# On Israel, Guns, Terrorist, and Defense



## Deaf Smith (Feb 7, 2009)

http://www.seraphicpress.com/archives/2008/08/the_terrorist_i.php
These are Israeli bloggers. Most are in the IDF as reservist. They do not soldier as a profession, but are called up as needed.
*Glock and Daven*
I count seven Glocks and two M16's. There is, undoubtedly, more firepower in shul, but these men are not vain, wild west gunslingers. Most sidearms are concealed under shirt tails, or, as in the case of my brother-in-law Davidwho dresses for Shabbos like he's still back in Monseyhis Glock 17 is hiding under his nicely tailored suit jacket.

It is comforting to daven in a room with armed and well-trained citizen soldiers. We know from experience that in Israel, *it is armed citizens who are the first line of defense against the Arab-Muslim terrorists who have been killing Jews since time immemorial.*

One of the most irrational and shameful political positions taken by Liberal American Jews is the demand for the abolition of the right to bear arms.

If Jews in Europe owned guns there would be several million dead Nazis and their collaboratorsand far fewer dead Jews.

*The Killing*
Again, Larry and I go over the killing of the terrorist. Details are all important in counter-terrorism.

The Glock is a good weapon when every millisecond counts, says Larry. 
There's no safety, which can take precious time away from shooting. You can keep a round in the chamber, then just draw and fire.

Larry totes his Glock in a Fobus speed holster.

What kind of rounds did you use?

I keep hollow points in the Glock, but my spare magazine has full metal jackets. The day I killed the terrorist, I put him down with the hollow points. Don't want to use full metal jackets in a crowded supermarket, they'll go right through and kill an innocent bystander.

The Efrat supermarket was crowded?

Very. Look, the terrorist was here, Larry demonstrates using his body and mine, and behind him were several women and children.

How close were you to the the terrorist?

About fourteen feet.

I shiver. 

Most gunfights, contrary to popular mythology, *take place within seven feet.* Fourteen feet can seem like a yawning chasm when the adrenalin is pumping, innocent bystanders are all around, and a determined terrorist has his finger on the detonator.

The full metal slugs would have gone right through him and there's no telling...

Larry's voice trails off.

My childhood buddy is a sweet man, a devoted husband, father, and grandfather. There is no bravado in Larry. He's fine with killing the terrorist, but it does not define who he is.

Me, I'd write and produce a self-glorifying movie, play hero on talk shows, try and cash in. 

It's time to go home. It's time for leave taking. 

There is an entire culture and religion bent on eradicating Israel and Jews.
We are so few; we are so vulnerable.

But there are, Baruch HaShem, many Larry's.

----
Deaf


----------



## Brian King (Feb 7, 2009)

An associate of mine calls himself a Never Again Jew and goes armed. I believe he got the term from Crafty Dog of the Dog Brothers but got his spirit from his Grandmother. 

Thanks for the link sir.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## searcher (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks for posting.   It is good to see that the Israeli people are taking the right steps to keep themselves protected.


----------



## girlbug2 (Feb 7, 2009)

How different the attitudes toward firearms in Israel vs. the USA. IMO the phrase "wild west gunslinger" is key-- over there, it is never for entertainment, shooting and guns are serious business.

Yes, thank God Israel has many Larrys.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 8, 2009)

<sarcasm> curious...armed good guys are the solution to bad guys?  who would have ever guessed. </sarcasm>

thanks for posting that.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2009)

*"If Jews in Europe owned guns there would be several million dead Nazis and their collaboratorsand far fewer dead Jews"*


You really have hit the bottom with this haven't you? You have absolutely no idea what went on in Europe duing those years have you? 

This statement may be your opinion but basically you are sayng that it's the Jews fault they were killed because they didn't have guns to shoot the Nazis. 

I take great exception to this and I would suggest you do some historical research before making such a hurtful, horrible and misleading statement.


