126 thoughts on “Jews In Europe”

  1. Yes, obviously giving one religious group within a society privileges not shared by other religious groups is what’s needed to reduce interfaith tensions.
    /sarc.

    1. “Yes, obviously giving one religious group within a society privileges not shared by other religious groups is what’s needed to reduce interfaith tensions.
      /sarc.”

      It’s nice to know you are not for giving one group special treatment over other groups.

      So I guess that means you are opposed to Affirmative Action programs.

      The right to protect one’s self is universal and natural. While I agree that the Jews should not be given special permission to exercise a natural right ( everyone in France should have the right to carry), it’s nice to know that the Founders were, once again, spot on.

    4. If everyone in France was walking around armed with guns, I think the terrorists would have attacked the Charlie Hebdo writers with IEDs or similar explosive devices, just as terrorists used IEDs against the well-armed US forces in Iraq. Why are guns the solution?

      1. I think the terrorists would have attacked the Charlie Hebdo writers with IEDs or similar explosive devices

        Or knives. Or sternly worded letters. The body count would be at least as high.

      2. Bob-1,
        look up the Warsaw Uprising to see what a few people, with just a few guns did against a force estimated to be 10 to 12 times as large.

        The question isn’t IF people with guns CAN defend themselves. The question is, WHY are YOU opposed to them having a choice? Is ANYONE advocating that YOU or anyone be required to own or carry a gun?

        And finally, why is it that the very places with the most strict gun laws, are the very same places with the highest number of gun crimes? Gun laws ONLY disarm people who follow the law Bob.

        I’m a history buff, and the saddest part of this crap in Europe to me, is they have allowed these religious fascists to walk in and cause trouble. I doubt very many of the radicals, put on their immigration paperwork that they want to murder, rape, pillage and then subjugate anyone who doesn’t knuckle under and join them.

        As harsh as it is to say, at least Hitler was honest about his aims.

        2. By the way, while the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was notable and historic for a variety of reasons, consider the casualties: 13,000 killed on the Jewish/Polish side ( 71,000 ultimately killed), and 16 (or 17) killed on the German side.

          2. Andrew, thanks. I wasn’t familiar with the Warsaw Uprising, but wikipedia makes it appear that the Allies outnumbered the Nazis — so I’m not at all sure that this is what der Schtumpty is referring to. Also, what a disaster in terms of deaths and injuries. I don’t quite see how it would be a good example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising

          3. I thought the not ghetto uprising because of “did against a force estimated to be 10 to 12 times as large” when the Germans smashed the uprising with so little loss to themselves, but yep, we’re guessing as to which he meant.
            Either way the uprisings were not examples of how civilians owning guns resisted an invading army, so not sound justifications for widespread civil gun ownership (I’d argue there are better reasons for fairly easy civil gun ownership).

        3. America is the only country in the world with hand guns very widespread in the community.
          The results:
          2.83 gun homicides per 100,000 people (2012 figure, puzzlingly low compare to previous years which average closer to 4)
          2.03 hand gun homicides per 100,000 people
          0.3 unintentional gun death per 100,000 people
          0.2 justifiable homicides per 100,000 people

          So justifiable homicides are only one fourteenth of all gun homicides and unintentional gun deaths are more common than deliberate homicides in countries where firearms are less widespread (but still available to the average person who wants them)

          America’s gun laws are fine for America, but I think if you think widespread availability of guns in other countries will make innocent people safer you’re wrong, and that’s just going on the accidental deaths, when you throw in the criminal homicides it looks like one way traffic with very few criminals being successfully gunned down by their victims.

          http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

          That’s not advocacy, that’s just going on the numbers, maybe a few occasions of victims killing the perp justifies far more gun deaths.

  2. It is absurd to suggest that Jews carrying guns would have been able to successfully defend themselves against the Nazi war machine (except, of course, as members of the Allied armed forces). However it is also historically wrong to suggest that Jews weren’t carrying guns,(even outside the Allied armed forces).

    See http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005441 (skip to the last paragraph and note the additional links to get an overview).

    1. “It is absurd to suggest that Jews carrying guns would have been able to successfully defend themselves against the Nazi war machine (except, of course, as members of the Allied armed forces).”

      Yes …. so much better to shut up, do as you are told, and take your nice train ride to Bergen-Belsen.

      You are saying that, because the Jews could not single handedly stop the Nazi War machine, they should not be given the right to defend themselves.

      Moron.

      1. I’m saying that “Jews carrying guns” isn’t an effective policy prescription to prevent the horrors of World War 2.

        1. “’m saying that “Jews carrying guns” isn’t an effective policy prescription to prevent the horrors of World War 2.”

          Would you deny arms to the Jews in WWII because they could not defeat the Nazi Juggernaut?

          If the Jews of France in 1939 wanted guns with which to defend themselves, would you refuse them?

      2. A well armed Israel, on the other hand, is an effective policy prescription. The USA as a superpower is another. Call me a statist, but I see those two solutions as working much better than fighting with handguns in front of European train stations.

        1. So empowering the state is the best defense against the state? Which page are you on? You just said above there is no hope against an armed state. Now you want an armed state.

        2. “…I see those two solutions as working much better than fighting with handguns in front of European train stations.”

          Who said anything about limiting the possibilities to handguns or waiting until they were ready to board the trains to Auchwitz?

          NOBODY.

          Only you. I suspect because you know you’ve stepped in it again.

          Once again ..

          Would you deny the Jews of Europe guns with which to defend themselves in 1939? Or ’36? Or ’33? And would your reason for denying them these guns be because they single handedly could not defeat the Wermacht?

          1. When Rand said “Being unarmed didn’t work out well for them the last time”, I took him to be saying that one of the topics of this thread is “How the Holocaust could have been avoided”. I’m saying that handguns, and even resistance organization armed with bombs and machine guns, couldn’t have stopped the Holocaust and in fact didn’t stop the Holocaust. I didn’t say that Jews shouldn’t have been permitted from carrying guns. Gregg, you’re focusing on gun rights, whereas I’m focusing on Holocaust prevention. You can ask me about which guns I’d permit people to carry so that you can expose me as a “moron”, but you’re missing the point, and putting words in my mouth. I’m not talking about hand gun rights. Sure, legalize firearms for everyone, but I’m pointing out that small arms wouldn’t have stopped the Holocaust – it took massive armies to defeat the Nazis.

            What I think: I think Rand quite throughly complicated a conversation about the current situation in Europe by comparing it to the Holocaust. As Rand likes to say so often: one thing is not like the other. Holocaust Prevention is a noble thing to talk about, and the topic of handgun rights is always good as a conversation starter, but Islamic terrorism in Europe doesn’t resemble the Nazi threat European Jews faced before and during World War 2,.

