Why did the Jews just let the Nazi's kill them?

[EGarrett]

This is from the Schindler's List board (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/board/thread/77819175) over on imdb. If you have an account you can check it out.

I am no anti-Semite and Schindler’s List is one of my all time favorite films. However, I still do not understand why a great deal of Jewish families allowed the Nazi’s to take their homes, possessions and most cases separate their families?

I have read very little about a large Jewish resistance.

1993 I got in a lot of hot water with my best friends father for saying, "I do not feel THAT bad for them." Mr. Cohen did not explain very well why his people did not put up a greater resistance. They let those Nazi bastards take everything from them why didn’t they fight back.

[Crossbow]

Umm,

It was not really a matter of choice.

The Nazis had guns, jails, people, and the power of the state behind them.

Whereas the German Jewish community was small, had few weapons, no training in fighting their own military, little organization, and no real outside support to resist such overwhelming force.

[danielk]

Not to mention a refusal to acknowledge to themselves where the Third Reich was heading. Most humans hope to the very last moment that they'll live. Thus many complied with all of the repressions in order to not be killed on the spot. People were asked to dig their own graves and they did it.

[headscratcher4]

Understand also, Nazism was a creeping phenomenon. Jews, in Germany, represented about 1 to 2% of the population. By 1933 when the Nazi's won power (even though they were a minority in the parliment, they were the power in the majority right-wing bloc), they quickly manuvered to make Hitler leader of a one party state. Discrimination was the rule of the day...and Hitler was popular...so the next step, the Nuremburg laws in 34/35 were presented as part of the Nazi plan for German salvation...and, again, its target was a very small number of people...agin 500,000 of a 40 million population. The racial laws didn't affect the vast majority of Germans, and with the subtle and less than subtle anti-semitism running throught the culture, it was positioned as pay-back.

What were the 500,000 jews to do? In some respects, many thought of themselves as German. Many thought that it would pass. Many had not encountered overt discrimination and violence agaisnt them...and they were a drop in a vast ocean. They were overwhelmed before they could effectively react (if they ever could).

With respect to other Jews, once the war started in 1939 -- the German blitzkrieg in the East just rolled over everything...these Jews didn't have much choice, they were rounded up at gun point, executed by action groups or sent to labor and death camps. And, it should never be forgotten that there were Jewish partisans in the Soviet sector who bravely fought the Germans and resisted...not to mention the resistence in places like Warsaw where, in 44, there was an impossible uprising. Impossible, because the Germans had all of the heavy equipment and leveled the place...it was a suicide mission for the resisters.

In the west, few believed that the Germans were capable of the kinds of murder policies that they implemented. Like the East, Western Europe was quickly over-run. Populations were caught in place, and quickly segregated out from the rest of society so that the brutal policy turned on them would be more or less invisible.





In short, it isn't

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

In the west, few believed that the Germans were capable of the kinds of murder policies that they implemented.
It's similar to how 9/11 Truthers argue that the terrorists shouldn't have been able to take over planes with 'box cutters' because passengers should have fought back.

Hindsight is 20/20. They did not have all of the information that we currently do, so we are in no position to say what they 'should have' done.

[headscratcher4]

Indeed...it is just as well to ask why tens of millions of Russians and Chinese allowed themselves to be murdered and starved to death with out a significant revolt.

[Orangutan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Edit: plus isn't Godwin in effect from the OP?

[LibraryLady]

There is a movie called "Ship of Fools" with an all-star cast. It's based on a novel by Katherine Anne Porter and takes place just before the Holocaust begins. The ship is German and there is a Jewish passenger who has the most chilling line in the whole film. When warned about going back to German because he is a Jew, he replies:

"What are they going to do? Kill all of us?"

Then chuckles.

[Loss Leader]

The poster has apparantly never heard of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/wgupris.htm) in which Jewish armed resistance held the Nazis at bay for four weeks. The entire country of France only lasted six.

[MRC_Hans]

Oppression like this goes piecemeal. You always let people think they have a chance while you weaken them. You don't knock on their doors saying "Hey, you are next on the train to the death camp!". One must realize that the situation was always made so that the individual could only resist at the cost if his/her life. Some did, but most people won't.

To be sure, if everybody had just started to run screaming and had to be gunned down, the whole operation would have become so bloody and dangerous that it would have ground to a halt, but most people don't have such courage. Especially not when half starved and driven close to total exhaustion.

Hans

[hgc]

...
And, it should never be forgotten that there were Jewish partisans in the Soviet sector who bravely fought the Germans and resisted...not to mention the resistence in places like Warsaw where, in 44, there was an impossible uprising. Impossible, because the Germans had all of the heavy equipment and leveled the place...it was a suicide mission for the resisters.
...


Recommended reading:

Mila 18, by Leon Uris, about the Battle of the Warsaw Ghetto (expanded from a chapter in Exodus)

Treblinka, by Jean-Francois Steiner, about the Treblinka revolt

[Cleon]

Recommended reading:

Mila 18, by Leon Uris, about the Battle of the Warsaw Ghetto (expanded from a chapter in Exodus)

Treblinka, by Jean-Francois Steiner, about the Treblinka revolt

There was a fairly decent made-for-TV movie called Escape from Sobibor about the prisoners' revolt at the Sobibor death camp.

[Twilek]

I remember that movie. At that time I wasn't very familiar with Jews or the details of the Holocaust, but it freaked me out so much I wrote about it in my diary.

[headscratcher4]

There was a fairly decent made-for-TV movie called Escape from Sobibor about the prisoners' revolt at the Sobibor death camp.

Yes...and as I recall, only a handful of survivors made it...something like 88 of all of the camp inmates (does that sound right). Worse still, the Russians were very suspicious...even of their own POWs ...who wondered into the woods and encountered Soviet partisans. You couldn't win for surviving.

[headscratcher4]

And, least we forget, there was the soundercomando revolt in Auschwitz in 1944, they even, I think, were able to put some of the gas chambers and crematoria out of action...of course, they were all killed -- and pretty much figured they would be.

[Cleon]

Yes...and as I recall, only a handful of survivors made it...something like 88 of all of the camp inmates (does that sound right).

There were about 600 prisoners, about half made it out of the camp. Surviving the war was a little more difficult, and IIRC only a few dozen made it. Some fell back into Nazi hands (easy to do in Poland), some were killed by bandits, and some were killed by Polish partizans who weren't any fonder of Jews than the Nazis.

[Cleon]

And, least we forget, there was the soundercomando revolt in Auschwitz in 1944, they even, I think, were able to put some of the gas chambers and crematoria out of action...of course, they were all killed -- and pretty much figured they would be.

Reading the stories of the (very few) surviving Sonderkommando workers is very, very unsettling.

The inhumanity of the work they were forced to do was such that death was a welcome release. :(

[Nitpick]

(...) 500,000 of a 40 million population.

More than 65 million in 1933:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Volksz%C3%A4hlungen_in_Deutschland (can't find an English source now)

Just a small correction to an otherwise very accurate description (as far as I can tell).

[headscratcher4]

Thanks! It makes the case even stronger. And, again it emphasizes my main point. It started in Germany where Jews were a tiny percent of the population. They didn't know what hit them, nor did populations caught up in the Blitzkrieg...farming the fields or minding the store one day, being herded off to killing pits at machine gun point the next. There wasn't a Jewish army. There wasn't uniformity of Jewish communties from country to country. THere wasn't great communications between Jewish communities. There was German unity of purpose.

[davefoc]

It's similar to how 9/11 Truthers argue that the terrorists shouldn't have been able to take over planes with 'box cutters' because passengers should have fought back.

