70th anniversary of start of WWII

[bill bolton]

might be a case of using stats creatively..

Indeed.

Here's something more recent .... http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fir ... 62010.html

• 'The share of murders by firearms has more than halved in the past 20 years, as the use of knives rose substantially. Only three of the 89 people murdered in NSW that year were shot - compared with nine in Victoria and 10 in Queensland.
  
  The share of murders committed by firearms in Australia was slightly above that in England and Wales but lower than in Canada and the US.
  
  "None of these other nations is displaying such a strong decrease in firearm homicides over time as Australia," the report said.'

Cheers,

Bill B.

[killer]

The US General (retired) and the German couple who sat with us at our French host's dining table thought that had the US entered the war in 1939 then the Soviet forces would never have been able to seize power in so much of eastern Europe. We were unanimous that the early removal of Hitler would also have saved the lives not only of military personnel but also millions of civilians of all races and creeds.

It is, of course, pure speculation as one cannot change the past.

Before writing off Neville Chamberlain may I suggest that you all do some research on the man and his achievements. Between the Munich agreement and the outbreak of war he poured millions into building the strength of the RAF. Without the added strength we'd probably have lost the Battle of Britain.

[killer]

@Bill Bolton, Is Tony Kelly related to Ned Kelly?

Seriously, it is good to hear that gun crime is reducing at such a rate. The increase in knife crimes is alarming. We have that problem in our big cities too.

[qviri]

SO, would a well armed and really angry polish people have put up a fight against german invaders.. ?
as i understand it this is not exactly the first time poland was used as a place to fight..
if this is the case i would expect that the polish would have had a well armed civilian self defense force..

Remove the "would", please - there was no shortage of resistance in Poland both during and after the September 1939 campaign.

[sb102]

I do not quite understand what do you mean by that. Do you want to know what kind of internal situation was in Poland ? Or perhaps you want to know what were the causes of the attack ?

This MIGHT provide the answers you need - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_(1939)

nono..
sorry.. it was not well expressed..
what i was asking is, were polish citizens able to keep weapons for self defense..?
here in the USA we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms..
which it is said disuaded the japanese from invading the west coast (no mention was made of their supply lines being so long or vulnerable)..

Ah, OK.


There wasn't any right to civilians keep any form of firearms back then (and this continues on to this very day). Instead there was a MANDATORY army service back then. So this means that during the mobilisation every man, that has been earlier in the army had known how to use a weapon. I think that this somewhat would compensate the lack of public keeping of firearms. Also, keep in mind that QUANTITY of guns will not compensate the QUALITY of traind soliders, who know how to use it (I belive that many of people in the USA just keep guns - not regularly attend to shooting ranges).

Now for a little off-topic (sorry for that, but I think it will amaze some of the American members - it did amaze my native speaker from America while I attended to a foreign language school) about the obtaining of guns for an average Joe here in Poland.

First you have to have a good argument that will help you obtaining you a gun. "Self-defence" isn't good at all. But carying vast amounts of money with you is. Then you attend a number of doctors - psychologycal, motoric and eye examinations are a must. Then you are verified by the police - if you commited something earlier forget about a gun. After that you have to attend on a special course that will familiarize you with the weapon. If you pass all of it THEN you will get a license for your gun (you can ONLY buy a gun with this card). Also you won't buy ammo for the gun without the licence - every transaction of that kind is verified by the police. I know that this is hard, but this keeps armed robberys and homicides at a low level (on the other hand, if you want to obtain a gun, you can always buy it illegaly - as in other countries).

[qviri]

what i was asking is, were polish citizens able to keep weapons for self defense..?
here in the USA we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms..
which it is said disuaded the japanese from invading the west coast (no mention was made of their supply lines being so long or vulnerable)..

SO, would a well armed and really angry polish people have put up a fight against german invaders.. ?
as i understand it this is not exactly the first time poland was used as a place to fight..
if this is the case i would expect that the polish would have had a well armed civilian self defense force..

I am sorry. Against all better judgment, I am going to have to write a second reply to this.

