You are missing the point. Gun ownership makes civilians less secure in such a scenario. Well in any scenario, but especially that scenario.
US gun ownership vs WW2 reality
- Thread starter nik2016
- Start date
The Germans intended to wipe out the Poles anyways. Which groups owned more guns was a negligible factor in German racial policies.
After September Campaign some Polish units continued fighting. Henryk Dobrzański Hubal was commander of such unit, that after fall of Poland fought as guerillas around Holy Cross Mountains (he is sometimes regarded as first guerilla fighter of ww2, but there is impossible to say that he really was the first one).
As response to his guerilla war Germans burned several villages and executed random villagers. Dobrzański was shocked by consequences of his actions and tried to distance himself from civilians to not put them at risk. He was eventually killed, and it is likely that one of local peasants betrayed his location to Germans, as he didn't want to see his own village burned due to accusation of supporting partizants.
A reminder that the possession of firearms does not combat-ready infantry make. Without training that may or not not be available (or even accepted), the average all-American gun owner is more likely a liability than an asset.
The enemy, be they Japanese, German or whoever are more likely to commit atrocities if the enemy civilians have guns.
Far better would be the British preparations with a Home Guard being trained up and prepared over time for invasion alongside splinter cells carrying out guerrilla actions from behind the lines.
Mass gun ownership means one yahoo firing off can get an entire village massacred. Discipline would be key.
The USA is far more sparsely populated than any country in Europe, so has far more areas in which they can operate pretty secretly without risking civilian lives. A lot of transport links are in sparsely inhabited areas too, so it'd be hard to keep watch over all of them.
Mass gun ownership (preferably )at lest in the cotext of responding to an invasion) of militarily usefull firearms) also means more weapons are avaliable for use by partizans. It is up to the state and or its citizens to decide how and when to use avaliable civilian firearms if they are invaded (as well as to decide what types of firearms their civilans should be allowed to own). I don't think one can really generalize re this. What makes sense for one country may not make sense for another. That being said I am inclined to agree that using avaliable firearms to arm home guard type units likley makes sense but subsequent partizan activities may also make sense.
Last edited:
Also, don't assume there's going to be no pre-organised resistance. Any force with even a whiff of a chance of succeeding is going to have to be huge, so there's going to be little surprise. I'd fully expect something like the Auxiliary Units the British organised and trained to be set up well before the actual invasion comes.