination in a short amount of time.

[9erempiree]

I am still waiting for that thank you from Europe.

[TripleA]

Places also kill groups because they think they are superior to them.
Look at the Arabs in Sudan they think of the blacks their as dogs.

[NumberSix]

Yep, they were loony toons and many of the leaders believed in supernatural shit. And the rational, scientific, logical German people bought in to it all hook, line and sinker.
No, not at all. The general public had no idea what these lunatics actually believed.

Anti-westerners always tried to associate the holocaust with Christianity, but it really couldn't be further from reality. Germans were obviously very Christian people, so the nazis pandered to that and pretended to be Christian, but in their private writings it's clear they hated Christianity. Basically saying things like Jesus was a lying Jew and Christianity is a Jewish conspiracy. The German people had no idea what the nazis true intentions were.

There honestly is a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking history about ww2. Remember, the United States rounded up Japanese Americans and put them into concentration camps too. Nobody would have thought they were gassing them to death. All of us who were born decades after ww2 don't have the same perspective as people alive at the time. We know after the fact how evil the nazis were, but people at the time didn't know the extent of it until after the war. There are videos of people right at the end of the war visiting the death camps. You can see them walking in smiling and laughing and then you see them walking out crying and horrified. They had no idea exactly how bad it was. They probably expected to see a camp of prisoners, not stacks of dead skeletal bodies.

[Akrazotile]

The nazis took out France in a month and change. The French had one of the best and well equipped militaries on the planet. They had 3.3 million soldiers and thousands of tanks and aircraft.

They lasted one month.

But some Jewish civilians would last longer if they had revolvers.

Strong logic is strong.


This is not the same. Germany can go into France and do whatever it wants to foreign cities and people without German backlash.

Jews were rounded up as people looked on, not knowing what to do because they didnt know what was to happen. But many ordinary Germans would not have bee on board with mass genocide if they realized what was about to happen.

Now consder that Kristallnacht, which only claimed a hundred or so Jewish lives, was looked down on by many German citizens bc of all the rioting and ruckus going on in cities, where jews werent the only ones living. Peolle didnt want this shit in their backyards.

Now think about nazis trying to round up jews, and gettig into gun battles at every apartment and every grocery store and street corne they go looking for them. Soldiers trying to corral six million armed people. Bc remember, they werentjust killing them openly in public to begin with. There would have beenmuch more non-jewish resistance and backlash if they were.

It would have been extremely messy to gunfight six million jews unprovoked in German neighborhoods. Could have easily caused the fuhrer to change his plans.

Carson absolutely has a point with weight. I'm not saying his statement is fully definitively correct, but his general point has merit worth considering.

[DonDadda59]

Now think about nazis trying to round up jews, and gettig into gun battles at every apartment and every grocery store and street corne they go looking for them. Soldiers trying to corral six million armed people. Bc remember, they werentjust killing them openly in public to begin with. There would have beenmuch more non-jewish resistance and backlash if they were.

It would have been extremely messy to gunfight six million jews unprovoked in German neighborhoods. Could have easily caused the fuhrer to change his plans.

Carson absolutely has a point with weight. I'm not saying his statement is fully definitively correct, but his general point has merit worth considering.

I said it before- the Nazi propoganda machine would've framed incidents like that as a Jewish uprising aimed at taking power from the Fuhrer. Goebbels would have had a field day with the footage of Jews shooting it out in the streets with the SS.

And as much as people now like to make believe that the average German didn't know what was happening during the Holocaust, that's simply not the case. Many bought in completely to the idea of purifying the Aryan race. They may not have done the deed themselves, but they knew what was happening.

[Nick Young]

No, not at all. The general public had no idea what these lunatics actually believed.

Anti-westerners always tried to associate the holocaust with Christianity, but it really couldn't be further from reality. Germans were obviously very Christian people, so the nazis pandered to that and pretended to be Christian, but in their private writings it's clear they hated Christianity. Basically saying things like Jesus was a lying Jew and Christianity is a Jewish conspiracy. The German people had no idea what the nazis true intentions were.

There honestly is a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking history about ww2. Remember, the United States rounded up Japanese Americans and put them into concentration camps too. Nobody would have thought they were gassing them to death. All of us who were born decades after ww2 don't have the same perspective as people alive at the time. We know after the fact how evil the nazis were, but people at the time didn't know the extent of it until after the war. There are videos of people right at the end of the war visiting the death camps. You can see them walking in smiling and laughing and then you see them walking out crying and horrified. They had no idea exactly how bad it was. They probably expected to see a camp of prisoners, not stacks of dead skeletal bodies.
The general public in Germany knew exactly what the germans were doing with the Jews, commies, homosexuals and gypsies though, and they cheered with glowing smiles on their faces while it was happening. This is clear from the primary accounts and writings of hundreds of Germans who grew up and lived in Nazi Germany before and during WWII. The Polish knew about it, the allies knew about it. Everyone knew.

Revisionist history tries to excuse the German people but it's very clear they knew about the death camps and what was happening to their jewish and gypsy neighbors.

The Allies were aware of the death camps in 1939. People knew what was going on. Locals who lived near the camps knew exactly what was going on.


Manzanar is INCOMPARABLE TO THE NAZI DEATH CAMPS. I read Farewell to Manzanar. I read all about that shit. I've even been there. Yes it is horse shit that the Japanese Americans were racially discriminated against, but at the same time they had good food, were allowed to play baseball and generally allowed to do whatever they wanted and weren't forced to work and weren't executed.

Yes it is shit to be torn from your home due to your race, but the Nazi death camps are a completely different story.

Also, I can't even lie, when I read that story, and the girl was complaining about not being allowed to twirl her baton or some shit, I was just rolling my eyes. Boo hoo you don't get to twirl a baton, atleast be glad you aren't being worked like a mule until you break down and starve, and then thrown in to a gas chamber and burned in a pit like millions of Jews were.


Stop trying to make revisionist excuses for the Germans. They knew exactly what was going on in their country, and while they were winning the war none of them gave a shit and even helped it along by snitching on and turning in Jews who weren't sent away. it was only after Hitler started losing that the German people pretended to express remorse, and started coming up with the excuses "they had no idea what was going on."

[ThePhantomCreep]

This is not the same. Germany can go into France and do whatever it wants to foreign cities and people without German backlash.

Jews were rounded up as people looked on, not knowing what to do because they didnt know what was to happen. But many ordinary Germans would not have bee on board with mass genocide if they realized what was about to happen.

Now consder that Kristallnacht, which only claimed a hundred or so Jewish lives, was looked down on by many German citizens bc of all the rioting and ruckus going on in cities, where jews werent the only ones living. Peolle didnt want this shit in their backyards.

Now think about nazis trying to round up jews, and gettig into gun battles at every apartment and every grocery store and street corne they go looking for them. Soldiers trying to corral six million armed people. Bc remember, they werentjust killing them openly in public to begin with. There would have beenmuch more non-jewish resistance and backlash if they were.

It would have been extremely messy to gunfight six million jews unprovoked in German neighborhoods. Could have easily caused the fuhrer to change his plans.

Carson absolutely has a point with weight. I'm not saying his statement is fully definitively correct, but his general point has merit worth considering.

There were only 200k Jews living in Germany by the time the war began, a drop in the bucket in a nation of 80 million people. Most of those Jews would eventually perish during the war.

[Nick Young]

And didn't the people, Soviets, who stopped them actually lost twice as many soldiers as the Nazis did? Like 8 million Soviet deaths to 4 million Nazi deaths.
That was because Stalin sent untrained, unsupplied, and in many cases unarmed strelets to their deaths against the heavily supplied, highly organized Germans. Many of these Russians didn't even have bullets in their guns and were sent to their deaths by Stalin.

[Nick Young]

Jews were rounded up as people looked on, not knowing what to do because they didnt know what was to happen. But many ordinary Germans would not have bee on board with mass genocide if they realized what was about to happen.
Wrong. Most German civilians actively aided the Nazi party by snitching out their Jewish neighbors and telling the SS when they found out where Jews were hiding. It was spoken about on the radio, in Hitler's speeches, and even published in the news. It's not like the death camps were some clever secret that only the upper echelon of the Nazi party knew about. The Germans knew. The Polish knew. The Italians knew. The Swiss knew. The Allies knew. Everyone knew.

