One of the largest arguments the gun people like to use in support of their belief that an armed citizenry is the best prevention against tyranny is the statement that if the Jews had been armed during the holocaust they could have successfully defended themselves.
The gun proponents want to believe, and very much want us to believe, that the Jews, if armed, could have prevented the holocaust.
Author Martin Cohen's research documents that well over one and one half million Jews carried weapons and fought against the German military. Author Nechama Tec, in her book "Defiance: The Bielski Partisans", discusses what she calls "the largest armed rescue of Jews by Jews".
Armed Jews did not prevent Hitler from coming into power, nor did armed Jews stop the ensuing genocide we know as The Holocaust. Armed Jews did cause discomfort to the Germans and those countries that allied themselves with Germany.
While the heroics of the armed Jews is commendable, the reality is they could not stop the extermination. Armed Jews could not stop the rise of the National Socialist government, they could not combat the German moral code of the time, and they could not save Europe's Jewry. This is reality.
We need to be significantly more grounded and rely less on suppositions.
I have a degree in theology and a Masters in Holocaust History.
Your argument is a red herring. The idea isn't that armed Jews could have stopped the Nazis cold, it's that they could have made the cost too high for them to continue the Holocaust.
Of course, when the Nazis were taking power through the electoral process armed resistance wasn't attempted. It's my understanding that nobody took Hitler's prewar, anti-Semitic talk to mean that there would be a Holocaust. How could anyone have known? That doesn't change the fact that if the Jews of the time had been more willing & able to fight they might have been able to save many of their own. After all, the Nazis did disarm the Jews before Kristalnacht. There must be a reason why.
by
Darren Wolfe (3 articles, 109 quicklinks, 74 diaries, 529 comments)
on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at 5:29:30 AM
I realize that you are trying to neutralize my article, but….. You’re ignoring the bigger picture.
No amount of armed Jews would have made the holocaust too costly to continue.In the case of the Warsaw Ghetto, the Germans simply ratcheted up the amount of force thrown at the armed rebellion. While the efforts of the Warsaw Ghetto defenders are valiant, how many Jewish non-combatants would have had another day, week, month of life but perished under the German onslaught?
Let me give you a clearer example at little closer to home to demonstrate how your logic is off center – Waco Texas and the Branch Davidians…. The Davidians were heavily armed.They could not stave of the ATF, nor did they make the ATF’s efforts too costly to pursue.In fact, the Davidians armed resistance only made things that much worse and people in the compound suffered a fate far worse than arrest. Had the Davidians surrendered, they would be alive today.
You’re not taking into consideration the population differences between German citizens and Jewish German citizens.If the entire Jewish population were armed how could less that a million stave off 64 million angry German citizens?
And, I never uttered the words “stopped the Nazis cold” – that is your interpretation(s) of what I said…..There is a big difference, but you go on to continue and used the words “the cost too high for them to continue the Holocaust”. Regardless of the words, you want to believe that an armed Jewish population could have neutralized the fate that awaited them fbut you're not taking into account the fact that eterminationist and eliminatists mindsets were too deeply embedded in the German psyche and cultural morals, Hitler only legalized the slaughter.
You're also not taking into consideration the Jewish mindset of the time. Without taking into account all the intristict pieces of the puzzle, you're making a fool of yourself.
Trust me, I know what I am talking about – I have a Masters in Holocaust History, and starting my work towards a PhD on the same subject.The difference between us is you float in Pollyanna idealism, and I deal in facts and reality.
by
Rabbi (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 80 comments)
on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at 7:53:31 AM
Rabbi, from all that you know, where the Jews able not to stop the Holocaust per se, but just the arrests/kidnaps at their doorsteps, using guns? IE did their being armed protect them from being abducted and killed? I would like to know.
Thank you for posting this important article.
by
Kathryn Smith (85 articles, 2 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 320 comments)
on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at 10:34:45 AM
There were incidents of Gestapo agents getting shot while attempting to arrest Jews in their homes. Very few incidents, but a small number did happen......
However, the aftermath was horrible because the retaliation was so overwhelming. The German logic was that you, as a neighbor, should have known the Jews next door, down the block, etc. had a gun and you should have stopped them or reported the gun posession to the Gestapo.
