If every Jew wiped out an entire squad, there would be no need to go anywhere.
Heck, if every Jew just managed to kill only “1” German policeman then it would have been enough to stop Hitler.
Lyudmila Pavlichenko was a Soviet sniper during World War II, credited with 309 kills, and is regarded as the most successful female sniper in history.
Born in Bila Tserkva on July 12, 1916, Pavlichenko moved to Kiev with her family at the age of fourteen. There she joined a shooting club and developed into a sharpshooter, while working as a grinder at the Kiev Arsenal factory
In June 1941, 24-year old Pavlichenko was in her fourth year of studying history at the Kiev University when Nazi Germany began its invasion of the Soviet Union.
…she became one of 2,000 female snipers in the Red Army
You are obviously ignorant of the 20 million Soviets who “traded their lives for some vague sense of fighting against German occupation”.
Doesn’t the fact that she was a member of the actual Red Army go against your point about civilian resistance?
And if the Jews had had an atom bomb, WWII would never have started!
You are aware that members of the Red Army are, by definition, not civilians in this context, correct?
Nor is someone who has been shooting for a decade really untrained.
What difference does it make if Hitler is stopped by armed civilians or by soldiers?
The point is for everyone to never surrender, to never give up, give total resistance, and to keep fighting - a la: the game plans of Russia and Switzerland.
Besides, everyone in the military, was once upon a time a civilian. Most, nearly all, of the United States armed forces in WW2 were civilians in the 1930’s. Lyudmila Pavlichenko was also a civilian, a student and a factory worker, at the outbreak of World War 2.
Unfortunately, there were no Lyudmila Pavlichenko’s in France, nor in Belgium, nor in Luxemburg, nor in Holland, nor in Poland, etc. The rest of Europe just “layed down” .
That might have worked if Hitler invaded Fantasyland.
Who cares? The Germans that Lyudmila Pavlichenko shot are still D - E - A - D
And this is the point where we go around in circles, as you’ve ignored the factual refutations of this nonsense.
Snipers have been involved in every war since rifles were invented. None ever won a war. But the reason the difference is important is because you’re the one who has been arguing that it’s civilian resistance that’s important in fighting off an invader.
Russia defeated Germany because it outproduced Germany in tanks, planes and bombs, had more resources and had better battle plans. Not because a bunch of snipers shot at random German soldiers.
True, they weren’t. But the British at least were apparently prepared to do so.
We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
This wasn’t just bluster & bravado on Churchill’s part. I’ve read memoirs from elderly British folks who were there at the time…they state that the public was stockpiling brickbats, molotov cocktails, scatterguns, whatever they could get and by all accounts were prepared to engage a German invasion force in hand-to-hand combat.
An armed and grimly determined populace, especially defending a natural fortress like Great Britain- or Switzerland for that matter - can in fact be a powerful counterincentive to invasion. Yes, they probably could be overrun eventually, by a superior force, but at what awful cost to the invaders?
FWIW, the West coast of the U.S. was also under some threat of invasion from Japan though the situation was nowhere near so dire as that in England. But the same attitude prevailed among the civilian population, most of whom were
armed; ready and even eager to engage the enemy if it came to that.
SS
It’s worth noting, though, that Operation Sealion wasn’t canceled because of expected civilian resistance - it’s because the UK won the Battle of Britain.
No I am not.
YOU!!! are the one who has been arguing for civilian resistance alone. It is YOU who has been focusing for some strange unknown reason on civilians instead of the military.
MY argument has always been that the entire country, both military and civilians should resist an invader and should resist Hitler, but that it is the military’s primary responsibility, it is the organized military that should be doing the most to resist an invader since that is their full time job.
MY point is that 99%+ of the resistance against Hitler should have come from the military.
Compare and contrast.
You should not be focusing so much only on the civilian factors of World War 2, because you will never understand WW2 if you primarily focus on the civilians. Most of the action of WW2 involved the military and the regular armies/navies/air corp on both sides.
I am trying to be helpful to you understanding ww2.
Again, compare and contrast. At this point, I have to conclude that either your reading comprehension is abysmal or you’re going for laughs. I do have to admit I’ve never seen the “assign your failed argument to your opponent” strategy employed before.
- Originally Posted by Susanann
If everyone in Europe determinedly fought back against Germany, then we would not have needed the Americans to come to the rescue on D-Day.
Quote:
=============================================================
- Originally Posted by Susanann
MY argument has always been that **the entire country, both military and civilians **should resist an invader and should resist Hitler, but that it is the military’s primary responsibility, it is the organized military that should be doing the most to resist an invader since that is their full time job.
Same thing.
Originally Posted by Susanann
You should not be focusing so much only on the civilian factors of World War 2, because you will never understand WW2 if you primarily focus on the civilians. Most of the action of WW2 involved the military and the regular armies/navies/air corp on both sides.
I am trying to be helpful to you understanding ww2.
OK, I am going to give up on you.
You are going to have to go and read up on WW2 first before I can help you.
WW2 was a big war, and it involved lots of military battles. Some people resisted aggressors, and some(most of Europe) gave up and lost.
Quit trying to separate out civilian actions and civilian deaths, you are only getting more confused.
Come back when you have the basics down.
Why do you think I’m not addressing conventional military campaigns when in the two posts you’ve accused me of focusing on civilian forces, I directly credited conventional military campaigns for victories? Does your screen show the opposite of words to you?