The Germans loved when all the Jews disappeared because their businesses and property were given to Germans.

The Germans knew exactly what was happening. There are hundreds of contemporary accounts of German civilians writing about the death camps.

While they were winning, the German people were cheering this on. It's only after the Russians and Americans moved in that they began to express "remorse".

[DonDadda59]

The general public knew exactly what the germans were doing with the Jews, commies, homosexuals and gypsies though, and they cheered with glowing smiles on their faces while it was happening.

Revisionist history tries to excuse the German people but it's very clear they knew about the death camps and what was happening to their jewish and gypsy neighbors.

The Allies were aware of the death camps in 1939. People knew what was going on. Locals who lived near the camps knew exactly what was going on.

Yes. Exactly.

Revisionists now act like the Nazis in Germany were some alien invasion force who hypnotized the citizens and not Germans like they actually were.

Hitler and his propagandists made it clear what their final solution was from the jump and the everyday German citizen knew it too. There were millions of Germans and Poles who had a direct or indirect hand in the Holocaust.

Jews shooting it out with German citizens and soldiers would've just bolstered the Nazis propaganda efforts. Kristalnacht would've looked like a stroll in the park compared to what would've happened if Jews pulled off an armed insurrection.

[Nick Young]

Revisionists also act like the German people had no choice with their actions, and ALSO that they had no idea Hitler was executing so many people in death camps, even though those two ideas contradict each other.


The sad and cold hard truth is that the Germans did know what was going on and they loved it and cheered it on WHILE THEY WERE WINNING, and only expressed remorse when it became clear THEY WOULD LOSE.

The Germans loved seeing their rich, Jewish neighbors disappear and they loved getting their wealth and property and businesses. The German people only expressed remorse only after they lost the war.

I don't hold it against them. This shit can happen anywhere. It happened in China with Mao. It happened during the French Revolution which was lead by some of the greatest political minds in Europe at the time. It even happened in America while we were wiping out the Native Americans.

This kind of mob mentality can spring up anywhere at any time, even in the United States.


That is the whole reasoning of the founding fathers putting the right to bare arms in to the constitution, to prevent that kind of thing from happening. It didn't work, as the native Americans were wiped out, but that's why the Second Amendment exists.

If the US government does ever rise up and go on a fascist nazi-style rampage, the citizens will be armed and have the right to band together and try to fight it if they chose to.

You can say it can never happen in America, that we are too civilized for that. It happened in the land that brought us Durer, Goethe, Hesse, Einstein, and Beethoven. It can happen anywhere if the climate is right for it, and it happens quickly.

[Akrazotile]

Wrong. Most German civilians actively aided the Nazi party by snitching out their Jewish neighbors and telling the SS when they found out where Jews were hiding. It was spoken about on the radio, in Hitler's speeches, and even published in the news. It's not like the death camps were some clever secret that only the upper echelon of the Nazi party knew about. The Germans knew. The Polish knew. The Italians knew. The Swiss knew. The Allies knew. Everyone knew.

The Germans loved when all the Jews disappeared because their businesses and property were given to Germans.

The Germans knew exactly what was happening. There are hundreds of contemporary accounts of German civilians writing about the death camps.

While they were winning, the German people were cheering this on. It's only after the Russians and Americans moved in that they began to express "remorse".


Of course many did buy into it. But there are also many stories of German citizens providing refuge for Jews hiding out from the SS. Only 10% of Germans were nazis at the height of Hitlers power. And concentration camps began as early as 1933, yet the decisin to begin exterminating jews wasnt made until the winter of 1941. There was plenty of rounding up of Jews under different pretexts than killing them, because for a while it wasnt happening yet.

Again, I'm not saying it would have prevented the ultimate outcome - but I think it would have made things a bit more difficult, and may have caused the nazi's to change their approach and at least delayed things or allowed some to escape etc and saved some portion of the lost lives.

[zoom17]

Can someone sum up the this thread?

[Nick Young]

Of course many did buy into it. But there are also many stories of German citizens providing refuge for Jews hiding out from the SS. Only 10% of Germans were nazis at the height of Hitlers power. And concentration camps began as early as 1933, yet the decisin to begin exterminating jews wasnt made until the winter of 1941. There was plenty of rounding up of Jews under different pretexts than killing them, because for a while it wasnt happening yet.

Again, I'm not saying it would have prevented the ultimate outcome - but I think it would have made things a bit more difficult, and may have caused the nazi's to change their approach and at least delayed things or allowed some to escape etc and saved some portion of the lost lives.
This is another bullshit revisionist statistic dawg. Only 10% of Germans were officially registered with the Nazi party. Yes, a tiny, tiny statistically inconsequential amount of Germans did risk their lives to protect Jewish people, but it was a tiny amount. And you NEVER hear about them doing anything to protect the gypsies, who all of the Germans were universally happy with to see disappear. The rest of the Germans were happily cheering it on, and actively turning in Jews to the SS in exchange for rewards.

The fact that 10% of Germans were officially registered in the Nazi party does not mean that 90% were opposed to the nazi party. They loved it while it was happening.


I agree with you that the citizens being armed might have slowed down or even actively prevented the Nazi party from rising up. The Nazis strong armed their way to the top and once they were on top they used force to further cement their power. They would not have been able to easily do this if the citizens were armed.

That is why the second amendment exists in the first place. Jefferson and the founding fathers foresaw this kind of shit happening, even in the US government, and tried to come up with a way to prevent it long term from ever happening.

It's no surprise that it is mostly modern liberals AKA totalitarians who are in favor of censoring freedom of speech, who desperately want the right to bare arms removed from the constitution.

[Akrazotile]

This is another bullshit revisionist statistic dawg. Only 10% of Germans were officially registered with the Nazi party. Yes, a tiny, tiny statistically inconsequential amount of Germans did risk their lives to protect Jewish people, but it was a tiny amount. And you NEVER hear about them doing anything to protect the gypsies, who all of the Germans were universally happy with to see disappear. The rest of the Germans were happily cheering it on, and actively turning in Jews to the SS in exchange for rewards.

The fact that 10% of Germans were officially registered in the Nazi party does not mean that 90% were opposed to the nazi party. They loved it while it was happening.


Right but what I'm saying is, a lot of people were probably ambivalent. Didnt mind it as long it as there was at least a quasi-veneer of them being taken away to be deported or relocated etc.

If there was literally gunfight in the streets over this shit and germans getting popped with strays, people might have felt more compelled to tell the govt to cool it.

Maybe not, obviously we'll never know, but it certainly couldnt have made things any worse than what did happen.

[Nick Young]

Right but what I'm saying is, a lot of people were probably ambivalent. Didnt mind it as long it as there was at least a quasi-veneer of them being taken away to be deported or relocated etc.

If there was literally gunfight in the streets over this shit and germans getting popped with strays, people might have felt more compelled to tell the govt to cool it.

Maybe not, obviously we'll never know, but it certainly couldnt have made things any worse than what did happen.
The Nazis were the only ones with guns and weapons. They could do whatever the phuck they wanted and the people had no way to combat it. This aided their rapid rise to power, but their neo-Holy Roman Empire Schtick and scapegoating of Jews, gypsies, gays and commies did too.

If the citizens had weapons, the Nazi's rise to power would not have been so smooth, and might never have happened in the first place.



It's just like in America we constantly hear commercials about America being the greatest place in the world, and American people being the hardest working and the most free. The Nazi government was telling the German people the same thing and they loved it.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Can someone sum up the this thread?

America doesn't have a gun problem because...these guys could stop an invading force like the Nazis:

http://www.jewlicious.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/hillbillies-with-guns.jpg

:confusedshrug:

[NumberSix]

America doesn't have a gun problem because...these guys could stop an invading force like the Nazis:

http://www.jewlicious.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/hillbillies-with-guns.jpg

:confusedshrug:
What's with the mountain of trash bags?

[KNOW1EDGE]

Ben Carson winning

[BoutPractice]

Forget about Nazi Germany. Do you sincerely believe that the US military, with all its advanced weapons of warfare, wouldn't be able to seize power in a coup if there was enough popular support behind it? (Say, a bogus accusation by a well respected military commander that the politicians have "betrayed" the country over Iran)

And do you sincerely believe that the people who have the most guns and the most experience with them would all side with the resistance rather than, for instance, join a pro-government militia? Bearing in mind that those "liberty loving" rednecks have a huge blind spot when it comes to the military, I'm not so sure myself... The new regime could easily paint the insurrectional groups as anti-American "terrorists", and make it look like they are siding with foreign enemies (islamist, Russian, whatever), perhaps even staging false attacks... they would most likely swallow it up.