Forget Japan -- the comparison is ill fitting due to vast differences of geography in question. Nazis invading Poland didn't have to worry about a thin slice of coast separated from rest of country by a vast mountain range, nor about the planet's largest ocean between the aggressor and the defender.

Imagine it's the middle of the 20th century. The United States of America have had strained relations with Canada for several decades; there had been a war 30 years ago that ended pretty much in a stalemate. The Canadians have a military with strength comparable to yours, if not a bit better. On your other border, you have another country with strained relations, one whom you historically haven't been very friendly with, with territory going back and forth between the two for centuries. Only 29 years ago you have almost miraculously repulsed their offensive at, say, Dallas.

Rightfully concerned, you make a pact with Russia and Denmark, promising to engage Canada on another front should one of the countries be attacked.

In 1938, Canada annexes St. Pierre and Miquelon, claiming the islands to be substantially Canadian. You are a bit worried, but decide it's not really worth raising a fuss over. Besides, you've never really liked the Miquelonians anyway.

After escalating tension, the Canadians attack through the prairies on September 1, 1939. There are no significant natural barriers that could impede their progress. For someone living in a town or a village in North Dakota, the scenario looks as follows:

0) If you are lucky, your town is not bombed into rubble. The planes are too high for you to do anything with the weapons you have in your household.
1) An infantry division shows up at the town's welcome sign. They have pistols, machine guns, grenades, the whole nine yards. If you are unlucky, they have tanks as support. If you are really unlucky, they have heavy artillery to finish what the bombers started.
2) You have a choice of either going with rifles against machine guns and bomber planes, or laying low for now. Chances are you figure you're more useful alive than dead. Maybe your friends in Mexico or Hawaii might be able to air-drop you some machine guns so you have a chance in battle later on.
3) Two days later, Russia and Denmark declare war on Canada. They realize they have nothing to attack Canada with. Also, they kind of like maple syrup. Canada continues to pour the army into your country, leaving the other borders very loosely defended.
4) After the front has passed, Canadians show up in your town, rounding up leaders and educated folks. They have machine guns and are not reluctant to destroy opposition by any means necessary. The resolve starts with the Prime Minister and continues wholly down to the line soldiers, who finally get to get revenge for the wrongs of the last war. The Canadians are unconcerned with any international opinion that might be forming against their brutality, and have an excellent propaganda machine to keep their population in control. They have some success in convincing the world they're in fact not that bad, really.
4a) You realize you still have your rifle and pistol. You realize you can do nothing of value with them and hope the Canadians don't find the cache and line you and your family against a wall.
5) Sixteen days later, Mexico invades from the south, claiming to "liberate". Unknown to you, Mexicans and Canadians pre-arranged for a border somewhere along the San Francisco - Oklahoma City - Atlanta line.
6) You finally get some half-decent military-grade weapons and organize a small resistance/guerilla organization. There is some disagreement within the organization whether you should be friendly with Russia and Denmark, or Mexico. You inflict some damage on the Canadians, but not really enough to substantially affect their control of your country. It might be easier if you had more heavy artillery. Pistols aren't really all that handy.
7) Having overrun your country, Canada leaves behind a part of army with orders and ability to ruthlessly crush any resistance with overwhelming force. They proceed to invade Siberia and Greenland. Russia had expected them to invade Moscow via North Pole.
8) Your friends from across the ocean, Great Britain, finally get involved two years later. They send aid to Mexico and help slowly push Canadians back to their original borders.
9) Having now amassed a decent-sized collection of military weaponry, you stage a full-out uprising in Kansas City, with verbal support of Mexico. The Canadian air force bombs the city, while Mexican air force does nothing. Canadians send in reinforcements, with Mexican army standing on a plain 30 km from the city, watching the fireworks. After 63 days of very limited air and zero ground assistance, you give up. Kansas City is now 85% rubble.
10) With support of your allies, Mexico's military takes control of most of your country. They install a puppet government and destroy any opposition with resolve similar to Canadians'. Britain, Russia, and Denmark support their efforts.

