Disown your dad's denial of the Holocaust, Gibson told (Mel Gibson's dad not keen on Jews)

Correct. We should not forget, however, that our persistent sin may affect our children. The key to the following is "HE", and humans are not entitled.

Numbers 14:18
18 'The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.'

Hutton Gibson has been nuts for decades. His reason for moving to Australia was allegedly that US collusion in the 1963 assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem, a Catholic, convinced him that the US was waging an anti-Catholic war.
He therefore quit the country rather than see his sons fight in an anti-Catholic war.

There is so much wrong with this scenario it is hard to know where to start. Dien, to begin with, was the head of the allied, not the enemy, forces. His assassination was based on the usual fractious infighting among Vietnamese anti-communists and the Kennedy administration's conviction that he was a poor choice as leader. Vietnamese Catholics were predominantly anti-communist and this is obvious to anyone familiar with the events of the war and its aftermath. Diem was one man and even he was fighting the same enemy we were, though not very competently.

Beyond that, Australia already had its own troops in SVN by the time of the Diem assassination, and continued to support the US effort, at considerable cost, until the leftist tide temporarily swamped the Australian political landscape in the early 70s. Australia did use the draft during the Vietnam war, btw, so even if it had been an "anti-Catholic" war, the Gibsons were simply escaping from one "oppressor" to another.

Hutton Gibson's self-imposed exile was therefore based either on a complete, and monumentally ignorant, inversion of reality or he is not telling the truth about his reasons.

Medoff should not attempt to visit the sins of the father onto the son. However, it does not appear that Medoff is an Abe Foxman style lefty-collaborator. On September 4th, he wrote this letter to the Washington Examiner, responding to a nutcake who had equated the treatment of illegal aliens with the Holocaust:

Letters to the Editor
Washington Examiner
Dear Editor:
Letter writer Gary Jacobsen (Sept. 1) claims that the treatment of illegal aliens by U.S. authorities today is "similar" to the German treatment of Jews during the Holocaust. The analogy is baseless. Those who are deported from the U.S. are arrested not because of their ethnicity --as was the case with Jews in Hitler Europe-- but because they entered this country illegally. They are not shipped off to death camps where they are murdered by the millions; they are sent back to their native countries, where they can resume their lives or apply for legal entry to the United States. Describing illegal aliens as "lawbreakers" is neither "demonizing" them, nor anti-Hispanic, nor comparable to what the Nazis did, as Jacobsen claims; it has no resemblance to the torrent of German government-sponsored propaganda that portrayed Jews as racially inferior, evil, and deserving of death.
Surely it should be possible to have a sober discussion about contemporary U.S. immigration policy without resorting to false and absurd comparisons to the Nazi era.
Cordially,
Dr. Rafael Medoff Director

A collaborationist would have either dodged this altogether or been a lot more circumspect in his rebuttal, throwing in a few pro forma denunciations of the Minutemen and other critics of the ongoing invasion, for example.

There were probably examples of Jewish and non-Jewish partisans in eastern Poland and the western Soviet Union fighting Germans in the forests. As a rule, the partisans avoided open engagements because the Germans had superior arms and would have crushed them.

Most of the fighting in the Warsaw Ghetto involved Jews firing guns and throwing Molotov cocktails from wrecked apartment buildings and bunkers. The only reason Germans were caught in the beginning, and some died, was because they rolled their troops into the open streets expecting no response and were assaulted. Gradually they destroyed the Ghetto, block by block, driving people out with fire and tear gas until they cleared the whole Ghetto.

The Jewish uprising lasted about a month and consumed the entire Ghetto in its course.

You're correct that it didn't match the scale of the 1944 Warsaw Uprising, which involved most of the city and in which the Poles were better-armed and could have liberated the city if not betrayed by Stalin. But I think you're going a little too far in minimizing the 1943 uprising, which was always hopeless but was all-consuming.

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.