          2. No Bob, you aren’t saying that.

            You said, and I quote:

            “It is absurd to suggest that Jews carrying guns would have been able to successfully defend themselves against the Nazi war machine (except, of course, as members of the Allied armed forces). ”

            and you said

            “I’m saying that “Jews carrying guns” isn’t an effective policy prescription to prevent the horrors of World War 2.”

            And I’m saying:

            1) Ok so that means you think the French Resistance (and other anti-German Resistance groups) was a bad idea and a waste of good ammo because they, themselves, could not stop the Wehrmacht nor the Death Camps nor the horrors of WWII. They provided no useful function. We should not have allowed their existence.

            2) You are telling people how to live their lives and how they should die if die they must.

            I abhor both of those notions. It’s infuriating when someone thinks they have the right to tell someone how to live thier lives and how they have to die….when the teller doesn’t have any skin in the game.

            And you write as if the Jews would stay all by thmselves…an isolated fighting force of just a few thousand scattered all over France. Would not be the case.

          3. 1) Ok so that means you think the French Resistance (and other anti-German Resistance groups) was a bad idea and a waste of good ammo because they, themselves, could not stop the Wehrmacht nor the Death Camps nor the horrors of WWII. They provided no useful function. We should not have allowed their existence.

            No, that’s just bad logic. It doesn’t follow from what I said at all. I think the French Resistance and other resistance groups like them saved many allied lives, took many enemy lives, and contributed to allied victory. Members of the various resistance groups should be proud of themselves, and we should be proud of them. But “Have resistance groups” wouldn’t be a good plan for defeating the Nazis.

            Rand said “Being unarmed didn’t work out well for them the last time.” I’m saying “Being armed wouldn’t work out well for them either.” And read the link I provided: Jewish lives were saved by isolated Jewish resistance groups as well as Jewish resistance groups working with the allies, but it wasn’t not enough. I’m arguing it couldn’t have been enough, not enough to say that “being armed would have worked out well for them”.

            And once again: I’m not saying *anything* about telling people how to live their lives. You’re nuts if you think I’m talking about forcing people to disarm. -I’m talking about how World War Two could possibly have “worked out well” for the Jews.

          4. Bob-1 wrote:

            “No, that’s just bad logic.”

            Yes and ther bad logic is yours.

            First of all you said:

            “It is absurd to suggest that Jews carrying guns would have been able to successfully defend themselves against the Nazi war machine”

            Which is a straw man because nobody said that. You *inferred* from Rand’s comment he meant that the hologcaust would be averted. He never said that. So you created the straw man and then put a match to it.

            You then build 2 more straw men bysaying Jews with handguns would not be very effective and NOBODY limited the discussion to handguns. On top of which you said handguns *at the train station* and nobody limited the discussion to that.

            You SAY that armed Jews would not be able to stop the holocaust.

            So on that basis would you have denied them arms?

            Yes or no?

        3. Once again, I wouldn’t deny anyone guns, we’re completely talking past each other.
          I think I read Rand correctly, and if he disagrees, he can say so for himself.

    2. You’ve changed the subject. Defending yourself against small groups is different than protecting yourself from the State.

      1. Yes, and that’s why Rand’s comparison between Islamic Terrorism and the Nazis isn’t helpful when thinking about the current situation in Europe.

        1. I can’t imagine that while fighting a pitched effort against the Soviet Union, they somehow managed to get a significant portion of their forces bogged-down suppressing and occupying the Balkans either yet they did exactly that.

          They grabbed that tar baby hard.

        3. 1. Nazis turn up to take you away.
          2. One in six times, you shoot one.
          3. They shoot you.

          Repeat six million times.

          Is that really so hard to understand?

          You don’t actually think the Holocaust was conducted by front-line fighting troops, do you? Hitler couldn’t afford to send tanks and Stukas to kill Jews, he needed them to fight Stalin.

          1. 1. Nazis turn up to take you away.
            2. One in six times, you shoot one.
            3. They shoot you.

            Repeat six million times.

            You really think that the Nazis wouldn’t change their approach, maybe to firebombing houses in the middle of the night?

            There’s also the fact that the nature and extent of the Holocaust wasn’t really known even by European Jews, most believed they were being moved to work or internment camps, not to death camps, and so even given the means to fight back, many would not have, as it would have meant certain and imminent death for their families rather than what they thought was just an uncertain future.

          2. You really think that the Nazis wouldn’t change their approach, maybe to firebombing houses in the middle of the night?

            And you don’t think the Jews would be smart enough to change their tactics in response?

  3. Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said that while guns could help Jews defend themselves against an individual attack, only authorities can protect them against a mass attack like those carried out in France.

    Is sensible, but leads to the question, what percentage of the Jewish population is subject each year to individual attack compared to the rest of the population? I doubt there would be much of a difference.

    An individual attack is an attack, the severity is important the motive less so. On that basis I could make an infinitely stronger case for young women to have the right to arm themselves.

    1. And you’re right. Women should arm themselves. Not knowing if your potential victim is armed or not is a wonderful deterrent. Welcome to the pro-gun side.

      1. I own 2 firearms Jon, and have never really been anti or pro gun, increasing restrictions on weapons ownership in the US would be disastrous for the “legitamate” gun owners, removing restrictions on gun ownership in Europe would lead to more gun deaths.

        2. removing restrictions on gun ownership in Europe would lead to more gun deaths.

          Well, yes, obviously it would. Because now the victims could shoot their attacker, rather than dying.

          Reducing ‘gun deaths’ is just another tiresome anti-gun cliche. If every violent criminal was shot by their victim, ‘gun deaths’ would rise, but the world would be a much better place.

          The left hate guns because they dream of being violent criminals, if they aren’t already.

          1. Well, yes, obviously it would. Because now the victims could shoot their attacker, rather than dying.

            Oh, and don’t forget, more attackers could shoot their victims.

          2. From what I understand, buying former Soviet small arms on the European Black Market is ridiculously easy so the opportunity for euro attackers to be armed is already there.

            The shooters in France did not get their stuff in any European gun store.

            And for some reason, Switzerland doesn’t have an ‘attacker’ problem in spite of have gun laws in some respects, laxer than than the United States.

          3. From another website RE Switzerland before somebody tries to chime in with minsinformation:

            Originally Posted By Austrian:
            I don’t think I am remotely exaggerating when I say that just in the last two days I have literally corrected 250 citations on murder rates, gun death rates, suicide rates, and firearms law in Switzerland. And no wonder.

            For almost two decades, Switzerland has been a common “go to” reference to support the notion that guns are not the primary source of gun violence. If you carefully examine the facts on the ground in Switzerland you find this is quite supportable. The Swiss experience suggests that guns are not the source of gun violence, rather violence is the source of gun violence. Who knew?