Please tell me, where does civilian possession of firearms fit into this scenario?

To answer your question:

SO, would a well armed and really angry polish people have put up a fight against german invaders.. ?

No.

(Unless your definition of "well armed people" includes a CKM and a cache of Panzerfausts in each household.)

[dsvochak]

qviri's post above sounds as though it may be the plot for a remake of "Red Dawn", but he's right. The answer is "No".

[sb102]

qviri,

I salute you. That was a well-placed answer. The Blitzkrieg tactic utilized heaviest equipment the Nazis got. Also one of the main points were carpet bombings. Even if you were armed to the teeth like John Rambo you wouldn't stop this swarm. Issuing plain old guns to civilians against that kind of enemy (as mentioned by Bill) is like trying to fly to the moon on a blender... .


dsvochak,

This isn't just fiction. This happend real life and in color. Just change the USA to Poland... .

[killer]

A brilliant post by qviri. What more can be said?

[Kyocera]

Oh my yes, that is a thought provoking post, hmm imagine that Canada actually being involved in a war, yes that is quite imaginative, and truly good fantasy. More of that please.

And as for the reply about the US not going in to take out germany earlier, politics ruled the day back then just exactly like it does today, you're lucky we finally did go in albeit late, you'd be speaking english as a second language old bean.

[qviri]

Oh my yes, that is a thought provoking post, hmm imagine that Canada actually being involved in a war, yes that is quite imaginative, and truly good fantasy. More of that please.

I see American schools are still quite good at teaching reading comprehension, and American patriotic media in keeping citizens informed.

Nobody had mentioned the U.S. in any military context in this thread until you posted.

Stop flaming!

[Kyocera]

Oh I don't agree with your little fantasy scenario so I'm a sensless american flamer,
interesting.

[qviri]

Oh I don't agree with your little fantasy scenario so I'm a sensless american flamer,
interesting.

I had created the, as you are kind enough to call it, "fantasy scenario", to illustrate why civilian-owned firearms would not have had an impact on the outcome of Nazi invasion of Poland. I have used the countries of USA, Canada, Mexico, Russia, Denmark, Great Britain, and the territorial collectivity of Saint Pierre and Miquelon only as examples since the geography in such constructed example is remotely comparable to geography involved in Nazi invasion of Poland. I had believed my use of them in a fictional scenario would be obvious to the reader. I did not, at any point, mean to shatter anyone's stereotypes of Canada by implying any military prowess upon the real country; I am sorry if anyone misread it as such.

Please, present a fantasy scenario comparable to the Nazi invasion of Poland in which civilian-owned firearms play a significant role, or otherwise provide a sensible reason why my fantasy scenario is not suitable. ("imagine that Canada actually being involved in a war, yes that is quite imaginative" is not a sensible reason.)

Or, for that matter, post anything productive.

[BillMorrow]

might be a case of using stats creatively..

Indeed.

Here's something more recent .... http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fir ... 62010.html

• 'The share of murders by firearms has more than halved in the past 20 years, as the use of knives rose substantially. Only three of the 89 people murdered in NSW that year were shot - compared with nine in Victoria and 10 in Queensland.
  
  The share of murders committed by firearms in Australia was slightly above that in England and Wales but lower than in Canada and the US.
  
  "None of these other nations is displaying such a strong decrease in firearm homicides over time as Australia," the report said.'

Cheers,

Bill B.

bill..
interesting reading that Sydney Herald article..

However, in 2006-07 six times as many people in NSW died from injuries inflicted by hand and feet, than by guns. And knives have long since overtaken guns as the main murder weapon Australia-wide, the data showed.

what are the raw numbers..?

now it should be obvious that i firmly believe that a well armed population is a really courteous population..

i also believe that there are many many really bad people loose in the world..

so several thoughts occur in relation to OZ..

will lives be saved if the population were able to own and carry handguns..?

and..

will the next "amnesty target" be hands and feet..?

[BillMorrow]

SO, would a well armed and really angry polish people have put up a fight against german invaders.. ?
as i understand it this is not exactly the first time poland was used as a place to fight..
if this is the case i would expect that the polish would have had a well armed civilian self defense force..

