Why didn't the Jews Fight?

[Jamie Young]

If you knew that if you killed a German soldier, the Germans would have rounded up innocent civilians, and shot them, would you still keep killing Germans?

I may sound cold hearted but that wouldn't stop me from fighting.

I think a lot of these debates during war come up due to the fact people don't know their enemy.


Would you be able to handle the fact the Germans just killed 200 people because you were defending your town or village?

 

[Ceol Mhor]

I had the same question after reading The Gulag Archipelago (about the Soviet camp system). Why don't people do anything to help themselves? Why do they cooperate with their soon-to-be murderers?

I, for one, am with you. I'd fight. There may be retaliation, but if you don't fight, the consequences will be even worse.

 

[Azrael256]

Fight, always. If you don't fight, you're going to die. If you do fight, there's still a pretty good chance you'll die, but you'll die standing tall like a man. There may be reprisals, but they'll come up with a reason for a reprisal even if you don't.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Three reasons:

1. No concept of fighting back, for most.

2. Careful work by the nazies to create an impression that cooperation = safety, if with inconveniences

3. Concern about "making things worse" for family members.

Knowing what we know, we can reliably say that those who use threats are likely to carry them out regardless of our degree of cooperation.

Question to the folks here, though: if a police officer is about to arrest you, do you fight there and then or do you hope for the best and ask for legal representation? And if the latter choice is true, how different are we from those Jews? The difference seems to be that our police is mostly lawful whereas the German (Soviet, Polish, etc.) weren't. But our own behavior seems similar: we prefer uncertainty of the official justice to the uncertainty of an immediate firefight. If the police/paramailtaries are lawful, we do well, if they aren't, we get Waco.

Valaam Shalamov wrote a story called "The Last Battle of Major Pugachev" which dealt with one of the two major uprisings in the gulars (both in 1946, I think). Both started by ex-military who were imprisoned for either just seeing the West or for being POWs. Both failed. The one Shalamov described (and I couldn't translate it, the officalize Russian is pretty much Newspeak for the purposes of rendering it in English) had about a dozen participant and they were eventually hunted down. The other uprising involved a take-over of a camp and that was no match for snipers and infantry supported by tanks...the authorities could pick and choose when to move.

As John Ross' character said: "It is too late when you are behind wire and eighty pounds underweight." Anyone who would try to render another person unable to fight inthe future is that person's enemy. If the attempt to disarm is unlawful, the perpetrator should be killed, both to safeguard the would-be victim and to deter others from trying to do the same.

To re-state the old question: is an SS typist as culpuble as the E-Grouppe triggerman? Yes. Triggerman comes first (safeguard), typist comes next (deterrent). No prisoners. The wages of sig should be death, and I can't think of any sin worse than initiation of violence against an innocent. FWIW, I don't think that any functionary wearing the uniform of an organization like Gestapo or its modern equivalent is innocent, even if they don't do their own killings.

 

[40ozflatfoot]

Alas, there are those that were born into families that favored non-violence over all else. Many of them would rather stand up against that wall than defend themselves. For some, it's religious convictions. For others, it's family culture. These are the protected. They will always be with us.

 

[fix]

mostly lawful whereas the German (Soviet, Polish, etc.) weren't.

Actually, they were lawful (read: enforcing the law). The laws were unjust. That's why I don't buy into the "just obeying orders" crap, and that's why we need to keep an eye on the clowns in the House and the Senate.

 

[WyldOne]

I didn't answer the poll yet.

But I'm not too sure how comfortable I would be knowing that my actions caused the death of 200 innocent people.

 

[Oleg Volk]

WyldOne,

Your actions wouldn't cause deaths of anyone. Let me illustrate: I visit you and state that you must strip RIGHT NOW and run to the Town Hall screaming "Free the Puppies"...if you don't, I will choke this adorable puppy (show picture) in ten seconds...nine...eight...

You get the idea. If you don't cooperate and I kill the puppy, was it your fault? For the sake of the illustration, let's also say that I don't have the puppy, but my cohorts do, hundred of puppies. Do as I say, or all of those cute critters die!

Should you cooperate? In my opinion, you ought to either ignore me or fight (definitely fight if human lives are concerned). Cooperation in good faith is not possible if the other side is evil or insane. So, at least to me, the answer would be "destroy every enemy personnel" and hope that you get them all before they can destry other innocents at leisure. If nothing else, it would distract them from killing innocent to concentrate on you.

If a thug says: "Cooperate and I won't hurt you", we disbelieve as the end goal of such cooperation is usually hurting the victim in some way. Similarly, "cooperate and we won't damage the hostage" means that the hostages would be safer if the terrorists are rushed and destroyed than if they are permitted to control the situation. See 9/11 events.

 

[Blue Star]

Ok a hopefully reasoned response...

First theres some very good info here http://www.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/index_about_holocaust.html

OK - The Holocaust did not just spring out of nothing, it incrementally involved with the Nuremberg Laws which were progressively more restrictive regarding rights of Jews in Germany. Bear in mind that wholesale slaughter did not commence until the German invasion of the USSR in June 1941 with one Einsatzgruppe following each of the 3 German Army Groups (North Central and South) as they advanced into Russia. Meanwhile German Jews were being deported to "the East" and concentrated in ghettos in Poland along with Polish Jews (Poland with 3 million had the most)as was well depicted in Schindler's List. None of those people knew the fate that awaited them. Even the Warsaw Ghetto rebellion only occured after they learned that the trains to supposed new locales in the East were returning the same day - from the Treblinka death camp.