Hindsight is 20/20. They did not have all of the information that we currently do, so we are in no position to say what they 'should have' done.

This seems exactly right to me.*

There was a fairly decent made-for-TV movie called Escape from Sobibor about the prisoners' revolt at the Sobibor death camp.

My understanding it that the reason that this was the one and only significant escape from the concentration camps might have been because after this the Nazis systematically underfed prisoners to keep them too weak to revolt.

As an aside, this thread reinforces a misrepresentation of the crimes of the Nazis. The Jews were far from the only targeted victims and by some measure didn't even make up a majority of the victims of the Nazis.

My rough understanding of the Nazi civilian murders:

Jews - 6 million
Other targeted groups - 2 million
Other civilian deaths - 5 million

Other targeted groups included disabled, Jehovah's witnesses, homosexuals, Roma, political prisoners

Other civilian deaths included about 3 million non-Jewish Poles

* ETA - Although in the case of the hijacked airplanes I think there were people in position to know about the possibility of suicide attacks against civilian airliners and they didn't do anything about it except to resist efforts to get reinforced doors installed on jetliners because of pressure from the airline industry that wanted to save money by not installing reinforced doors.

[Dancing David]

This is from the Schindler's List board (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/board/thread/77819175) over on imdb. If you have an account you can check it out.

Um, why did the Roma allow the nazis to exterminate them and the seven million other non-jews?

[Dancing David]

It's similar to how 9/11 Truthers argue that the terrorists shouldn't have been able to take over planes with 'box cutters' because passengers should have fought back.

Hindsight is 20/20. They did not have all of the information that we currently do, so we are in no position to say what they 'should have' done.

Uh sorry, Hitler spelled it out in advance, and even during the war and at the start of the war the US knew exactly what was going on. Curse you Father Coughlin!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin

[davefoc]

Uh sorry, Hitler spelled it out in advance, and even during the war and at the start of the war the US knew exactly what was going on. Curse you Father Coughlin!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin

I am not sure I understood the point of your post or the reason for the Coughlin link. But a few thoughts that might be relevant if I understood what you were talking about:

Before Hitler, Jewish people were highly integrated into German society. Some of the sailors killed on the Bismark were Jewish I believe. Something in the range of one third of marriages in the Jewish community were to non-Jews prior to the rise of Hitler. Given the situation as I understand it, it seems quite reasonable to expect that many German Jews would not have expected anything like the Holocaust.

[DanishDynamite]

The Jews let themselves be killed because:

1) They didn't know what was going on and were taken in by the lies of the Nazis.

2) See above.

Yawn.

[a_unique_person]

Umm,

It was not really a matter of choice.

The Nazis had guns, jails, people, and the power of the state behind them.

Whereas the German Jewish community was small, had few weapons, no training in fighting their own military, little organization, and no real outside support to resist such overwhelming force.

IIRC, the number of German Jews actually captured and killed was relatively small, compared to the Jews from neighbouring countries, because they fled the country, if they could, as soon as they could, when they realised what was going to happen. The property seizures, illegal attacks and changes to the law were clearly just the start of something bad.

FWIW, my great great grandfather was a German Jew who got of of the country in the late 1800's because he thought the place was goin bad back then.

[Darth Rotor]

Does it occur to anyone but me that this thread belongs in History?

To answer your question, EG:

1. Denial
2. Frog boiling.

DR

[Cleon]

Does it occur to anyone but me that this thread belongs in History?

Nope. :D

[Thunder]

If you fight back...they shoot you. If you dont fight back and do what you are told....they shoot you.

The Jews also have a tradition of accepting their fate and hoping that the goodwill of those who hate them will eventually save the day.

[a_unique_person]

To an extent, that's worked. Jews are still here, but pretty well all the cultures from 3,000 years ago aren't. There have been terrible disasters along the way, but they have endured.

[Phrost]

Umm,

It was not really a matter of choice.

The Nazis had guns, jails, people, and the power of the state behind them.

Following this, why does it seem (in my experience) that many people who identify themselves as jews, support large government and gun control/limiting rights for private citizens to own firearms?

[a_unique_person]

Following this, why does it seem (in my experience) that many people who identify themselves as jews, support large government and gun control/limiting rights for private citizens to own firearms?

That seems to be the implied message from the OP. If they had gun rights, then the holocaust would not have happened. Their population in relation to the rest of Germany was small, so no number of guns would have helped. The Nazis had a modern army to attack them with. If you want an insurgency to work, it has to have some degree of popular support.

[korenyx]

The OP sounds like they read The Secret too many times. That book makes it clear that bad thoughts cause bad things to happen. And yes, she does imply that the Jews in WW2 and the victims of 9-11 somehow got what they deserved.
But what do you expect from a book and DVD that says only your happiness matters?

Kore

[headscratcher4]

Come on, if the Jews only had gun rights...if they'd only read Hitler. That is alternative history, nor is it realistically, IMO, an argument that merits much consideration.

500,000 jews...some of whom would have kept weapons in a 2nd amendment fantasy...would have achieved what in a state of, as has been pointed out, over 60 million turned against them. They were one percent of the population. Their numbers weren't significant, resistence to the Nazis was not only not the way that German Jews thought of themselves or their position in Germany prior to Nuremburg, and any resistence would have resulted in an immediate crack-down to the tune of an inflated propoganda campaign from the Nazis. Remember, Goebles, Goering and Hitler all on record arguing that the Jews brought it on themselves...from Chrystal-night to the holocaust.

If you study the time...most Germans...if not outright Hitler supporters...tacitly accepted Hitler. They cheered when he wipped out Rhomm. THey cheered as he "stood up" to the other European powers, etc. They might not have voted for him, but they didn't revolt.

In fact, the question here is ass backward. The issue shouldn't be why didn't the Jews defend themselves, but why did Germans buy Hitler and not revolt against the odiousness of the regime?

Blame the victems, I guess.

[Phrost]

Come on, if the Jews only had gun rights...if they'd only read Hitler. That is alternative history, nor is it realistically, IMO, an argument that merits much consideration.

500,000 jews...some of whom would have kept weapons in a 2nd amendment fantasy...would have achieved what in a state of, as has been pointed out, over 60 million turned against them. They were one percent of the population. Their numbers weren't significant, resistence to the Nazis was not only not the way that German Jews thought of themselves or their position in Germany prior to Nuremburg, and any resistence would have resulted in an immediate crack-down to the tune of an inflated propoganda campaign from the Nazis. Remember, Goebles, Goering and Hitler all on record arguing that the Jews brought it on themselves...from Chrystal-night to the holocaust.

If you study the time...most Germans...if not outright Hitler supporters...tacitly accepted Hitler. They cheered when he wipped out Rhomm. THey cheered as he "stood up" to the other European powers, etc. They might not have voted for him, but they didn't revolt.

In fact, the question here is ass backward. The issue shouldn't be why didn't the Jews defend themselves, but why did Germans buy Hitler and not revolt against the odiousness of the regime?

Blame the victems, I guess.

I hope you're not implying that I'm blaming the "victems" here.

You're making it out to be a case of "oh well, we can't win so we shouldn't fight". And I don't care how slowly the noose gets tightened; it's just really hard for some people (like me) to envision a situation where we would take no action up until the point where our families are being murdered.

So it's a valid question. A better question would be, "of the European Jewish population, how many people took action to avoid/prevent/fight against the holocaust, vs. went along with it until they were slaughtered?