Remove the "would", please - there was no shortage of resistance in Poland both during and after the September 1939 campaign.

ok, but guerilla warfare works..
see the soviet incursion into afghanistan..
7th century against 20th century..


so the men who are armed and able could have taken to the forests and countryside to start a war of attrition against the invaders..
if the canadians or mexican "liberators" got close to me i would work to repel them..
molotov cocktails, thermite grenades, IED's, good tactics against a large and easily found force would, in time, work..

when george washington lost the first battle of the revolutionary war, and the second skirmish he was near done..
trenton was his saving moment..

if you give up too soon, you will surely die..
if you don't give up you may still die but it would be with the knowledge that you went down fighting tyranny..

it was not until the colonial's (who became US) started using hit and run tactics that we found a way to defeat the largest and most well armed force in the world to that day..
(and france was a help once they figuered we had a good chance of winning)

i guess one could ask those polish jews who were exterminated if a well armed resistance from the moment the war started would have helped..

at this point there is no way to know..

[BillMorrow]

**SNIP SNIP**

SO, would a well armed and really angry polish people have put up a fight against german invaders.. ?

No.

(Unless your definition of "well armed people" includes a CKM and a cache of Panzerfausts in each household.)

i disagree with your reply..
see my comments above..
you don't need a browning machine gun clone or a RPG to take out a few errant soldaten in a small ambush..
just the will and a decent weapon..
of course i admit that hindsight is always more perfect than foresight but i think the handwriting was on the wall if you were polish and you had seen the destruction of the polish nation as had happened before..

i like your parallel, BUT the USA is so much more than canada and mexico combined, so such a thing would never happen..
but it IS good reading..
have canada and mexico invade the four corners states even though there is no canadian border with utah and colorado.. ok, maybe add wyoming and montana just to have the canadian border in place..

in short, poland was finished and in my mind better to die for something than to die hiding under the stairs..

[qviri]

ok, but guerilla warfare works..
see the soviet incursion into afghanistan..

The Soviets were facing unfavourable territory, economic problems, a war fairly unpopular at home (inasmuch as anything government-backed was really unsupported in USSR through most of its history), and of course enemy weapons supplied by the CIA. I don't think these were Smith & Wessons, were they? I seem to recall anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons...

But absolutely, guerilla warfare works, after the front had passed. By reading what you wrote, I had assumed you meant an armed population might have helped in repulsing the first invasion, which in the world of machine guns, mechanized warfare, and dive bombers seems downright silly to me. Can you clarify which one you meant?

Even when going guerilla, if you want to, in your own words, "put up a fight", as opposed to just ruffling feathers by killling off a few lost soldiers (which, BTW, would have been grounds for retaliatory razing a village to ground and killing all inhabitants by Nazi standards -- would that really be worth it?), you are going to need more than a rifle in every home, or any other conceivable form of civilian weapon possession. Otherwise, you're just a mosquito buzzing around the ear for the sake of buzzing itself.

War of attrition doesn't work when your enemy is able and willing to eliminate you faster than you can eliminate him.

i like your parallel, BUT the USA is so much more than canada and mexico combined, so such a thing would never happen..

Again, I meant the scenario to be purely fictional except for the geography. Obviously at the present time Canadian army would have no chance of running over more than 5 km (3 mi for you ) of American soil.

i guess one could ask those polish jews who were exterminated if a well armed resistance from the moment the war started would have helped..

at this point there is no way to know..

I'm not sure what the point of this comment was?

I appreciate all the historical references to the American revolutionary war but sadly they are by and large irrelevant to the conflict and discussion at hand.

[mattbiernat]

i guess one could ask those polish jews who were exterminated if a well armed resistance from the moment the war started would have helped..

no it was impossbile. the germans kept too many tanks, airplanes and artillery in poland for any kind of armed resistance to sucessfully repel them. we actually did try an armed uprising in 1944 and we held on to Warsaw for 2 months but it was put down with overwhelming bombing and artillery fire.
this is the same problem that iraqis were facing with americans, they were able to inflict some casulties but there was no way that they would have the power to drive U.S. out of their country. every time they tried to take over certain city, they would get bombed to stone age.

