Holocaust Scholar On Carson’s ‘False, Silly And Insulting’ Comments On Nazi-Era Jews
The notion that Jews could have successfully fought the German state has been roundly debunked. Professor Alan Steinweis, professor of history and Holocaust studies at the University of Vermont writes:
The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country’s population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson’s suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on.
The failure of Jews to mount an effective defense against the Waffen-SS in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943 provides a good example of what happens when ordinary citizens with small arms go up against a well-equipped force. The uprising in the ghetto possesses enduring symbolic significance, as an instance of Jews’ determination to resist their oppression. But the uprising saved few Jewish lives and had little to no impact on the course of either World War II or the Holocaust. Jews around the world did, to be sure, react to the Holocaust by concluding that they needed to protect themselves from anti-Semites more effectively. But they understood that this would be accomplished not through the individual acquisition of firearms, but rather through the establishment of a Jewish state with an army to defend it.
Mr. Carson’s remarks not only trivialize the predicament in which Jews found themselves in Germany and elsewhere in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s. They also trivialize the serious, prolonged and admirable efforts undertaken by many Germans to work through the causes of their country’s catastrophic mistakes of that period…
If the United States is going to arrive at a workable compromise solution to its gun problem, it will not be accomplished through the use of historical analogies that are false, silly and insulting. Similarly, coming to terms with a civilizational breach of the magnitude of the Holocaust requires a serious encounter with history, rather than political sloganeering that exploits history as a prop for mobilizing one’s base.
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
55 responses to Holocaust Scholar On Carson’s ‘False, Silly And Insulting’ Comments On Nazi-Era Jews
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
tracey marie October 15th, 2015 at 12:12
Very good!
rg9rts October 15th, 2015 at 12:12
Like most americans…they never studied nor remembered history
Larry Schmitt October 15th, 2015 at 12:27
When the base is completely ignorant of history, and is not willing to listen to facts that conflict with what they already believe, that’s how someone like this gets the attention he’s getting. If by some twist of the universe he ever did get to be president, he would be completely lost, as would tRump.
wpadon October 15th, 2015 at 13:09
I do not recall any of the other Republican candidates dispute Carson’s statement. It must be accepted as fact by the Republican party.
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 13:19
Mr. Carson never limited his comments to jews being armed. Instead, he indicated that Hitler’s ability to accomplish his goals would have been diminished if “the people” had been armed.
He did not suggest that armed citizens would stop Hitler wholesale or have the ability overthrow his government, rather that they could have diminished it.
It is not illogical false, silly or insulting to suggest that the broader German population would be more likely to defy a horrific regime if they had some means to oppose a systematic program of persecution enforced by a well-armed police state.
Mr. Steinweis’s attempt to limit his response to the capability of armed jews, Gypsies, the disabled, gay people or Poles, misses the suggestion that all people could play a role in diminishing the atrocities of the Hitler regime. Perhaps I am a wide-eyed optimist on the general positive nature of humanity, but I do believe people will generally do good if given a fighting chance to do so. The citizens were denied such a fighting chance to challenge the well-armed police state.
I find nothing false, silly or insulting about the apparent suggestion which underlies Mr. Carson’s statement that people will do good if given a fighting chance to do so. It does not imply blame on the regime’s victims, nor does it imply that other factors are not also ripe for examination and/or explanation of the historical events.
Mr. Steinweis’s acknowledgement of the Warsaw
Ghetto misses the important point that uprising (heroic defiance), did
diminish Hitler’s goals, as did many other poorly armed Hitler opponents
(resistance fighters) across Europe, even if their sacrifice was an ultimate one. At the very
least these acts of heroic defiance by poorly armed citizens diverted
resources from the Hitler regime’s capability to carry out its goals,
and hastened its demise.
Mr. Steinweis’s focus on when the various laws were passed, is irrelevant to the issue of whether other laws may have lead to challenge the acts of a confronted by a well-armed police state.
Mr. Steinweis’s arguments are poor.
tracey marie October 15th, 2015 at 13:33
i find you silly, insulting, ignorant, trollish and a hilariously ignorant newbie troll
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 13:43
I’m glad you got a laugh.
tracey marie October 15th, 2015 at 13:44
at your expense
whatthe46 October 15th, 2015 at 15:12
cracking up.
arc99 October 15th, 2015 at 13:35
Adolph Hitler expanded gun ownership rights for Aryan German citizens, repealing restrictions on guns put in place by the Weimar Republic.