And regardless of anyone's sensibilities or sensitivities, the only thing accomplished by failing to ask tough questions of history is that we fail to prevent similar events from happening in the future. Labeling someone as "blaming the victims" for doing little more than wanting to get a better perspective on a situation, is decidedly un-skeptical and very much "wooish".

I'm always amazed at how quickly skeptical principles and concepts are thrown out the window when it comes to subjects that aren't obviously ridiculous or supernatural. It seems like too many self-described "Skeptics" fail to apply critical thinking to all aspects of their knowledge, almost like having "pet" beliefs or notions they shelter from it like children from a boogeyman.

So there's nothing wrong with the original poster asking " Why did the Jews just let the Nazi's kill them?". Because there's an answer to that question, once you get beyond the irrational notions that you shouldn't be asking it.

Asking questions is 1/3rd of what a Skeptic should be doing. The other 2/3rds are listening to the answers, and evaluating them based on empirical methods.

[Crossbow]

Following this, why does it seem (in my experience) that many people who identify themselves as jews, support large government and gun control/limiting rights for private citizens to own firearms?

Sorry, but I cannot speak for people I have not met. Therefore, I suggest that you ask them yourself.

[JoeEllison]

The real question about that movie for me is this: In a movie about the Jewish Holocaust, in which some 6 million or so Jews were killed during WWII, directed by a Jewish director, why does the movie treat most of the Jewish characters as window dressing, extras, and as playing bit supporting roles in their own fate? The movie is about two Germans, Oskar Schindler and Amon Göth. Even Ben Kingsley's character is relegated, at least in my recollection, to a far background position. I just find it odd that the European Jews are seemingly always portrayed as being passive and inactive... I wonder if it isn't some sort of cultural victim mentality?

[headscratcher4]

RE: Phrost.

All good and fair points. Please know that I actually didn't mean to tag you as blaming the victems...I was more harking back to the original post. Asking whey they didn't do more to save themselves instead of why non-Jewish Germans didn't do more to oppose Hitler, seems to me to be blaming the victem.

Actually, it isn't that I don't think the question is a good one and has utility...though it is based on a set of facts that were not in existence. I probably am wrong, but it is a little like wonder how Central America would have been different if the Aztec's had guns. It just isn't what was.

By the same token, I hope I wasn't too dismissive. I actually thought I tried to address some of the merit of your speculation by re-raising the fact that the Jews in Germany were an incredibly small part of the population. Even armed AND if inclined to use those arms, it is difficult for me, at least, to see how it would have made a difference. Continuing witht he speculation, it would have been a harder fight were Polish and Eastern Euripean Jews were armed...but again, it is difficult to see how the end result would have been that much different...Poland needed a modern well equipped army that was brilliantly lead to have averted what happened. It seems to me that an armed population might have resulted in greater, if disorganized, resistence, but ... the Nazis were not shy of the most terrible retaliation.

Anyway, I didn't mean to sound dismissive -- again, I'm more annoyed with the premise of the original post because it displays appauling lack of basic knowledge of the facts on the ground.

[Phrost]

Fair enough, thanks!

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, I am not a holocaust denier by any stretch of the imagination and firmly believe in the 6 million figure as to how many Jews were killed by the Nazis... But, if the population of Germany had 500,000 Jews, where did the rest come from? I realize that Poland had a high concentration of Jews, but I'm curious as to the numbers and where they came from.

[a_unique_person]

Come on, if the Jews only had gun rights...if they'd only read Hitler. That is alternative history, nor is it realistically, IMO, an argument that merits much consideration.

500,000 jews...some of whom would have kept weapons in a 2nd amendment fantasy...would have achieved what in a state of, as has been pointed out, over 60 million turned against them. They were one percent of the population. Their numbers weren't significant, resistence to the Nazis was not only not the way that German Jews thought of themselves or their position in Germany prior to Nuremburg, and any resistence would have resulted in an immediate crack-down to the tune of an inflated propoganda campaign from the Nazis. Remember, Goebles, Goering and Hitler all on record arguing that the Jews brought it on themselves...from Chrystal-night to the holocaust.

If you study the time...most Germans...if not outright Hitler supporters...tacitly accepted Hitler. They cheered when he wipped out Rhomm. THey cheered as he "stood up" to the other European powers, etc. They might not have voted for him, but they didn't revolt.

In fact, the question here is ass backward. The issue shouldn't be why didn't the Jews defend themselves, but why did Germans buy Hitler and not revolt against the odiousness of the regime?

Blame the victems, I guess.

Which is an excellent question. Why did the Germans sell their souls to the devil? After the war, and now in the present day, it appears they regret immensely their fall into insanity. How did it happen, and how easy is it for other countries to do the same? In their defense, they did go through a period of insanity, the the great depression, which hit Germany a lot harder than it hit the US, when inflation hit levels that ruptured society. How hard, or easy, was it to just blame a scapegoat, in this case, the undeserving Jews?

[zooloo]

Raul Hilberg's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raul_Hilberg) book The Destruction of the European Jews may be of interest.

Hilberg used German documentation (there was a lot of it) to piece together the jigsaw (Or perhaps a jigsaw).

From the Wikipedia article on his "Hilberg's empirical, descriptive approach to the Holocaust in turn aroused considerable controversy, not least because of its details concerning the collaboration of Jewish councils in the actual procedures of evacuation to the camps."

I have not read the book.

(Hilberg died on the 4th August, apparently his book is soon to be published for the first time in Israel.)

[Loss Leader]

Following this, why does it seem (in my experience) that many people who identify themselves as jews, support large government and gun control/limiting rights for private citizens to own firearms?


Because most American Jews live in cities and/or in the Northeast where gun ownership is not as highly prized?

Because 90% of all shootings are of a family member?

Because your experience is anecdotal and has no statistical significance?

Because "large government" is nothing but a kill word created by the Republican party which has no actual bearing on how the parties actually act when in power?

Because Jews are generally better educated that the American average and better education is directly corelated with thinking Republican catch phrases and hot button topics are moronic?

I don't know. Pick any two.

[a_unique_person]

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, I am not a holocaust denier by any stretch of the imagination and firmly believe in the 6 million figure as to how many Jews were killed by the Nazis... But, if the population of Germany had 500,000 Jews, where did the rest come from? I realize that Poland had a high concentration of Jews, but I'm curious as to the numbers and where they came from.

In response to that, and the OP, IIRC, the majority of German Jews did manage to eventually leave the country before the war. The majority of victims came from countries the Nazis conquered, such as Poland and the USSR.

[a_unique_person]

Because "large government" is nothing but a kill word created by the Republican party which has no actual bearing on how the parties actually act when in power?



The current Australian conservative government is the most centrist, power grabbing in history. If the 'left' Labor governments had attempted half it's attempts at centralisation of power to date, there would have been calls from the conservative press to stage a coup by now.

[headscratcher4]

It was part of Eichman's evil genius to force the Jewish communities in Eastern Europe to participate in the organization and facilitation of the distruction of their people. But, it seems to me, that even these councils and individuals tapped by the Germans to represent the Jewish people are, in the largest sense, also victems....Sophie's choice as it were.

Not unlike a rapist in a house of women selecting one woman to choose who will get raped.

[a_unique_person]

Raul Hilberg's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raul_Hilberg) book The Destruction of the European Jews may be of interest.

Hilberg used German documentation (there was a lot of it) to piece together the jigsaw (Or perhaps a jigsaw).

From the Wikipedia article on his "Hilberg's empirical, descriptive approach to the Holocaust in turn aroused considerable controversy, not least because of its details concerning the collaboration of Jewish councils in the actual procedures of evacuation to the camps."

I have not read the book.