+1 to qviri's story

[BillMorrow]

**snip**
no it was impossbile. the germans kept too many tanks, airplanes and artillery in poland for any kind of armed resistance to sucessfully repel them. we actually did try an armed uprising in 1944 and we held on to Warsaw for 2 months but it was put down with overwhelming bombing and artillery fire.
this is the same problem that iraqis were facing with americans, they were able to inflict some casulties but there was no way that they would have the power to drive U.S. out of their country. every time they tried to take over certain city, they would get bombed to stone age.

tanks.. pooh.. big targets waiting for mr. molotovs little drink.. they NEED infantry to protect them.. very over-rated when it comes to a student with a rose or a coke bottle filled with gasoline..

was it not the jews in the warsaw ghetto who rose up..?
(google may tell me i'm wrong, but why do the research when so many here will tell me i'm wrong )

but the warsaw uprising might have succeeded if iran had sent muslim extremists into warsaw with training and weapons, no..?

and if iran had tried to destabilize the government of poland with targeted assinations, bombs in polish churches and street markets the germans might have decided to redirect their efforts from carting 800k jews off to treblinka to putting down a trumped up tribal "insurgency"..

now, let me state again, that i am no war monger and i take to heart that chinese curse "may you live in interesting times!" but when bad people do bad things to anyone they dislike and their "swinging arm" gets too close to my nose it becomes time to "put up or shut up"..
i don't like guns, i'm a little afraid of guns, but its better to have a gun and never need it than to need a gun and not have it..

remember my little saying: "a well armed population is a really courteous population"..
if you google this you will find THIS thread..!

[killer]

It was a requirement in England from mediaevel times to train to shoot a longbow. It then became a requirement to bear arms. This became common law that it was everyone's right to bear arms. It suited the King, the barons, and, by having a trained militia, it saved having an army.

After the common land was grabbed by the nobles the whole thing was repealed as a law when the population used their weapons to kill game for food. Well, "We can't have common people eating our pheasants!", said the gentry.

So I can own a shotgun, and with difficulty I can own a rifle. A longbow is still my right. A crossbow is not.

The longbow can kill at a range of a quarter of a mile. It can pierce armour plate. It is a deadly weapon that can be reloaded quickly and easily. It is silent. It is legal in the UK. I don't know if they are legal elsewhere. It is a fat lot of use against tanks.

Molotov cocktails are more effective against old tanks but not modern ones. They require petrol (gasoline, essence). Hard to find when the foreign power takes over. The person delivering the cocktail is open to view and has a short life.

Jews and Muslims are probably not the best business partners but the idea is interesting against a common enemy.

A well-armed population may be courteous. That courtesy is unreal. An unarmed population is even more courteous and has to find a way to live in peace without recourse to threats ... except with a longbow.

We live in peace here.

[dsvochak]

tanks.. pooh.. big targets waiting for mr. molotovs little drink..

True enough with regard to World War II tanks and other armored vehicles. But only if you could get close enough.

I suspect Mr. Molotov's little drink has less utility against today's tanks. And no utility against dumb bombs let alone smart bombs.

[killer]

If anyone thinks the Canadian military has no guts for a fight then look up these facts on whatever search engine you prefer:

Vimy Ridge 1917, Dieppe 1942, D-day 1944.

I salute the fallen people of Canada who made such a difference.

[qviri]

tanks.. pooh.. big targets waiting for mr. molotovs little drink.. they NEED infantry to protect them.. very over-rated when it comes to a student with a rose or a coke bottle filled with gasoline..

And what of the planes and artillery?

was it not the jews in the warsaw ghetto who rose up..?
(google may tell me i'm wrong, but why do the research when so many here will tell me i'm wrong )

The Warsaw Ghetto uprising happened in first half of 1943; a second, Warsaw-wide uprising happened in second half of 1944 and was the 63-day-long uprising I had referenced earlier.