Oh and incidentally Arabs haven't been killing Jews since _time immemorial_, something else I think you should look up.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 8, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> *"If Jews in Europe owned guns there would be several million dead Nazis and their collaboratorsand far fewer dead Jews"*
> 
> 
> You really have hit the bottom with this haven't you? You have absolutely no idea what went on in Europe duing those years have you?
> ...


 
Easy, Tez3. He should have used the "quote" function. The words aren't his, they belong to the fellow who wrote in the linked article. 



> *About Me *
> *Robert J. Avrech *
> *Los Angeles, California *
> I'm an Emmy Award winning screenwriter. I'm also an observant Jew, a religious Zionist, a fierce conservative Republican, and a member of the NRA. I've been writing and producing in Hollywood for over twenty-five years.


 
I tend to agree with them, though, in spirit if not in fact-so do a lot of other people. You can read an interesting, and pretty old, article by David Kopel, called 
Hitler's Control:



> *Writing in The Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Stephen Halbrook demonstrates that German Jews and other German opponents of Hitler were not destined to be helpless and passive victims. (A magazine article by Halbrook offers a shorter version of the story, along with numerous photographs. Halbrook's Arizona article is also available as a chapter in the book Death by Gun Control, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.) Halbrook details how, upon assuming power, the Nazis relentlessly and ruthlessly disarmed their German opponents. The Nazis feared the Jews  many of whom were front-line veterans of World War One  so much that Jews were even disarmed of knives and old sabers. *
> 
> *The Nazis did not create any new firearms laws until 1938. Before then, they were able to use the Weimar Republic's gun controls to ensure that there would be no internal resistance to the Hitler regime*


 
Further on, the article states: _Simply put,* if not for gun control, Hitler would not have been able to murder 21 million people.* Nor would Mugabe be able to carry out his current terror program_

And, as the article notes, here in the U.S. we have Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership


And we have a movie in theaters right now, _Defiance_, based on the story of the Bielski Partisans


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2009)

Elder, it's still hard to read, that Deaf can post up that it's the Jews fault they were killed. 


The Bielskis are legend and it's taken a very long time for the world to acknowledge their story. There was more Jewish resistance to the Nazis than is perhaps realised. However studying what happened in those times would show a greater understanding rather than just posting up, hey having guns would save the world.

For the record, as a gun carrier, I'm not against weapons, just it's horses for courses. There is no blanket solution, what works in Israel doesn't work in Iceland for example. Different countries,different problems, different people, different mindsets.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 8, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Elder, it's still hard to read, that Deaf can post up that it's the Jews fault they were killed..


 
He didn't post that-he posted that _*if*_ they'd had guns, they'd have been harder to kill-and would have taken a few Nazis with them in the bargain. I tend to agree.

After all, it wasn't _their_ fault that they didn't have guns.....


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 8, 2009)

As ever when we are dealing with issues or history that have a high emotive quotient, it is beholden upon us all to deal with such issues with a degree of sensitivity.  

That includes taking care that what we write is not needlessly inflammatory by dint of how it is presented.  It also includes keeping a grip on our responses to things that ignite our passions.

You'd be surprised what can be discussed by people of widely differing views if we all maintain the degree of civility that we'd expect when sitting down at the dinner table together - which is in effect what we are doing when we are guests here at MT.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2009)

elder999 said:


> He didn't post that-he posted that _*if*_ they'd had guns, they'd have been harder to kill-and would have taken a few Nazis with them in the bargain. I tend to agree.
> 
> After all, it wasn't _their_ fault that they didn't have guns.....


 

What makes you think they died easily, that they went quietly into the night?
http://library.thinkquest.org/12307/resistance.html


----------



## elder999 (Feb 8, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> What makes you think they died easily, that they went quietly into the night?
> http://library.thinkquest.org/12307/resistance.html


 
Nothing. I'm pretty aware of what resistance there was. One of my best friend's parents were in the resistance in Holland as teenagers. Just think what might have been accomplished by European Jews if they'd had more guns from the onset. 