(Hilberg died on the 4th August, apparently his book is soon to be published for the first time in Israel.)



This stands against the thesis advanced by Daniel Goldhagen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Goldhagen) (also a functionalist) that the ferocity of German anti-Semitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism) is sufficient as an explanation for the Holocaust; Hilberg noted that anti-Semitism was more virulent in Eastern Europe than in the Third Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Reich).



If correct, that would partly explain why the Eastern European Jews were killed in greater numbers. Hitler provided the mechanism, they provided the Jews.

[a_unique_person]

The corollary to that is that Jews in other countries could not have forseen the extent to which the Nazi war machine would dominate Europe for the next five years, especially since no one else did. If they had been able to forsee that, I would guess that they would have been more pro active in their actions in regards to their personal safety. One of the most telling scenes in "The Pianist" was when the father explains to his family that they will be safe now that France and England have declared war on Germany. Going on past history, that was an entirely reasonable position to take.

[Phrost]

Because most American Jews live in cities and/or in the Northeast where gun ownership is not as highly prized?

Because 90% of all shootings are of a family member?

Because your experience is anecdotal and has no statistical significance?

Because "large government" is nothing but a kill word created by the Republican party which has no actual bearing on how the parties actually act when in power?

Because Jews are generally better educated that the American average and better education is directly corelated with thinking Republican catch phrases and hot button topics are moronic?

I don't know. Pick any two.

Did a Republican take your lunch money or something? That's one hell of a strawman you're arguing against.

I'll be over here in the libertarian bull-pen waiting for a response to what I actually posted, and not some Karl Rove-like golem.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

In response to that, and the OP, IIRC, the majority of German Jews did manage to eventually leave the country before the war. The majority of victims came from countries the Nazis conquered, such as Poland and the USSR.

That makes sense... I would like to see a compilation of what # of Jews came from what countries exists.

[kbm99]

That makes sense... I would like to see a compilation of what # of Jews came from what countries exists.

A quick Googling provides:

http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/rulings/cv/1996/685455.pdf

That appears to be taken from a Special Master's report to the court and contains information regarding the Jewish population of Europe (and indeed the entire world) both in 2000 and before the War. It's not a primary source, it's a report prepared for a specific court case, but it does give an overview of the sorts of numbers you are talking about.

[Tumblehome]

There is a movie called "Ship of Fools" with an all-star cast. It's based on a novel by Katherine Anne Porter and takes place just before the Holocaust begins. The ship is German and there is a Jewish passenger who has the most chilling line in the whole film. When warned about going back to German because he is a Jew, he replies:

"What are they going to do? Kill all of us?"

Then chuckles.


I saw Ship of Fools as a teenager and wasn't much interested in it (no car chases or shoot-outs), but that line at the end made an impression on me. It's the only scene I remember from it.

[Alkatran]

It's a lot easier to control a crowd than you'd think.

[Merko]

Many Jews who had the opportunity did escape. But it wasn't that
obvious where to go. According to the 'Black book of Communism',
almost 150,000 jews were killed in 1919 by the Russian 'whites'
(anti-communist forces) -- forces that were actively supported by the
Western powers. For all the crimes committed by the Bolsjevik
Communists, they put an end to that.

Still, it was hardly obvious, even with the gradual repression and
ghettoisation, that the Nazi's would commit an atrocity that would
overshadow even such vast pogromes as had recently been perpetrated to
their east, supported by the west. The USSR hardly seemed like the
ideal refuge either in the late 30's -- and adding to that, they
didn't even allow Jewish refugees, despite the official
anti-antisemitist line.

So in the end, most Jews did what people do when they find themselves
in a more and more desperate situation without any obvious way out --
doing nothing and hoping that things would get better by themselves.
Even when they had heard the rumours about mass exterminations,
they probably hoped that the trucks loading their neighbours would go
somewhere else, and didn't try to put up a resistance that would have
been futile anyway.

[Carnegiea]

Following this, why does it seem (in my experience) that many people who identify themselves as jews, support large government and gun control/limiting rights for private citizens to own firearms?

Not everyone. There's Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://www.jpfo.org) (not idea on the number of members, tho). The first time I went shooting as a kid it was with my friend's very Jewish dad. He owned multiple guns, reloaded his own ammunition and kept kosher.

[Autolite]

It amazes me that so many people find the Holocaust reprehensible yet are disgusted at the concept of private firearms ownership for the purpose of self defence. The fact that the Nazi government made it a point to disarm the populace prior to the beginning of the genocide seems lost to the vast majority of people ...

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I'm something of a WW2 buff and once read an excellent article about why there seemed to be so little resistance to the Holocaust. If anyone presses me, I'll try to find it and post it.

One thing the article points out is that outside of Poland, where the Germans put the death camps, there was very little intelligence coming into Jewish (and Gentile) communities about what was going on. They didn't even know about the Holocaust in the first place. Even the Jews still left in Germany didn't know what was going on in Poland.

Jewish communities in Western Europe, in countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium, had no knowledge of it and were sure until the end these places were work camps.

[Dumbledore]

Following this, why does it seem (in my experience) that many people who identify themselves as jews, support large government and gun control/limiting rights for private citizens to own firearms?

Does large government and gun control somehow suggest Holocaust conditions?;)

[Dumbledore]

It amazes me that so many people find the Holocaust reprehensible yet are disgusted at the concept of private firearms ownership for the purpose of self defence. The fact that the Nazi government made it a point to disarm the populace prior to the beginning of the genocide seems lost to the vast majority of people ...

What is lost on me is that even if the Jews had military weapons with which to defend themselves with they still could not of fought off the Nazis. I believe in the right to bear arms, but the Jews not having firearms is not the reason the Holocaust occurred. This is a faulty emotional argument. No group of civilians can fight off the combined force of a modern military.

[Autolite]

No group of civilians can fight off the combined force of a modern military?
Those "civilians" in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to have been giving it quite a good try for the past several years, especially when one considers that they are up against the most capable modern military forces on the planet. IIRC I remember something about the armed forces of the Soviet Union having an awful time in that part of the world a few years back ...

[a_unique_person]

No group of civilians can fight off the combined force of a modern military?
Those "civilians" in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to have been giving it quite a good try for the past several years, especially when one considers that they are up against the most capable modern military forces on the planet. IIRC I remember something about the armed forces of the Soviet Union having an awful time in that part of the world a few years back ...

"Without popular support".

Even then it depends on the lengths the army is prepared to go to. The Ancient Romans, for example, were prepared to kill every last man, woman and child if they had to, as was Joe Stalin.

[fuelair]

It's a lot easier to control a crowd than you'd think.

Which has been reported on and demonstrated so many times!!

[Merko]

Mmmkay.

Scenario one:
Firearms are banned. Then, this genocidal new dictator is coming to
power, vowing to kill all the Swiss immigrants for their nasty habits.
The Swiss assemble to discuss their despair. Someone suggests: "We
must arm ourselves!" There is general agreement. But then, one of them
realises: "But that would be *illegal*."

Disappointed, the meeting dissolves, and the Swiss realise that they
have no choice but to let themselves be butchered.

Scenario two:
The wise citizens of the democratic republic decide that everyone must
be allowed to stockpile arms. Then, this genocidal dictator is coming
to power, vowing to kill all the Swiss immigrants. One of his aides
suggests that firearms should be banned, so that his subject cannot
resist so easily. The genocidal is taken aback. "Ban *firearms*? What
kind of uncivilised brute do you take me for?", and then promptly
sends the ex-aide to a public beheading.

