Posted on 10/08/2015 9:39:51 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
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 “A Perfect Union,” Carson writes that “through a combination of removing guns and disseminating propaganda, the Nazis were able to carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Libtards not library’s.
I hate spell check.
He’s right. He needs a little more education, bit his instincts are American.
Any time I hear some gun control gasbag say “Jews being armed would’ve just given the Nazis a better excuse to kill them”, my response is “The Nazis intended to wipe them out whether they resisted or not. How would them being able to resist have made things any worse?”
I’ve yet to get a logical rebuttal in reply.
I didn’t know that the NAZIs banned cigarettes. Was that only for the Jews or for everyone?
To the authoritarian wanna bees it is always better that we “inferior people” walk quietly into the execution pit or the gas chamber. The thought we might fight back terrifies them. That why they are so enraged when people like Dr Carson advocate fighting back
They didn't. They tried to discourage smoking before the war. They saw the link with disease and saw tobacco as a threat to their master race. Once the war got started the campaign folded and the military provided cigarettes to the troops just as ours did. One of the medical leaders of the anti-smoking campaign was involved in Nazi crimes and committed suicide.
Things may of gone much different if even one group had seriously tired to effectively resist the Nazis.
It utterly stupid, to advocate like you do, that it was BETTER for the Jews to not resist. Considering what happened in the Camps, resistance from the Jews probably would of failed, but the results would of been no worse then what actually happened
Anyone, such as yourself, who thinks differently is both wonderingly ignorant and totally naive.
“controversial” = making the heads of stupid people explode.
Interestingly, the other tyrannical mass-murderer, Josef Stalin, prevented his troops from assisting the Warsaw Ghetto Jews.
The irony is that many of the Nazi troops that would have been killed by a combination of the Russian forces and the Warsaw Jews lived to fight another day - in Berlin, which Uncle Joe Stalin paid for with lakes of young Russian blood.
Everyone - although many flouted the ban. The Master Race needed offspring and cigarettes were not good for the health. It should be pointed out that Hitler stole most of his stuff from the Arab muslims (who also consider themselves the Master Race) which was why they were such great allies.
It is utterly stupid to think that it would have made a difference.
“Any opposition to him, armed or otherwise, would have been met with overwhelming force. And for Dr. Carson or anyone else to think it would have been otherwise is incredibly naïve. “
Getting quietly on the trains certainly made it much easier for the Nazis; but any resistance is better than going meekly to one’s death.
Most people in Europe suffered from “normalcy bias,” the idea that things really weren’t as bad as they seemed, and few believed that a cultured, civilized people like the Germans would really do anything that terrible. The Nazis didn’t publicize what they were doing so most everyone, Jews especially, were operating in an information vacuum. They had “gotten along by going along” for hundreds of years and didn’t see the need to rock the boat.
The lesson that Europe as a whole did not learn (or perhaps did learn from the wrong angle) was that an armed populace is very difficult to push around. Governments of all stripes want to have the final say in a dispute, and want an unarmed, compliant population to that end.
I disagree that armed resistance would not have stopped the Nazis. But in the absence of a general “gun culture” where massive numbers of people were *already* armed and proficient, resistance without external help would have been much more difficult.
Given the disparity of difference between arms, munitions, manpower, financial backing, navy and prior military organization the colonists of American vs. the British makes a fair analogy to an armed Jewish population of Europe vs. the NAZIs.
There is no doubt an armed resistance could have changed things considerably.
Muzzle Tov! Oy Vey!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.