Your argument would need to improve significantly to qualify as poor
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 13:41
gun ownership rights were expanded by repealing restrictions on nazi party members not Aryans :p
arc99 October 15th, 2015 at 13:44
you don’t know what you are talking about
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 14:33
You seem to acknowledge that your earlier statement regarding exemptions to Aryans was wrong…
Mr. Harcourt’s interpretation is not accurate. The 1938 law had many restrictions on general firearms, including rifles and shotguns. See 1968 Senate Hearing pursuant to Sen Res. 240, June 26, 27, 28 and July 8, 9, 10, 1968
pages 489-503 http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d02113340n;view=1up;seq=501
arc99 October 16th, 2015 at 00:21
My statement was not wrong.
Gun rights like virtually all other “rights” the Nazis approved were available to Aryans only.
In the article that you cite, it says that a license for firearms will be granted only to those who possess German citizenship.
Jews and other non Aryans were stripped of their citizenship by the Reich Citizenship Law passed in 1935. The law that you cite, was enacted 3 years later. I stand by my previous statement. The Nazis expanded gun ownership rights for Aryans. Hitler did not impose gun control on the entire populace.
“”
disqus_Va4LwroE3I October 15th, 2015 at 14:29
To think that citizens with civilian weapons such as rifles and pistols could ever match the firepower of a national military is beyond stupid. These are the same people that think their AR-15 will do them any good if the ‘gubmint and that muzlim prezidint ever tries to take their freedums away.
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 14:40
A recognition that an AR-15 is a civilian weapon!
Absolutely correct that citizens are not likely to match a national military, but that does not mean those citizens cannot diminish the capability of a regime. Some things are worth such sacrificial acts, but the acts can’t be merely sacrificial, they must also induce damage… diminish capabilities, not necessarily match or singularly prevail.
disqus_Va4LwroE3I October 15th, 2015 at 14:55
There are no weapons that civilians can get their hands on that could ever “diminish the capability of a regime.” You can’t be serious. Jets, tanks, missiles, etc. Even if citizens were allowed to own these weapons, the sheer cost of purchase and maintenance would bankrupt them.
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 15:31
I am serious.
Effective guerrilla warfare has routinely relied upon civilian weapons.
Henri Romans-Petit described the French resistance movement consisting of many civilians and possessing mostly civilian weapons at their outset: “The watchwords were explicit: no large concentrations of men. No pitched battles. Guerrilla warfare only! We had a few revolvers and some hunting rifles and were reduced to making sketches in order to teach the use of modern weapons.
Early in July we received our first Sten machine gun. We kept taking it apart and putting it together until we could do it in record time, Then the gun was passed from one camp to another.”
True that Romans-Petit addresses possessing a military Sten machine gun, a mere 9mm submachine gun, but by all indications his Maquis group would have been effective (which they were) even without it.
The types of disruptive tactics employed by the Maquis would be, and still are, effective today. Often civilian weapons are supplemented by military grade weaponry, but the initial harbinger of such support is effective use of more simple civilian weaponry.
disqus_Va4LwroE3I October 15th, 2015 at 16:07
Well then I guess the Allied forces wasted a lot of lives with the D-Day invasion. Sounds like this guy had Hitler on the ropes.
You reaching, brah!
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 16:40
I reaching directly toward the actual topic at hand, brah…
The conversation, and Dr. Carson’s statement, was about the ability to DIMINISH, not singularly destroy, the capability of a regime.
BTW, Allied forces most certainly lost (not wasted) fewer lives in the D-Day invasion because of the Marquis.
The Marquis delayed the German mobilization in response to the D-Day invasion.
Gina Bousquet October 15th, 2015 at 19:08
No real resistant ever dreamed of diminishing the capability of a Regime. They are only people who cannot shut their voice when facing tyranny, with none of the illusions you seem to have. Besides, you live in a Democratic Republic of such praised and well-known value in preserving the freedom of its citizens it’s ridiculous to even cogitate armed resistance, moron.
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 21:32
Adding in “moron” diminishes your argument, not me.
You know nothing about my background. I am not pondering armed resistance to the US government. Regardless, no state is immune from devaluing the freedom of its citizens, to an unacceptable level. I would think most would agree. Divided power is a wonderful check on tyranny, this goes beyond Federalism and a multi-branch Federal government, it extends to the people’s ability to exercise not only their voice (as we do here) but also their ability to stand against and where necessary diminish a regime.
Your beliefs about a true resistant may differ but in my view a true resistant proceeds from the willingness to sacrifice, not because they will succeed in their dreams alone, but in knowledge that though they may fail in their ultimate goal (dreams) they may advance good.
Gina Bousquet October 15th, 2015 at 21:37
If it’s not the US you’re talking about what exactly is your point? What are you advocating? People in arms as a general rule? You think that’s how one defends a strong Democratic Republic, with arms? It’s with the vote.
tracey marie October 15th, 2015 at 21:53
Yeah Gina, great answer!
