Weapons

Now that I agree with, though not so much with reguards to Nazism but the Holocaust. I would not say it is a gun control issue so its rather OT for this thread but didn't someone once say (something like, if anyone can find the actual quote I would be most greatful):

'They came for the communists, I said nothing, they came for the slavs, I said nothing, they came for the Jews, I said nothing, they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me'.

 

That is from Martin Niemoeller, a German Protestant clerik who wrote in the German original:
MARTIN NIEMÖLLER
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestierte.

-----------------------------------
(my "translation" below - sorry, may not be too brilliant)

When the Nazis came for the communists
I said nothing;
because I was not a communist.

When they came for the social democrats
I said nothing;
because I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists (?)
I said nothing;
because I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews
I said nothing;
bacause I was not a Jew.

When they came to take me
there was no one left to raise protest.


... and munk - I do not scapegoat anything as a single cause. I think we can agree that monocausal explanations are wrong almost everytime.


Andreas

 

P.S. found there are some variations:
for example:

They came for the Communists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Communist;
They came for the Socialists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Socialist;
They came for the labor leaders, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a labor leader;
They came for the Jews, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Jew;
Then they came for me - And there was no one left to object.

or

When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church -- and there was nobody left to be concerned.

Really, really off topic now - as a protestant pastor Niemoeller rejected to use guns to defend the church - unlike Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who took part in some attempts to kill Hitler - and Bonhoeffer was a protestant pastor too. He was murdered in the Flossenbuerg concentration camp days before the war ended. He is one of my personal favourites as a christian.
- so you may conclude I am not against defence - even with weapons too.

Andreas

 

Thanks for that Pan, it is a very wise piece of text.

 

On one hand you agree with stmmvaum a militant group had guns and that is why they could hurt people. Guns are seen as very powerful in this view. On the other hand you see the disarmanent of the Jews by Nazi Germany as a minor point because Jews had no chance to defend themselves anyway. Guns are seen as ineffectual here. That they had no chance to defend themselves is your belief only, it is not fact. The real point being is that even a man facing a firing squad must first be disarmed.

The founders of Israel disagree with both of you. They say, "never again."

In the Balkans recently one side was relatively disarmed, as they were the disenfranchised of the area, and the other side, the ones calling themselves Christians, had most of the left overs of the State aparatus, including firearms and heavy equipment. Europe insisted upon an arms embargo- so the Moslems died by massacre until we could move in. Small arms in the hands of citizens would have made a difference there.

It really isn't any of my business- if you and Stmmzaum are happy with your nation's internal policies regarding firearms, fine.

Stmmzaum has gone out of his way to rewrite history- British civilians being armed for a 'moral' boost only, wouldn't have made any difference. You have to stretch reality quite a bit to get there, but I have objection with that either.

Guns in the hands of bad guys are devasting, guns in the hands of civilians ineffectual and unneccesary.

munk

 

Sorry Munk, but it is a FACT that the home guard were militarily useless and that whilst they would have fought bravely they would have been slaughtered (not that invasion was possible). Maybe you do not understand what they were. They were formed when a radio broadcast was made requesting all physically fit men aged between 17 and 70 to report to their local police station to form the local defense volunteers. These men were first armed with whatever they had around the house, ranging from broomsticks with a knife on the end (they were issued pikes early on made from steel tubes with a 1907 bayonet welded to the top) to the odd shotgun. They were later issued uniforms and weapons of the type sent from the US (usually with no ammunition) as well as museum pieces and whatever else could be obtained. By the time they were actually fully fledged military units and had been issued proper weapons and so on (by which point most of the civvy weapons had been melted down already) the risk of invasion was long past (US soldiers were already arriving in Britain). My grandfather was a member of the Home Guard from 1941-1942 (at the same time he was in the OTC, then joined the army in 1943 as an officer), there were thousands of other members all of whom were fully aware of the fact that the men of the unit would have fought but they would have been wiped out. Their main purpose was to help the British people feel they were doing something at a time when it would have been all too easy to become despondant (Dunkirk and all) and to take some of the strain off the military (as they became more formalised they were able to take over some of the rear echelon duties and free up some soldiers). This was not arming civilians, this was forming small volunteer units to show people that they were taking part in the defense of their nation. The Home Guard did not deterr the German invasion at all (not that it was feasable anyhow) and there was no way that the professional soldiers of the German army would have been stopped by literally old men and boys.

I must say there is one exception to this, the 'auxilliaries', this was an organised resistance unit that was set up along with the home guard in order that if there was an invasion they could set up a resistance movement behind the lines. They could have achieved some good if there were an invasion, but they were armed with proper military weapons and were not really civilians as such.

 

You don't get it; it is not neccesary for Jews or Americans or Brits to 'win', it is only neccesary to make the cost not worth paying for the Attacker, or to delay the attack until such time as the enemy is incapable of making it.

If under some future US administration guns were outlawed, the price of collecting them may make the law unenforcable.

Your point of view is familiar to me; it is exactly what the Sierra Club used to teach, and still does, about Cougar attack. "There's no point in being armed, because the cougar attacks without warning and breaks the neck or severs an artery. You would have no chance to even get a weapon out."