This isn't a statement-or _judgement_-about "Jews in Europe," but one about gun-control and disarmament in general, using "Jews in Europe" as a prime example.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Nothing. I'm pretty aware of what resistance there was. One of my best friend's parents were in the resistance in Holland as teenagers. Just think what might have been accomplished by European Jews if they'd had more guns from the onset.
> 
> This isn't a statement-or _judgement_-about "Jews in Europe," but one about gun-control and disarmament in general, using "Jews in Europe" as a prime example.


 


Well however it was meant to be it comes across as being judgemental and *hurtful*. I'm sorry but I'm extremely upset. It's such a naive and simplistic thing to assume that having guns would have saved people, all this just to make an argument for everyone having guns. 
I don't believe it's a good comparison, how would having guns stop a family from being killed when the soldiers, their neighbours, work colleagues, fellow students and everyone walking past in the street was against them? How could people who had fought in the First World War for Germany ( as Anne Franks father had), lived as German citizens for generations and been good patriots know that just about every non Jew wopuld be against them? 
How exactly would having guns have aided people? Tell me exactly how having guns would have saved my grandparents, my aunts and uncles? I want to know exactly how they could have saved themselves in the Netherlands when the Germans came for them. I don't want to be told blandly oh if they were armed they would have survived. 

Emotive subject, yes very.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 8, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Well however it was meant to be it comes across as being judgemental and *hurtful*. I'm sorry but I'm extremely upset.


 
I don't think I _need_ to apologize for anything, but I'm sorry you're upset.





Tez3 said:


> It's such a naive and simplistic thing to assume that having guns would have saved people, all this just to make an argument for everyone having guns.


 
History shows-in many instances besides this one-that having guns *did* save people. No one is making an argument for "everyone having guns"



Tez3 said:


> I don't believe it's a good comparison, how would having guns stop a family from being killed when the soldiers, their neighbours, work colleagues, fellow students and everyone walking past in the street was against them? How could people who had fought in the First World War for Germany ( as Anne Franks father had), lived as German citizens for generations and been good patriots know that just about every non Jew wopuld be against them?


 
In some ways, you're right-in others, one has to wonder why Hitler not only enforced existing gun control measures, but made certain that Jews, and Jews _specifically_ could not have large knives or sabres as well?

I live in cattle country, and a few of my neighbors have a little ritual where they remove the horns from calves when they do branding. Why do you suppose that is?



Tez3 said:


> How exactly would having guns have aided people? Tell me exactly how having guns would have saved my grandparents, my aunts and uncles? I want to know exactly how they could have saved themselves in the Netherlands when the Germans came for them. I don't want to be told blandly oh if they were armed they would have survived.
> 
> Emotive subject, yes very.


 
No one is saying that. What they are saying is that they very well _might_ have, that they'd have had a better chance than the one that they did have, which, face it, was _no chance at all._

Again, I'd suggest that you look closely at the sources in the OP, and mine. The first is a Jewish American author, living in Israel. The other is an American author, also Jewish. One site I posted is for a Jewish organization that is centered on this very issue, with exactly the reasoning that you reject-in fact, at times they're more than a little over the top.Bottom line though, while you might not agree with it, and I can understand your being upset with it, it's a logical opinion shared by quite a few people, and supported by other historical examples.In fact, in the 20th century, every _government_ that committed genocide _*disarmed their victims first.*_

The book Lethal Laws, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, details how in Armenia, the Soviet Union, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia and *Germany*, genocide was preceded by extensive gun-control. 


This article,, for the _Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law_ by Stephen Halbrook (a constitutional attorney with a 3-0 record before the U.S.Supreme Court), details how German firearm laws disarmed the nation's Jews. 

You might not like it, you might not want to accept it, but it's the simple truth-and not meant to cause any offense or upset. If we're going to learn from history, it's details like these that we need to pay attention to if it's really never going to happen again.



> The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow
> the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all
> conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms
> have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
> *Adolph Hitler*​


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 8, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> How exactly would having guns have aided people? Tell me exactly how having guns would have saved my grandparents, my aunts and uncles? I want to know exactly how they could have saved themselves in the Netherlands when the Germans came for them. I don't want to be told blandly oh if they were armed they would have survived.
> 
> Emotive subject, yes very.