            Be this as it may, a number of weak commentaries have cropped up since the awful events in Connecticut last week. Among them is an almost totally fact-free article in the Business Insider by Adam Taylor entitled Why Switzerland Is A Red-Herring In The Gun Control Debate and a bit of utter nonsense called Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias scratched out in a hurry by Erza Klein (a frequent purveyor of poorly researched Oxen feces) of the Washington Post. Both of these have been making the rounds the last 48 hours as if they were the newest gospel of gun control).

            The Klein piece cites his interview with “Janet Rosenbaum, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center School”:

            Ezra Klein: Israel and Switzerland are often mentioned as countries that prove that high rates of gun ownership don’t necessarily lead to high rates of gun crime. In fact, I wrote that on Friday. But you say your research shows that’s not true.

            Janet Rosenbaum: First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.

            For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.

            Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.

            The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.

            Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

            At least with respect to Switzerland, Dr. Rosenbaum is so far off it is painful to read. In fact, for us locals, it is downright offensive. It is prose so blatantly wrong that it is hard to decide if it is simply gross negligence in scholarship or actual malfeasance. If we Swiss (or Swiss-Austrians, as the case may be) are going to be pulled by smug academics into your gun control fight over there in the United States you better damn well have your damn facts right. You, Dr. Rosenbaum, and yes, I am talking directly to you now, don’t make the cut. In fact, so far as I am able to determine, you nothing more than a cheap hack characterized primarily by seriously weak moral fiber. (Hey Janet, I’m in Manhattan next month. Coffee?)

            The charitable explanation is that Klein was careless with fact-checking and that the study Dr. Rosenbaum authored, Gun utopias? Firearm access and ownership in Israel and Switzerland, (and which, while it was published in the Journal of Public Health Policy in February of 2012 was actually first released in November of 2011) actually was based on data Dr. Rosenbaum stopped collecting in 2010 or early 2011. More on this in a moment.

            In my considered opinion, it is very difficult to be this generous. In my considered opinion, the more realistic explanation is that Rosenbaum and Klein have an axe to grind and are more than willing to twist, fabricate and manipulate to do it while they contort themselves into limb-weaving knots to produce their secret, progressive policy love child.

            Dr. Rosenbaum (whose primary claim to fame appears to be that her dissertation on “virginity pledges and adolescents’ inconsistent reporting of their sexual histories” was covered by Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update) conducted her initial research in response to the shooting of Gabrielle Dee “Gabby” Giffords. She admits as much in her abstract:

            The 2011 attempted assassination of a US representative renewed the national gun control debate. Gun advocates claim mass-casualty events are mitigated and deterred with three policies: (a) permissive gun laws, (b) widespread gun ownership, (c) and encouragement of armed civilians who can intercept shooters. They cite Switzerland and Israel as exemplars. We evaluate these claims with analysis of International Crime Victimization Survey (ICVS) data and translation of laws and original source material. Swiss and Israeli laws limit firearm ownership and require permit renewal one to four times annually. ICVS analysis finds the United States has more firearms per capita and per household than either country. Switzerland and Israel curtail off-duty soldiers’ firearm access to prevent firearm deaths. Suicide among soldiers decreased by 40 per cent after the Israeli army’s 2006 reforms. Compared with the United States, Switzerland and Israel have lower gun ownership and stricter gun laws, and their policies discourage personal gun ownership.

            But what is most interesting about Dr. Rosenbaum’s study is how little, despite its provocative title, it actually says. Let’s take the assertions Dr. Rosenbaum makes one by one, shall we?

            First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.

            Pretending for a moment that the phase “has decreased” without a time horizon is meaningful (“Now new and improved!”), with respect to Switzerland I literally have no idea where Dr. Rosenbaum gets this concept from. The two phrases “…they don’t have high levels of gun ownership” and “…the gun ownership level in Israel and Switzerland has decreased” sound complimentary, but are really meaningless. “…don’t have high levels of gun ownership” compared to what exactly? “Decreased” over what time period and by how much? We are left to wonder… unless, that is, we actually check some facts. (Just relax. I know that’s shocking. The ushers have air-sickness bags if you need them).

            The latest statistics from the Bundesamt für Statistik of the Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft (the Swiss Federal Statistical Office) for the year 2011 show the following:

            Of approximately 2 million privately owned firearms (this is an estimate because not all firearms in Switzerland are registered [the horror… the horror…] another non-government source says 3 million):

            Around 900,000 are former Sturmgewehr 90 (the military version of the SIG 550 that is issued to all militia) or prior versions that have been turned over to citizens after the end of their militia obligations.

            Around 260,000 are current issue Sturmgewehr 90 held by current militia members (select fire, etc.)

            The rest are privately held firearms, probably predominately handguns.

            This means that only about 12% of firearms are related to active militia service. The rest are in private hands for private purposes. With a population of around 8,000,000 this implies a firearm per capita figure of 0.25. The common measure of firearms ownership per capita is usually “guns per 100 residents.” On that basis you end up with between 25.0 and 37.5 per 100 residents. In 2011 that puts Switzerland in the top 20 or the top 4 depending, above Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria on the high end and exceeded only by the United States, Yemen, and Serbia.

            Somehow this translates to “…don’t have high levels of gun ownership.” Or something. Compared to where? The United States? Well, that’s easy. No one has higher levels than the United States.

            Compared with the United States, Switzerland and Israel have lower gun ownership….

            Oh… sorry… I’ll go home now. Well, maybe not just yet….

            If you look at the percentage of Swiss households that possess a firearm the ratio gets much higher (married or co-habitating couples where the man has a firearm owing to mandatory service and the women did not volunteer for service would have one for two people plus the kids).

            Plus, the Swiss army pulls in (and issues Sturmgewehr 90’s to) 20,000-30,000 new militia members every year. At current numbers that’s a STRUCTURAL 1% increase in weapons per year, only from the Army issued rifles and not counting private sales (which are likely higher since new issuances are ONLY for 18 year olds, though I have no specific stats there). I know of no other country in which this is so.

            It is not clear where Rosenbaum gets her figures, but they defy logic.

            Then again, it is possible that since Switzerland has increased the number of residents permits they grant and opened the borders to the EU via the Schengen Agreement (may it die screaming in pain), the denominator for that ratio (people) has increased faster than the numerator (firearms). If so then that should have been noted. It wasn’t.

            I might point out that, at least in her study, Dr. Rosenbaum seems comfortable conflating some subjective measure of “access to firearms” with “firearms ownership.” By any real measure Switzerland has been among the top 5 countries in terms of firearms ownership per capita for decades, or more. That position has not and is not likely to slip.

            Dr. Rosenbaum then asserts:

            Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.