[Daylight]

There was a story on the History channel of 200 US Airmen that were put into one of the death camps. Does anyone know if they were as submissive as the Jews in captivity at the same death camp? Were the US Airmen troublemakers for the guards in comparison?

[a_unique_person]

Mmmkay.

Scenario one:
Firearms are banned. Then, this genocidal new dictator is coming to
power, vowing to kill all the Swiss immigrants for their nasty habits.
The Swiss assemble to discuss their despair. Someone suggests: "We
must arm ourselves!" There is general agreement. But then, one of them
realises: "But that would be *illegal*."

Disappointed, the meeting dissolves, and the Swiss realise that they
have no choice but to let themselves be butchered.

Scenario two:
The wise citizens of the democratic republic decide that everyone must
be allowed to stockpile arms. Then, this genocidal dictator is coming
to power, vowing to kill all the Swiss immigrants. One of his aides
suggests that firearms should be banned, so that his subject cannot
resist so easily. The genocidal is taken aback. "Ban *firearms*? What
kind of uncivilised brute do you take me for?", and then promptly
sends the ex-aide to a public beheading.
:rolleyes:

[Fronzel]

I just read the comic book Maus. The author interviewed his dad who was a holocaust survivor.

It mentioned that they heard rumors of people disappearing, and the whole time I'm reading it I keep thinking "Why not fight back?" But I have the luxury of knowing it will just keep getting worse.

[Phrost]

Not everyone. There's Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://www.jpfo.org) (not idea on the number of members, tho). The first time I went shooting as a kid it was with my friend's very Jewish dad. He owned multiple guns, reloaded his own ammunition and kept kosher.

Thanks for this. Consider my perspective changed a bit.

"Without popular support".

Even then it depends on the lengths the army is prepared to go to. The Ancient Romans, for example, were prepared to kill every last man, woman and child if they had to, as was Joe Stalin.

What's implicit in your statement is that it's better to just throw up your hands and march quietly to your death than to risk death by fighting. Can you understand how some of us find this kind of thinking reprehensible?

[timhau]

What's implicit in your statement is that it's better to just throw up your hands and march quietly to your death than to risk death by fighting. Can you understand how some of us find this kind of thinking reprehensible?

However, in that situation you have to first accept the fact that the other side is out to kill you, not because of something you did but just because they want you dead. That's not an easy conclusion to live with, so my guess is that to accept it most people will demand overwhelming evidence; and by the time you get that, it's too late.

[fuelair]

Thanks for this. Consider my perspective changed a bit.



What's implicit in your statement is that it's better to just throw up your hands and march quietly to your death than to risk death by fighting. Can you understand how some of us find this kind of thinking reprehensible?
My rule: if you know you are going to be killed, act as if you believe you will have an afterlife and all those you can take out first will be your slaves there.

[Dumbledore]

No group of civilians can fight off the combined force of a modern military?
Those "civilians" in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to have been giving it quite a good try for the past several years, especially when one considers that they are up against the most capable modern military forces on the planet. IIRC I remember something about the armed forces of the Soviet Union having an awful time in that part of the world a few years back ...

Sigh I knew someone would bring this up. No these people where not civilians, they were freedom fighter/terrorists that we trained and armed with state of the art military equipment. Well trained terrorists who are armed and trained by the US military are hardly the same as group of Jews who have military weapons trying to fight off the Nazi military, the most advance military of its time.

The point is that the Jews did not have military weapons, even if they did they were not trained to use them or in warfare to being with. Furthermore there were a lot less Jews in Germany than terrorists in Afghanistan fighting off the Russians. Lastly the Russians were invading Afghanistan and the terrorists saw them coming a long time before they invaded. I am confuse how this analogy in anyway fits the situation the Jews were in Germany during the Holocaust.

And with Iraq we are not dealing with civilians who were suddenly given military weapons, we are dealing with insurgents who are very familiar with urban combat and military conflict. The Jews in Germany during the Holocaust had no such training or experience. Besides this fact we are fighting for control of the cites, the Germans already had control of Germany. The insurgents have numerous advantages that the Jews did not, military and or urban combat training, numerous backers and supporters from countries in the region, fighting for control of the cites on your home turf which the invader is not familiar with, believing that you are fighting in a religious war of righteous, etc. This is not an equivalent example to the Jews in Germany

My point was that even if the Jews were armed they couldn't stop the Nazis from doing what they were doing. They might of killed more of them, but they would have quickly lost, ending with the same result. I am just tired of hearing of hearing this tired old argument every time we have some type of gun control. We should have the right to bear arms, but with no restrictions or limits, I don't think so. Though I would like a stinger missile system, you know to deal with speeders down my street and such. ;)

Beside the point of the thread is why did the Jews let themselves get killed without more fighting. It certainly wasn't because they weren't armed! Nazism was creping, and no one thought that any government was capable of organized genocide at that time.:cool:

[Dumbledore]

Mmmkay.

Scenario one:
Firearms are banned. Then, this genocidal new dictator is coming to
power, vowing to kill all the Swiss immigrants for their nasty habits.
The Swiss assemble to discuss their despair. Someone suggests: "We
must arm ourselves!" There is general agreement. But then, one of them
realises: "But that would be *illegal*."

Disappointed, the meeting dissolves, and the Swiss realise that they
have no choice but to let themselves be butchered.

Scenario two:
The wise citizens of the democratic republic decide that everyone must
be allowed to stockpile arms. Then, this genocidal dictator is coming
to power, vowing to kill all the Swiss immigrants. One of his aides
suggests that firearms should be banned, so that his subject cannot
resist so easily. The genocidal is taken aback. "Ban *firearms*? What
kind of uncivilised brute do you take me for?", and then promptly
sends the ex-aide to a public beheading.

You forgot the part where the genocidal dictator has his military kill all of the Swiss immigrants anyways, I am sure the people will stand up and fight for immigrants they were told were evil and the cause of all their problems anyways, hence the justification for genocide. And why would a genocidal dictator care about gun rights? I am lost on what you are trying to say?:confused:

[a_unique_person]

Thanks for this. Consider my perspective changed a bit.



What's implicit in your statement is that it's better to just throw up your hands and march quietly to your death than to risk death by fighting. Can you understand how some of us find this kind of thinking reprehensible?

Are you saying the Holocaust victims acted reprehensibly?

[Autolite]

My point was that even if the Jews were armed they couldn't stop the Nazis from doing what they were doing.

No argument there. My mention of the situation in the middle east was a simple counterpoint to the generalisation reference civilians fighting a modern military. My point is that the Nazi disarmament of the populace facilitated Hitler's plans...

[MaGZ]

I remember that movie. At that time I wasn't very familiar with Jews or the details of the Holocaust, but it freaked me out so much I wrote about it in my diary.

That is why the Hollywood Jews made the movie.

[MaGZ]

And, least we forget, there was the soundercomando revolt in Auschwitz in 1944, they even, I think, were able to put some of the gas chambers and crematoria out of action...of course, they were all killed -- and pretty much figured they would be.

If you got rid of the gas chambers then there would be lice infestation among the prisoners. Likewise, destroying the crematoria would cause diseases to spread in the camps. You have to have some consideration for the health and well being of the prisoners and staff.

[MaGZ]

There were about 600 prisoners, about half made it out of the camp. Surviving the war was a little more difficult, and IIRC only a few dozen made it. Some fell back into Nazi hands (easy to do in Poland), some were killed by bandits, and some were killed by Polish partizans who weren't any fonder of Jews than the Nazis.

I wonder why the Polish partisans didn’t care for the Jews? Could it have something to do with the Katyn Massacre which was perpetrated by the Soviet Secret Police (NKVD) which at the time was full of Jews?