[BillMorrow]

If anyone thinks the Canadian military has no guts for a fight then look up these facts on whatever search engine you prefer:

Vimy Ridge 1917, Dieppe 1942, D-day 1944.

I salute the fallen people of Canada who made such a difference.

i know well how the canadians fought in WW2..
my step-father, an american, joined the RCAF c. 1938 and bombed germans in europe before bombing japanese in the CBI theatre as well as the japanese homeland near the end of WW2..
he flew them all..
the last was a B29 which engines had a tendency to shed prop blades and run away with unfortunate results for the air crew..

which was his undoing and cost him dearly..

you can google then maj. donald w. roberts for the full story..

i don't think anyone is calling canadians (or even the french) pansies or unwilling to fight when necessary..

like in 1939 when france and the UK failed to uphold their treaty obligations there are other considerations..

for me i deeply appreciate our canadian neghibors..
when i was in florida the snowbirds would come from quebec to avoid the winter..
lovely people..!

[BillMorrow]

tanks.. pooh.. big targets waiting for mr. molotovs little drink.. they NEED infantry to protect them.. very over-rated when it comes to a student with a rose or a coke bottle filled with gasoline..

And what of the planes and artillery?
**SNIP**

well, i am no tactician, but if there were small 3 or 4 man guerilla groups running around artillery would need a spotter and then to home in..

hit and run..
shoot and scoot.. if there is no target for the big bombs and arty shells what can they do..

fire ants are ferocious.. bite and sting..
run around biting until the big person crushes them, but more keep coming..
tell your exterminator you have fire ants in your house and they come QUICK..
they are small but can be deadly..

planes need to keep going.. can't stop for a look around..
and where were the smart bombs in 1939..?

you are going to keep finghing me on my belief that a well armed person/society is a safe society and continue to hold that a pacifist policy will save you from the bad people..

history does not agree with you..
i will accept your surrender..

[mattbiernat]

Bill, yes there were two uprisings in Poland. The first one was Warsaw Ghetto uprisings which lasted about 3 weeks and was faught mostly be the polish jews. The second one was the Warsaw uprising which lasted about 2 months and involved everyone.

[mattbiernat]

if there is no target for the big bombs and arty shells what can they do..

carpet bombing, that's why warsaw looked like hiroshima.

[dsvochak]

Where is kyocera when we need him? A military man would likely give a much better explanation.

Thermal imaging and thermal sighting
Laser and GPS guided munitions
Carpet bombing (or perhaps nuclear weapons?)
Zero CEP

you are going to keep finghing me on my beliefe system and continue to hold that a pacifist policy will save you from the bad people..

Twice incorrect: 1) No one is fighting your belief system; 2) No appears to hold a pacifist policy will “save us from the bad people”. I think what we’re holding is your approach won’t “save us from the bad people” if the bad people have modern military weapons and we have Mr. Molotov’s drink and hunting rifles.

[qviri]

if there is no target for the big bombs and arty shells what can they do..

carpet bombing, that's why warsaw looked like hiroshima.

+1

And this isn't just what we think; that's what actually happened.

"The city [Warsaw] must completely disappear from the surface of the earth and serve only as a transport station for the Wehrmacht. No stone can remain standing. Every building must be razed to its foundation." - Heinrich Himmler, 17 October, SS officers conference

How do you fight against that kind of resolve?

i don't think anyone is calling canadians (or even the french) pansies or unwilling to fight when necessary..

Though this discussion is off-topic, I thought that's quite exactly what Kyocera had in mind when he wrote:

Oh my yes, that is a thought provoking post, hmm imagine that Canada actually being involved in a war, yes that is quite imaginative, and truly good fantasy.

[BillMorrow]

i think kyocera was remarking on HIS perception of canadians current willingness to fight when necessary..
maybe its just an unwillingness to spill canadian blood for something less than immediate threats..

he did mention something about canada disbanding the canadian navy..?

i just don't know because i never thought of canadians as anything but the best of friends..