            With respect to Switzerland this is utter nonsense.

            There is no effective “justification” requirement for the general permit to purchase firearms. There is a space to enter “purpose” on the form for statistical purposes, but unless you put in “murder and mayhem” this is ignored except for data collection (and it might not even be noticed if you do). Then again, perhaps Dr. Rosenbaum is referring to the “may issue” nature of many kantonal requirements for a CARRY permit.

            The Federal Government in Switzerland provides the authorization for kantons to issue a “carry permit” which applies to both concealed and open carry of loaded firearms (as opposed to mere “transportation” which you see often as citizens or citizen militia jump on the train with their unloaded rifle strapped to their back). Some kantons treat “may issue” as a rubber stamp. Some have effective “won’t issue” policies. Same as the United States.

            As for the right to own firearms, this, along with the right to self defense, is enshrined rather indelibly in Swiss law- in particular the Federal law on permitting. The various kantons cannot ban private firearms ownership outright. Here Dr. Rosenbaum is just ignorant. I know, you are gripped with paralyzing surprise. It will be ok. We will show the BluRay cut of Heat with director’s commentary in the main hall later.

            The same is true of the claim that one must actively re-justify every year. That may be true in some of the tighter kantons with respect to CARRY permits, but it is absolutely not true for the permit to possess or purchase firearms and ammunition.

            Then there is this:

            The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t.

            I have no basis to opine on Israel, but I’m not sure how a program dedicated to handing out 20,000-30,000 free select assault rifles per year which citizens can buy at discount rates after their service isn’t an effort to “promote gun ownership”. Not to mention the annual national shooting festival/competition in Switzerland (the “Feldschiessen”) that draws between 150.000 and 250,000 participants annually. (Compare this to, say, Camp Perry). In addition, the Swiss version of the NRA (“ProTell”) is highly active in promoting responsible firearms ownership. Practice ranges litter Switzerland (I pass five on the 30km trek to Zürich from my office).

            Dr. Rosenbaum then says:

            Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

            Notice how little this ACTUALLY says. She says Switzerland is moving away from having widespread guns- she provides no authority for this. And what exactly does “moving away” mean? She then erroneously suggests that gun laws are fully kanton by kanton. Literally: “…[t]he laws are done canton by canton” (ignoring the Federal guarantee of right to possess and the right of self-defense). She then says “Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army…” which is false. Women are not subject to mandatory service (though they can volunteer-and I am exceptionally proud to note that some years ago a member of my own family was one of the earliest women to serve in one of the most elite Swiss volunteer units… I bet she racked up more jumps than you!) and men can opt out and serve in the civil corps instead (though the term is longer and it ends up being expensive). Oddly, these individuals can still buy firearms in Switzerland.

            Then Dr. Rosenbaum drops this whopper:

            “…the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots.”

            Notice again this “moving to” language, which is both deceptive and meaningless. In this particular case it is also totally false.

            I have to think that this is, in fact, an almost abusive perversion of the 2011 firearms referendum initiative in Switzerland “Für den Schutz vor Waffengewalt” (“For the protection of gun violence’). Among the provisions in this referendum was the requirement that military weapons be kept in the local depots instead of at home, to be retrieved when and if necessary in times of emergency, along with a full registration program, a requirement to “show necessity” and a host of other regulations that would make Switzerland look like the rest of gelded Europe. It’s effect on private sales and ownership, however, wasn’t totally clear (but was probably minimal).

            Dr. Rosenbaum apparently never bothered to check because if she had she would know that this referendum was resoundingly defeated. And I don’t mean MSNBC “resoundingly.” I mean “resoundingly.”

            Specifically, it lost the popular vote by 12.5 points and 75% of the kantons rejected it. (Referendums must pass both the popular vote AND the majority of kantons). The defeat was so severe that the anti-gun lobby in Switzerland has effectively vanished in its wake. Smack.

            “Moving away from having widespread guns?” Sure, Dr. Rosenbaum. “Tell us another one, Grandma!”

            But any number of crazy stats haunt the amazing outline of the Swiss firearm experience. For example:

            Many people like to cite this Wikipedia article to suggest:

            1. Deaths by firearms in Switzerland are the highest in Europe.
            2. Homicides by firearm in Switzerland are the highest in Europe.
            3. Suicides by firearm in Switzerland are the highest in Europe.

            I’ve noticed that even in the last 48 hours the article has been changed. It used to list figures from 1994 (while the remainder of countries were more modern). Even now it purports to evidence the following statistics:

            Homicides by firearm: 0.52 per 100,000 residents
            Suicides by firearm: 3.15 per 100,000 residents
            Total firearm-related deaths: 3.50 per 100,000 residents.

            While this is a big improvement it is entirely wrong. I suspect part of the problem is the poor German and French skills of Wikipedia editors.

            Official statistics from the Bundesamt für Statistik are:

            Firearm Related Deaths:

            2006: 285
            2007: 291
            2008: 259
            2009: 277
            2010: 241

            Homicides by Firearm:

            2006: 26
            2007: 27
            2008: 20
            2009: 24
            2010: 19

            Please note: Because most reporters and researchers are total mouth-breathers, the figure for ACTUAL fatalities in homicides in Switzerland is confused with attempted homicides or homicide “offenses.” As an example, when three kids run into a Kwik-E-Mart and wax Apu (yes, highly HIGHLY unlikely in Switzerland) all three are charged with “homicide” (it is similar to the “felony murder” rule in the United States). One gun fatality. Three “gun-related homicide offenses.” Of course, it serves many “scholars” to be careless about these statistics (plus they don’t read German or French). The actual statistics are here: http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/19/03/02/dos/03.html.

            Interesting to note: Suicide is not a “crime” in Switzerland, as it is technically legal. Many “scholars” will try to include the suicide rate (or omit the suicide rate from other countries when they make comparisons).

            To be clear, with a population that is over 8,000,000 people (but we will round down to be conservative) the per capita figures for firearms related deaths and homicides by firearm (note these are NOT the same figure) per 100,000 people (the standard measure) are:

            Firearm Related Deaths Per 100,000 people:

            2006: 3.5750
            2007: 3.6375
            2008: 3.2375
            2009: 3.4625
            2010: 3.0125

            Homicides by Firearm Per 100,000 people:

            2006: 0.3250
            2007: 0.3375
            2008: 0.2500
            2009: 0.3000
            2010: 0.2375

            To be clear, these figures are literally the best in the developed world for a country with any sort of firearms freedom for citizens (the UK has great stats at the expense of near total prohibition).

            So to summarize:

            – Switzerland is now in (and has for more than two decades been in) in the top 5 countries in the world when it comes to per capita firearms ownership.