[Nick Young]

America doesn't have a gun problem because...these guys could stop an invading force like the Nazis:


:confusedshrug:
That black and white thinking pattern doe:facepalm

[Nick Young]

Forget about Nazi Germany. Do you sincerely believe that the US military, with all its advanced weapons of warfare, wouldn't be able to seize power in a coup if there was enough popular support behind it? (Say, a bogus accusation by a well respected military commander that the politicians have "betrayed" the country over Iran)

And do you sincerely believe that the people who have the most guns and the most experience with them would all side with the resistance rather than, for instance, join a pro-government militia? Bearing in mind that those "liberty loving" rednecks have a huge blind spot when it comes to the military, I'm not so sure myself... The new regime could easily paint the insurrectional groups as anti-American "terrorists", and make it look like they are siding with foreign enemies (islamist, Russian, whatever), perhaps even staging false attacks... they would most likely swallow it up.
Who knows what the phuck would happen in that scenario. The point is that the citizens have the freedom to decide what they want to do. Realistically, the US military can bomb the f*ck out of civilians who would be undisciplined and armed only with walmart hand guns, and take no losses. Also realistically, you have to ask yourself if you think the US military will ever bomb its own people like that.

ALSO look at the revolutionary war. Farmers with crappy muskets defeated the greatest army in the world at the time, Great Britain. Yes they had a lot of help. But it never would have been able to happen if they didn't have weapons. You have absolutely zero idea how shit would go down if the US military had a coup and tried to seize power and started attacking the people. None of us have any idea if neighboring countries would step in or what the world will look like then, or how it will go down. It's dumb to speculate on this and say "DURR DURR HICK REDNECKS CAN'T PREVENT A COUP, LET'S JUST GIVE UP ON THIS IDEA AND GET RID OF ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS THAT AMERICA WAS BUILT ON DURR DURR"

All of these ideas seem crazy to us. But who knows what the political climate here will be like in 100-200 years. It certainly does seem like America is on a downslope and our golden age is ending.

Even Rome, the greatest city on the planet, dissolved in to a Las Vegas-like center of barbarity and decadence and then was destroyed and sacked by technologically inferior barbarians. If you told ancient Romans during the Pax Romana what their city would become in a few hundred years, they would have laughed in your face.

The right to bare arms exists for a reason. You might laugh at that reason. You might say "that will never happen in America. lol" but how are you any different from the Romans who said the same shit about the barbarians who eventually took them down? You can't tell the future. I can't tell the future. None of us can.

America was not founded to be a land of cushy socialized welfare where the centralized government takes care of everyone, and no one ever gets hurt. If you want that, move to Canada. Freedom comes with a price brehs. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

That's a great opinion for Ben Carson to have but he's dead wrong and sounds like an idiot. How has this thread lasted 10 pages? There really shouldn't be much, if anything, to debate.

[bladefd]

Only difference guns would have made is that more Jews would have died by gunfire in the streets instead of concentration camps, which would probably have been a net benefit to those that suffered immensely before death.

True, but hindsight is 20/20. Nobody had any idea that concentration camps even existed until much later. Some of them were not known to exist until the first Soviet tanks rolled in during their rush to Berlin in 1944.

[Nick Young]

True, but hindsight is 20/20. Nobody had any idea that concentration camps even existed until much later. Some of them were not known to exist until the first Soviet tanks rolled in during their rush to Berlin in 1944.
Not true. Germans knew about them. Allies knew about them. Poles knew about them. Thousands of regular German civilians wrote about the death camps in their diaries and letters to each other.

[bladefd]

Seems like too many fools here don't have any idea how the Nazis did what they did.

Reminds me of a situation where a few Jews were armed inside a small housing complex. Secret Police tried to go in first to arrest/kill them. When they realized the Jews were armed, they pulled back to safety. They picked up the radio, called in the SS. SS officer with 20 soldiers came in a truck loaded with machine-guns. They rushed in, killed every man/woman/children in there regardless of whether they were armed or not, got in the truck & left. Entire operation lasted maybe 15 – 20 minutes from getting out of truck, searching entire complex of apartments and getting back in. That's how the Nazis operated.

[~primetime~]

[QUOTE=bladefd]Seems like too many fools here don't have any idea how the Nazis did what they did.

Reminds me of a situation where a few Jews were armed inside a small housing complex. Secret Police tried to go in first to arrest/kill them. When they realized the Jews were armed, they pulled back to safety. They picked up the radio, called in the SS. SS officer with 20 soldiers came in a truck loaded with machine-guns. They rushed in, killed every man/woman/children in there regardless of whether they were armed or not, got in the truck & left. Entire operation lasted maybe 15

[~primetime~]

Look, guns wouldn't have prevented the holocaust BUT the Jews would have still been better off with them. That's all there is to it.

There is a middle ground here. The fact that guns wouldn't have saved these people is not at all proof that civilians shouldn't have guns.

"Guns can't stop a nazi army" =\= guns are worthless

[HitandRun Reggie]

America doesn't have a gun problem because...these guys could stop an invading force like the Nazis:

http://www.jewlicious.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/hillbillies-with-guns.jpg

:confusedshrug:


I'd bet money that rednecks like these are more proficient with firearms than 90%+ of gangbangers in the US or the narcos en Mexico.

[9erempiree]

I'd bet money that rednecks like these are more proficient with firearms than 90%+ of gangbangers in the US or the narcos en Mexico.

yep.

These guys live in the middle of nowhere and shoot all day for entertainment. It comes very natural to them.

[bladefd]

15-20 minutes?

Sometime timed this event?

It was an estimate by one of the German Secret Police guy involved who gave his account. I forget whether if it was at Nuremberg trials or elsewhere (I don't think it was at Nuremberg but wherever).

There were various such accounts. Wasn't just one such event..

[NumberSix]

Look, guns wouldn't have prevented the holocaust BUT the Jews would have still been better off with them. That's all there is to it.

There is a middle ground here. The fact that guns wouldn't have saved these people is not at all proof that civilians shouldn't have guns.

"Guns can't stop a nazi army" =\= guns are worthless
It's interesting that the nazis never attempted to invade Switzerland. That's weird, huh?


http://s3.thingpic.com/images/NP/WSFghT86TrAj1GQAq7aceATH.jpeg

[bladefd]

It's interesting that the nazis never attempted to invade Switzerland. That's weird, huh?


http://s3.thingpic.com/images/NP/WSFghT86TrAj1GQAq7aceATH.jpeg

hmm, I did think about it. Hard to say why Hitler didn't attack Switzerland but had plans to invade Switzerland after taking over France. I assume he decided to focus his resources on protecting the Western wall of defenses in France. Switzerland had no natural resources to help Hitler's warfare.

Swiss made a lot of concessions to Germany too like keeping Germany's Jews from entering Switzerland. They allowed Nazis to use their rail lines into Italy. Swiss never admitted to it, but I guarantee they paid Germany gold & money to bribe Hitler.

Switzerland was also right smack in the middle of Germany/Italy. If Swiss did anything threatening, Nazis would have destroyed them.

[Nick Young]

hmm, I did think about it. Hard to say why Hitler didn't attack Switzerland but had plans to invade Switzerland after taking over France. I assume he decided to focus his resources on protecting the Western wall of defenses in France. Switzerland had no natural resources to help Hitler's warfare.

Swiss made a lot of concessions to Germany too like keeping Germany's Jews from entering Switzerland. They allowed Nazis to use their rail lines into Italy. Swiss never admitted to it, but I guarantee they paid Germany gold & money to bribe Hitler.

Switzerland was also right smack in the middle of Germany/Italy. If Swiss did anything threatening, Nazis would have destroyed them.
He knew he couldn't attack Switzerland because the mountain borders were too difficult to invade, and the citizens were armed.

Hitler and Mussolini couldn't do shit to Switzerland due to the mountains guarding the borders. If you know game of thrones, think of Switzerland like Dorne. Not even dragons were enough to conquer Dorne due to the lay of the land. In real world terms, Switzerland is the same.

