Guns Because

[surreptitious57]

have you ever wondered if perhaps the brownshirts
and later on the blackshirts were crucial to Hitlers rise

No I have not . It is because Hitler was a despotic tyrannical genius who knew exactly what he was
doing and how to accomplish his goals and then he came with in a gnats whisker of accomplishing all
of it . Had it not been for us violent Americans and our armament factories and ships and soldiers every
body in Europe would be speaking German and heiling the thousand year Reich

You failed to mention the Russians who were the first to defeat the Germans and without American aid : And they lost twenty million but still defeated the Sixth Army at Stalingrad which was the major turning point in the war : Once that
happened Germany was defeated : It was another two years before the war ended but that was the beginning of it : It
is debatable whether the Russians and British could have managed to defeat the Germans without American help : But
your absolute failure to acknowledge their effort indicates now either a lack of under standing or a genuine attempt to
deny their contribution : The Eastern Front was the most extreme campaigm of the whole war : Russians and Germans
experienced temperatures of up to minus thirty five : The Russians coped better as they were obviously used to it and
had better equipment too : Russian nurses also fought along side Russian soldiers and were expected to do their share
of killing also : Russian women at home manned tractor factories that were re quisitioned for tank production : And as
a result Russian out put in Forty Two was quadruple that of Germany : And so please do not deny the effort of her now
in halting the march of Fascism : It was more than that of America : And so had Stalingrad fallen to the Germans then
the war could have had a very different outcome indeed

On this question of the Brownshirts : In the beginning they were not a threat to Hitler and were therefore a contributing
factor in his rise to power : But Rohm became too powerful for his liking so he had him assassinated in the Night Of The
Long Knives : So after that there was no real threat to Hitler ever again from any one individual : Though he did survive
eight assassination attempts : The Brownshirts were leaderless and had to disband : The Blackshirts subsequently better
known as the SS then became the dominant group : Their leader was Himmler : One of Hitlers closest inner circle before
he betrayed him after defeat was inevitable : But Hitler after the Night Of The Long Knives made him self supreme ruler
and accountable to no one : That was fine till he began interfering in operational matters : And which was a contributory
factor eventually leading to Germanys defeat

[Seth]

have you ever wondered if perhaps the brownshirts
and later on the blackshirts were crucial to Hitlers rise

No I have not . It is because Hitler was a despotic tyrannical genius who knew exactly what he was
doing and how to accomplish his goals and then he came with in a gnats whisker of accomplishing all
of it . Had it not been for us violent Americans and our armament factories and ships and soldiers every
body in Europe would be speaking German and heiling the thousand year Reich

You failed to mention the Russians who were the first to defeat the Germans and without American aid :

They had lots and lots of American aid. Billions of dollars worth. They still owe us on the lend-lease package. Without our help they never could have held Stalingrad.

US deliveries to USSR
Warsaw 1945: Willys jeep used by Polish First Army as part of US Lend-Lease program.
The Lend-Lease Memorial in Fairbanks, Alaska commemorates the shipment of U.S. aircraft to the Soviet Union along the Northwest Staging Route.

American deliveries to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases:

"pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941 (paid for in gold)
first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941)
second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942)
third protocol period from 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1944 (signed 19 October 1943)
fourth protocol period from 1 July 1944, (signed 17 April 1945), formally ended 12 May 1945 but deliveries continued for the duration of the war with Japan (which the Soviet Union entered on the 8 August 1945) under the "Milepost" agreement until 2 September 1945 when Japan capitulated. On 20 September 1945 all Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union was terminated.

Delivery was via the Arctic Convoys, the Persian Corridor, and the Pacific Route.

The Arctic route was the shortest and most direct route for lend-lease aid to the USSR, though it was also the most dangerous. Some 3,964,000 tons of goods were shipped by the Arctic route; 7% was lost, while 93% arrived safely.[20] This constituted some 23% of the total aid to the USSR during the war.

