Jump to content
IGNORED

"Holocaust could've been avoided if the Jews were armed"


mango_fandango
 Share

Recommended Posts

From Ben Carson. You couldn't make this shit up.

:angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:

As always, Republicans blaming the victims. Hitler was head of a vast army with tanks, bombs... but nah, it's not his fault 6 million Jews died, it's THEIR fault for not owning guns.

The stupid, it burns.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10 ... 1444390035

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • doggie

    5

  • CloakNDagger

    4

  • nastyhobbitses

    3

  • laPapessaGiovanna

    3

So what does he think the Nazis would have done if Jews said, hey we have guns, we don't want to go to your concentration camps, and started shooting at the people who came to take them to the trains? Just say, "Oh okay, never mind, please go on your merry way, we'll rethink this whole scheme and let you live peacefully ever after"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But remember he also said people should have jumped on the shooter. But when someone stuck a gun in his ribs at a fast good joint he told them you want that guy and pointed to a casheir. Then trump with shit happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Ben Carson. You couldn't make this shit up.

:angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:

As always, Republicans blaming the victims. Hitler was head of a vast army with tanks, bombs... but nah, it's not his fault 6 million Jews died, it's THEIR fault for not owning guns.

The stupid, it burns.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10 ... 1444390035

Yeah, you can make it up. They do it all the time. Faced with an unpalatable fact- guns make you less safe, not more- just make up a story that sounds better. People will believe what they want to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you can make it up. They do it all the time. Faced with an unpalatable fact- guns make you less safe, not more- just make up a story that sounds better. People will believe what they want to believe.

Hey!! You and the tapeworm are back!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Ben Carson. You couldn't make this shit up.

:angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:

As always, Republicans blaming the victims. Hitler was head of a vast army with tanks, bombs... but nah, it's not his fault 6 million Jews died, it's THEIR fault for not owning guns.

The stupid, it burns.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10 ... 1444390035

Sorry, but that's actually NOT a victim-blaming argument. A victim-blaming argument would be that they had the RIGHT to be armed, but chose to not be and were therefore stupid. In this case it was probably illegal, so it's more a statement of fact than of blame.

And yeah, owning guns might not have saved them, but it would have made people think twice about rounding them up. The end result would be civil war, not unopposed genocide. He's actually right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but that's actually NOT a victim-blaming argument. A victim-blaming argument would be that they had the RIGHT to be armed, but chose to not be and were therefore stupid. In this case it was probably illegal, so it's more a statement of fact than of blame.

And yeah, owning guns might not have saved them, but it would have made people think twice about rounding them up. The end result would be civil war, not unopposed genocide. He's actually right.

I am not following this logic. Did the USA have a civil war when the government interned Japanese Americans during WWII? Do you think US officials really thought twice because guns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but that's actually NOT a victim-blaming argument. A victim-blaming argument would be that they had the RIGHT to be armed, but chose to not be and were therefore stupid. In this case it was probably illegal, so it's more a statement of fact than of blame.

And yeah, owning guns might not have saved them, but it would have made people think twice about rounding them up. The end result would be civil war, not unopposed genocide. He's actually right.

Jews made up about 0.75% (tendency declining) of the German population at that time. Even if they many of them had been armed and had managed to get to their guns to defend themselves that wouldn't have been a civil war. It would have been people "killed while resisting arrest".

And killing German officials wouldn't have brought the rest of the population on their side nor would it have made anyone "think twice" about deporting and/or killing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jews made up about 0.75% (tendency declining) of the German population at that time. Even if they many of them had been armed and had managed to get to their guns to defend themselves that wouldn't have been a civil war. It would have been people "killed while resisting arrest".

And killing German officials wouldn't have brought the rest of the population on their side nor would it have made anyone "think twice" about deporting and/or killing them.

Exactly. What I really meant was similar to what another poster said- if the Jews had owned guns the Nazis weren't gonna throw up their hands and go "oh no, you carry on". And I think I saw somewhere that Hitler enacted strict gun control. The Jews had already been denied everything, if they had had guns the Nazis would've removed them one way or another.