[bluechox2]

jews were a couple ak47 away from conquering europe

[bladefd]

He knew he couldn't attack Switzerland because the mountain borders were too difficult to invade, and the citizens were armed.

Hitler and Mussolini couldn't do shit to Switzerland due to the mountains guarding the borders. If you know game of thrones, think of Switzerland like Dorne. Not even dragons were enough to conquer Dorne due to the lay of the land. In real world terms, Switzerland is the same.

Does the word "Luftwaffe" ring any bell? If Hitler wanted, he could have destroyed Switzerland from the air. He didn't because there were no natural resources Switzerland had that would make up for the resources required to directly invade the Swiss. Switzerland depended on Germany for their resources so imagine a siege while dominating the skies.

Unless if you believe their citizens could destroy the Luftwaffe with pistols and small arms.

[Nick Young]

Does the word "Luftwaffe" ring any bell? If Hitler wanted, he could have destroyed Switzerland from the air. He didn't because there were no natural resources Switzerland had that would make up for the resources required to directly invade the Swiss. Switzerland depended on Germany for their resources so imagine a siege while dominating the skies.

Unless if you believe their citizens could destroy the Luftwaffe with pistols and small arms.
You don't know shit about how WWII warfare worked. Stop making shit up. You can't just send planes in and expect to conquer a nation. You need boots on the ground as well. Do you think Switzerland had no air defense weaponry? Do you think Switzerland had no military force in addition to their militia?

No, Hitler could not have destroyed Switzerland from the air. The Nazis couldn't do shit vs Switzerland. If they could have, they would have.

Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because he knew he had no chance.

The Swiss generally ascribe their survival to General Guisan's Redoubt Strategy, in which the army withdrew from the plains and cities to hundreds of deep bunkers and forts in the mountains, mined all key bridges and tunnels and generally planned to make an occupied Switzerland strategically disastrous for Germany and Italy: The key tunnels linking the 2 Axis powers would have taken months to rebuild. To re-affirm the Swiss commitment to resist, General Guisan gathered the entire officer corps at the Ruetli meadow, the birthplace of Swiss democracy, where every officer swore an oath to defend Schwyz. This let the Germans know that there would be no Norwegian Quislings or French-style rollovers here. (ps: The Swiss are just removing the explosives now.)


Hitler and the German military staff considered, and Hitler supported for a while an invasion of Switzerland. He appears to have not considered it important to invade, however, because ultimately the staff and he concluded an invasion would not occur. It also appears that Switzerland's political system (Canton system) and mandatory training in basic military training as well as the Swiss mandate that all adults house a military rifle and ammunition within their domicile, helped. This situation means that each Canton can call up it's own reserve militia in a reasonably quick fashion, and this cannot be over-ridden by "faint" type maneuvers or central government errors. The claim by the Swiss was that "every rock will have a sharpshooter behind it". I think that is reasonable, and true, and likely helped tremendously, together with ostensible neutrality to shield the Swiss.

https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Hitler-invade-Switzerland
Wow. It's almost like the Swiss citizens being armed prevented Nazis from invading their country! :O :O :O

[NumberSix]

Does the word "Luftwaffe" ring any bell? If Hitler wanted, he could have destroyed Switzerland from the air. He didn't because there were no natural resources Switzerland had that would make up for the resources required to directly invade the Swiss. Switzerland depended on Germany for their resources so imagine a siege while dominating the skies.

Unless if you believe their citizens could destroy the Luftwaffe with pistols and small arms.
Well...
[QUOTE]During the Invasion of France, German aircraft violated Swiss airspace at least 197 times. In several air incidents, the Swiss shot down 11 Luftwaffe planes between 10 May 1940 and 17 June 1940. Germany protested diplomatically on 5 June 1940, and with a second note on 19 June 1940 which contained clear threats. Hitler was especially furious when he saw that German equipment was shooting down German pilots. He said they would respond "in another manner". On 20 June 1940, the Swiss air force was ordered to stop intercepting planes violating Swiss airspace. Swiss fighters began instead to force intruding aircraft to land at Swiss airfields. Anti-aircraft units still operated. Later, Hitler and Hermann G

[DonDadda59]

I'd bet money that rednecks like these are more proficient with firearms than 90%+ of gangbangers in the US or the narcos en Mexico.

A lot of the Mexican cartels are made up of former military. Los Zetas is made up of mostly former Mexican commandos who deserted the army to work as muscle for the Gulf Cartel. Some of the Cartels have even begun hiring U.S. servicemen as hitmen.

[bladefd]

Not true. Germans knew about them. Allies knew about them. Poles knew about them. Thousands of regular German civilians wrote about the death camps in their diaries and letters to each other.

What? Allies suspected something was up but never the full scope of it. They didn't know Jews were getting exterminated or gassed in showers or burned in ovens. None of that was public.

[Nick Young]

What? Allies suspected something was up but never the full scope of it. They didn't know Jews were getting exterminated or gassed in showers or burned in ovens. None of that was public.
Just take the L and GTFO quietly brah. You don't know shit about any of this.

That bullshit revisionist history of yours has been proven wrong multiple times by literally thousands of primary sources.

Stop spewing lies and historical inaccuracies out of your ass.

The German people knew exactly what was happening in the concentration camps and they actively aided it and cheered it on. It was written about multiple times across multiple German state run media publications from the years 1933-1942.



Germans knew of Holocaust horror about death camps


The mass of ordinary Germans did know about the evolving terror of Hitler's Holocaust, according to a new research study. They knew concentration camps were full of Jewish people who were stigmatised as sub-human and race-defilers. They knew that these, like other groups and minorities, were being killed out of hand.

They knew that Adolf Hitler had repeatedly forecast the extermination of every Jew on German soil. They knew these details because they had read about them. They knew because the camps and the measures which led up to them had been prominently and proudly reported step by step in thousands of officially-inspired German media articles and posters according to the study, which is due to be published simultaneously in Britain and the US early next month and which was described as ground-breaking by Oxford University Press yesterday and already hailed by other historians.

The reports, in newspapers and magazines all over the country were phases in a public process of "desensitisation" which worked all too well, culminating in the killing of 6m Jews, says Robert Gellately. His book, Backing Hitler, is based on the first systematic analysis by a historian of surviving German newspaper and magazine archives since 1933, the year Hitler became chancellor. The survey took hundreds of hours and yielded dozens of folders of photocopies, many of them from the 24 main newspapers and magazines of the period.


Its results, Professor Gellately says, destroy the claim - generally made by Germans after Berlin fell in 1945 and accepted by most historians - that they did not know about camp atrocities. He concludes by indicating that the only thing many Germans may not have known about was the use of industrial-scale gas chambers because, unusually, no media reports were allowed of this "final solution". However, by the end of the war camps were all over the country and many Germans worked in them.

Yesterday OUP said his study exposed "once and for all the substantial consent and active participation of large numbers of ordinary Germans". Its head of historical publishing, Ruth Parr, called it a landmark study of the terror. "He asks and answers some very difficult questions about how much the ordinary German people knew about the Nazi atrocities, and to what degree they supported them," she said.



His media trawl, with a research assistant, found that as early as 1933 local papers reported the killing of 12 prisoners by guards at Dachau, the first to be set up as a "model" concentration camp initially for communists. On May 23 the Dachauer Zeitung said the camp was Germany's most famous place and brought "new hope to the Dachau business world". By 1934 the main and widely read Nazi-owned paper Volkische Beobachter was reporting a widening of policy to other "political criminals" including Jews accused of race defilement. By 1936 communist prisoners were no longer mentioned: in a photo-essay in the SS paper Das Schwarze Korps emphasised the camps as places for "race defilers, rapists, sexual degenerates and habitual criminals".

This broadening mission, as Gellately calls it, was reflected in Volkische Beobachter photographs of "typical subhumans" including Jews with "deformed headshapes". For the first time their detention was said to be permanent. In January, 1937 Berliner Borsen Zeitung reported the SS chief Heinrich Himmler as announcing the need for "still more camps" for "those with hydrocephalus, cross-eyed, deformed half-Jews and a whole series of racially inferior types".