Gina Bousquet October 15th, 2015 at 21:55
Thank you dear! ;)
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 22:25
see above, just a courtesy despite your accusations of me being a moron :p
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 22:23
To the extent it is relevant, I am a US citizen. The point is empowerment of free people (possessing inherent good), across boundaries. I am advocating just that. Ultimately, power – for good or evil – does flow from the ability to exercise force. Fortunately, US citizens are guaranteed to retain the powers not granted to the state under the Constitution and all of the amendments, first and second!
The voting right is a first line of defense of free people, if they are so fortunate to possess it in their given situation (again my advocacy is not nation bound), but no the last. History is replete with examples of those without it and of those who took up arms to demand it.
Gina Bousquet October 15th, 2015 at 22:34
Power flows from the ability to exercise democratic rights, not force. Democratic rights are the ones one fights for. When already in possession of them, as in the US, one guarantees to keep them by voting.
tracey marie October 15th, 2015 at 14:57
silly rant, they could not have overcome the regime of hitler.
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 15:32
reading comprehension is a good thing
tracey marie October 15th, 2015 at 17:10
try facts and truths you moron
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 17:20
Challenge any of the facts I stated.
And, names will never hurt me :p
Gina Bousquet October 15th, 2015 at 19:12
A good thing in which she surpasses you.
Gina Bousquet October 15th, 2015 at 18:51
You fail to consider all pertinent points in the professor’s comment on Carson’s absurdities. The German answer to heroic acts of resistance is very well known by French, Greek and other People in Europe: for each German soldier killed, ten men from the local population executed.
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 21:05
What pertinent points remain to undermine his argument?
That Hitler’s regime killed as a method of intimidation is not in dispute and it does not impact the argument that armed opposition enables good people to diminish an evil regime.
Gina Bousquet October 15th, 2015 at 21:32
I suggest you reread the article, it’s more strongly supported by History itself than your hypothetical solutions. As for diminishing an evil regime, it never happens, everyone in the resistance knows that. We accomplish small goals, sometimes, as in France, at the cost of a whole town being decimated. I say we because I was in the resistance, against right-wing powers, an eventuality you’ll never face in your country. You know why? Those in the resistance fight the right-wing extremists, most of the time. You on the other hand live in a country where all Democratic Institutions are firmly in place, citizens freedom is not menaced, no possibility of right-wing extremists succeeding in a military coup.
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 21:55
I asked a direct question, and received no direct answer.
No tyranny arising from left-wing points of view? Really!
The French resistance in WWII did diminish the capability of the of an evil regime, even if via small goals, which have great import. I challenge you to dispute that FACT, which is addressed in my comment regarding the Marquis.
I hope and believe I will not face a tyrannical power in my country, the capability of free people to diminish tyranny advances that hope. There is no guarantee that Democratic Institutions remain firmly in place, ever.
Gina Bousquet October 15th, 2015 at 22:09
Then I suggest you study History and Political Science. There’s every guarantee Democratic Institutions will remain in place in the US, as in most European Republics. You must be very young and absolutely biased.
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 22:33
What “every guarantees” do you speak of? Backed by what?
You indicate that the “guarantees” remain in place, as a matter of construction the implication is that they may not remain. Do you deny that evil persons would act to deny such “guarantees”?
I wish I were young. Of course that is relative But I fear I am not.
I confess a bias toward empowerment for free people (possessing inherent good)
Gina Bousquet October 15th, 2015 at 22:38
Aren’t you able to compare the History of the so-called first world with the History of the third one? Doesn’t it tell you anything about the guarantees of Democratic Institutions firmly in place? Where have you been the last 5 decades? What empowers free people is voting for the best representatives.
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 22:52
Human history is informed by more than 5 decades.
I have not been here that long, maybe that makes me young!
The nature of first world and third world regions have been reversed and there is no guarantee that the ebb and flow will not continue. You point out no such guarantee of statis. There is no guarantee of things being firmly in place.
The power of the vote has usually been established by force, originally and generally the case in the US.
Gina Bousquet October 15th, 2015 at 23:06
You believe your voting rights have to be defended by force in the US of A? Sorry, that’s delusion…
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 23:17
The power of the US government is granted from We The People. The voting rights provided under US law can ultimately only defended by the same.
Gina Bousquet October 15th, 2015 at 23:51
What defends your rights is not force it’s the law, the Constitution, the guarantees you’ve been having for centuries now. I’m going to quote The Beatles “Do you want a revolution?” Is that what you’re trying to preach?
jasperjava October 15th, 2015 at 19:16
Hitler and his Nazi party was very popular in Germany. For every armed person who opposed the regime, there would have been at least as many armed people who supported it. This is especially true due to the fact that armed citizens (then as now) tended to be more conservative, and therefore more sympathetic to fascism and anti-semitism.
