Yanks and Guns

Guest

youngdan wrote:: If you don't know they are coming then you are at a disadvantage. However the Jews knew the gestapo were coming and should have acted.

They might have known the Gestapo were coming, but did not know what the eventual outcome was going to be. Some resisted by armed force, a lot more did not, all those who resisted died anyway as did most but not all of those who did not resist. They made their decision on the basis of wholly inadequate information and I’m sure, looking for the best outcome for their families, not just themselves alone.

Whatever case there might be for acting as a coordinated armed force, in this circumstance, individual armed resistance led to only one outcome, certain death & abandonment of family, not a choice anyone was entitled to make really.

Guest

The Danish case was different. The population as a whole was not having it, and the Danish Jews were safeguarded. It was not done with guns.

Guest

The bottom line was the Jews did not have the option because Hitler took away the guns years before. A case could be made that they could not have known that they were for frying but hopefully today they would and act accordingly. The argument that they would be killed is ridiculous as they could not be any deader than they ended up

Guest

youngdan wrote:: The bottom line was the Jews did not have the option because Hitler took away the guns years before. A case could be made that they could not have known that they were for frying but hopefully today they would and act accordingly. The argument that they would be killed is ridiculous as they could not be any deader than they ended up

youngdan, the Danes used strikes and passive resistance. Their Jews did not get killed.

Guest

youngdan wrote:: The argument that they would be killed is ridiculous as they could not be any deader than they ended up

The abandonment of family was the argument against resistance, risking your own life was the easy option.

Guest

tonys wrote:

youngdan wrote:: The argument that they would be killed is ridiculous as they could not be any deader than they ended up

The abandonment of family was the argument against resistance, risking your own life was the easy option.

I have heard that a lot of Jews did fight, but as you say tonys, a head of a family hard a difficult choice.

This site talks about Jewish partisans and says they had a higher survival rate than those who didn't fight. I don't know how reliable it is.
http://www.geocities.com/jewishwarriors/resistww.html?20082

So far, it seems to me that passive resistance by the whole population gave people the best chance and after that, armed guerilla resistance.
As tonys says, people couldn't see into the future and hoped for the best. Portraying them as fools adds insult to injury. The operation was concealed.

I saw a lot of this stuff on television from childhood, and it has left me with a deep abiding dislike of the far right.

Guest

Cactus Flower mass resistance and solidarity is very hard to get going and takes far to long. I still think travel tickets and get out fast is the best option. In days of old when Squires forefathers had a fair number of men at arms and could muster up a reasonable problem for any ruler such people could be, and often were, an effective check on the King. The peasants were useless at it despite there being long bows etc. Look at Ireland (or anywhere) half the population would believe anything, turn a blind eye, or side with whoever they thought was going to win or had money to pay them. The Danes were an exception. The Germans could not have ruled any of the countries without local support. No army can.

However private armies also tended to lead to instability. It would seem to me that having armed civilians could act as a check on the state but that part of the cost of that is the potential for instability and an increased risk of the random use of force.

Guest

The poor Jews in their innocence may indeed have thought that their families would not be killed. They were sadly mistaken

Guest

Squire wrote:: Cactus Flower mass resistance and solidarity is very hard to get going and takes far to long. I still think travel tickets and get out fast is the best option. In days of old when Squires forefathers had a fair number of men at arms and could muster up a reasonable problem for any ruler such people could be, and often were, an effective check on the King. The peasants were useless at it despite there being long bows etc. Look at Ireland (or anywhere) half the population would believe anything, turn a blind eye, or side with whoever they thought was going to win or had money to pay them. The Danes were an exception. The Germans could not have ruled any of the countries without local support. No army can.

However private armies also tended to lead to instability. It would seem to me that having armed civilians could act as a check on the state but that part of the cost of that is the potential for instability and an increased risk of the random use of force.

The Peasants Revolt was a close run thing. It was lack of understanding of the ruthlessness of the enemy, and lack of an alternative social structure, that lost it for them.

Guest

The peasants revolt had wider support than peasants, the name is misleading. Weak King and corrupt adminstration with a decidedly unfair version of the poll tax. I believe there were also similar revolts in parts of France at this time. All amounted to nothing.

You could say that the limited success was because many of those involved had served in France and had access to weapons. Certainly it was organised by those who were aware of the workings of part of the administration. However realistically the most they may have achieved was to add the death of Richard II and a few others to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury and they may have went on to loot a few more towms. If they had achieved that how do you think they would have faired once some of the Earls and Dukes got themselves organised. They would have been slaughtered.

In many ways this revolt highlights the problem. You need disciplined troops as Cromwell proved several centuries later. However what both also show is that you also need a coherent set of achievable social and political objectives.

I still think that relying on the masses to act in a way that is predictable is expecting a lot. Spontaneous uprisings coinciding with ability like Sparticus are very rare events.

Guest

As a European jew you could I suppose try to resist Hitler but it would mean certain immediate death. You may be better taking your chances and hoping that the war passed before the Nazi murder machine got to you.