The Persian Corridor was the longest route, and was not fully operational until mid 1942. Thereafter it saw the passage of 4,160,000 tons of goods, 27% of the total.[20]

The Pacific Route opened in August 1941, but was affected by the start of hostilities between Japan and the US; after December 1941, only Soviet ships could be used, and, as Japan and the USSR observed a strict neutrality towards each other, only non-military goods could be transported.[21] Nevertheless, some 8,244,000 tons of goods went by this route, 50% of the total.[20]

In total, the US deliveries through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks); 11,400 aircraft and 1.75 million tons of food.[22]

And they lost twenty million but still defeated the Sixth Army at Stalingrad which was the major turning point in the war : Once that
happened Germany was defeated : It was another two years before the war ended but that was the beginning of it : It
is debatable whether the Russians and British could have managed to defeat the Germans without American help

:

It's not in the least bit debatable. Europe would be under Nazi domination had the US not entered the war. No question about it at all.

But
your absolute failure to acknowledge their effort indicates now either a lack of under standing or a genuine attempt to
deny their contribution :

I'm not denying their contribution, I'm saying that without US aid, they would have had precious little to contribute and would have been dominated by Hitler easily. That's WHY Hitler focused on the other direction, because he didn't know about our aid to the Soviet Union and thought their forces were too weak to be a real threat.

The Eastern Front was the most extreme campaigm of the whole war : Russians and Germans
experienced temperatures of up to minus thirty five : The Russians coped better as they were obviously used to it and
had better equipment too : Russian nurses also fought along side Russian soldiers and were expected to do their share
of killing also : Russian women at home manned tractor factories that were re quisitioned for tank production : And as
a result Russian out put in Forty Two was quadruple that of Germany : And so please do not deny the effort of her now
in halting the march of Fascism : It was more than that of America : And so had Stalingrad fallen to the Germans then
the war could have had a very different outcome indeed

And without our help, they would not have been able to put up an effective resistance.

On this question of the Brownshirts : In the beginning they were not a threat to Hitler and were therefore a contributing
factor in his rise to power : But Rohm became too powerful for his liking so he had him assassinated in the Night Of The
Long Knives :

Yup. Hitler knew exactly what to do, and did it without hesitation or compunction.

So after that there was no real threat to Hitler ever again from any one individual : Though he did survive
eight assassination attempts : The Brownshirts were leaderless and had to disband : The Blackshirts subsequently better
known as the SS then became the dominant group : Their leader was Himmler : One of Hitlers closest inner circle before
he betrayed him after defeat was inevitable : But Hitler after the Night Of The Long Knives made him self supreme ruler
and accountable to no one : That was fine till he began interfering in operational matters : And which was a contributory
factor eventually leading to Germanys defeat

Yup.

[Hermit]

Speaking of militias, have you ever wondered if perhaps the brownshirts and later on the blackshirts were crucial to Hitler's rise to power?

No...

Nice how you have seized on a passing comment at the end of the post and ignored its core.

[Blind groper]

Europe would be under Nazi domination had the US not entered the war.

There is no evidence to support this idea, and plenty to oppose it. I will give the USA credit for defeating Japan but not the Nazis.

American aid/trade with the Soviets no doubt helped, but had nothing to do with the US entering the war, since it began well before.

Hitler sent ten divisions to the Eastern Front for every one sent to the Western. The western allies won on the western side, but the Soviets defeated the bulk of the Nazi war machine.

[Seth]

Europe would be under Nazi domination had the US not entered the war.

There is no evidence to support this idea, and plenty to oppose it.

Yes there is, and no there isn't.

I will give the USA credit for defeating Japan but not the Nazis.

Good thing we don't give a flying fuck what you think.

American aid/trade with the Soviets no doubt helped, but had nothing to do with the US entering the war, since it began well before.

Red herring.

Hitler sent ten divisions to the Eastern Front for every one sent to the Western. The western allies won on the western side, but the Soviets defeated the bulk of the Nazi war machine.

Russia's pretty big.

[Collector1337]

I will give the USA credit for defeating Japan but not the Nazis.

HA!

Tell that to a WWII vet's face.

Nice work dishonoring all those American soldiers who died on the beaches of Normandy and all those who made the ultimate sacrifice fighting the Nazis.

I don't even think you comprehend the offensiveness of your stupidity.

[Blind groper]

Collector

My father was a WWII veteran, who spent four years putting his neck on the line to protect our freedoms. He was fighting two years before the first American appeared in Europe.