 
I would ask you to direct that question to my Former boss, who's parents were alive and able to escape to freedom. 

And while it is trite to say "oh if they were armed they would have survived" It is certain not everyone would have survived, just as not every armed soldier who enters a conflict survives... but, and this is just my opinion, right or wrong... a fighting chance is better than than being rounded up and murdered in the most horriffic ways.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 8, 2009)

I fear this thread is wandering off the tracks somewhat. 

It was, as far as I'm concerned, a not terribly good choice of exemplar to fuel yet another pro-gun thread but if it is intent on wending it's way down the actual discussion of whether an armed population would have saved the European Jews, then we need a new thread targeted on that investigation.

As an aside, not meaning to aid and abet the derailment, why is this topic so burning hot that we simply must have what feels like a thread-a-day on it? Honestly, even I've had enough of it now and I'm all for open and full debate of almost any non-reprehensible subject. Such relentless drum-banging is counter-productive as it actually begins to turn peoples opinions the other way.


----------



## searcher (Feb 8, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> As an aside, not meaning to aid and abet the derailment, why is this topic so burning hot that we simply must have what feels like a thread-a-day on it? Honestly, even I've had enough of it now and I'm all for open and full debate of almost any non-reprehensible subject. Such relentless drum-banging is counter-productive as it actually begins to turn peoples opinions the other way.


 

Are you in referance to the pro-gun/anti-gun debate?

If that is what you are asking, itis due to the political change that has happened here in the US.    Many of us feel that the new administration have the agenda of ridding the population of personal ownership of frearms.  Many of us feel that this is the first step in a socialist agenda and attempts to control the populace due to an inability to defend ourselves from our own government.

This is just what many of us feel is going on.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 8, 2009)

Sad to say, you picked up in the wrong half of the paragraph, *Searcher*. That was the rhetorical part that formed an introduction to the subject.

Even tho' I might be thousands of miles away, via the miracle of the Internet I try as best I can to keep apprised of what's going on in the world. So I'm well aware of the fears that you express.

What I was trying to get across is that the relentless tirade has a counter-productive effect on rational peoples views on the issue. We here at MartialTalk really do not need every straw-man that can be fastened to a stick to be raised up in the field of debate to brow-beat all and sundry into understanding what is going on.

One thread will do. Preferably one that can put forward intelligent discourse of the pro's and con's of general ownership of firearms in a population that tends to congregate in overcrowded urban areas.

To put my own opinion forward as to the reality of the argument that an armed populous can prevent oppression, I have to say that if that is truly believed then those that believe it are kidding themselves.

I'll willingly take anyones money, at any odds, against the notion a group of ordinary people, armed with non-miltary weapons and with none of the other kit that makes up part of a modern infantrymans gear, could successfully take on even a squad level engagement with army regulars.

It's an illusion. A comforting one perhaps but an illusion nonetheless. The idea comes from a couple of centuries ago when the disparity between a 'civilian' with a gun and a soldier with a gun was largely a matter of discipline and formation. That no longer holds true.


----------



## searcher (Feb 8, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Sad to say, you picked up in the wrong half of the paragraph, *Searcher*. That was the rhetorical part that formed an introduction to the subject.
> 
> Even tho' I might be thousands of miles away, via the miracle of the Internet I try as best I can to keep apprised of what's going on in the world. So I'm well aware of the fears that you express.
> 
> ...


 

Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 8, 2009)

Tez3,

I am sorry you feel upset about the post.

My intention for posting it was the facts 1) in Israel they carry guns for very serious survival and are not shy about it 2) The combat is close range and very fast 3) and they are happy they have civilians that can shoot! They don't say, let the cops handle it!

The bloggers, all Jewish, do feel if the Jews in europe before WW2 had been armed and as agressive as the Israelis are today, that the terrible told of death the Nazis did would have been much much less. 