In November, 1938 the anti-Jewish pogrom on and after "the night of broken glass" was reported countrywide in papers as heroic. The propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, announced that the "final answer" to the Jewish problem would be by way of government de cree, according to Volkische Beobachter

In late 1939, the year war started, newspapers acting on government orders announced a post-8pm curfew on all Jews in case they "molest Aryan women". That November the first summary executions of "anti-socials" by police without trial were reported. Papers were told to report these clearly and forcefully. In March, 1941 the Hamburger Fremdenblatt reported the first mass auctions of posses sions of detained or killed Jews. Hamburg became the wartime clearing house and Gellately says at least 100,000 citizens bought at the auctions.

After this the focus switched. Most press reports about Jews were about those outside Germany. This was because the official but unpublicised final solution was being implemented. But enthusiastic denunciations by ordinary citizens of Jewish and other "internal enemies" continued to be copiously reported. Backing Hitler discusses 670 cases. By the end of the war Hitler was still getting 1,000 private letters a week, many of them denunciations.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/feb/17/johnezard

[ThePhantomCreep]

The Werchmacht came within 22 miles of the Kremlin, and perhaps taking Moscow, but yeah, Switzerland and their armed civilians scared the crap out of Hitler :rolleyes:

You Bushbots are insane.

Hitler could have crushed the Swiss if he wanted. Yes, they would have resisted bravely, but they would have folded. Lucky for them, Hitler's main military objective from day one was the destruction the Soviet Union. He wanted living space for his people and Russia had tons of it. That's why he invaded with 3 million men. England, France, North Africa--these were merely sideshows for the main event: Germany vs The Soviet Union

[Nick Young]

The Werchmacht came within 22 miles of the Kremlin, and perhaps taking Moscow, but yeah, Switzerland and their armed civilians scared the crap out of Hitler :rolleyes:

You Bushbots are insane.

Hitler could have crushed the Swiss if he wanted. Yes, they would have resisted bravely, but they would have folded. Lucky for them, Hitler's main military objective from day one was the destruction the Soviet Union. He wanted living space for his people and Russia had tons of it. That's why he invaded with 3 million men. England, France, North Africa--these were just a sideshows for the main event: Germany vs The Soviet Union
These things are both true, dumbass. Hitler couldn't do shit against the Swiss, otherwise he would have. Stop trying to rewrite history. All of this is documented. Stop making shit up and changing facts.

Do you understand that Russia and Switzerland are two different places? That one has a difficult cross national border, with highly trained, highly disciplined troops and a well organized defense system, and the other was lead by one of the GOAT psycho nutcases Stalin who had no problem sending his untrained and unarmed citizens in to front line combat vs the German military?

I'm not a "Bushbot". I think George W. Bush was a shit president. I didn't vote for him. I also didn't vote for that war lord Obama whose decision making and leadership is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians.

You are brainwashed by the "us vs them" media. Hating Obama and calling him on his bullshit doesn't automatically make someone a republican.

Obama is responsible for more deaths and civilian massacres than Bush. I'd rather be a Bushbot than an Obama Stan.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Let me get this straight, in terms of military strength:

Switzerland (and their armed civilians) > Red Army?

I've heard it all now. Holy shit.


Obama is responsible for more deaths and civilian massacres than Bush. I'd rather be a Bushbot than an Obama Stan You're not a Bushbot, you just lie through your teeth for him.

[Blue&Orange]

Serious question.

If you had the option of hiding in your attic, or being armed in order to protect yourself, which would you choose?

Let's make it a modern day question. If someone kicked in your door while you're sleeping, would you want your wife and kids to hide and hope for the best, or would you prefer to protect them?

It seems many beta males on the left in this country would prefer to hide. I just want to hear someone actually say so.
Love when morons after being owned left and right change subject. What does this question have to do with the argument at hand you ****ing retard?

Do you think US population would be able to stop the US army? Rednecks with shotguns vs navy seals, hummm let me think about that....


Stupid idiot.

[Nick Young]

Let me get this straight, in terms of military strength:

Switzerland (and their armed civilians) > Red Army

Do you understand how the Red Army under Stalin operated?

Do you have any knowledge of how the German military campaign in the USSR during WWII actually went down?

It seems like you have no idea what you're talking about.

USSR beat Germany only through a war of attrition, and the Russian winter. The Red Army was soundly destroyed in open combat multiple times. They were slaughtered. Many soldiers in their ranks had 1 bullet only. Some had no bullets. 8 million of them died. Russia only won because it's historically impossible to invade Russia, due to the size and winters. Germany lost due to overextending themselves. Russia didn't beat them. Germany defeated themselves.

Yes, the Swiss army was highly organized and highly trained. They had a state of the art defense plan, and their soldiers were armed with better weapons and equipment and were better supplied than the Red Army was. It is safe to say that they were in fact better than the Red Army.

On top of it all, the Alps are difficult to invade. You cannot just waltz through them and roll in tanks. Switzerland is not an open field. It has been difficult to invade all through out history due to the mountains surrounding its borders.

Switzerland and the USSR are not the same, dumbass. Stop comparing them and pretending like it means something.


You're not a Bushbot, you just lie through your teeth for him.
When have I ever once in my life defended George W Bush? You are insane. Calling Obama on his horse shit presidency does not make me a Bushbot. You are an Obama Stan. You are blindly stanning for a mass murderer. Congratulations brah.

[bladefd]

You don't know shit about how WWII warfare worked. Stop making shit up. You can't just send planes in and expect to conquer a nation. You need boots on the ground as well. Do you think Switzerland had no air defense weaponry? Do you think Switzerland had no military force in addition to their militia?

No, Hitler could not have destroyed Switzerland from the air. The Nazis couldn't do shit vs Switzerland. If they could have, they would have.

If you knew anything about WW2, you would know how powerful the Luftwaffe was. They annihilated France's airforce & air defenses within 2 months. France was better armed than even Switzerland with bigger airforce & better air defenses. Germany destroyed their air defenses & airforce just before they sent in their army. They would destroy Switzerlands airforce same way.

Sure, you can't conquer through just airforce but that was never my point. Re-read my previous post you quoted. I was talking about destroying/crippling Switzerland. Invasion is taking over a country, but why the hell would Germany conquer a nation with NO natural resources? They would be better off just crippling Switzerland's ability to do war. Switzerland had no means of attacking Germany so they were no threat to Germany.

CONQUER and DESTROY are 2 COMPLETELY different things. You are talking about CONQUERING. I'm talking about DESTROYING (or sabotage if you prefer that word).



Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because he knew he had no chance.

https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Hitler-invade-Switzerland
Wow. It's almost like the Swiss citizens being armed prevented Nazis from invading their country! :O :O :O

You want to play the Quora game? Here we go.

Hitler didn't attack Switzerland for 2 reasons:
1-War resources were needed elsewhere. Switzerland had NO natural resources to help Germany's war efforts. Same reason why we don't attack North Korea today. NK has no natural resources like oil to warrant an invasion.


So in September - October 1940, Hitler faced the question of how to employ the Wehrmacht. Given Hitler's long held ideas of "Lebensraum" in the east, he opted for war with the USSR and by December 1940 had plans for invasion in hand.
There was really only a narrow window of time when sufficient German troops (about 20 divisions worth) in western Europe were available for an invasion of Switzerland, say between September 1940 and April 1941. After April 1941, German attention was distracted by preparations for the invasion of the USSR and also invasions of Yugoslavia and Greece.
The window really was narrower: since Swiss plans were to abandon most of low-lying Switzerland and defend a "national redoubt" in the Alps, a winter invasion of Switzerland probably was not contemplated.
In any event, Switzerland was not such a glittering prize for Hitler.
Switzerland's German speaking population displayed little desire to be a part his pan-German ambitions.
The Swiss economy had few natural resources of its own and was dependent on Germany for raw materials after 1940.

2-Germany was using Switzerland's railroads. If Hitler attacked, whether the intentions were to conquer or destroy, he would have lost access to the rails linking Germany to Italy through Swiss Alps. The Swiss had said they would blow all the railroad tunnels up if Germany as much as touched Switzerland.