Compared to many other nations, very few Americans died in the war in Europe. In the Pacific War, yes. America gets the bulk of the credit for defeating Japan. Not in Europe. In Europe, the greatest sacrifice was borne by the Russian people, who drove back ten times the German forces faced by all the other western allies put together, and the Russian people lost 25 million doing it. It sickens me to see Americans trying to claim the credit when the Russians were the real heroes.

Numerous other nations were also making great sacrifices to win in Europe. My father with the New Zealanders. Australians, British, Poles, free French, South Africans, Canadians, and others. The USA helped, but that is all.

[Collector1337]

Collector

My father was a WWII veteran, who spent four years putting his neck on the line to protect our freedoms. He was fighting two years before the first American appeared in Europe.

Compared to many other nations, very few Americans died in the war in Europe. In the Pacific War, yes. America gets the bulk of the credit for defeating Japan. Not in Europe. In Europe, the greatest sacrifice was borne by the Russian people, who drove back ten times the German forces faced by all the other western allies put together, and the Russian people lost 25 million doing it. It sickens me to see Americans trying to claim the credit when the Russians were the real heroes.

Numerous other nations were also making great sacrifices to win in Europe. My father with the New Zealanders. Australians, British, Poles, free French, South Africans, Canadians, and others. The USA helped, but that is all.

Nobody said the US was alone, but what you've said is truly disgusting.

I guess when WWIII comes we'll just let Europe fend for itself.

[JimC]

OK...

I'm going to try to dissect the strands of thought that seem to lead a certain number of Americans to defend their rights to own virtually any type of gun they like...

1. Simply being fascinated by guns - maintaining them, firing them, hitting targets with them...
I have a lot of sympathy for this aspect. In the past, I owned quite a few (a sweet little Ruger 10 shot semi-automatic .22, a Mauser bolt action 303/250 with a scope, a Mossburg pump action 12 gauge...). I liked firing them, I liked cleaning them, I liked the smell of gun oil...

2. Hunting. I have been bitten by the hunting bug in the past, and consider it to resonate with our evolutionary past. Some caveats - clean shots, no unnecessary cruelty, hunting sustainable game only... Most responsible hunters would agree. In Oz, I stuck to hunting introduced pest animals such as rabbits and foxes, so it had an ecological justification as well...

3. Self defence. This is where it starts getting weird. In Australia, and most other non-US western democracies, the idea of owning a weapon for self-defence is utterly bizarre. In the US, I gather that it would mostly involve a pistol. In many cases, it would be a matter of home defence, but extends even more weirdly to "concealed carry". Here, there are relatively few gun wielding criminals, and the very idea is absurd. In the US, the very existence of your gun culture, and the large number of available guns it produces, mean that perhaps self-defence is sadly more of a requirement... But this is a symptom of a problem, not a solution to one...

4. The truly weird one. The "right to bare arms", the "well regulated militia" thing, the whole "private ownership of guns is the only thing standing between us an a police state" A combination of paranoia and violent fantasy, with a leavening of self-interest, since it gives an additional justifying spin to the essentially selfish argument that "I'll own whatever guns I fucking like, and anybody who tries to stop me is a nasty fascist"

I have in the past made a cynical contrast between the US and "civilised societies" May I say here that I mean that only in the narrow domain of attitudes to owning weapons...

[orpheus]

Collector

My father was a WWII veteran, who spent four years putting his neck on the line to protect our freedoms. He was fighting two years before the first American appeared in Europe.

Compared to many other nations, very few Americans died in the war in Europe. In the Pacific War, yes. America gets the bulk of the credit for defeating Japan. Not in Europe. In Europe, the greatest sacrifice was borne by the Russian people, who drove back ten times the German forces faced by all the other western allies put together, and the Russian people lost 25 million doing it. It sickens me to see Americans trying to claim the credit when the Russians were the real heroes.

Numerous other nations were also making great sacrifices to win in Europe. My father with the New Zealanders. Australians, British, Poles, free French, South Africans, Canadians, and others. The USA helped, but that is all.

Nobody said the US was alone, but what you've said is truly disgusting.

I guess when WWIII comes we'll just let Europe fend for itself.