Yes some Jews did resist. Partisans behind German lines in Russia fought quite well. But on the whole many felt if they just obeyed the Nazis and did what they told them to then they would survive (and that kind of reminds me of armed robberies and being told to not resist.) They even went so far as to give the Nazis list of all registered Jews and used Jewish police to keep them in line. Said but true.

Tez3, I am not anti-Jewish. In fact, being a Texan I'm 110 percent behind Israel! Never have understood why people hate the Jews. My family doctor for many years (he's dead now) was Jewish (I'm Catholic myself.)

I just want you to understand I did not mean to upset you in any way.

Deaf


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 8, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I'll willingly take anyones money, at any odds, against the notion a group of ordinary people, armed with non-miltary weapons and with none of the other kit that makes up part of a modern infantrymans gear, could successfully take on even a squad level engagement with army regulars.
> 
> It's an illusion. A comforting one perhaps but an illusion nonetheless. The idea comes from a couple of centuries ago when the disparity between a 'civilian' with a gun and a soldier with a gun was largely a matter of discipline and formation. That no longer holds true.



Which is one of the big reasons we argue that we should be allowed to have the same types of weapons the military has.  Which is also why there is a 12+ week wait on AR15 parts right now, and why the AK47 I bought for 250 dollars is selling for almost 1000 here now.

And lets not forget, many of the so-called "Ordinary people" who want these rights are former military.   The Military has the latest tech, and would be HARD to beat nowadays because of that, but those are the situations that unconventional warfare has throughout history allowed the underdogs to emerge victorious, even if you have to redefine victory as "Surviving long enough to escape someplace less dangerous."


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 8, 2009)

It's a hypothetical, no doubt, *Cryo* but I do not share your optimistic appraisal of the odds. 

It'd be interesting to see some validated statistics as to what constitutes 'many' when it comes to a percentage of the popuation with relevant military training and experience (given that 'many' who serve in the military do not serve in roles that would prepare them for this scenario).

Regardless, it is akin to saying that I could take on a bone fide samurai in a sword fight - I might have a better chance than yourself but I reckon that at best I'll be able to tell you in the afterlife the name of the particular technique he killed me with .

I do like the last point that you make, nontheless. I'm not sure having a smallarm is going to make that all that much easier, however.

What I do have difficulty getting my head around is why the need is felt to come up with these, to me, specious arguments for retaining the right to bear arms when the whole point is that it is written into the foundations of your law. 

Further more, what gain is there in, as I said before, beating the drum incessantly here? What I think on the matter is not going to change your governments attitudes on the issue and I'm pretty certain we don't have any members of MartialTalk who also happen to be members of Congress or Senators.

What it does do is convince the rest of 'us' who are not particularly concerned about the matter on a daily basis that there is something amiss with those who support the pro-gun platform when the point is thrust in our faces all the time. 

Fanatacism never sells well, especially that of an 'evangelical' cast. Or is that just my own particular reaction?


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 8, 2009)

Deaf, you don't have an understanding of what happened then. You can't understand what Tez is upset about. For the record, I find those statements upseting as well. Tez and I are likely around the same age, we share a common bond. Sitting around the dinner table at the Holidays, I look at my and my wife's entire extended family. We are 12. I grew up where my family, all of them was my parents and sisters. The glib statements that Jews should have fought back, that if they had been armed they would have survived hurts. Look how quickly the Germans overpowered countries. What makes you think that being armed would have made any bit of difference? Less may have died in the camps perhaps, they would have been shot in the ghettos.

Why are we sensitive about it? It has taken us 60 years to rebuild our numbers. A large part of a culture was lost forever.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 9, 2009)

> It's such a naive and simplistic thing to assume that having guns would have saved people


Sorry you are upset but...
but it is neither naive and simplistic it is called MATH. 
There is proof of this if you would like to see this proof (not made up numbers by the Bradys) actual fbi records(they are public domain)
proving that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens do save lives I will be happy to flood your mail box with them.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 9, 2009)

> What makes you think that being armed would have made any bit of difference? Less may have died in the camps perhaps, they would have been shot in the ghettos.