The Swiss generally ascribe their survival to General Guisan's Redoubt Strategy, in which the army withdrew from the plains and cities to hundreds of deep bunkers and forts in the mountains, mined all key bridges and tunnels and generally planned to make an occupied Switzerland strategically disastrous for Germany and Italy: The key tunnels linking the 2 Axis powers would have taken months to rebuild. To re-affirm the Swiss commitment to resist, General Guisan gathered the entire officer corps at the Ruetli meadow, the birthplace of Swiss democracy, where every officer swore an oath to defend Schwyz. This let the Germans know that there would be no Norwegian Quislings or French-style rollovers here. (ps: The Swiss are just removing the explosives now.)
Andrew Warinner has written an excellent answer here, except that the Axis really DID need the Swiss passes and by that I mean with working tunnels, not blown-up ones. Regarding transshipment, the Swiss HAD to cooperate somewhat with the Germans to keep the cost-benefit ratio on the side of not being invaded. This lead to some very tragic circumstances, with trains of deportees traveling from Italy through Switzerland in the middle of the night, and on to Germany.

Wow. It's like Switzerland had no natural resources and had train tunnels the Germans needed to send supplies to Italy! :O :O :O

[Nick Young]

If you knew anything about WW2, you would know how powerful the Luftwaffe was. They annihilated France's airforce & air defenses within 2 months. France was better armed than even Switzerland with bigger airforce & better air defenses. Germany destroyed their air defenses & airforce just before they sent in their army. They would do the same to Switzerland.

Sure, you can't conquer through just airforce but that was never my point. Re-read my previous post you quoted. I was talking about destroying/crippling Switzerland. Invasion is taking over a country, but why the hell would Germany conquer a nation with NO natural resources? They would be better off just crippling Switzerland's ability to do war. Switzerland had no means of attacking Germany so they were no threat to Germany.

CONQUER and DESTROY are 2 COMPLETELY different things. You are talking about CONQUERING. I'm talking about DESTROYING (or sabotage if you prefer that word).



You want to play the Quora game? Here we go.

Hitler didn't attack Switzerland for 2 reasons:
1-War resources were needed elsewhere. Switzerland had NO natural resources to help Germany's war efforts. Same reason why we don't attack North Korea today. NK has no natural resources like oil to warrant an invasion.



2-Germany was using Switzerland's railroads. If Hitler attacked, whether the intentions were to conquer or destroy, he would have lost access to the rails linking Germany to Italy through Swiss Alps. The Swiss had said they would blow all the railroad tunnels up if Germany as much as touched Switzerland.



Wow. It's like Switzerland had no natural resources and had train tunnels the Germans needed to send supplies to Italy! :O :O :O
Take the L brah. Remember when you lied about Germans not knowing about the death camps? Stop lying and trying to rewrite history. Take the L and GTFO.

[bladefd]

Just take the L and GTFO quietly brah. You don't know shit about any of this.

That bullshit revisionist history of yours has been proven wrong multiple times by literally thousands of primary sources.

Stop spewing lies and historical inaccuracies out of your ass.

The German people knew exactly what was happening in the concentration camps and they actively aided it and cheered it on. It was written about multiple times across multiple German state run media publications from the years 1933-1942.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/feb/17/johnezard

You didn't bold 1 portion of it:

Its results, Professor Gellately says, destroy the claim - generally made by Germans after Berlin fell in 1945 and accepted by most historians - that they did not know about camp atrocities. He concludes by indicating that the only thing many Germans may not have known about was the use of industrial-scale gas chambers because, unusually, no media reports were allowed of this "final solution". However, by the end of the war camps were all over the country and many Germans worked in them.


I said in the previous post:
"They didn't know Jews were getting exterminated or gassed in showers or burned in ovens. None of that was public."

So, yeah. Once again, you're talking about concentration camps. I'm talking more specifically about extermination camps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps#Types_of_camps


Holocaust scholars draw a distinction between concentration camps (described in this article) and extermination camps, which were established by the Nazis for the industrial-scale mass execution of the predominantly Jewish ghetto and concentration camp populations.


Nazis had both. Not all of the concentration camps were extermination camps. Everyone knew about the concentration camps but not everyone knew about the extermination ones. Media couldn't cover those.

[QUOTE]Extermination camps (Vernichtungslager): These camps differed from the rest, since not all of them were also concentration camps. Although none of the categories are independent, many camps could be classified as a mixture of several of the above. All camps had some of the elements of an extermination camp, but systematic extermination of new-arrivals occurred in very specific camps. Of these, four were extermination camps, where all new-arrivals were simply killed

[bladefd]

BTW Nick Young, you might have noticed by now that I don't get into personal attacks. Whenever someone disagrees with you, you instantly go into attack mode calling them every which name/insult you can think of. Stay classy and quit acting like an immature kid.

[HitandRun Reggie]

A lot of the Mexican cartels are made up of former military. Los Zetas is made up of mostly former Mexican commandos who deserted the army to work as muscle for the Gulf Cartel. Some of the Cartels have even begun hiring U.S. servicemen as hitmen.

And a lot of rednecks are vets as well of the US military. Most officers are from The South. The Mexican "army" is a joke, our service women are probably tougher than these 5'5 wimps.

[Nick Young]

BTW Nick Young, you might have noticed by now that I don't get into personal attacks. Whenever someone disagrees with you, you instantly go into attack mode calling them every which name/insult you can think of. Stay classy and quit acting like an immature kid.
When people spew lies, for example "The German people didn't know about the Holocaust while it was happening" I will always call them out on their bullshit.

[bladefd]

When people spew lies, for example "The German people didn't know about the Holocaust while it was happening" I will always call them out on their bullshit.

Are you saying somebody is making that argument? Point out that individual, and I will shred his argument wherever such an individual dwells.

[Nick Young]

What? Allies suspected something was up but never the full scope of it. They didn't know Jews were getting exterminated or gassed in showers or burned in ovens. None of that was public.
You made this argument twice in this thread, that the Allies and Germans didn't know about the gas chambers. All of it was public.

[bladefd]

You made this argument twice in this thread, that the Allies and Germans didn't know about the gas chambers. All of it was public.

Wow, you are completely twisting everything. I will repeat what I said. This time, I will put it in even more basic English.

People knew there were Jews/Gypsies/others being murdered by the fascist Nazi government. Concentration camps were widely known about where Jews were being taken. What was not known were the specific details. Americans for example did not know if people being gassed alive and/or burned alive.

There was a report US state department received in mid-1942 that mentioned mass murder taking place in few of the camps, but no specific details were known other than that.


In August 1942, the State Department received a report sent by Gerhart Riegner, the Geneva-based representative of the World Jewish Congress (WJC). The report revealed that the Germans were implementing a policy to physically annihilate the Jews of Europe. Department officials declined to pass on the report to its intended recipient, American Jewish leader Stephen Wise, who was President of the World Jewish Congress.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005182

Saying that people didn't know the specifics of HOW something is being done is not the same as people not knowing WHAT something is being done. People knew the holocaust & mass murder was taking place but no specifics details were known.


By the end of the war in spring 1945, as the Germans and their Axis partners were pushed back on both fronts, Allied troops uncovered the full extent of crimes committed during the Holocaust.
http://www.ushmm.org/learn/timeline-of-events/1942-1945



By May 1945, the Germans and their collaborators had murdered six million European Jews as part of a systematic plan of genocide—the Holocaust. When Allied troops entered the concentration camps, they discovered piles of corpses, bones, and human ashes—testimony to Nazi mass murder. Soldiers also found thousands of survivors—Jews and non-Jews—suffering from starvation and disease.
http://www.ushmm.org/learn/timeline-of-events/after-1945

Those are both direct quotes from United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. You won't say the US Holocaust museum is wrong, right?

Here's History channel:

The American public discovered the full extent of the Holocaust only when the Allied armies liberated the extermination and concentration camps at the end of World War II. And as historians struggled to understand what had happened, attention increasingly focused on the inadequate American response and what lay behind it. It remains today the subject of great debate.

http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/american-response-to-the-holocaust

Here's NY Times:

Throughout the war few Americans were aware of the scale of the European Jewish catastrophe. By late 1944 three quarters of the American population believed that the Germans had "murdered many people in concentration camps," but of those willing to estimate how many had been killed, most thought it was 100,000 or fewer. By May 1945, at the end of the war in Europe, most people guessed that about a million (including, it should be noted, both Jews and non-Jews) had been killed in the camps. That the man in the street was ill informed about the Holocaust, as about so much else, is hardly shocking. But lack of awareness was common among the highly placed and generally knowledgeable as well: only at the very end of the war did ignorance dissipate. William Casey, later the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was head of secret intelligence in the European theater for the Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor of the CIA:

The most devastating experience of the war for most of us was the first visit to a concentration camp.... We knew in a general way that Jews were being persecuted, that they were being rounded up ... and that brutality and murder took place at these camps. But few if any comprehended the appalling magnitude of it. It wasn't sufficiently real to stand out from the general brutality and slaughter which is war.
https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/n/novick-holocaust.html

No knowledge of gas chambers or burning alive in ovens or such specifics was public knowledge until 1945 as soon as the war in Europe was over. Don't embarrass yourself because you are completely wrong. You can continue to defame what I say, but you are 100% wrong. End of story.