[MaGZ]

Following this, why does it seem (in my experience) that many people who identify themselves as jews, support large government and gun control/limiting rights for private citizens to own firearms?

The Jews know they are in power now in America and they do not want an armed revolt against them.

[MaGZ]

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, I am not a holocaust denier by any stretch of the imagination and firmly believe in the 6 million figure as to how many Jews were killed by the Nazis... But, if the population of Germany had 500,000 Jews, where did the rest come from? I realize that Poland had a high concentration of Jews, but I'm curious as to the numbers and where they came from.

These are dangerous questions. You better not go there.

[Thunder]

um...the Nazis conquered half of Europe. There were millions of Jews in these lands. Duh!!!

as to Jews and gun control, many Jews live in cities, and cities tend to be infested with gun crime. cities tend to have a much harsher view on gun control..as would jews who tend to come from cities.

jews enacting gun control to keep gentiles from taking away their power...is ridiculous.

new york state, which had more jews then any other state, allows anyone over 18 to buy a shotgun or rifle without a permit and registration. so much for jewish conspiracies to take guns from people.

[a_unique_person]

If you got rid of the gas chambers then there would be lice infestation among the prisoners. Likewise, destroying the crematoria would cause diseases to spread in the camps. You have to have some consideration for the health and well being of the prisoners and staff.

I don't recall reading about crematoria and gas chambers being present in POW camps.

[timhau]

The point is that the Jews did not have military weapons, even if they did they were not trained to use them or in warfare to being with. Furthermore there were a lot less Jews in Germany than terrorists in Afghanistan fighting off the Russians. Lastly the Russians were invading Afghanistan and the terrorists saw them coming a long time before they invaded.

And, last but not least, the Afghan terrorists/freedom fighters had the fight in their home ground, which is scarcely populated and ideal for ambushes and guerilla warfare. You can't beat them the way the Nazis beat the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, i.e. by burning the area building by building, block by block. If you have an overwhelming military advantage, urban warfare isn't that tough if you're prepared to kill everyone in the neighborhood and have no need to leave any buildings standing.

[SomeGuy]

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, I am not a holocaust denier by any stretch of the imagination and firmly believe in the 6 million figure as to how many Jews were killed by the Nazis... But, if the population of Germany had 500,000 Jews, where did the rest come from? I realize that Poland had a high concentration of Jews, but I'm curious as to the numbers and where they came from.

3,000,000 from Poland
1,000,000 from Soviet Union
596,000 from Romania
277,000 from Czechoslovakia
200,000 from Hungary
160,000 from Germany
141,000 from Lithuana
106,000 from the Netherlands
83,000 from France
80,000 from Latvia
71,000 from Greece
67,000 from Yugoslavia
65,000 from Austria
24,000 from Belgium
8,000 from Italy
1,000 from Estonia
1,000 from Luxembourgh
700 from Norway
200 from Albania
100 from Denmark

All in all that makes a little less than 6 million (5.75 million).

To the OP: As you can see there are relatively little victims in those countries where nazi-ism slowly rose and the Jews got early warnings: (Germany, Austria and Italy mainly).

Most jews were killed in countries that were captured and almost immediatally after surrender had all the jews rounded up, often with the help of now subdued local forces/police.

[SomeGuy]

It amazes me that so many people find the Holocaust reprehensible yet are disgusted at the concept of private firearms ownership for the purpose of self defence. The fact that the Nazi government made it a point to disarm the populace prior to the beginning of the genocide seems lost to the vast majority of people ...

source?

[SomeGuy]

Did a Republican take your lunch money or something? That's one hell of a strawman you're arguing against.

I'll be over here in the libertarian bull-pen waiting for a response to what I actually posted, and not some Karl Rove-like golem.

It's not a bigger strawman than linking the holocaust to gun possession laws.

Puhleaze.

You set the groundrules to playing unfair, not him.

[SomeGuy]

What is lost on me is that even if the Jews had military weapons with which to defend themselves with they still could not of fought off the Nazis. I believe in the right to bear arms, but the Jews not having firearms is not the reason the Holocaust occurred. This is a faulty emotional argument. No group of civilians can fight off the combined force of a modern military.

If anything I think that had the jews been armed, they would have been slaughtered even faster and more brutally.

Of course this is mere conjunction, but so is the statement that gun possession would have helped.

[SomeGuy]

No group of civilians can fight off the combined force of a modern military?
Those "civilians" in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to have been giving it quite a good try for the past several years, especially when one considers that they are up against the most capable modern military forces on the planet. IIRC I remember something about the armed forces of the Soviet Union having an awful time in that part of the world a few years back ...

Part of those groups are remnants of the Iraqi and Taliban armies. Afghanistan itself is strange in that most of the country has been in internal strife for more than two generations, and basically all the tribes are warrior tribes.

Hardly comparable to the jews in Europe.

On top of that, in spite of what Al'Quaida would have us believe, the American army is not dedicated to exterminating the ethnic groups to which these civillians belong.

Part of why it's hard on the American army is because they are there to defend people who are just like the bad guys.

[SomeGuy]

The Jews know they are in power now in America and they do not want an armed revolt against them.

You're in the wrong part of the forums, crawl back to conspiracy theories forum please.

[Autolite]

source?

In conjunction with Kristallnacht, the government used the administrative authority of the 1938 Weapons Law to require immediate Jewish surrender of all firearms and edged weapons, and to mandate a sentence of death or 20 years in a concentration camp for any violation.

.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel052203.asp

My bad. I was under the impression that it was common knowledge that the Nazis had disarmed the Jews ...

[a_unique_person]

It would have made no difference. Russia in Afghanistan, the USA in Vietnam, both could have killed enough people in the end if they really wanted to. They decided they didn't want to, because to do so would have made them look even worse than they already did. Hitler would have had no such qualms, he would have been happy if they had disregarded the law and stockpiled weapons. He could have started the Holocaust earlier.

[headscratcher4]

It amazes me that so many people find the Holocaust reprehensible yet are disgusted at the concept of private firearms ownership for the purpose of self defence. The fact that the Nazi government made it a point to disarm the populace prior to the beginning of the genocide seems lost to the vast majority of people ...

First...the population wasn't armed...so disarming them wasn't a problem. While that may make your point...again, consider the fact that a). The Nazis were popular...they won elections. b). Nazification of the state was a creeping, if deliberate process that issolated "enemies" from the main body of the population, vilified them than removed them from the population. c). Jews, as pointed out, represented about 1% of the German population, thus every Jew armed with hand guns -- women and children included -- would not have stood very long against the State...especially a state that was through the 1930's quite popular with the vast majority of the population. Finally, as suggested by my above....the Nazi state would only have been stopped by a better armed Poland or a better prepared Soviet Union, or more consistent actions by Western Powers (who were trying desperately to avoid war). In short, an organized trained army, not an armed populace.

My point here isn't to argue that the right to bare arms isn't valuable or worthy. It is that it has little to do with the real context from which Nazism arose or how the threat manifested itself to the Jews. Partisans -- armed insurectionaries -- were important at harassing the Nazis, but of themselves they could not have won or defeated Hitler. Again, the point is, an organized army by organized states with a single purpose is what it took.

Personally, and to your point, I don't have a problem with the right to bare arms...though I think we've gone a little nuts in this country where anyone can get practically any type of weapon. However, you'd have to go a long way to convince me that an armed citizenry...even one like we have in the US ... would be much of a counter force to a creeping and popular totalitarian or authoritarian state....the Ruby Ridges would be there...there'd just be no reporting on it. And, without reporting, with armed enemies of the state disapearing or being drven off into survivalist living in issolated areas, it is difficult for me to see how a popular authoritarian/totalitarian effort would be matched. IMO.