 
Wow not sure how to say this....
But here goes.
WHAT??? 
What differance would it have made, tons think about it. 
All of Germany at the time was Anit-Jew (so anti-Jew that there power to fight was taken) they had no one else to call, no police, no politition, no fire fighter, all they had was them selves and a few symtosizers. Now faced with those odds no chance to get out. I would think a gun would be pretty handy at that point in time.

Put it this given the chance to fight in the face of almost gaurenteed death or submit what would you choose.

The guns were taken away from them for a reason. Because they would have fought if they could have....


----------



## elder999 (Feb 9, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> The glib statements that Jews should have fought back, that if they had been armed they would have survived hurts. .


 

No where has anyone posted or said that. What was said was:



> If Jews in Europe owned guns there would be several million dead Nazis and their collaboratorsand far fewer dead Jews.


 
And it was said _by the author of the article in the original post,_ an American Jew, fervent Zionist, award winning author and NRA member.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 9, 2009)

What is perhaps not being given due consideration here is that these statements are being made with the benefit of hindsight. Noone at the time imagined that what did in fact transpire was going to occur. There was no obvious intimation to these poor people that they were going to their deaths - that deception was how mass rioting, armed or not, was avoided in the first place.

Other than perhaps at such points as Crystal Nacht, the Jews being individually armed and acting as private citizens would not have made all that much difference. Yes, there would have been some more dead non-Jewish Europeans but it would not have significantly altered the path of the juggernaut.

Escaping from the ghetto's, organising and then resisting would have. 

I believe Hollywood has made a film recently that covers a very successful (relatively speaking) example of such. On past record, no doubt they will mangle the history abominably but the point is there.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 9, 2009)

Defiance. Yes it was mangled, but the gist was there.

And I'll put what you think happenned against my first hand accounts of what actually happened.

That Zionists said these things do not make them true. The culture and worldview of today's Israeli, is quite different than that of European Jews 70 years ago.


----------



## Brian King (Feb 10, 2009)

*
*off topic*

CanuckMA wrote:*


> "my first hand accounts of what actually happened."


Speaking for only myself, I would value you posting what it was like for you in Nazi Germany or Nazi occupied territory. I have read many first hand accounts and have been fortunate to know briefly several survivors of various concentration and labor camps and have also been fortunate to know several persons that had been prisoners of war held by the Germans and Japanese a one that had been held by the Soviets. I have been humbled by them all and learned a great deal. Please feel free to start a thread based on your first hand knowledge. So often we only get our information second or third hand or a buddy told me that his fathers sister said. 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 10, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Further more, what gain is there in, as I said before, beating the drum incessantly here? What I think on the matter is not going to change your governments attitudes on the issue and I'm pretty certain we don't have any members of MartialTalk who also happen to be members of Congress or Senators.


 
Well, If I had to venture a guess, since we here are assailed constantly with anti-gun propaganda, fiction and lies, as well as opinions from people both here and elsewhere that "Guns are bad, M'kay?" I think many gun owners feel the need, especially now that we stand under threat of losing our weapons, to speak out.  And, right or wrong, as members of this forum, its a place that we are given voice...


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 10, 2009)

Brian, I'm too young for that, but I am the child of survivors. I've had to live with the devastting psychological aftermath of having survived the camps. 

Things to remember when you ask how could it have been done is that the Jews in Europe had been part of those communities for centuries. They could not imagine that their country could turn against them. Also keep in mind that those communities were fairly isolated and communications in the 30s and 40s were not what they are today, so communities would not know what was happening elsewhere.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 10, 2009)

First off, I recognize the emotive factor of this topic more than any of you might think. I grew up with mostly Italians and Jews, and I heard many of the same stories that others have. Additionally, one of my all time favorite teachers, my sixth-grade English teacher, Mrs. Gold, was in the camps as a child.It was she who encouraged me to write:_The Nazis were like monsters to us, they didn't even seem human. In the camp, we told stories to survive._



CanuckMA said:


> Things to remember when you ask how could it have been done is that the Jews in Europe had been part of those communities for centuries. They could not imagine that their country could turn against them. Also keep in mind that those communities were fairly isolated and communications in the 30s and 40s were not what they are today, so communities would not know what was happening elsewhere.