There was also the Crime of Kin which used the same logic - and it did not matter whether the person who had the gun was a brother, distant cousin, etc. you were responsible and would be executed after spending some 'quality time' with the Gestapo....
by
Rabbi (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 80 comments)
on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at 11:10:57 AM
Can you all, people leave the dead alone, please? Not only you have hijacked the tragic event by using a movie(!) name for the actual event, you continue to use the dead for your own purposes. If the Jews did that or Jews did not.. THEY DID NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING! They were normal people, lived normal lives and did the best to survive. They certainly did not know that their tragic story would be used by some pro-gun and counter -gun hooters more than 60 years after. Leave them alone! You want guns? Eat them with the sauce. You do not want guns- don't buy them. In all in all so far here in this country it is a free choice and that is good. It is better to have a choice than not to have one. That's the deal and Jews have nothing to do with it.
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 234 diaries, 3348 comments)
on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at 7:19:22 AM
Just read your article yourself. And then read comments. You used the dead to prove your current point about the guns here. The actual fact that those dead people who lived and died in a very different cultural setting than here did not occur to you. Then your opponents used the same dead to promote the guns. Same trap. Some of your opponents even consider those dead ' lazy cowards'. See the Pandora box you have opened? It is the plague that's for sure. If you are an 'expert' in that issue I would say you should know when to use and not to use that horrible event as a reference. Those were the victims of genocide. As such the 'reevaluation of their behavior' does not apply as an approach to them ( especially en masse because surely they all are victims but everyone dies alone). They just cannot be used en masse in arguments like that we have about the guns. Branch Davidians are a much better example, I agree.
Having said all that I surely want to add that any statements about 'lazy cowards' are ludicrous.
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 234 diaries, 3348 comments)
on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at 12:20:40 PM
Go back and re-read for understanding - instead of telling me to go back and re-read that which I wrote... If you need a refresher, the gun culture in this country asserts the Jews could have fended off the holocaust had they been armed.. Armed Jews did not stop the holocaust is the point. And, you're having a knee jerk reaction that is inapproriate to the conversation.
But, maybe I should have used the American actions towards the Native Americans in the late 19th century as the example of my point Would you feel better about that? Knowing full well that America practiced genocide and depravity on the indigonous people of this land. Go back to wounded knee and see what armed self defense caused. Do we talk about how members of the 7th cavalry cut off Native American women's genitals and used them for saddle ornaments? Were armed Indians able to stop that?
What other examples would you like me to point out instead of the Holocaust?
How about the rape of Nanking? Should we use that example?
Or the American actions in Iraq and Afganistans where whole villages are being wiped out because of insurectionists?
by
Rabbi (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 80 comments)
on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at 2:43:29 PM
The Russians were able to mount a counter-insurgency because Russia was so huge and the Germans were stupid enough not to make friends. The Jews in Europe were killed off by propaganda long before guns came into play. The Jews did not form alliances with the politicals. They were basically lazy cowards like everyone else in the human race.
by
John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 996 comments)
on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at 10:32:45 AM
Lets' start from the begining. Not that your article is too long but I surely agree with you in principle- armed or not armed were the Jewish people- that would not change the outcome. As for the 'culture that considers that if only Jews would be armed...'- I doubt that. I would say that US is a gun-toting culture and the gun-promoters would use ANY argument for their unforrtunate purpose. It does not mean that their arguments hold water, though.
Of course, your arguments are all valid; I was only protesting the actual reference to the Shoah in any argument other than Shoah itself. This is rather a philosophical disagreement. You countered that you could have used Indians and that would be the same. Yes it would and would be still inaprropriate from my standpoint because the arguments that people targeted for genocide somehow ' did not behave' or on the contrary ' did behave' are both heartless. On the contrary, Branch Davidians were not targeted for genocide. If they had surrendered they would face trials but surely not extermination. The scales are different and here we can use the actual fact to argue the issue. That simple.
No, I do not think I had a knee- jerk reaction. I am deeply troubled (read my Slimy Love series, please) by the attitiude here, in the US towards Jews when Holocaust is used in vain. Soon we will have Holocaust animated videos or Holocaust burgers. Some things are to be touched very delicately. The argument about gun control is not the playfied for involving such a horrible tragedy. It is not for that.
That is all and as I said before, your point of view is surely valid.
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 234 diaries, 3348 comments)
on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at 5:44:08 PM
The Shoah invokes a multi-emotional response, that is true. Thank you for your kind letter.
The Shoah is being used by the gun culture in their attempts to justified an armed society, complete with their claims that if only the Jews had firearms, ad nasuem. Having said that, elements of the Shoah have to be used to counter the arguments thrown wily-nilly into the mix by the people who cannot see beyond pez-dispenser logic.
We need the Shoah as a learning tool and that is why I brought up two other scholars in my original essay.