            – Mixing years a bit but with respect to homicides by firearm Switzerland is almost exactly equal to France (0.22 in 2009) and Denmark (0.22 in 2006), The Netherlands (0.20 in 2010), and is better than Finland (0.26 in 2010), Belgium (0.29 in 2006), Ireland (0.36 in 2010), Italy (0.36 in 2009), Portugal (0.48 in 2010), and Luxembourg (!!!) (0.60 in 2009).

            You have to kick in suicides (which are technically not crimes given their legality) to get up to 3.01 per 100k. The United States, by contrast, was 2.98 with respect to homicides and 9.00 (!!!) for total deaths by firearm with mixed stats from 2008-2010.

            It is perhaps possible for someone to try to claim that gun deaths are a problem in Switzerland, but only after drinking seventeen Hurricanes on a 4 day “Washington Post/New York Times Progressive” Florida-Bahamas Cruise (sponsored by Princess Cruises and featuring Paul Krugman!)

            You will hear a number of other claims about Swiss gun laws/rights. For instance:

            Claim: Firearms must now be stored in depots and cannot be kept in a private residence.

            FALSE: This seems to be a carry over from what was proposed in the 2011 referendum. It isn’t clear where else it could have come from. The Rosenbaum study / paper / article seems to suggest that it is only a matter of time before this policy is passed- all evidence to the contrary. At least, I hope this isn’t true, because my SIG 551, 552 and 550 are all sitting about 5 meters from my chair right now, next to several boxes of ammo.

            Claim: The possession of ammunition is now banned for citizens.

            FALSE: This is often an inadvertent (or willful) misunderstanding of the recent change in policy by the Swiss Army. In the past an active militia member was issued their Sturmgewehr 90 along with their kit (helmet, body armor, camo, etc.) and a sealed container with ammunition (GP 90 in my day) free of charge. The Army has since stopped issuing the ammo. The original intent was for the ammo to be used by the citizen to fight their way to the rally point. Recently this policy has been rescinded (though more for cost than for anything else). Citizen soldiers are now expected to arrive at rally points in full kit with rifle in times of emergency and will be provided with ammunition there. Private sales of ammunition (including .223 and 5.56 NATO) are totally unaffected. I’ve got 5.56 ammo in my closet.

            Claim: The Swiss figures for firearms per capita are so high because there are so many militia weapons.

            FALSE: Sturmgewehr 90s that are issued to active militia members comprise only about 12% of all privately held weapons. Citizens can buy their weapon after their service term is over and many do (to the tune of nearly a million former militia weapons). A mere 260,000 are current-duty militia related weapons (and this doesn’t count pistols issued to officers / support troops). Citizens (or residents, actually) can also buy anything from a SIG 550 to an AK in Switzerland. Private sales are not restricted.

            Claim: Permits to buy firearms in Switzerland require the applicant to demonstrate need.

            FALSE: Total nonsense. Unfortunately, many “scholars” look to some of the more restrictive kantons and pull their requirements for a CARRY permit and assume those requirements are universal for all firearms. In fact there is no “need based” requirement to purchase firearms and to the extent there is a “need based” requirement for a CCW/Open Carry permit it varies in application by kanton. (Effectively you have “shall issue unless stupid” “may issue” and “won’t issue” in Switzerland, same as in the United States.

            A complete refutation of the misunderstandings vis-a-vis Swiss firearms law would consume more space than the Ammo Oracle. Perhaps it will suffice to point out the following:

            It is a routine experience to jump on a train in Switzerland and see teenaged/tween females with shouldered SIG 550s on or SIG 550s in the luggage rack headed to the range to practice for the annual competition. Clearly, they are not headed to militia exercises, clearly they are not Army, clearly they are not police. Certainly, there are progressive forces who will experience unbearable cranial pain before collapsing and expiring owing to a cerebral embolism if confronted with this basic fact. Clearly, there is a need by the “left” to twist and minimize the Swiss firearms experience to suit their own needs (or at least to avoid doing damage to same).

            Don’t give in.

            Switzerland IS a “gun toting utopia.” Come visit. We’ll take you shooting.

            Have questions? Need clarifications or (gasp) more statistics? Post your needs in comments. I will happily dig out whatever you need to batter back the forces of darkness and ignorance. (Well, within reason. The forces of darkness and ignorance have had a pretty good recruiting season the last half-decade).

  4. Nearly everywhere in the EU it is forbidden for most people to own personal firearms like handguns let alone anything more lethal than that.

    No those laws will not change. What will happen is more policing and tighter border control.

    1. All of the laws failed to prevent the terrorists to get their guns. Ordinary citizens can’t legally own firearms but those laws do little to stop criminals from arming themselves. Just as drug smuggling is illegal but happens everywhere, gun smuggling also happens everywhere. You can pass all the laws you want only to encounter the harsh reality that terrorists and criminals by definition don’t obey the law. Law enforcement can only do so much to stop crime or terrorist attacks. Beyond that, people are on their own while the police investigate the crime scenes.

        1. When you actually look at the details, America’s not doing that well, it’s homicide rate is higher than almost all of the countries in northern, western and southern Europe, and excluding wars zones, higher than all of the middle eastern countries.

          1. When you actually look at the details, you find the states with lax gun laws are generally safer than most of Europe, while the states with the toughest gun laws have most of the crime. Even there, the rural areas are generally quite safe while urban areas have most of the violent crime.

            And, as I understand it, prisons are among the most dangerous places in America, yet no prisoner is allowed to own a gun.

          3. Again, that’s largely a consequence of the War on (Some) Drugs. It has little/nothing to do with the Second Amendment, or lack of gun control.

            Well it’s certainly due in large part to a lot of people willing to kill, but guns being widely available does make it easier to kill, if one is so inclined.

            Here’s a couple of tables that I admit show a poorer correlation when measured against each other than I’d expect:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

            A bit of a wow if you compare Brazil and the US.

          5. Because it’s a civilized country, other civilized countries have similarly low gun homicide rates with high gun ownership rates.

          6. by dividing the gun ownership rate/100ppl by the gun homicide rate/10,000,000ppl I’ve come up with a gun civility index.

            Some of the scores:
            Country —guns/100ppl—-gun homicides/10mppl–Gun Civility Index.