Two lines that really don't say anything. Huh.

[Coito ergo sum]

Collector

My father was a WWII veteran, who spent four years putting his neck on the line to protect our freedoms. He was fighting two years before the first American appeared in Europe.

Well, New Zealand and Australia were nationally under British sovereignty in 1939, therefore, when Great Britain went to war, Oz and NZ were at war.

Compared to many other nations, very few Americans died in the war in Europe.

Justifiably so. It was not our war. It was not a war the US wanted. We were not one of the players that had any involvement whatsoever in the lead-up, and we did not start it, foster it, ally with the combatants (in the lead up to it), etc. This was another European war, caused by Europeans. In 1939, also, the US barely had an armed forces. Unlike the UK, we were not a colonial power. The UK was a colonial empire.

EDIT - oh, and the goal isn't to die for your country. No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his. G. Patton.

In the Pacific War, yes. America gets the bulk of the credit for defeating Japan. Not in Europe.

We get some credit, as we fought in Africa, Italy, and in Europe, and it was an American commander who was "Supreme Allied Commander" in Europe, and D-Day and the invasion of Fortress Europe was as much an American endeavor as it was anyone else's endeavor.

In Europe, the greatest sacrifice was borne by the Russian people, who drove back ten times the German forces faced by all the other western allies put together, and the Russian people lost 25 million doing it.

Sure, and they were invaded directly by Germany. The US wasn't. So, they fought out of necessity.

It sickens me to see Americans trying to claim the credit when the Russians were the real heroes.

Look - if it wasn't for Lend Lease by the US propping up the Brits and if it wasn't for American assistance to the Soviets, both of those outfits would have been beaten by the Germans. And, if the Brits and Russians had it all sewn up without us, why the fuck was Churchill sucking FDR's cock to come over and help?

Nobody can take away the Russian contribution to the war, with Stalingrad and of course the deaths they suffered in the fight are incomprehensible. But, it was, after all, their fight. It was the Soviet Union that entered into a treaty of appeasement with Hitler. It were the Euros who demanded onerous vengeance after WW1 (against the efforts of the US, which was in favor of peace with honor), which led to the decimation of Germany and the ultimate rise of Hitler. It was the Euros who appeased Hitler throughout the 1930s, giving up chunks of real estate like chiclets. This had nothing to do with the US.

So, we were called upon to help, and we sent our blood and treasure over to Europe to help in a fight against an evil that we had very little, if anything, to do with.

From an American perspective, the reason you get a lot of chest-thumping stuff about how we went over there and "saved their asses" is because it wasn't our fight. We had nothing to do with WW1, and entered that war after a couple of years and helped to end it. We had to go back a generation later to do it again.

Numerous other nations were also making great sacrifices to win in Europe. My father with the New Zealanders. Australians, British, Poles, free French, South Africans, Canadians, and others. The USA helped, but that is all.

Nobody denies this, but the US fought on two fronts, and did the lion's share of the fighting over in Asia. We supported Great Britain through Lend Lease and other means which helped keep the Brits afloat during the Blitz and such. We supported Russia, too in the same manner. We then built a navy and an air force that we did not really have before, and converted our entire manufacturing base to a war effort and fought for four years, rationing, and all sorts of things, and sent our boys over to fight and die in a fight that was not of our making and was not hours. One of the best generals of the war was General Patton and he kicked royal ass from Africa through Italy and up into the heart of Europe. The Supreme Allied Commander was an American. If our contribution was so minimal, why wasn't Monte the Supreme Allied Commander, or some other Brit? Why not a Russian? And, if it's, say, because we wouldn't have entered the war without that, who cares? The war didn't need Merka's paultry contribution anyway, right?

[Seth]

OK...

I'm going to try to dissect the strands of thought that seem to lead a certain number of Americans to defend their rights to own virtually any type of gun they like...

1. Simply being fascinated by guns - maintaining them, firing them, hitting targets with them...
I have a lot of sympathy for this aspect. In the past, I owned quite a few (a sweet little Ruger 10 shot semi-automatic .22, a Mauser bolt action 303/250 with a scope, a Mossburg pump action 12 gauge...). I liked firing them, I liked cleaning them, I liked the smell of gun oil...