If you will be so kind and wait a bit, I will have finished my movie about the acts of heroic deeds by ordinary Jews at Auschwitz, the Warsaw Ghetto, and Sobibor. My tentative release date is next Yom H'Shoah in 2009. Part two, which is being scripted now is set for production in 2009 with a release date of Yom H'Shoah 2010.
I also believe that my dead relatives would be supportive of my arguments against those elements who are trying to change history to reflect "what ifs" as factual statements.
It is the "what ifs" that are dangerous and lead people to faulty conclusions - it was the what ifs (i.e what if Germany was Juden Frie) that fed the eleminationist mindset which brought about the Holocaust and other episodes of man's inhumanity towards man. Faulty conclusions lead to faulty actions.
B'Shalom,
Rabbi Micha'el
by
Rabbi (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 80 comments)
on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at 8:59:41 PM
Refusing to sum up the strategies and successes and failures of any group of people instruggle for freedom is a diservice. I believe most people who struggle, and in this case suffer unfathomably, want their future generations to stand on their shoulders and have a better life than they were offered.
Most African-americans are comfortable looking at the range of tactics (and the beliefs behind them) used to both survive enslavement/genocide and to fight it. We look critically at choices made by 'House Slaves' and 'Overseers' and Runaways and Underground Railroad Porters etc.
As for the notion that it wasn't their problem to solve, I think that's crazy. Currently many in this country say Bush isn't their President because they voted against him, and thus they shouldn't "have to" fight the war etc. The issue is never about whose fault oppression is. The question is what, and who, CAN stop oppression? And how badly do people WANT it stopped? Absolutely the German populace was more responsible for the rise of Nazis to power and the horrors thus unleashed than were the Jews of the time. But that has no bearing on whether or not the oppressed SHOULD fight back -- or in which ways to do so.
Yes, survival is one form of fighting back, and it should be applauded. Frankly, I'd like to see more Americans applauding our African ancestors for simply surviving, as if it were "simple." But the fact is that without actual battles to DEFEAT the oppressors, survival becomes fairly bitter pretty fast. Black women sometimes chose to kill their children rather than allow them to be sold into slavery. That is a very different take on the relationship between "surviving" horror and wanting freedom.
And yes, everyone can't be Harriet Tubman, that's true. But without the railroad and the white allies and everything else that worked to stop a crime that was NOT OF THEIR OWN MAKING, this country would look like nothing ever seen on this earth. I dare say, it could have been worse than the Nazis.
I honor my ancestors by upholding both the small things they did to survive, and the big things they did so that i would not be born a slave. I hope my children's children will honor ME by critiqueing the effectiveness of my own struggle against oppression. I hope they'll have the courage to find even better methods than I did, and use them for the benefit of freedom-loving people everywhere.
by
Mars Caulton (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 81 comments)
on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 11:40:36 PM
TYPICAL LIBERAL ARGUMENT: FIGHTING BACK WILL MAKE IT WORSE
Rabbi:
Your argument boils down to the typical liberal argument. Don't fight back or they'll make it even worse for you if you do. You concentrate only on the cases of those who fought back and were defeated. And in even the cases you cited, you haven't proved that the resistance fighters couldn't have prevailed with different tactics in their armed resistance.
A case in which a plausible account of how armed resistance could have been successful is African Americans in the American south during reconstruction. Certainly, many African Americans after emancipation had the opportunity to become gun owners. And African Americans in the southern states made up a much higher percentage of the population than they do now. What if they had organized themselves to fight back against the terrorism of the Klan? And since many of them held elective office after emancipation, what if their elected sheriffs had deputized enough African Americans to arrest and prosecute the klansmen as the criminals they were?
As for the plague on both your houses argument, their is no disrespect to victims of past genocides in using the historical record to learn from the example of what happened to them.
Robert Halfhill
by
rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments)
on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at 2:18:07 AM
You missed the point - the gun culture is fond of saying that if the Jews had guns, they could have defended themselves against Germany. I brought up two authors who have researched armed Jews during the holocaust.
In my article, I'm not suggesting anything or advocating anything using hidden meanings.
Dreaming of the what ifs is the job of fiction writers for they are the somewhere over the rainbow people. Historians deal in the facts of what actually happened.
As for the plauge comment, the author is a highly sensitive person - something we don't see very often anymore and the Holocaust is a highly charged subject. I respect the person for he spoke from his heart. But parphrasing, if we can't remember the past, we are condemed to repeat it.
by
Rabbi (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 80 comments)
on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at 8:05:58 AM