[Autolite]

but of themselves they could not have won or defeated Hitler.

Agreed, (see post #73). My point is that the Nazi government felt that armed citizens posed a threat, albeit a small one, so much that they prohibited Jews from owning weapons ...

[osmosis]

a favorite tactic of the Nazis was to punish your friends and family if you escaped or fought back.

Even if you managed to escape a death camp, you knew for certain they would murder everyone you knew because you escaped. How many people could even attempt to escape, knowing their mothers and sisters would pay for it.

[headscratcher4]

I guess my deeper point on this part of the topic is: "and armed Jews would have done what?"

Many German Jews didn't believe it. They were German. They lived in a civilized and civil society. They had so much to contribute. It would pass like the progroms always had ... and by the time they found it was different, the door had slammed shut. It was, as I noted, progressive evil, not radical, invasion evil. By the time armed Jews would have realized what was being done...they could have done little about it.

As for Poles, Jews, etc. in other countries. It took the Nazis two weeks to conquor Poland....armed Jews, like armed Poles, were lost in that situation...and the Germans turned Poles on their Jewish neighbors. There might have been an uptick in the resistence....but Jews didn't die because they didn't have the means to resist...they died because they were hit by a relentless Tsunami and there was never enought time to get their heads above sea level, as it were, take stock and take effective collective action.

[Phrost]

It's not a bigger strawman than linking the holocaust to gun possession laws.

Puhleaze.

You set the groundrules to playing unfair, not him.

Asking a question is a strawman?

Is this post a strawman?

[Phrost]

Are you saying the Holocaust victims acted reprehensibly?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

[Khonshu]

IIRC, there was a great deal of gun control during the Weimar Republic.

And Phrost, when you say "Jews", remember that you are talking about a group with many, many subdivisions. I've known conservatives, liberals, gun-nuts, atheists, very religious types, rich, poor, whatever - that all considered themselves Jewish. For a group that's lumped together so often, they're a very difficult group to assemble - and I think the only thing that I've seen them agree on is that they like a good disagreement once in a while.

Also, regarding the actions outside of the country - remember, news didn't travel as fast back then, particularly outside the cities. Germany was considered one of the more enlightened countries for people of the Jewish faith after WWI - things changed quickly, but many of the Jews in Eastern Europe were unaware at the beginning of the war. That's where a lot of the initial cooperation came from. The Wehrmacht didn't exactly go door to door asking if they knew any Jews so they could shoot them.

I wish I could find it, but I remember seeing a statistic that showed that a disproportionate number of Jews served in the German army during WWI (somewhere around 30%). It made the actions of a couple of decades later seem even more obscene (if that's possible).

[timhau]

Agreed, (see post #73). My point is that the Nazi government felt that armed citizens posed a threat, albeit a small one, so much that they prohibited Jews from owning weapons ...

I wouldn't use the word 'threat'. Jews with pistols, hunting rifles, or serious blades might have been a minor nuisance for the Nazi troops who went to detain them. But if they killed Hans the SS Man, Dieter the SS Man would come and take his place and Goebbels would have a minor orgasm at the Propaganda Ministry.

[timhau]

remember, news didn't travel as fast back then, particularly outside the cities.

Exactly. Back then, for a large part of Europe the fastest way to send a message to the village over yonder was still to give a man a horse and tell him what you want said.

[fuelair]

These are dangerous questions. You better not go there.

One of us is reprehensible. It isn't me.

[Phrost]

Here's a relevant question.

Could this happen today? If so, why? If not, why not?

Let's say, for the sake of argument that instead of the Nazis, the holocaust, and all its after effects including the creation of Israel, hadn't happened in the 30's-40's. Instead, Hitler came to power in the Germany of today.

Based on the idea that lack of communication was one of the reasons that the "final solution" got as far as it did, would things be different?

[Dumbledore]

Here's a relevant question.

Could this happen today? If so, why? If not, why not?

Let's say, for the sake of argument that instead of the Nazis, the holocaust, and all its after effects including the creation of Israel, hadn't happened in the 30's-40's. Instead, Hitler came to power in the Germany of today.

Based on the idea that lack of communication was one of the reasons that the "final solution" got as far as it did, would things be different?

I think that it could definitely happen today, that is what the Holocaust taught us. All it takes is for certain ideas and beliefs to take hold, and the right kind of people getting into power to apply those ideas and beliefs to there very destructive ends. Now the circumstances that Germany was in that lead up to the Holocaust are certainly very complicated and involved, but fooling ourselves into thinks another Holocaust could not happen is dangerous.

For example lets take the fundies hatred of homosexuals. Now if belief that homosexuality is evil and inferior in every way took hold with the vast majority of people in America, gays would find themselves in the position where they are more and more persecuted socially and politically. This persecution would be slow and creeping, but it would grow in intensity. Since this belief and hatred is held by the majority of Americans, politicians who will act on and encourage this belief will be elected. From there we are a very small step away from a final solution for gays.

[osmosis]

One of us is reprehensible. It isn't me.

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone ended up saying something like that. What I didn't know in advance is just how much in agreement I would be when that moment inevitably came.

[a_unique_person]

It's happened before, and it'll happen again. :(

[lula]

OP, I believe that a lot of it had to do with the Jews being in a state of denial about what was happening. Looking back on the Holocaust it is pretty unbelievable that it could have happened - and I think that's what the Jews at the time felt. There's a scene in Schindler's List where some Jewish factory workers say something like "they wouldn't hurt us, they need us", and I think that was quite a widespread mindset. No one knew for sure what went on in the concentration camps, and no one wanted to think of the possibility of it being stuff as horrific is it was. Furthermore, many thought that if they kept their heads down, in time things would improve. Obviously that didn't happen but they weren't to know that at the time.

Additionally, the Jews were a very small minority. They really didn't have the numbers to lead any sort of successful uprising. So what could they have done?

Besides, many Jews did leave Germany/Europe when they could, before the really nasty stuff started to happen. People forget that.

[SomeGuy]

Asking a question is a strawman?

Is this post a strawman?

I mainly meant to say that you shouldn't take such a morale high ground after Godwinning the gun control debate.

Comparing/linking the situation of an oppressed minority in a totalitarian dicatorship to the rights of a complete population of a more or less free democracy is defenitally strawmanlike debating.

[timhau]

Furthermore, many thought that if they kept their heads down, in time things would improve.

Exactly. We shouldn't forget that the Nazis didn't invent anti-semitism. I wouldn't be surprised if "Things suck now, but it'll blow over eventually" was a very common mindset. That may actually contribute to non-resistance -- you don't want to give the other side an excuse to act.

[headscratcher4]

Here's a relevant question.

Could this happen today? If so, why? If not, why not?

Let's say, for the sake of argument that instead of the Nazis, the holocaust, and all its after effects including the creation of Israel, hadn't happened in the 30's-40's. Instead, Hitler came to power in the Germany of today.

Based on the idea that lack of communication was one of the reasons that the "final solution" got as far as it did, would things be different?


Of course it could happen in Germany today. The improvement of Communication would have, I think, made Eastern European countries far more aware of what was happening in Germany and more able to read their intent...but, it seems to me, that if a minority were one percent of the population and a facisitic government came to power legally through the ballot, that minority would still face many of the hurdles that German Jews faced realizing the danger in the early 30s.