You are a German Jew. Ah whats this your old Luger in the closet you brought home or your father did from WW1 - you have been ordered to report to the town square for deportation, with your family. What do you do go out and shoot a soldier and know your family will suffer? Or do you reluctantly submit and hope a better will come maybe after the war? (Remember you are not aware of the Final Solution yet). Likewise when the SS sweeps through your city or village in Russia...again you are not aware of your fate until you are told to undress at lets say infamous Babi Yar and stand over the ditch...now a lucky few got to escape and become partisans such as in the book "The Avengers" about the noted leader Abba Kovner...but thats only a few. Also consider the number of elderly and young. Same with the trains to the death camps most were not aware of their impending doom...and even if did, would cling to the hope of survival till the last moment. And at that stage of course, as with the Borg, "resistance is futile."

Someone wrote...how many millions of Russian POWs died in captivity? Without resisting? And trained soldiers - again, essentially futile.

Anyways back to the original question for the "lone gunmen" yes I hope I'd fight.

 

[Oleg Volk]

The 1938 disarmament of Jews was ostensibly tirggered by the attempted assassination of a German Ambassador to France (I forget if it was successful or not) by a Jewish man. ANY excuse will do for the evil. Which is why it is the unpleasant, difficult and perilous duty of the lawful humans to stay armed and to destoy enemies on occasion.

ArmySon knows that, which is why he is inthe Army now. I know that but I don't have much trust in anyone commanding me, so I'd pick the lone gunman role even through that deprives me of better weapons or logistical support. But the ability to fight, alone or in company, is important. Prosper Merrime asserted that, during St. Bartholomew's Night, the Hugenots who fought bravely in the ranks would surrender meekly to the assassins when alone. Perhaps, there's a lesson in that: surrender doesn't always gets mercy.

 

[ehenz]

This is akin to 9/11. Before, we knew to sit in our seats and do what the highjackers ask. Now we fight them to our deaths.

my .02

 

[Will Beararms]

Coming from a "mixed" family, one with Jews and Gentiles alike. I can tell you many Jews felt that this was the lot God had chosen for them and they would endure it the best way they could.

Remember, the are many anectdotal instances where Jews did fight back and did escape altough few. The Movie Europa Europa about the life story of Mr. Solomon Perel is a prime example and movie all here should see.

I can tell you that I have family members that are even Democrats who are armed to the teeth and have villas in the countryside where their families could go in the unlikely even of Final Solution Part Two.

 

[mdlowry]

I'm with Oleg about the people hoping for the best. If I may, let me ask a slightly different question:

You have the TV/radio on and hear that your local gun store has been raided by the BATF for paperwork violations. There is now a standoff at the store. What are you going to do? Are you going to hope for the best: that the BATF agents are able to arrest the store owner without further loss of life? Or would you grab your rifle and all the ammo you can carry and head over there? Remember that the BATF is responsible for enforceing thousands of UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun laws.

I suspect that very few people would chose the second option. We are not Nazi Germany, but the federal government is taking more and more of our freedom without the feds facing any consequences (the BATF agents are "only following orders"). There have been very few of our unconstitional laws repealed, or overturned by the courts. Some of the states are willing to give some of their subjects the privilage to keep and bear arms IF they ask the state's permission. This is in addition to all the other freedoms we have lost (1st, 4th, 5th, etc ammendsments). Most people are unwilling to risk their ". . .Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honor" (not much different than before though). Perhaps we can still work within our current system. As time goes by, I see this option slipping away from us. We would need to become very active NOW to elect people that support freedom. I'm not saying that we should start a revolution now, but unless things change I see no other option. There isn't anyone to come save us as we save the Jews in Germany.

Why didn't the Jews fight in Germany? Just look at us now.

 

[Blue Star]

Oleg you mean the assassination of a German official (not the ambassador) Ernst von Rath by Herschel Grynspan, this was used as the pretext for the infamous "Kristalnacht." Not disarmament, as nobody was armed anyways!

 

[Oleg Volk]

In answer to the question about the standoff: coming to a fight against fully mobilized enemy isn't efficient. Eliminating a Gestapo employee (or its modern equivalent) elsewhen, perhaps a month later away from witnesses, would be far more effective. De-funding the enemy agencies would be best (few of their employees would bother with the job if not paid) but killing off their employees one by one would be a viable, if unpleasant, solution should all other ways fail. Keep in mind that this type of insurgency works both ways and you and I are less anonymous or well-protected than most of the opposing individuals. Assassinations work both ways.

 

[mdlowry]

Oleg,

Ok, perhaps not the best example, but I think you understood the point I was trying to make.

It seems to me that we are working our way politically to what happened then. We won't have any concentration camps, but we do have lots of prisions. From what I've read, the feds that have murdered subjects in the US have not been to trial unless it was one of the "protected groups."

 

[scud]

Yes I would fight back if I was the only bastard left. Better Oleg

 

[Oleg Volk]

scud, thanks

 

[40ozflatfoot]

...I'd pick the lone gunman role even through that deprives me of better weapons or logistical support.

Remember that American military equipment and weapons are made by the lowest bidder. Sadly, it has been generally agreed that the quality of leadership at the higher levels show all the signs of having been made by the losing bidder.

Besides, a lone gunman would want to equip himself with weapons and ammo that are easy to get, and in abundance...enemy weapons, ammo, and equipment.

 

[AmericanFreeBird]

I would fight. I think it's better to go down swinging than to be led to a field, dig your own grave, be killed in the hole you dug and THEN have your loved ones rolled in on top of you and a bulldozer cover your bodies en masse.

No thanks, as bad as retaliation would be I'd like to take a few of those bastards with me.

It sure wouldn't be an easy choice though.