But the last time “push came to shove” for the U.S. was August 9, 1945, apparently.
Agreed
I would hope so, but that was said about the Nazi’s who rounded up their Jewish neighbor’s too…
Whats everyone think of Kennedy jumping into the race?
Was it? Serious question.
Pareto principle and Gaetano Mosca.
I mean, of course I am speculating a bit here, but there are books/videos on how the Third Reich desensitized concentration camp officers to the insane violence.
If you’re interested:
(1) How Did Ordinary Citizens Become Murderers? - YouTube
It really doesn’t take much to get someone to do something previously unthinkable when the right pressures are applied (i.e. execute this insane command or I kill your family…)
The concentration camps were a form of desensitization. Prior to that it took alcohol and young male peer pressure to get soldiers to shoot Jews. There are letters from German officers complaining that they were either creating psychos or emotional wrecks.
Officers were told to remove any soldiers who were sadistic and looked as though they were enjoying it from that duty.
It’s also been disproven that soldiers were threatened if they refused to execute civilians. The ones who did it either wanted to do it or were victims of peer pressure in that they were afraid to look weak. There are examples of soldiers refusing to carry out or avoiding carrying out the order to murder people.
1 Like
I’m admittedly not much of a historian, but, I’d wager that the Nazi oath was a bit different than the one our soldiers swear to. Not trying to be a prick btw. I mean, anything could happen within a particular population group, but I’d optimistically hope for the better outcome with that particular group of people.
I was more asking whether Germans hoped Nazi soldiers would refuse to round up Jews.
I mean, this all we really can do because the other outcome is so horrible no one wants to contemplate it.
And, I am not making the comparison that the US is in the same state as Germany post WWI that led to the rise of the Third Reich. We are much better off. That alone makes a better outcome more likely.
1 Like
Something to consider is that when Hitler was campaigning to get elected, the antisemitic rhetoric would be more profound when speaking to audiences in less urban areas. In areas where people were wealthier and more cosmopolitan, the antisemitism was minimized. Meaning, the Nazis were attracting the least educated, least sophisticated, the less wealthy and less worldly. Devotion to the Nazi party was the only way many of them could move up in the world. People like to bring up that socialism is part of the name for the Nazi party but that isn’t because it was a socialist party but because they wanted to compete with actual socialist parties for worker support.
2 Likes
Really? I mean if the military starts air striking its citizens - sure.
But, we had air support - etc. in all of these middle eastern countries fighting us with mostly outdated Russian small arms and we still struggled to occupy and keep peace of places the size of a large city or less in the US.
Also, I have a hard time believing the entire US military would get behind killing their own citizens, family, and destroying their homes. Some would I am sure, but not all.
Armed guards in all schools. Why do all banks have armed guards these days? We protect our money, politicians, and possessions with weapons, but not our children?
Lunacy.
This is the answer, but they have to be in the right spot in the right hands.
2 Likes
And they were all also disarmed…
2 Likes
This is the only viable solution since anything else will fall flat. But, do we really want our children seeing armed guards everyday entering school? I can’t imagine that’s good for the psyche.
I think the solution has to be more nuanced and multi-tiered. I know I am not going to change anyone’s mind on this issue since its one of those polarizing things.
I think too, if firearm safety and education was part of the curriculum around the age of 12 or 13 (when I learned how to shoot and took hunter safety) it would eliminate some of the fascination with weapons and their “mystique” you see in a lot of these mass shooters social media histories.
We used to have this and shooting clubs in high schools.
I mean my children see it every day with their father, so…
Every one of my vehicles has a rifle and handgun in it as well. (locked away of course where children can’t access them)
3 Likes
You are quite responsible with your firearms (as you should be) but many are not. I think this is part of the problem. There needs to be harsher punishments for those who don’t properly secure their firearms. The amount of young kids who get hold of improperly stored weapons in the house is quite high.
Why would that be a problem?
Why not? I think it would have to be made clear(to kids as well as school personnel that may expect guards to do things other than guard) that the armed folks are there to protect children and school personnel, and not to punish them, break up fights, ensure class attendance, prevent smoking in the bathrooms, etc.
2 Likes
This goes too far in the realm of punishing people for the actions of others. Punishing inaction should never be a crime.
Even punishing parents criminally for the actions of their minor children is a very scary precedent to set.
1 Like
I would argue that not properly securing firearms puts a child in danger. There shouldn’t be preemptive punishment (like home checks and what not randomly) but if your child injures (or worse) themselves with your firearms, that should carry significant punishment. They were exposed to something that hurt them (same way parents can get charged if kids are exposed to pornography and the like).