            Australia——–15——————11————————————-1.36
            Austria———-30——————18————————————1.67
            Belgium———17——————29————————————0.59
            Canada———-31—————–51————————————-0.61
            Cyprus———–36—————–24————————————-1.5
            Czech————16——————12————————————–1.33
            Denmark——–12—————–22————————————–0.55
            Finland————29—————–26————————————–1.11
            Germany——–30—————–20————————————–1.5
            Greece———-22—————–59—————————————0.37
            Hungary———5.5—————–13—————————————0.42
            Iceland———-30—————–32————————————–0.94
            Israel————-7.3—————-94————————————–0.08
            Italy————–12—————–36————————————–0.33
            Japan————–0.6—————-0.0—————————————-E
            Netherlands—–3.9—————20————————————–19.5
            New Zealand—22—————–26————————————-0.85
            Norway———–31—————–0.1————————————3.1
            Portugal——–8.5—————–48————————————–0.18
            Spain————10——————15————————————–0.67
            Sweden———31——————19————————————–1.63
            Switzerland—45——————52—————————————-0.86
            UK—————6.0——————4.0—————————————1.5
            US—————90——————283—————————————0.32

            So by this measure I see a pretty good correlation between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of gun homicides for most of these developed countries, with most countries coming between 0.5 and 2 on the GSI, the most gun civilized countries outside this range being Japan, the Netherlands and Norway; the least gun civilized countries being the US, Portugal, Israel, Italy, Greece and Hungary.

            Most of those outliers don’t have strikingly unusual gun possession rates.

            Well that was one way to waste half an hour.

          8. A lot of it is suicide, which is not good, but is not the same as homicide. A lot of it happens in the inner city, and that is happening because of other reasons, say, lack of a father in the home?

            I grew up with a half dozen rifles in my home. Nothing bad ever happened.

            It has to do with behavior. But telling people to change their behavior for any reason, be it to get out of poverty, to be civil, to not get pregnant, well, we just can’t have that!

          10. Care to address the behavior issue? For a guy who has no opinion on gun control, you certainly seem willing to blame guns for our problems.

          11. And are you aware of the places where this violence occurs? Chicago alone has several each week, and they had the strictest gun control laws in the country until recently when they were forced to allow conceal carry.

            It’s easy to pull statistics of one country without going into the details. If you actually did that, you’d see that most of the US violence is in cities run by democrats.

          12. I think people unhappy with where they are in life looking to improve their status/live standard amongst their peers, with violence offering them the most practical route, and guns offering them the most practical violence.

          13. And that chart you posted is using high numbers for the Swiss homicide rate. my lengthy post includes the true Swiss Homicide rate and it is almost identical to Britain’s.

          14. And that chart you posted is using high numbers for the Swiss homicide rate. my lengthy post includes the true Swiss Homicide rate and it is almost identical to Britain’s.

            I used the same source for all countries, if I used to the more up to date source for Switzerland I’d have had to use it for all of those countries. If you want to redo it all using this site:
            http://www.gunpolicy.org
            Do so.

        1. It is also because many European countries have a less diverse culture. As France’s culture has become more diverse with immigrants not wanting to integrate; their violent crime rate is increasing.

          Guns are just a tool, it is friction between people with opposing views that begets violence.

        2. It is hardly surprising that if people have more access to guns there will be more gun related crime when they decide to get violent. A lot of homicides here in Europe, for example, are due to disputes between couples. What could have been a non-fatal knife injury or blunt trauma turns into a fatal gun injury. As for the drug related crime that is a problem that can be mitigated (not solved) with changing laws so that drug use is not a crime and treating it as a public health problem rather than a criminal problem.

          1. And yet Godzilla, European Switzerland, armed to the teeth, third or fourth most armed society on the planet, has a homicide rate comparable to Britain.

  6. Possibly there could be some wiggle room with regard to increasing the number of armed private security guards, though I see armed private security is illegal in many European countries.

    1. “Possibly there could be some wiggle room with regard to increasing the number of armed private security guards, though I see armed private security is illegal in many European countries.”

      And if you were not one of the rich people who can afford to hire a private armed security guard? Then what?

      Take your beheading silently? Become a hostage to Islamist goons, in the Kosher Store quietly? Show good taste in not bleeding all over them as they pump your head full of 7.62x39s?

      What a friggin, clue-free elitist!

      1. You’re not too bright sometimes are you Gregg?

        What the Rabbi is proposing is . . . . Jewish private armed security guards. I’m just suggesting a way it could be done without stirring religious feeling through removing religious labels. A way it might be done without requiring changes in legislation in at least some European countries.

        1. ” Jewish private armed security guards”

          Right. An effective and affordable solution for some kinds of terrorism, completely ineffective for other kinds of terrorism, and surely worthless for preventing the Holocaust.
          It is the comparison to the Holocaust that rankles me.

        2. “You’re not too bright sometimes are you Gregg?”

          I’m bruight enough to know the conversation isn’t limited to what one rabbi wants.

          I’m bright enough to know that when you write:

          “Is sensible, but leads to the question, what percentage of the Jewish population is subject each year to individual attack compared to the rest of the population? I doubt there would be much of a difference.”

          You too have stepped away from the narrow lane of what one rabbi wants.

          I’m bright enough to know that I didn’t preclude increasing private armed security guards and MUCH brighter than you when you say you would *allow* some wiggle room for the increase of that…which is elitist and clueless and demonstrates an utter lack of thought on the subject. Because…..

          Who the f*^CK are you to say what a free person ought to be allowed when it comes to self defense?

          I’m bright enough to know that when you write crap like:

          “….removing restrictions on gun ownership in Europe would lead to more gun deaths.”

          you expose your statist elitist nonsensical notion that people must always depend on the government to save them. That you haven’t yet absorbed the idea of cost, benefit, and that you have absolutely zero idea of how it feels to be under severe threat (as they are now) and told they cannot defend themselves.

          I’m bright enough to know that if Jews want to carry guns to protect themselves, fuckin elisists like yourselves who would deny them because it falls outside of your view of how much “wiggle room” there ought to be, are…………..

          clue-free, self-absorbed, bubble-living non-thinkers.

          2. “I see I’ve hit a sensitive spot.”

            Don’t confuse vigor sensitivity. I value natural rights highly and I deeply distrust governments (all of them) though they are necessary to some degree. I wouldn’t dream of silencing you, and value the fact that you bring common thoughtless gibberish to the light of day. That way the dangerous presumptions behind the gibberish can be exposed as well.

            The rights of individuals are not vigorously upheld, by enough people, these days.

  7. If gun ownership in Germany prior to WW2 had been as common as gun ownership in America today, would the Holocaust have been averted?

    I doubt it, I think Hitler would likely have just used it to feed antisemitism, using false claims of unprovoked attacks, as he did to justify the invasion of Poland.

    Hitler wasn’t one to worry about a few of his own followers being killed.

    1. 1) The concept of self defense doesn’t always guarantee success. People just might prefer to go down fighting if the alternative is to go downin a gas chamber.

      2) French Resistance.

      3) Who are you to deny someone the right to choose self-defense for themselves….or not choose it?

      4) Read deeply about the run up to Nazi power. I strongly recommend a couple of books by a guy named Kershaw.