My aunt’s in-laws were left-wing Germans who were imprisoned by the Nazis in concentration camps. I find it insulting that you think that these good, brave people somehow didn’t do enough. They lost years of their youth for their opposition to Hitler.
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 21:02
Popular, but not universally supported, your family is testament to that. The “very” is subject to legitimate dispute. Difficult to establish popularity apart from votes, but when Hitler came to power his ability to garner voter support did not surpass the 30 percent range. Once in power, there may have been kangaroo elections that established a higher level of support. Subjugation of a populace has been known to yield such results. I repeat, and it is a caveat that I proceed from, that perhaps I am a wide-eyed optimist on the general positive nature of
humanity, but I do believe people will generally do good if given a
fighting chance to do so. When denied that chance, people are more susceptible to going along with evil.
You state: “For every armed person who opposed the regime, there would have been at least as many armed people who supported it.” OK, but a better armed populace of inherently good people would be capable of hastening an evil regime’s demise. I believe good people would nobly sacrifice their welfare as your kin did. It appears that your aunt’s in-laws did hasten the regime’s demise, they diverted resources of the state. Bravo. Heroes. I did not and do not insult them. I only state that that the Hitler regime denied them and others an increased capability to inflict more damage to the evil regime.
I do not know or accept that more conservative people tend to be more sympathetic to fascism and anti-semitism. Furthermore, I do not know or accept that know being an armed citizen makes one more conservative. Even if true, with regard to nazi Germany, anti-semetic fascists would’ve likely been nazi party members, allowed to possess weapons. The notion Mr. Carson raised was about the denied capability of people with contrary views to diminish the regime (not singularly destroy it).
Mann T. October 15th, 2015 at 19:39
The people WERE armed and there were gunfights in the streets for four years!
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 20:31
OK…
The gunfights in opposition to the Hitler regime you seem to refer to would’ve diverted resources from the Hitler regime’s capability to carry out its goals, and hastened its demise. More of that would’ve been good. The ability for citizens to be armed would be a necessary ingredient to those gunfights.
StoneyCurtisll October 16th, 2015 at 22:57
Mr. Steinweis’s arguments are valid and historically relevant..
Ben Carson speaks like a fool, and one who makes up hypothetical events and presents them as reality…(stick up at Popeyes organization)
Carson has as much chance of being the GOP primary candidate as President Obama has being elected to a third term.
thinkingwomanmillstone October 15th, 2015 at 16:42
Excellent analysis…not to mention the fact that many neighboring countries’ armies couldn’t defeat the nazis. It took the combined forces of the world’s major military powers many years to defeat the Nazis. The idea that the jewish citizens could have fought them off is insane.
Tubal October 15th, 2015 at 23:23
Bye Bye for now…
I enjoyed your occasional courteous comments, more frequent courtesy would’ve been nice. I believe I extended that courtesy.
I
note only arc99 attempted to offer significant factual dispute to my
arguments. arc99’s input was ultimately refuted by the actual
1938 German law. I understand that arc99 was mislead by an academic article parroted by Salon.com. Lesson: read original sources
and don’t trust Salon.
Maybe this “moron” will check in again to
see if the rhetoric against my dispute with Mr. Steinweis holds water,
until then keep on on exercising your First amendment rights.
… To some, but not not all, don’t be
so angry with those who embrace the wisdom of the Second. And try not to be angry in general.
It’s not that
scary, if for no other reason because most people are good
Emma Nichols October 16th, 2015 at 05:22
I am a student and a year ago there was a time when I find it difficult to pay all my fees and expenses without doing anything or doing jobs that need a great deal of time at the expense of my precious study hour …. This is also the dilemma with house wives …. It is difficult to find some time in routine for some job … One of my friends introduced me a kind of online job that I was able to do in my free time and I could earn some good money …. First it felt difficult but with time I get used to it and now I am capable of making more 65-85 d0llars per hour …. Only normal keyboard knowledge and a connection to net was …. I am placing this opportunity for you guys . It may help you guys to stand up and fulfill your dreams as this did in my case ….
quickspark10dothatisbestforyou998.blogspot.com
wu
bpollen October 16th, 2015 at 06:17
Adios.
No dejes que la puerta te golpeó en el culo.
StoneyCurtisll October 16th, 2015 at 23:09
el tipo es un idiota..:)
bpollen October 17th, 2015 at 02:32
Si. Pendejo.