[Nick Young]

Considering the fact that allied spies were sneaking in and out of concentration camps as early as 1941 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Pilecki), you are dead wrong.

Maybe the American public was not well aware, but Europeans knew what was going on. The Poles, the Bosnians, the Serbs, the French, the Germans, the Croats, the Dutch, the British, all of them knew exactly what was happening. They just did nothing to stop it. Many even actively aided the process.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Do you understand how the Red Army under Stalin operated?

Do you have any knowledge of how the German military campaign in the USSR during WWII actually went down?

It seems like you have no idea what you're talking about.

USSR beat Germany only through a war of attrition, and the Russian winter. The Red Army was soundly destroyed in open combat multiple times. They were slaughtered. Many soldiers in their ranks had 1 bullet only. Some had no bullets. 8 million of them died. Russia only won because it's historically impossible to invade Russia, due to the size and winters. Germany lost due to overextending themselves. Russia didn't beat them. Germany defeated themselves.

Yes, the Swiss army was highly organized and highly trained. They had a state of the art defense plan, and their soldiers were armed with better weapons and equipment and were better supplied than the Red Army was. It is safe to say that they were in fact better than the Red Army.

On top of it all, the Alps are difficult to invade. You cannot just waltz through them and roll in tanks. Switzerland is not an open field. It has been difficult to invade all through out history due to the mountains surrounding its borders.

Switzerland and the USSR are not the same, dumbass. Stop comparing them and pretending like it means something.


When have I ever once in my life defended George W Bush? You are insane. Calling Obama on his horse shit presidency does not make me a Bushbot. You are an Obama Stan. You are blindly stanning for a mass murderer. Congratulations brah.

Lol @ your excuses. The Red Army defeated the Werchmacht and that's a fact--even the version that was caught with its pants down during Operation Barbarosa would crush the Swiss Army. By 1944 they had the most powerful army that had ever existed to that point (after the US). They had more soldiers than the Swiss had people. A lot more.

Conservatives = batshit insane.

"Stanning for a mass murderer", says the Putin-loving Bush apologist. Get lost, douche.

[Nick Young]

Lol @ your excuses. The Red Army defeated the Werchmacht and that's a fact--even the version that was caught with its pants down during Operation Barbarosa would crush the Swiss Army. By 1944 they had the most powerful army that had ever existed to that point (after the US). They had more soldiers than the Swiss had people. A lot more.

Conservatives = batshit insane.

"Stanning for a mass murderer", says the Putin-loving Bush apologist. Get lost, douche.
It doesn't matter how many people were in the red army, they were unsupplied, half starved, and given shit equipment. They beat germany by sending wave after wave after wave to the frontlines to die. They won only through attrition and Stalin's willingness to sacrifice his own people, the same way Russia defeated Napoleon.

They won because of the Russian winter, and Germany overextending itself on two fronts and being unable to continue to supply the campaign.

I have never once defended Bush and said multiple times that I think he's shit.

Obama has started a civil war where hundreds of thousands of people died. What has Putin ever done that compares to that, Obama Stanboy? Why you got so much love for a mass murderer brah?:confusedshrug:

[KingBeasley08]

I'm not reading 13 pages. Can somebody tldr the argument so far so I can jump in?

[Nick Young]

TL;DR

Guns stop Nazi insurgencies.

[KingBeasley08]

I agree a bit with both sides. I think guns in general are good to have especially in case of insurrection. But it wouldn't have helped the Jews. Most Germans hated the Jews. Nick is right. Most average citizens knew the Jews were getting fcked and didn't do anything. Goebbels was a master of propoganda. He probably could have sped up the process and used the 'civil war' as an excuse to kill all the Jews.

Also, Nick you're right about how Stalin sent shit ton of people to die but you're not giving credit to some of the Soviets military force. Zhukov was one of the best generals ever. Most of the Soviet losses were in the German offensive. But their counterattack was where their force came strong.

[Nick Young]

I agree a bit with both sides. I think guns in general are good to have especially in case of insurrection. But it wouldn't have helped the Jews. Most Germans hated the Jews. Nick is right. Most average citizens knew the Jews were getting fcked and didn't do anything. Goebbels was a master of propoganda. He probably could have sped up the process and used the 'civil war' as an excuse to kill all the Jews.

Also, Nick you're right about how Stalin sent shit ton of people to die but you're not giving credit to some of the Soviets military force. Zhukov was one of the best generals ever. Most of the Soviet losses were in the German offensive. But their counterattack was where their force came strong.
I will read more about Zhukov so I won't disrespect this dude in the future.

[DonDadda59]

I agree a bit with both sides. I think guns in general are good to have especially in case of insurrection. But it wouldn't have helped the Jews. Most Germans hated the Jews. Nick is right. Most average citizens knew the Jews were getting fcked and didn't do anything. Goebbels was a master of propoganda. He probably could have sped up the process and used the 'civil war' as an excuse to kill all the Jews.

Also, Nick you're right about how Stalin sent shit ton of people to die but you're not giving credit to some of the Soviets military force. Zhukov was one of the best generals ever. Most of the Soviet losses were in the German offensive. But their counterattack was where their force came strong.

This. The Soviets were initially caught off guard because they thought the Nazis would honor the non-aggression pact they signed. Or at least they figured any possible German offensive wouldn't come before 1942. But once Stalin got confirmation the Japanese weren't planning on attacking Russia from the East, he sent his best troops that were stationed there to the Western front (In Russia) and that basically ended WWII in Europe.

[bladefd]

Considering the fact that allied spies were sneaking in and out of concentration camps as early as 1941 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Pilecki), you are dead wrong.

Maybe the American public was not well aware, but Europeans knew what was going on. The Poles, the Bosnians, the Serbs, the French, the Germans, the Croats, the Dutch, the British, all of them knew exactly what was happening. They just did nothing to stop it. Many even actively aided the process.

I looked through article on pilecki. He looks like someone I would respect. He got screwed by his Polish superiors and the Soviets for doing the right thing.

It seems like he was the first guy to sneak into such a camp during September, 1940 (maybe only but I don't know). He sent reports back but his superiors refused to believe him. He urged them. It took them 2.5 years before they finally forwarded it to London.



"The underground army was completely in disbelief about the horrors," Storozynski explains. "About ovens, about gas chambers, about injections to murder people — people didn't believe him. They thought he was exaggerating."

Pilecki also hoped to organize an attack and mass escape from the camp. But no order could be procured for such a plan from Polish high command.
"We were waiting for an order, as we understood that without such one — although it would be a beautiful firework and unexpected for the world and for Poland — we could not agree to do that," Pilecki wrote.

For the next two and a half years, Pilecki slowly worked to feed his reports up the Polish chain of command to London.

"And in London," Storozynski says, "the Polish government in exile told the British and the Americans, 'You need to do something. You need to bomb the train tracks going to these camps. Or we have all these Polish paratroopers — drop them inside the camp. Let them help these people break out.' But the British and the Americans just wouldn't do anything."

Alright, I am wrong when it comes to Poland. Superiors in Poland knew by end of 1940, and they dropped the ball. London found out in mid 1943 if I have the math right but they wouldn't believe it either. Public wasn't told until mid 1944.

Were other spies sent in by other nations? Did the government in London tell the public in the European nations? Is there evidence that shows the German public knew the specifics? In what ways did those other nations "actively aid" the holocaust? All 4 of these are the things you claimed.

Feel free to also show evidence that the German public knew about the extermination camps - I looked for articles but I don't see them. Remember, I already told you that people knew about concentration camps but as far as I know, extermination camps were not public knowledge until 1944. (While extermination camps were concentration camps, not all concentration camps were extermination camps.)