Now of course, authorities are saying 'fight back'. Because it works. The cougar may not die, but you have lived.





munk

 

Sorry, I do not get the connection between that and a bunch of firearms that were issued to men without ammo and that would never have harmed the enemy seriously (the Germans knew it, it didn't discourage them from the invasion because it wasn't actually going to happen anyhow).

I agree with what you are saying about Cougars, how about a brown bear? Fight back and you die, dont fight back and you may live. And I agree with what you say about the cost, though it is the reverse of what may have faced the british government in 1943, the cost of registering all the weapons so that they could have been legally held by civilians or putting them in storage would have been too much to allow their being kept.

 

My father is a WWll vet. I grew up in a post war world. Your Grandfather was in the Homeguard. I wonder how much of this is a generational difference.

Of those European nations supporting the US in Iraq, do you think it coincidence that the newly freed Eastern Block nations were unanimous in their support? People fresh from under the boot understand.



munk

 

You are incorrect about Brown Bears. They used to say play dead, now acknowledge fighting back in many circumstances is your only hope.

Again, Churchill thought it worth doing. Your opinion on the arming of British civilians during WWll is of less weight with me than his. Who would have thought Afgan rebels could defeat the Russians?

You should be proud; they were primarily armed with .303's at the starte. Enfield copies from India.



munk

 

Munk, quite probably it is, that and the ocean between us . My Grandfather was a WW2 vet as well (he served as an officer in Italy, Austria and later in Germany) as a Home Guardsman, but anyhow.

Please, don't bring Iraq into that, from what I have seen of Eastern Europe they are rather desperate to get in with the US to reverse the damage that was done 'under the boot'.

 

Churchill knew it was mainly a morale issue, he admitted as much. Then again, so did Hitler, and look what happened to his Volkssturm, they were torn apart under the guns of the Red Army to very little benefit.

Incidentally, whilst we are on about enfields, the factory (whats left of it) is down the road from my house.

 

Stumm, when the main fighting was done in Iraq, what was it the British forces feared most of all and what took weeks instead of days to accomplish? That's right- going house to house.

Delaying Hitler is good strategy. Make him doubt, make him fear. The Nazi attack method was blitzkrieg- a few forces fast and overpowering. Being bogged down in Britian, or for that matter Winter in Russia, was a cost he could not bear.



I don't wish to rest the advantages of an armed populace upon your citizens in WWll. It really does not prove or disprove the worth of the idea.


munk

 

For some reason, the Enfield is greatly admired. Not the most accurate, nor the strongest action , nor lightest rifle.

But it worked over and over, and had one of the fastest cycles of any bolt. (if not the fastest) Whatever limits the action had, it worked perfectly in congress with the .303 round for which it was designed. No more could be asked.



munk

 

You fail to understand that they wouldn't have delayed a decent Blitzkrieg attack, if a group of trained regulars couldnt in France why should a bunch of LDV with a few rifles and no ammo?

What is the relivance of Iraq? The people they 'feared' fighting house to house were Iraqi soldiers, not civilians (though why the British army specifically? The US army 'feared' it just as much though fear is the wrong word I guess). House to house fighting is always dangerous, but if you look at what happened in France there was hardly any because the Germans just rode straight through and ignored the houses.

Really your final statement couldn't be more true, there was no way the Home Guard would have stopped the Germans as had been demonstrated in war games and in Russia, so no, its not relivant.

EDIT: One thing I need to say, don't think that I don't respect the LDV, the Home Guardsmen would have died in their hundreds but they would have fought to the last and there is no doubt of that. I have a lot of respect for people who are willing to face that possibility as they did, but they would have got slaughtered, they knew it, the government knew it, the Germans knew it.

 

You missed one factor, it is one of the most beautiful weapons ever designed (IMHO of course). I have 2 deactivated Enfields, I regularly get to use live ones and I was trained on a modified version (the no.8) by the cadet force and they are fantastic weapons. One of the biggest advantages I have found is as you say the fast action). Whilst you can work other rifles as fast, you can keep the enfield to your eye enabling the WW1 era standard RoF test of something like 15 aimed shots per minute (as compared with Mauser bolts, which you need to remove from your eye and so it slows your RoF rather).

 

And Ben the Contrarian Troll crawls out from under his rock to stir the pot.
Read about your self here. Phil's Field Guide to Trolls

Tell us BenAroundTooLong, have you seen any new UFO's lately? BWAAAAAA!!!

 

Iraqi soldiers- what is that?

Do you think British forces would fear entering American homes less, because it's only Semper fi and munk?


What were the fighters in Afganistan in the early days, but civilians?


Our revolutionary war was won with civilians. I don't have the faith in state employees you do.


Do you think everyone who fought in the Balkans was military> How about Israel when it was founded?


And these are just the ones circling my head now. How many more could a real historian find? More than this thread has posts.

cheers,

munk


PS; the Enfield beautifull? I could go along with that. Well, in an ugly duckling kind of way..but I'm prejudiced. I like almost all weapons, even the Arisake, (sic) But yes, there is a soft spot in my heart for the Enfield. Actually, England's sticking by us in the Gulf war brought tears to my eyes many times.

edit: I only used 'British forces' as an example to give due where it is deserved.

 

Hey, now, Semp, no need to go dragging the poor UFO's into this mess
--Josh

 

Enough!!!