      If you carefully study you will find that Hitler got there by luck as much as anything else. He did persevere, but he was also very very lucky. His rise was not a foregone conclusion. France, England and the Depression helped a lot. Without the depression Hitler would have gone back to painting crummy pictures.
      You will also find that while the German General Staff (and the people) were quite adamant in starting a War with France to avenge the treatment of post WWI Germany, most were not interested in a Holocaust. The Holocaust was a Socialist (Nazi and Commie) deal. So…….

      5) If gun owhership in Germany was as prevalent as it is in the US today, is it possible that Hitler could have been taken out…the nazi’s not come to power and the Holocaust averted?

      Not guaranteed but certainly plausible.

      1. A lot of your comment is just straw men, I’m not denying anyone the right to self defense, and I don’t dispute that taking a few Nazis with you would have been a better way to go.
        All I said was that I doubt the Holocaust would have been averted.

        Your point about could Hitler have been taken out is fair, but on the other hand we can’t say what the likelihood of that might have been, or what effect that might have had, as you say, war was still likely (while the German General Staff (and the people) were quite adamant in starting a War with France . . )

        A Jew having shot Hitler wouldn’t hardly have endeared Jews to the Nazis, and who knows, without Hitler the German’s might have fought a much smarter war, with no Operation Barbarossa.

        1. If the Russians had not won the Battle of Khalkhin Gol maybe the Northern Strike option favored by the Imperial Army would have won out and the Soviet Union would have been knocked out of the war and the Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbor when they did as the Imperial Navy planned which means the USA would likely not even enter the war.

        2. “A lot of your comment is just straw men, ”

          Name them.

          #1 is true, stated before and directly addresses YOUR question about whether armed Jews would have averted the holocaust. If there’s a straw man it’s your question.

          #2 is an example which renders your question irrelevant since the French resistance was also unable to stopt he holocaust but I see no one – including you – say they were a bad idea.

          #3 is a refutation of your:
          “I’m not denying anyone the right to self defense, ”

          since the only wiggle room you will allow is more private armed security guards for hire. Since most people cannot afford that you are denying them the right to carry a gun.

          Tell us Andrew straight out:

          Would you deny the French citien (Jew included) from carrying firearms if you were in charge? You’ve stahted yrou wiggle room and that seems to make it clear you would. But let’s hear you say it.

          Yes or no?

          #4 &5 you agree with and yes we dont’ know how it would have all worked out but if you study you’ll see that Hitler was the Nazi party and that he got to power (like most everyone else in any country) through perseverence and luck. The luck was large and necessary.

          So tell us Andrew – clearly:

          Would Emperor Andrew deny the French citizen the right to own a gun, today?

          I think you’v emade it clear you would. But I’ll give you a chance to state it – one way or the other – outright.

          1. The so-called typical “attacking a straw man” argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and then to refute or defeat that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

          2. Would Emperor Andrew deny the French citizen the right to own a gun, today?

            There is no “Emperor Andrew” and while you might see yourself in the role of Emperor, I’m not interested, I’ve got this funny idea that the French should govern themselves.

            The “wiggle room” was a suggestion as to how Rabbi might actually get his armed security given current laws.

          3. In response to a direct question, Andrew writes:

            “The so-called typical “attacking a straw man” argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition by covertly replacing it with a different………..yada yada yada”

            translation:

            I’m too skeered to answer your question because it will be revealed everyone had my number from the start. So I’ll try deflection.

          4. I’m too skeered to answer your question because it will be revealed everyone had my number from the start. So I’ll try deflection.

            You really are a git Gregg, I’ve never been too “skeered” to give my opinion when I disagree with anyone here, very including Rand.

          5. “There is no “Emperor Andrew” and while you might see yourself in the role of Emperor, I’m not interested, I’ve got this funny idea that the French should govern themselves.”

            Translation: still too chicken to give a straigh tanswer.

            “The “wiggle room” was a suggestion as to how Rabbi might actually get his armed security given current laws.”

            No Andrew it was NOT a suggestion. It was what you were willing to magnaimously allow…acting as Emperor.

            Your writhing to avoid the simple issue causes you to be dismissed.

          6. No Andrew it was NOT a suggestion. It was what you were willing to magnaimously allow…acting as Emperor.

            I thought you were a bit of a fanatic, now I realize you’re just a nut case.

          7. Andrew, you were asked point-blank two yes-or-no questions and have yet to give a clear answer to either.

            ANSWER

            THE

            DAMNED

            QUESTION

          8. FFS, the only reply can make is that it’s up to the French to make their own laws. Authoritarians such as yourself might think it’s OK to tell other peoples what laws they should live under, I don’t.

          9. Now, if you had asked me how I would vote on gun legislation in my country I can tell you that it would be for pretty liberal laws, firearms license similar to drivers license, rifles and shotguns anyone with a license.
            Anyone who wants a hand gun just has to be a member of a recognized gun club (one who’s executives are upstanding members of the community or words to that effect.)

          10. “ANSWER

            THE

            DAMNED

            QUESTION”

            Why do people think this is a reasonable way to talk to each other? And suppose Andrew, a self-admitted gun owner answers yes or answers no? What difference would it make?
            Unless you want the comments section to be that much closer to being an echo chamber, I think everyone ought to be more polite to Andrew.

          11. “I’ve never been too “skeered” to give my opinion when I disagree with anyone here, very including Rand.”

            Then why don’t you answer it succinctly and clearly?

            Skeered?

          12. “FFS, the only reply can make is that it’s up to the French to make their own laws. Authoritarians such as yourself might think it’s OK to tell other peoples what laws they should live under, I don’t.”

            I can’t tell if you are being purposely obtuse or are just plain stupid….

            The question is to elicit your opinion….that you consistently fail to answer it – by the ridiculous strawman that you aren’t in charge of France – means you are most likely too skeered to answer it.

            That dodge of yours isn’t worthy of a 4th grade debate.

          13. I get like that when someone refuses to answer a yes or no question set.

            I don’t know about your situation but in my circle of acquaintances, when someone asks you that kind of question it is considered obligatory (or at least good manners) to respond one way or the other. You can then modify/clarify your answer as necessary or counter with your own query as to why the questioner sees things in such a stark manner.

        3. As to this:

          “A Jew having shot Hitler wouldn’t hardly have endeared Jews to the Nazis, and who knows, without Hitler the German’s might have fought a much smarter war, with no Operation Barbarossa.”

          It would have endeared the Jews to the Bolshies who were Hitler’s sworn enemies, albeit for only a time. The the Bolshies would have turned on them ( as they did elsewhere).

          And secondly there most likely have been no Barbarossa. Check up on that.

          1. It would have endeared the Jews to the Bolshies who were Hitler’s sworn enemies, albeit for only a time. The the Bolshies would have turned on them ( as they did elsewhere).