2. Hunting. I have been bitten by the hunting bug in the past, and consider it to resonate with our evolutionary past. Some caveats - clean shots, no unnecessary cruelty, hunting sustainable game only... Most responsible hunters would agree. In Oz, I stuck to hunting introduced pest animals such as rabbits and foxes, so it had an ecological justification as well...

3. Self defence. This is where it starts getting weird. In Australia, and most other non-US western democracies, the idea of owning a weapon for self-defence is utterly bizarre. In the US, I gather that it would mostly involve a pistol. In many cases, it would be a matter of home defence, but extends even more weirdly to "concealed carry". Here, there are relatively few gun wielding criminals, and the very idea is absurd. In the US, the very existence of your gun culture, and the large number of available guns it produces, mean that perhaps self-defence is sadly more of a requirement... But this is a symptom of a problem, not a solution to one...

It's "utterly bizarre" only because the sheeple have been well brainwashed into thinking (mistakenly) that their government is capable, and interested in keeping each and every individual safe from harm. No government can, or is willing to make that promise to its citizens because those in charge know perfectly well that's and utterly impossible task. In order to achieve universal individual safety against criminal predation the government would have to assign an armed guard to each and every citizen on a 24/7 basis. Anyone with enough operating neurons to make their heart beat knows that this is completely impossible and ridiculous, and that expecting government to supply such security or taxpayers paying for it is pure moronic stupidity.

So, we end up with government unable (and unwilling) to provide perfect security for each person. There are two paths from this point: First is the path of hoplophobic socialism, which is to simply ignore the individual's right to be as safe from criminal assault as possible and regulate their ability to carry weapons of self defense on the notion that their individual life is not statistically important to the collective because their individual chance of being victimized is statistically very small. What this means is that the individual has no rights, not even the right to effectively defend his or her life and property against predation, because government deems it more important to view the individual as a threat to the collective order, which can only be maintained by disarming the populace. In places like the UK, a victim can't even carry NON LETHAL self defense tools like OC spray or Tasers. The obvious message this sends is "your life is unimportant, and the goals of the State to control everyone's behavior is more important, thus your right to self defense can be disposed of without consideration."

Second is the path of American liberty and respect for the individual's right to life, safety and self-defense being paramount over collective considerations in most cases. Here we end up with rational government recognizing it's inability to provide for individual security and therefore it refrains from interfering with the right of the individual to peaceably possess the tools he deems necessary for self defense while at the same time strictly regulating the use of those tools so as to protect the rights of others, and the public at large. In this system the individual is free to exercise his right to prepare for criminal assault however he thinks will be necessary, desirable and most effective, but the individual is NOT free to abuse that right or those preparations to the detriment of other individuals through improper behavior. This is a simple recognition of the true purpose and extent of practical power of government and respect for the rights of the individual over the baseless and mindless fears of those who are mentally incapacitated to the degree that they cannot comprehend or understand these simple principles of human behavior.

4. The truly weird one. The "right to bare arms", the "well regulated militia" thing, the whole "private ownership of guns is the only thing standing between us an a police state" A combination of paranoia and violent fantasy, with a leavening of self-interest, since it gives an additional justifying spin to the essentially selfish argument that "I'll own whatever guns I fucking like, and anybody who tries to stop me is a nasty fascist"

Nobody but you said "only thing." It's just the most important safeguard against tyranny precisely because it's concentrated and effective force against despotism in the hands of each and every individual who chooses to defend against such tyranny. It's just one tool in the arsenal against government overreach and despotism. It's the tool of last resort. But it's ubiquitous presence in society is also a strong deterrent to despotic government, which is, and should be afraid of the power of the People to rectify egregious wrongs against them by force of arms when all else fails. Our Founders set this bedrock protection in the Constitution because they had just been through an age of despotic tyranny and fought a war against long odds with fewer and inferior arms and they were determined that such a situation would never again occur in the United States. That's hardly "paranoia and violent fantasy." It's realistic fear and appropriate preparation against something that they had just escaped from, and nothing has changed in human behavior that prevents demagogues, despots and tyrants from seeking and obtaining power today...as can be seen in many countries throughout the world. Cuba is a good example of a disarmed populace murdered and cowed into submission to a despotic and tyrannical regime precisely because they are utterly unable to put up effective armed resistance.