I also mainly meant that it seems that rabid pro-gun people seem to think that if everyone was armed then gun crime would rapidly decrease. Nuh uh. People can rapidly draw their guns and fire them faster than you could blink, especially if they conceal carry.- people likely wouldn't have time to defend themselves. What about cinema shootings? People like James Holmes clearly think that a cinema is an almost ideal place to kill people- a cinema auditorium is dark, everyone's concentrating on the screen, they're not gonna notice some madman pulling out an AK-47 and firing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for being as smart as you have to be to become a neurosurgeon, ben carson sure is fucking dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but that's actually NOT a victim-blaming argument. A victim-blaming argument would be that they had the RIGHT to be armed, but chose to not be and were therefore stupid. In this case it was probably illegal, so it's more a statement of fact than of blame.

And yeah, owning guns might not have saved them, but it would have made people think twice about rounding them up. The end result would be civil war, not unopposed genocide. He's actually right.

It is an abysmally ignorant and victim blaming argument because it presumes that Jews knew in advance what was going to happen to them and therefore were so stupid that they didn't escape nor defend themselves. It happened countless times in European history that Jews were persecuted (you can search the word pogrom) in a way or another and they survived escaping or adapting to the new laws, but none could foresee the utter madness, the atrocious monstrosity of the "final solution".

Also because in a civil war a minority could have hoped...for a genocide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for being as smart as you have to be to become a neurosurgeon, ben carson sure is fucking dumb.

You know what you call the guy who graduates at the bottom of his med school class?

Doctor!

Jokes aside, I sometimes wonder how Carson got through medical school. Or college in general. It wouldn't surprise me if there was cheating going on somewhere. The guy really just does not seem smart enough to be a physician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not following this logic. Did the USA have a civil war when the government interned Japanese Americans during WWII? Do you think US officials really thought twice because guns?

I'd bet most of those Americans of Japanese descent weren't armed, and didn't expect to be harmed. And no, they probably didn't think twice. Weren't there a lot less of them, than there were Jews in Europe, though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an abysmally ignorant and victim blaming argument because it presumes that Jews knew in advance what was going to happen to them and therefore were so stupid that they didn't escape nor defend themselves. It happened countless times in European history that Jews were persecuted (you can search the word pogrom) in a way or another and they survived escaping or adapting to the new laws, but none could foresee the utter madness, the atrocious monstrosity of the "final solution".

Also because in a civil war a minority could have hoped...for a genocide.

Maybe not the first wave, but certainly Jews and others like those mentioned in the story of Corrie Ten Boom and elsewhere like in France would have had a better chance of resistance. The Resistance in France which actually did a fairly good bit of damage to the German ability to control the population was possible because they were being supplied with arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd bet most of those Americans of Japanese descent weren't armed,

So it sounds like you are saying the solution is not the right to bear arms, but rather arming everyone? If not, I am sorry that I am not following the logic.

and didn't expect to be harmed.

I actually don't know a lot about history (it is embarrassing), but from what I know I would agree that Japanese Americans probably didn't fear harm any more than other minority populations. If anyone knows more about this topic and cares to share, I would be interested in learning.

And no, they probably didn't think twice. Weren't there a lot less of them, than there were Jews in Europe, though?

A quick google search suggests that the Jewish population in the 1930s constituted less than 0.75% of the population. At the time of internment, Japanese Americans constituted less than 0.1% of the US population. So, while I agree Japanese Americans represented a far smaller fraction of the population, I am not sure that it is really relevant to the conversation Jews represented such a small fraction of the German population?

Feel free to ignore me - I am not meaning to nit-pick. I am just very interested in this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something is really off about Ben Carson. His speech tends to be soft and slurry and he doesn't open his eyes wide. It could be that he just has a really bad pair of contacts that bother his eyes (I've seen that before) but it could also be something like the aftereffects of a small stroke. (Think Sophia Petrillo on The Golden Girls. Her filters came off after her stroke.) It could also be that it's a personality disorder coming out.

Just because someone has the technical skills to be a neurosurgeon doesn't mean s/he is not a sociopath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe not the first wave, but certainly Jews and others like those mentioned in the story of Corrie Ten Boom and elsewhere like in France would have had a better chance of resistance. The Resistance in France which actually did a fairly good bit of damage to the German ability to control the population was possible because they were being supplied with arms.