[MaGZ]

Not being one to buy into the Holocaust Lie, I will still answer your question. No, it is very unlikely the Jews will find themselves in a dire situation in Germany today. The Germans of today have been so brainwashed and indoctrinated with Holocaust propaganda some are actually converting to Judaism.

A better question is where will be the next country the Jews will have to flee. I think the two best candidates are Russia and Ukraine. Everyone in these countries know the Jews have enriched themselves after the fall of Communism. Most of the Oligarches are Jews. Many also are aware that Jewish White Slave traders entice young women to travel to Europe to work in what they think at the time are legitimate jobs. If one or both of these countries go through an economic crisis like Germany pre-1932 then the Jews will be in a very bad situation.

[Thunder]

Wow...its great to know that ONLY the Jews are doing well in the new Russia and Ukraine. All the Gentile Russians are poor and hungry..while all the Jews are rich and powerful.

MaGz, do you know what a generalization is? What does 5 Jewish oligarchs have to do with maybe a million other Jews? Do you have any evidence that the Jews are doing any better..or worse..then the rest of society?

Im confident...that like always...you got nothing.

[timhau]

Im confident...that like always...you got nothing.

I'm sure he's got mountains of evidence. Or haven't you read Protocols of the Elders of Sion?

[Miss Anthrope]

Not being one to buy into the Holocaust Lie, I will still answer your question. No, it is very unlikely the Jews will find themselves in a dire situation in Germany today. The Germans of today have been so brainwashed and indoctrinated with Holocaust propaganda some are actually converting to Judaism.

A better question is where will be the next country the Jews will have to flee. I think the two best candidates are Russia and Ukraine. Everyone in these countries know the Jews have enriched themselves after the fall of Communism. Most of the Oligarches are Jews. Many also are aware that Jewish White Slave traders entice young women to travel to Europe to work in what they think at the time are legitimate jobs. If one or both of these countries go through an economic crisis like Germany pre-1932 then the Jews will be in a very bad situation.

:hb:

[lula]

I doubt that the exact same thing - Jews being persecuted in Europe - would happen again. However events similar to the Holocaust HAVE happened since - take for example Rwanda or Cambodia.

and Magz, are you insinuating you believe the Holocaust never occured..? If so, feel free to throw yourself of a cliff at the next available oppurtunity :)

Please do not use personal attacks and do not advocate suicide.

[osmosis]

Not being one to buy into the Holocaust Lie, I will still answer your question

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9351462ee9c0be878.gif

[lula]

I doubt that the exact same thing - Jews being persecuted in Europe - would happen again. However events similar to the Holocaust HAVE happened since - take for example Rwanda or Cambodia.

and Magz, are you insinuating you believe the Holocaust never occured..? If so, feel free to throw yourself of a cliff at the next available oppurtunity :)


OK, probably went to far re: cliff thing. Sorry! Can't work out how to edit posts...

[Corsair 115]

Not being one to buy into the Holocaust Lie, I will still answer your question.Dare I ask what your opinion is of Adolph Hitler? Just a misunderstood fellow who had the right idea but went about things the wrong way?

[a_unique_person]

In response to the OP, it's an interesting question. Other mass killings, mass or otherwise, have occurred, and people have not resisted to the best extent that was available to them. Seems to be some sort of human psychological condition. There are those awful photos of those woman being led naked to be killed by the Nazis. They are lined up in an orderly fashion, just waiting to be shot.

[a_unique_person]

Dare I ask what your opinion is of Adolph Hitler? Just a misunderstood fellow who had the right idea but went about things the wrong way?

Hero worship of Hitler puzzles me, since he singelhandedly led a modern, educated people to the worst defeat in their History. When it was all over, he blamed the Germans for not being up to the job, and being weak. He insisted on fighting on, even when children were being sent off to be slaughtered.

[osmosis]

There is a possibility that Hitler was a victim of his own doctor, who kept putting strange concoctions into him. This would explain how he went "really crazy" as opposed to just crazy like before.

[lula]

Oh, to those who were talking about if it would happen in Germany today: no, it wouldn't. There were very unique circumstances in Germany at the time of Hitler's rise, which aren't present today. In fact I'm convinced that if he had tried to gain power even five or ten years later he wouldn't have succeeded.

[MaGZ]

I doubt that the exact same thing - Jews being persecuted in Europe - would happen again. However events similar to the Holocaust HAVE happened since - take for example Rwanda or Cambodia.

and Magz, are you insinuating you believe the Holocaust never occured..? If so, feel free to throw yourself of a cliff at the next available oppurtunity :)


reported

[Thunder]

Dont provoke him.

[lula]

I already said sorry Magz.

[MaGZ]

Wow...its great to know that ONLY the Jews are doing well in the new Russia and Ukraine. All the Gentile Russians are poor and hungry..while all the Jews are rich and powerful.

MaGz, do you know what a generalization is? What does 5 Jewish oligarchs have to do with maybe a million other Jews? Do you have any evidence that the Jews are doing any better..or worse..then the rest of society?

Im confident...that like always...you got nothing.

Jewish Oligarches in Russia

Why Putin is Under Attack
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/austindependence/putin-duke.html

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/11/Oligarchs021103.html

JEWISH DOMINANCE IN THE CAPITALIST TAKEOVER OF TODAY'S RUSSIA
http://jewishtribalreview.org/capitalists.htm

The Rise And Fall
Of Russia's Jewish Tycoons

http://www.rense.com/general68/rise.htm

ANTI-SEMITISM AND THE RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS

http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=407&issue_id=3218&article_id=2369187

A Jewish Appeal to Russia's Jewish Elite

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n6p13_Michaels.html

[osmosis]

So some Jews are very successful. So what.

[a_unique_person]

Jewish Oligarches in Russia

Why Putin is Under Attack
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/austindependence/putin-duke.html (http://home.alphalink.com.au/%7Eradnat/austindependence/putin-duke.html)

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/11/Oligarchs021103.html

JEWISH DOMINANCE IN THE CAPITALIST TAKEOVER OF TODAY'S RUSSIA
http://jewishtribalreview.org/capitalists.htm

The Rise And Fall
Of Russia's Jewish Tycoons

http://www.rense.com/general68/rise.htm

ANTI-SEMITISM AND THE RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS

http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=407&issue_id=3218&article_id=2369187

A Jewish Appeal to Russia's Jewish Elite

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n6p13_Michaels.html


Do you think yelling makes you right?

[Floyt]

If we manage to start and loose another World War; sail headfirst into depression and mass unemployment on the last breezes of imperialism; get a flustered patchwork government that is failing at dealing with the militaristic figureheads infesting it; AND arrive at the conclusion that our economy could somehow function without a million foreign contractors, massive trade influx, and anyway it's much nicer over in the East - then it might happen nowadays.

So no, I don't think it could happen in Germany today. The Weimar Republic was a strange beast of bothersome past and volatile chemistry, and may we not see its like again too soon :covereyes

[tumnus]

As a point of info, Michael Shermer's Why People Believe in Wierd Things has a couple of chapters on holocaust denial.

It's worth a read. I'm not sure if addresses the OP question of why the jews didn't rise up like Hulk Hogan, Popeye or the protagonists of a Hollywood Movie (I can't takes no more!) but it does have a breakdown of the number of jews in europe and also passed through the camps, with the source data cited.

The book's worth having anyway, but is excellent for this data. The question of 'where did all the jews come from' is one of those boomerang Woo questions that keep repeating every now and then, despite getting answered every time.

[timhau]

Do you think yelling makes you right?

The whole formatting of his post would scream 'kook' even if it was all written in Thai.

[AgeGap]

Why did the Nazis let the allies hang them?