So only a complete historical idiot would claim that the threat of despotism is passed and that there will never again be a need for the People to rise up in arms to put down a tyrant.

And it's "bear" as in "carry."

I have in the past made a cynical contrast between the US and "civilisedslave societies" May I say here that I mean that only in the narrow domain of attitudes to owning weapons...

[/quote]

FIFY

[Blind groper]

If our contribution was so minimal, why wasn't Monte the Supreme Allied Commander, or some other Brit? Why not a Russian?

I suspect that Stalin considered himself the Supreme Allied Commander, and I could present a damn good case to support that. He was, after all, commander in charge of 90% of the forces opposing Hitler. Montgomerie was not the super commander because it was not politically astute to make him so.

America's contribution to the war in Europe was not minimal, except compared to that of the Soviets. Compared to them, the US was a small player - assisting a bunch of other nations to fight one tenth of Hitler's forces, with the Soviets fighting the other nine tenths.

The reason I am saying this is not to denigrate the USA, but to attack the emetic arrogance of a few posters who would try to tell us that the USA came charging into Europe like the white knight to save everyone. That is simply not true. Victory in Europe was mostly owed to the Soviets, and the USA was just one, albeit important, player among a host of others, in dealing with the one tenth effort that took place outside the Soviet sphere.

[JimC]

If our contribution was so minimal, why wasn't Monte the Supreme Allied Commander, or some other Brit? Why not a Russian?

I suspect that Stalin considered himself the Supreme Allied Commander, and I could present a damn good case to support that. He was, after all, commander in charge of 90% of the forces opposing Hitler. Montgomerie was not the super commander because it was not politically astute to make him so.

America's contribution to the war in Europe was not minimal, except compared to that of the Soviets. Compared to them, the US was a small player - assisting a bunch of other nations to fight one tenth of Hitler's forces, with the Soviets fighting the other nine tenths.

The reason I am saying this is not to denigrate the USA, but to attack the emetic arrogance of a few posters who would try to tell us that the USA came charging into Europe like the white knight to save everyone. That is simply not true. Victory in Europe was mostly owed to the Soviets, and the USA was just one, albeit important, player among a host of others, in dealing with the one tenth effort that took place outside the Soviet sphere.

I agree in general, but I think you are downplaying the effects of the bombing offensive by the 8th Airforce from '44 onwards, which both severely compromised the German industrial machine, and forced them to keep a lot of fighter forces on the west which would have been very handy against the advancing Soviets...

[Seth]

If our contribution was so minimal, why wasn't Monte the Supreme Allied Commander, or some other Brit? Why not a Russian?

I suspect that Stalin considered himself the Supreme Allied Commander, and I could present a damn good case to support that. He was, after all, commander in charge of 90% of the forces opposing Hitler. Montgomerie was not the super commander because it was not politically astute to make him so.

America's contribution to the war in Europe was not minimal, except compared to that of the Soviets. Compared to them, the US was a small player - assisting a bunch of other nations to fight one tenth of Hitler's forces, with the Soviets fighting the other nine tenths.

The reason I am saying this is not to denigrate the USA, but to attack the emetic arrogance of a few posters who would try to tell us that the USA came charging into Europe like the white knight to save everyone. That is simply not true. Victory in Europe was mostly owed to the Soviets, and the USA was just one, albeit important, player among a host of others, in dealing with the one tenth effort that took place outside the Soviet sphere.

Nonsense. If Hitler had taken and pacified all of Europe, England and Ireland and had control of the seas he would not have had to split his forces to fight on two fronts, he could have concentrated much more of his army in the East and would have likely smashed Russian resistance. His great mistake was pressing the Eastern Front in the Siberian winter, which he was forced to do because he was being pressed hard in the West and needed to consolidate control of Russia so he could shift forces back to the west.

It was a group effort most certainly, and every one of the Allies played their part, but it's correct to say that without US intervention and aid, Europe would have fallen entirely, particularly if Japan had taken the rest of the world unopposed and been able to support Hitler more directly.