What would have stopped the Nazi Holocaust?

[Amy SF]

Dr. Benjamin Carson has said that guns would have stopped the Holocaust. I disagree. There were groups of resistance fighters in Europe, killing some Nazis with guns and blowing up some trains. But they couldn't succeed against the Nazis by themselves. It took the military might of the Allied Forces to defeat the Nazis. The Nazis used propaganda to convince millions of Europeans that their way was right. For every person who disagreed with the Nazis and was determined to fight them, there were thousands more in uniform or aiding those in uniform with the ability to crush any resistance. When the Nazis decided to liquidate the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943, some brave Jews fought back. But they ultimately failed. Those who didn't die were rounded up and taken to Auschwitz. Even with everyone armed with guns, the Jews of the Ghetto would have been outmatched by the military might of the Nazis.

My belief is that the Internet and smartphones would have stopped the Holocaust, at least in the beginning. Most of what we know of what the Nazis did didn't come out until after the war. While the Nazis controlled the flow of information, I believe it still would have been possible to let the world know what was really happening. If you look at countries where the internet is censored, it's still possible for those outside those countries to know what goes on there.

Discuss.

 

[Second Summer]

I agree, I think the Internet or similar ability to share information could have prevented it.

I find Carson's thought experiment to be in bad taste, and also unrealistic. What is it that makes some politicians think it's OK to make Holocaust comparisons to everything? And this is also unrealistic because Jews were stripped of rights in Nazi Germany, so no doubt they would have also lost any right to bear arms. Now, if he were comparing it to the Rwandan genocide, that would have made a little bit more sense.

 

[Joe]

Possibly if the Allies (or the countries that became the Allies, such as Britain and France) had used their military to oppose Nazi incursions right at the beginning instead of following a policy of "appeasement" this might have prevented WWII and the Holocaust. But Britain and France were war-weary following the First Word War and failed to act promptly and effectively. Of course, we will never know what would have happened, but this is my view.

 

[Amy SF]

There was a strong isolationist movement in the US during the thirties and into the forties which ended only when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in December 1941. It's interesting that right after we declared war on Japan, we also declared war on Germany. I think the government wanted to act, but was waiting for the "right" moment. I think if more Americans knew what was really going on in Europe, the isolationist movement would have had less influence in Washington and we would have acted sooner. But, I believe, there were anti-Semites in positions of influence and they prevented the US from acting until it was no longer possible to wait.

 

[Joe]

There was a strong isolationist movement in the US during the thirties and into the forties which ended only when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in December 1941. It's interesting that right after we declared war on Japan, we also declared war on Germany. I think the government wanted to act, but was waiting for the "right" moment. I think if more Americans knew what was really going on in Europe, the isolationist movement would have had less influence in Washington and we would have acted sooner. But, I believe, there were anti-Semites in positions of influence and they prevented the US from acting until it was no longer possible to wait.

You are correct about US isolationism. But I did not mean to suggest that the US military could have stepped in, but that the militaries of Britain and France could have/should have.

Also, while I'm not entirely sure of this, I think Germany declared war on the US very shortly after we declared war on Japan. In other words, they declared war on us before we declared war on them.

 

[Joe]

These attacks led the United States, Britain, China, Australia and several other states to formally declare war on Japan, ... Germany, followed by the other Axis states, declared war on the United States[161] in solidarity with Japan, citing as justification the American attacks on German war vessels that had been ordered by Roosevelt.[120][162]

World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adolf Hitler's Declaration of War against the United States
[December 11, 1941]

Adolf Hitler's Declaration of War against the United States - Wikisource, the free online library

 

[Joe]

On December 11, 1941, the United States Congress declared war upon Germany (Pub.L. 77–331, Sess. 1, ch. 564, 55 Stat. 796), hours after Germany declared war on the United States following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.[1]

United States declaration of war upon Germany (1941) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Andy_T]

I am out of words, what a stupid, idiotic and Republican thing to say (redundant, I know).

Yes, the Jews would have had guns, but the German police, army and "normal citizens" would have had even more guns, and would have used them.

The reason why the holocaust was possible was that most people in Germany stood behind the National Socialist party, although it should have been clear to most Germans very early that what was requested for the Jews (and happening later) was highly unfair. Subsequently, a number of laws were passed starting 1935 that ended with Jews being deported to concentration camps and murdered, with the endorsement, acceptance or indifference of most Non-Jewish Germans.

Best regards,
Andy

 

[ledboots]

The Holocaust is a well-known historical event that most people are aware of, so it is used quite often in comparisons, etc. Certainly online, it is used every five seconds.

I don't think it is in worse taste to use the holocaust than it us to use any other horrible example, such as Rwanda. In fact, in the US at least, Jewish people want it talked about, so no one forgets, and so that people realize that these horrible things can happen at any time to any group of people.

Obviously, an armed citizenry would not have stopped anything. In fact, if a Jew had shot a non-Jew back then, it would likely have rallied the public to hate the Jews even more, making the nazis' job easier.

 

[Capstan]

WWII (and the Holocaust) was the result of the Treaty of Versaille, which was grossly unfair and humiliating to the German people. An entire generation of German children, who had nothing to do with WWI, grew up impoverished, hungry, and thinking the rest of the world hated them, because of the harsh restrictions imposed on their nation by the treaty. When the Great Depression of the '30s struck, Germany was particularly hard hit. When Hitler rose to power, within 2-years, he turned their economy around, and put bread back on their tables. It's little wonder people flocked to him en masse, and were willing to follow him, wherever he led. Of course, Hitler was insane, but after a lifetime of deprivation, the children of Germany- now all grown up- were not concerned with such fine distinctions, and were more interested in striking back at those who had oppressed them. The point is, if the Allies- the victors of WWI- had shown some compassion and fairness to Germany, Hitler almost certainly would not have come into power. It took extreme conditions for such an extremist to assume command. Guns could not have stopped the Holocaust, once it was put into effect, but compassion beforehand might have prevented it.