The German media was run through strict censors and were kept out of the loop so the public would need to find out through another means.

[bladefd]

Here's another article from US Holocaust Museum that shows how far the Nazis went to hide knowledge of the genocide from the German public. I guess you know more and done more research than the US Holocaust Museum, Dr Nick?

[QUOTE]
The decision to annihilate the European Jews was announced at the Wannsee Conference on January 20, 1942 to key high-level Nazi Party, SS, and German state officials, whose agencies would contribute to implementing a Europe-wide

[TonyMontana]

It's always incredible how few historical figures have the presence of Hitler. Anytime someone mentions him or the Nazis it is guaranteed to turn into a sea of chaos and emotion. None have the same power except for religious figures such as Jesus and Mohammed. which makes sense because National Socialism had religious/spiritual aspects and was not simply "politics" like "a Democrat" or "a Republican"....

It took a few hundred years after Jesus's death for Christianty to pick up. Perhaps this failure of the forced multiculturalism on Western countries will have more people really listening and reading up on Hitler to see what he was all about.

[TonyMontana]

I wonder if Ben Carson feels the same way about the 100+ million russians and chinese that were killed by their countries Communist dictators(Stalin and Mao) in pretty much the same time period?

Guns were much more forbidden in communist countries than in National Socialist Germany. Guns are never available in a country completely taken over by communism. Thats one of the goals of the communists: to make sure the public is disarmed. North Korea is the modern day poster child of what happens when you get extreme communism.

[ThePhantomCreep]

It's always incredible how few historical figures have the presence of Hitler. Anytime someone mentions him or the Nazis it is guaranteed to turn into a sea of chaos and emotion. None have the same power except for religious figures such as Jesus and Mohammed. which makes sense because National Socialism had religious/spiritual aspects and was not simply "politics" like "a Democrat" or "a Republican"....

It took a few hundred years after Jesus's death for Christianty to pick up. Perhaps this failure of the forced multiculturalism on Western countries will have more people really listening and reading up on Hitler to see what he was all about.

You're an idiot. Hitler started a war that left 60 million people. dead. What can be learned from a piece of garbage like him? His own country has completely disowned him.

Hitler has notoriety in spades, but little else.

Meanwhile, the current world we live in is the most peaceful in human existence. Multiculturalism is only deemed a failure by fringe right-wing shitheads.

[Derka]

The Red Army alone lost 7 million soldiers in their war with Nazi Germany. Anyone who thinks armed citizens, uncoordinated and largely untrained, would stand a chance in hell, needs to lay off listening to Alex Jones and grow a brain.
Completely this.

[NumberSix]

The Werchmacht came within 22 miles of the Kremlin, and perhaps taking Moscow, but yeah, Switzerland and their armed civilians scared the crap out of Hitler :rolleyes:

You Bushbots are insane.

Hitler could have crushed the Swiss if he wanted. Yes, they would have resisted bravely, but they would have folded. Lucky for them, Hitler's main military objective from day one was the destruction the Soviet Union. He wanted living space for his people and Russia had tons of it. That's why he invaded with 3 million men. England, France, North Africa--these were merely sideshows for the main event: Germany vs The Soviet Union
Of course hitler WOULD have won, but the point is, nobody wants to go through that hassle.

[TonyMontana]

You're an idiot. Hitler started a war that left 60 million people. dead. What can be learned from a piece of garbage like him? How own country has completely disowned him.

Hitler has notoriety in spades, but little else.

Meanwhile, the current world we live in is the most peaceful in human existence. Multiculturalism is only deemed a failure by fringe right-wing shitheads.



Meanwhile, the current world we live in is the most peaceful in human existence. Multiculturalism is only deemed a failure by fringe right-wing shitheads.

So you are saying that the reason the world is "the most peaceful in human existence" right now is because countries(and by countries only Western countries) have become "multicultural". you sure about that one?

Strange....because the most violent and crime ridden areas in Europe(as well as in America most likely) are the areas that are the most "multicultural". In fact the reason Americas homicide rate is so high is not because of it's guns, but because of the combination of guns AND "multiculturalism". Fat rednecks in homogeneous communities believe it or not, have very low rates of homicide. Ignoring certain demographics, America is as peaceful as Europe despite all it's guns..

You need to set your bias aside and look at reality. There are absolutely zero advantages for Western countries when it comes to multiculturalism as opposed to homogeneous,nationalist, communities. Unless your one of those absolute morons who thinks "diverse food" is worth all of the welfare, increased crime, more isolated communities, lower standards of living, usw, etc.

[ThePhantomCreep]

So you are saying that the reason the world is "the most peaceful in human existence" right now is because countries(and by countries only Western countries) have become "multicultural". you sure about that one?No, I'm saying there is zero evidence that multiculturalism has made things worse. Like I said, even the 90's were more war-torn and crime-ridden than today.



Strange....because the most violent and crime ridden areas in Europe(as well as in America most likely) are the areas that are the most "multicultural".Your cherry-picking does nothing to disprove what I said--that the world overall is safer and less war-torn today than decades past. London, for example, is one of the most diverse cities on the planet, as well as one of the safest. It's safer now than decades past, when it was more homogeneous.


In fact the reason Americas homicide rate is so high is not because of it's guns, but because of the combination of guns AND "multiculturalism".

Your argument is that multiculturalism is a failure. You need to start coming up with evidence to back up your statement, otherwise STFU.

As far as homicides are concerned, your argument fails:

US 1990: 76% Non-Hispanic White
US 2010: 63% Non-Hispanic White

US 1990: 9.4 homicide rate
US 2010: 4.5 homicide rate

There's no evidence that suggests diversity is ruining the US, or Europe.


There are absolutely zero advantages for Western countries when it comes to multiculturalism as opposed to homogeneous,nationalist, communities. That's where your xenophobic ass is dead wrong. With birthrates plummeting all over the world, especially in first-world countries, it's imperative that nations be as immigrant-friendly as possible if they want to stay competitive economically: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/immigration-is-the-only-reason-the-us-doesnt-have-an-aging-crisis/283474/

Nations that refuse to grow will be left behind (see: Japan, which will have a median age of 53 by 2050).

[DonDadda59]

This man TonyMontana is in here openly praising Hitler's racial cleansing program? :biggums:

[bladefd]

So I was having a discussion today with somebody on Facebook over Carson saying the pyramids were built to store grain (he said Carson is ignorant, which I agreed with). I mentioned that Carson says foolish things regularly. I cited Carson saying that the holocaust could have been averted if the Jews had guns. I mentioned that the French military, which was top 5 most powerful in the world with tanks, artillery, airforce, was completely destroyed in 6 weeks yet Carson believes untrained civilians with small arms could have greatly limited the holocaust. Am I being anti-semitic for saying that jews wouldn't have stopped/slowed the holocaust against the Nazi soldiers even if they had guns? The other person deleted my post quickly.

Is it considered not PC? Somebody explain if what I said is ignorant and attack on Jews in any way?

[24-Inch_Chrome]

The Jews having guns would have made no difference. Saying that is not an attack on the Jews in any way, it's the truth.

[KevinNYC]

The Jews having guns would have made no difference. Saying that is not an attack on the Jews in any way, it's the truth.

People talk about individual gun possession being the thing that has prevented American tyranny. They have so little faith in the actual American system, the beliefs and ideals that are within every citizen, the Army hasn't taken over because citizens have guns, it's because the citizens in the Army would never go for it.

In Iraq under Saddam Hussein most families kept an AK47 in their house, it didn't prevent Iraq from being a Tyranny.

[VeeCee15]

carson is an idiot
yes little guns vs. german tanks, airplanes, armor and bombs

[CavaliersFTW]

"Jews" weren't a nation ready for war. They're just people who practiced a common religion and lived anywhere, under many nations and governments they weren't united or organized or anything like that.

So that is complete and utter bullshit. If a militarized government decides to oppress a religious people within its own boundaries or in the boundaries of CAPTURED territory those people have already lost only option would be to try and escape said territory or militarized government if possible. Taking a few small arms pot shots would be insanely futile against Stukka dive bomber blitzkriegs and Panzer and Tiger tanks.

What a freaking joke and insanely insulting to those affected by the Holocaust.