            Stalin wasn’t interested in getting into a war against Germany, if you think that a Jewish assassin taking out Hitler would have brought about an attack on Germany by Russia I think you’re deluded.

            And secondly there most likely have been no Barbarossa. Check up on that.

            Not sure what you meant there.

          2. “Stalin wasn’t interested in getting into a war against Germany, ..”

            You are completely in error. Utterly. Go read a book and read carefully.

            As I told you – Stalin planned on it but when it was wargamed on his side it was clear they’d lose fast. That started the officer purge.

            But this is a little beside the point.

          4. Stalin was not interested in a war with Germany. The fact is all his policy was aimed at reeling back the breakaway parts of the Russian Empire and was turned inwards. Hence the wars with Finland and Poland. He also knew the chance of foreign military action against the Soviet Union was high, they had done it before during the Revolution, so he needed to have a large military.

            Contrary to the Nazis with their policy of Lebensraum the Soviet Union under Stalin had no expansionist policy.

          5. Stalin was not interested in a war with Germany. The fact is all his policy was aimed at reeling back the breakaway parts of the Russian Empire and was turned inwards. Hence the wars with Finland and Poland. He also knew the chance of foreign military action against the Soviet Union was high, they had done it before during the Revolution, so he needed to have a large military.

            Finland and Poland were not “”breakaway parts” of a Russian empire. And there was a two decade history of Soviet expansion leading up to their involvement in the Second World War, which continued with the annexation of Eastern Europe. What finally stopped the Soviets was nuclear weapons, not some imaginary consideration of a 19th century map.

          6. “reference please”

            Geezuz Andrew you yammer on here as if you actually know something but you haven’t doen the basic research?

            I have a life, Andrew and it doesn’t include educating lazy argumentative people such as yourself. If you want to know the facts then go get some books written after the fall of the Soviet Union when the archives were openned up.

            Start with Glantz, then go find a copy of “Stalin’s Trap” by von Thadden, read the testimony of Andrei Vlassov, move on to “Stalin’s Missed Chance” by Mikhail Meltyukhov.

            And then follow up with the references that those works supply…..

            and don’t bother us again with 1950’s whitewashed propaganda ok?

          7. Not only was Stalin not interested in war on Germany, he was totally taken by surprise when Hitler attacked Russia. Now, I’ve no doubt if Germany had been just another weaker nation Stalin would have considered it an option, but after the disproportionate losses suffered in the war on Finland, Stalin would have realized his military was well short of the task.

          8. Yes, Stalin was taken by surprise, but not because he wasn’t interested in a war with Germany. He just wanted to choose the timing himself, after he’d consolidated his gains in Poland and Romania. He shouldn’t have been (he was warned, even by Churchill), but he didn’t expect Hitler to open up a second front before he’d conquered Britain. One of them was going to violate the pact. Hitler just did it first.

          9. I have a life, Andrew and it doesn’t include educating lazy argumentative people such as yourself. If you want to know the facts then go get some books written after the fall of the Soviet Union when the archives were openned up.

            Translation: Gregg can’t find an internet reference supporting his claim.

          11. Why would I need a reference? Stalinism was part of global communism, whose goal was to conquer the planet. He couldn’t long let a competing national socialist ideology hold sway in his own front yard.

          13. “Translation: Gregg can’t find an internet reference supporting his claim.”

            Uh no I gave you the actual references…you have to do the actual reading…

            “Glantz was given by Gregg as a reference supporting Suvorov’s theory.”

            No Andrew I told you to go read him. You see unlike, say warmist/alarmists, I give you both sides of the issue for study so that you can make an informed opinion.

            Evidently “being informed” is not in your list of goals in life.

          14. P.S. while Glantz doesn’t adhere to that particular notion, his works do provide a serious and in-depth study of Stalin-Soviet Russia. Which is why I recommend it.

            But you’re too absorbed in asnwering direct questions which describe yoru opinion to so any actual scholarship.

      2. “People just might prefer to go down fighting if the alternative is to go downin a gas chamber.”

        That was absolutely the idea behind the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

    2. Well, Kristallnacht would have turned out different. And I can’t help but wonder how the movement would have fared if people weren’t so afraid of it.

      1. Gun ownership in Switzerland was enough to prevent Hitler for attempting to invade it.
        Nonsense, Germany found a neutral Switzerland useful enough, and invasion inconvenient enough – due to her very respectable military, for the Swiss to get away with maintaining their historic neutrality.

        1. And of course “her very respectable military” had absolutely nothing to do with private gun ownership by her citizens.

          Andrew, you’re a mess.

          1. And of course “her very respectable military” had absolutely nothing to do with private gun ownership by her citizens.

            Of course it had nothing to do with it! You think owning a gun makes you an effective soldier?

            Do you think that France was so easily overrun because her citizens didn’t have civilian firearms? Here’s news for you, they did.
            And so did most other invaded countries in Europe.

            You’ve probably got some fanciful idea that stems from the American Revolution that informal civil militia are effective in opposing a trained well equipped army, not so for at least a century.

        2. In case you hadn’t noticed Andrew, her ‘very respectable military’ and her citizens are one in the same. They do not have a standing army, they have a very competent citizen-militia.

          Hitler was forced to tie-down a significant chunk of his forces in the Balkans due to partisan uprisings. That was a Sunday School pic-nic compared to what they would have faced if they had attempted to invade Switzerland with it’s legendary shots and terrain that disadvantages most of the implements of mechanized warfare the Nazi’s had depended on.

          Germany could have taken Switzerland but the cost would have been gigantic and would have precluded them from doing anything else. It would have been Pyrrhic at best.

          1. I agree with that, but having a trained citizen army equipped with military rifles by the government has nothing to do with the 45 civilian guns per 100 people that Switzerland currently has.

  8. Because it’s a civilized country, other civilized countries have similarly low gun homicide rates with high gun ownership rates.,

    Andrew, you’ve just stated the point. Gun removal is not the problem, lack of civility is. There’s no reason to take away guns. Only a fool would do that when the solution is obvious: teach people better behavior.

    1. I haven’t advocated taking guns away from anyone, I wouldn’t like to see a gun free for all in countries like France as I suspect those taking up arms first wouldn’t be the people you and I would want to see taking up arms first, but hey, not my decision, people should go and convince the French to change their gun laws if it’s important to them.

  9. The rights of individuals are not vigorously upheld, by enough people, these days.

    What a heretic ya are Gregg. People don’t have rights, they have blessings occasionally granted by the state. Only states have rights and those rights are more severe the less accountable the state is.

    Next thing ya know you’ll be supporting such outlandish ideas as individual liberty with no permit requirement.

Comments are closed.