Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

In reply to the discussion: December 29, 1890 [View all]

Straw Man

(6,819 posts)
34. Well, that's good.
Thu Oct 20, 2016, 04:28 PM
Oct 2016
I've read Wm Shirer's Rise & Fall of the Third Reich - 3 or 4 times
Alan Bullocks' 'Hitler'. - & partially again - two inch thick 8 x 11
John Keegan's 'Second World War', plus several other wwII books.
'Hitler's Generals', by whomever
Bio's on mussolini, stalin, churchill, trotsky, lenin, to name a few.

Good for you. What did they have to say about the Bielski partisans? That was the topic -- remember?

No matter how you fabricate your lies, I did not say that those partisans should've been unarmed during wwII in the Pripyat swamps or the Naliboki Forest. I said their guns did not save them, it was largely conditions.

If their arms "did not save them," then what was the point of the arms? There was none, in your view. Why, then, should they have been armed? I can only conclude that you believe they should not.

You keep harping on the fact that more unarmed Jews survived than armed Jews. What exactly is your point, then?

Lies? Please. You have no standing for that judgement.

You took me out of context & try to narrow my remark, another testament to unethical you.

Unethical? Again, please. The "context" was nothing more than a justification for your rhetorical question, which was "Do you really, seriously think that 400 armed jews in the middle of the nazi wehrmacht stretched from leningrad to moscow to dnieprepetrovsk could've resisted?" Do I think they "could've resisted"? Yes, I do. I can prove it from the historical record: They did resist.

Allegations of war crimes - Some of the members of the Bielski partisans (but not the Bielski brothers themselves) have been accused of war crimes on the neighbouring population, particularly for alleged involvement in the 1943 Naliboki massacre of 129 people, committed by Soviet partisans. Though some witnesses and some historians place members of the Bielskis' unit at the massacre, members and other historians dispute this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielski_partisans

With the benefit of your vast readings on history of the Second World War, is Wikipedia really the best source you could come up with regarding the allegations of misconduct by the Bielskis in their efforts to survive and supply their dependents in the forest community they had created? I would call the threat of genocide a rather pressing exigency, wouldn't you? Perhaps you think it would have been more sporting of them to just lay down their arms and volunteer for the concentration camps.


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

December 29, 1890 [View all] discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 OP
So what's your point? catbyte Oct 2016 #1
Umm, What are a few deaths in order to enforce prohibition? Eleanors38 Oct 2016 #2
What's the point of asking what's the point? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2016 #3
Maybe it was about the immigration policy years before discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #4
Are you for forced confiscation like many on DU? Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #5
One big point is: Unarmed people do not fight back GreydeeThos Oct 2016 #6
Oh, Jesus H. Christ. As an Oibwe, I am DEEPLY offended by your conflating a shameful catbyte Oct 2016 #7
I'll take that as you are a supporter of gun control GreydeeThos Oct 2016 #8
I refuse to even dignify that outrage of a question with an answer. Shame on you. catbyte Oct 2016 #9
The holdouts at Bataan were overcome by the Japanese GreydeeThos Oct 2016 #11
greydee's false dichotomy jimmy the one Oct 2016 #15
The men on Bataan had military arms GreydeeThos Oct 2016 #22
Memes. Straw Man Oct 2016 #12
Endlösung der Juden-frage jimmy the one Oct 2016 #16
Specious? Straw Man Oct 2016 #20
Now I've heard it all discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #21
Because, ANY evidence that armed resistance can be effective even on the smallest, localized scale Marengo Oct 2016 #23
Why didn't I think of that discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #26
partisan warfare jimmy the one Oct 2016 #28
History. Straw Man Oct 2016 #29
The Churchill quote sums it up for me: discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #30
who's the bigger racist? jimmy the one Nov 2016 #38
Therefore, you've concisely condensed your opinion/observation that... discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2016 #39
too smug jimmy the one Nov 2016 #38
Not that I agree with your assertion... discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2016 #39
you piqued my interest jimmy the one Oct 2016 #31
Well, that's good. Straw Man Oct 2016 #34
Divergence discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #35
Yes. Exactly. Straw Man Oct 2016 #36
You're welcome discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #37
It's a "dumbass meme" if civilian disarmament is an ideoligical goal. Marengo Oct 2016 #24
If allowing Jews to possess arms posed no potential threat towards the Nazi regime, it's Jewish.. Marengo Oct 2016 #25
Beyond the living batshit crazy pale, is it not. pangaia Oct 2016 #27
friendly fire kills both sides: eyewitness phillip wells jimmy the one Oct 2016 #14
I'm sure your implication... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #17
sympathetic magic jimmy the one Oct 2016 #18
Then, thanks for agreeing with premise in the OP. n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #19
Gun control isn't progressive. ileus Oct 2016 #32
A concise way with words is a gift... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #33
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»December 29, 1890»Reply #34