In the east the german strategy was quite ruthless. If a villager shot a german soldier, the entire village could face total anihilation. Facing that kind of ruthlessmess you are as well doing nothing and keeping you head down, or least resisting in a less obvious way

Its not for nothing that the Romans crucified the Spartacus rebels, every last one of them, all along the Applian way. There had been quite a few slave rebellions before. So they took harsh measures. And that was the last ever slave revolt.

Guest

Quote :: In many ways this revolt highlights the problem. You need disciplined troops as Cromwell proved several centuries later. However what both also show is that you also need a coherent set of achievable social and political objectives.

I still think that relying on the masses to act in a way that is predictable is expecting a lot. Spontaneous uprisings coinciding with ability like Sparticus are very rare events

.

Not only that, but conditions have to be ripe for that change, and the old order has to be well and truly banjaxed.

Guest

Cactus we are therefore also back to the supposition that all Empires fall because of the narrow self interests of a few.

Guest

Squire wrote:: Cactus we are therefore also back to the supposition that all Empires fall because of the narrow self interests of a few.

Slavery by and large is gone in the west, and we have universal adult franchise. This might be a degree of emancipation that is limited by the huge financial power and influence that a small layer of people have, but it is still a modification of raw autocracy. You might say the reason for that is self interest because a docile and educated work force was required, but the costs were greater than "the few" would have chosen.

Mob rule is not the same as democracy or liberation - a mob can be a minority too. I haven't a clue who is who in Thailand, but the crowds who have brought down the Government all seem to be in the position to have taken a week or two out for demonstrating. They didn't use guns to bring the Government down, but critically the army and the police did not use theirs.

Guest

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4B37XC20081204

Never give an 8 year old a machine gun.

Guest

Quote :: There are an estimated 250 million privately owned guns in the United States, which has a population of about 300 million. About 30,000 Americans a year die from gun wounds.

Guest

Ya 1 in 10000. A lot lower than suicides in Ireland or indeed car deaths.

Guest

youngdan wrote:: Ya 1 in 10000. A lot lower than suicides in Ireland or indeed car deaths.

So that’s OK then.

Your figures for Ireland are wrong BTW.

Guest

tonys wrote:

youngdan wrote:: Ya 1 in 10000. A lot lower than suicides in Ireland or indeed car deaths.

So that’s OK then.

Your figures for Ireland are wrong BTW.

About 1000 people die between suicide / car deaths each year. The car deaths is down significantly this year by 40% or so.

That's 1 in 4000 ...

Guest

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

youngdan wrote:: Ya 1 in 10000. A lot lower than suicides in Ireland or indeed car deaths.

So that’s OK then.

Your figures for Ireland are wrong BTW.

About 1000 people die between suicide / car deaths each year. The car deaths is down significantly this year by 40% or so.

That's 1 in 4000 ...

Youngdan’s post said both suicide & road death rates were separately greater than 1 in 10,000, they’re not.

The figures, as far as I know, are about 400 for suicide and 300 for road deaths, that would make suicide about 1 in 12,000 & road death about 1 in 15,000.

Guest

Road deaths and suicides are a bit of a red herring, the comparison should be what percentage have gun related deaths.

Guest

One in 10000 would be 400 people in Ireland. I read somewhere that suicides are about 550. So the death rates of each separately are greater than gun deaths in the US.

Irish people need to take their head out of the sand with relation to guns. Every few days there is a lad getting shot back there. I thought guns were illegal so they must be getting shot with hurls.

Guest

youngdan wrote:: One in 10000 would be 400 people in Ireland. I read somewhere that suicides are about 550. So the death rates of each separately are greater than gun deaths in the US.

Irish people need to take their head out of the sand with relation to guns. Every few days there is a lad getting shot back there. I thought guns were illegal so they must be getting shot with hurls.

I've a feeling the Minister for Justice is going to take some measures by outlawing licensed handguns - does that make you happier ?

Guest

Minister of Muttonskulls. What is the donkey's name so that I can think of a more appropiate name for him

Guest

youngdan wrote:: One in 10000 would be 400 people in Ireland. I read somewhere that suicides are about 550. So the death rates of each separately are greater than gun deaths in the US.

In the first place, the Irish figures are not, as you said, far higher than 1 in 10,000, as shown in my post above.
In the second place, the figures for suicide or road deaths are completely unrelated to gun crime and those issues are not comparable in any way with gun shot deaths.

youngdan wrote:: Irish people need to take their head out of the sand with relation to guns. Every few days there is a lad getting shot back there. I thought guns were illegal so they must be getting shot with hurls.

The total homicide rates for Ireland are 1.8 per 100,000 as against 5.7 per 100,000 in the US or over 3 times the Irish homicide rate, of the US figure, approx. 70% are firearm related.

You would want to have your head very far in the sand not to realise the high US figures are related to the easy availability of firearms.