 

Ya know, I'm not so sure. I had a teacher, Mr. Joseph Greenstein, who left Poland for the U.S. around 1907. He'd survived at least one pogrom in Poland before he left, though. 

The fact is, long before the first nation-wide pogrom in Germany, in 1938, Jews had suffered violent persecution throughout eastern Europe for a long time-the first reported one was around 1880 in Russia, but with Martin Luther actually calling for such acts of anti-Semitism as an article of faith in _On the Jews and Their Lies_, in 1543, and describing in detail what should be done: the burning of Jewish homes, businesses and synagogues. While this didn't have a prevailing influence in Germany during the 18th and 19th centuries, it was an influence elsewhere, and was again in Germany by the end of WWI.

Frankly, when the talk started, when other measures were implemented-one of the first things Hitler did when he became Chancellor, in 1933, was implement the Law for the Restoration of Professional Civil Service, which removed many Jews from their Jobs-and  certainly when _Kristallnacht_ fell in 1938-and basically happened all over the country at once, so there was no need to communicate what had happened elsewhere-these all should have been an indication that their "countries were turning against them."

In fact, it was-an awful *lot* of Jews left their countries for Great Britain, traditionally neutral European countries, and the United States. It's how we wound up with Albert Einstein and Enrico Fermi-while not Jewish himself, most of Fermi's assistants, and his wife were Jewish, and they fled the restrictive, anti-Semitic laws which Mussolini instituted in Italy at about the same time as the Germans. Lisa Meitner, the great and overlooked Austrian born physicist, left Germany for Sweden in 1938, and was not only critical of colleagues who remained and collaborated with the Nazi regime, but criticized herself for remaining in Germany from 1933 to 1938. In one of her more damning statements, she singled out Werner Heisenberg, who collaborated with the Nazis (but might just have hindered their atomic bomb efforts through inaction), saying that, _"Heisenberg and many millions with him should be forced to see these camps and the martyred people." _She also wrote to her longtime associate, Otto Hahn, the man who recieved the Nobel that she should have been recognized for:



> "You all worked for Nazi Germany. And you tried to offer only a passive resistance. Certainly, to buy off your conscience you helped here and there a persecuted person, but millions of innocent human beings were allowed to be murdered without any kind of protest being uttered ... [it is said that] first you betrayed your friends, then your children in that you let them stake their lives on a criminal war &#8211; and finally that you betrayed Germany itself, because when the war was already quite hopeless, you did not once arm yourselves against the senseless destruction of Germany


 
So,while to my mind it would be an even uglier thing to say about the facts of gun-control, the fact may be that more would have lived if more had read the writing on the wall, *and run away*. I recognize, though, that disbelief and inertia were part of this, and, that for some, emigration was financially impossible. Still, many remained to have their wealth and eventually their lives stripped from them, when it was within their means to go elsewhere, and no longer within their means to resist.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 10, 2009)

elder999 said:


> So,while to my mind it would be an even uglier thing to say about the facts of gun-control, the fact may be that more would have lived if more had read the writing on the wall, *and run away*. I recognize, though, that disbelief and inertia were part of this, and, that for some, emigration was financially impossible. Still, many remained to have their wealth and eventually their lives stripped from them, when it was within their means to go elsewhere, and no longer within their means to resist.


 
Running away was the only way to ensure survival. However many could not believe that it could be so bad.

The Warsaw ghetto is oft-cited as an example of what armed resistance could do. But at the end, it just stalled the Germans a bit, killed a few of them, It did nothing for the survival of the Jews in the ghetto. 

And where would they have gone. Countries turned them back, remember the St. Louis? Britain would not let them go to Palestine.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 10, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> And where would they have gone. Countries turned them back, remember the St. Louis? Britain would not let them go to Palestine.


 
...and this is a great _national_ shame. :asian:


----------