I hope I shorted the quotes correctly.

The situation in France was very much different from the situation in Germany, and not because the Jews were supplied with guns. Consider the attitude of the majority of the French population (attacked and occupied by Germany), and not whether a very small minority had a certain amount of guns or not. Consider that Germany still had to establish control and establish administration and a police force controlled , while these things were already under their control and at their disposal in Germany. Consider that not all of France was occupied but big parts were still governed by the French themselves. And consider that with the Armistice of 22 June 1940 France still capitulated to Germany (in deeds while not in words), although they had a whole army. With guns.

No arming of the German Jews could have saved them.

What would have helped would have been accepting more Jewish refugees in other countries like the USA for example, but then there were people like Breckinridge Long...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe not the first wave, but certainly Jews and others like those mentioned in the story of Corrie Ten Boom and elsewhere like in France would have had a better chance of resistance. The Resistance in France which actually did a fairly good bit of damage to the German ability to control the population was possible because they were being supplied with arms.

My grandfather was actually part of the rResistenza in Italy. They tried to focus on sabotages avoiding to kill Germans because if a German soldier was killed 10 unarmed citizens were immediately killed in retaliation.

It nearly happened in my village. Someone shot without killing and the Germans had already 20 citizens lined up (and between them my great grandfather) when the partigiano that was "guilty" of the shooting consigned himself and was imprisoned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that Ben Carson was a gifted doctor and did a lot of good for his patients. That may have been his talent. It doesn't mean he is spectacular at anything else, especially not politics. People always say that surgeons think they are God, well I can't imagine how high up there a neurosurgeon thinks they are. They are the rock stars of the medical profession. My guess is that he is so used to praise for his work that he really believes he is capable of doing anything, even if he doesn't have the knowledge(facts) or put in the hard work to do so.

As to his comment, he seems to always put the "blame" on the victim, both as to the Holocaust and the Oregon shooting. As though the victim could have easily changed the outcome. I am waiting for him make some type of ridiculous comment about avoiding rape that crazy republicans are prone to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do they have to bring the Holocaust into fucking everything?! :angry-banghead: Let's not actually discuss what is going on in today in America when it comes to guns, lets instead pretend like the Jews would have stopped the Holocaust if they had had guns. :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:

I saw this one a couple of days ago when looking at the FB page of one of John Shrader's missionary friends. Another, blame the Jews line of thought.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd bet most of those Americans of Japanese descent weren't armed, and didn't expect to be harmed. And no, they probably didn't think twice. Weren't there a lot less of them, than there were Jews in Europe, though?

The issue with this line of thinking is the fact that many Jewish victims did not think they were going to be killed either. At least at first. The Nazis slowly worked their way towards the Final Solution and not many people actually knew what the concentration camps were for - it was only later when reports started being smuggled out that people started to learn what was really going on and by that time it was already too late for many people.

Not only that, but many leaders in the Jewish communities of Europe urged their people to go peacefully along with what the Nazis wanted - not because they wanted anyone to die, but because they wanted to protect their people. They believed that obeying what they were told to do would protect them - they had no way of knowing what was really happening until it was too late.

So a big part of why more people didn't resist is because they didn't know how deadly the situation would become - not because they didn't have firearms.

Below is the conclusion from an article I found regarding the dilemma of revolting during the Holocaust; among the "choiceless choices" they mention are the fact that there was the ever present risk of collective punishment, the fact that many who wanted to resist had to face the possibility of leaving their loved ones behind, the fact that they often had to challenge authority figures in their societies who urged caution, and the fact that there was guilt felt over using money raised for weapons rather than purchasing food for those who needed it:

An examination of the “choiceless choices†that faced would-be resisters makes each and every manifestation of armed resistance that much more worthy of respect, and that much more surprising. In comparison to the moral dilemmas faced by young people, often teenagers, who attempted to resist a power much greater than themselves, picking up weapons may have been the least difficult part of resistance. Understanding the “choiceless choices†that faced the resisters clarifies for us the overwhelming odds against resistance. It becomes much easier to understand the decision made by the majority of the Jews in the ghettos not to resist.

Source: yadvashem.org/yv/en/education/newsletter/30/dilemma_revolt.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.