PDA

View Full Version : Did Hitler Ban Guns?


Sneevil
06-16-2000, 08:19 PM
After reading your article “Did Hitler Ban Gun Ownership”?, I remain unclear as to your
answer. You make an attempt to disprove various statements allegedly made by Hitler,
but appear not to have formulated a concise answer.
I would submit that yes, Hitler did ban gun ownership, and the subsequent result allowed
him to murder approximately 10 million people.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people
to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples
to carry arms have prepared their own fall."
-Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938
"If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most
stupid things."
-Adolph Hitler

Here is a link to the Weapons Law passed March 18, 1938 in Nazi Germany:
http://members.localnet.com/~bobg/ifa6.htm

Here is the text of the November 11, 1938 law prohibiting Jews from possessing firearms
(using the March 18th law as a basis)
http://www.aidoann.com/guncontrol.html

Here are the correlations between the Weapons Law of Nazi Germany, March 18, 1938
and Gun Control Act of 1968 here in the U.S.
http://www.coradpress.com/gun_control.htm

Whether or not Hitler initiated the gun ban, or built on prior law to accelerate the process
is moot. The point is that Hitler knew, and history has proven, that a disarmed citizenry
can and will be tyrannized and exterminated at will. The lesson here is that gun control is
progressive and dangerous for those who are unarmed.

David B
06-16-2000, 09:08 PM
The Mailbag item in qustion is at: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlergun.html

Sneevil said:
After reading your article “Did Hitler Ban Gun Ownership”?, I remain unclear as to your answer. You make an attempt to disprove various statements allegedly made by Hitler, but appear not to have formulated a concise answer. Well, actually, I did formulate a concise answer -- just not to the question in the title. I answered the question that was asked about the alleged quote, which is the root of the question about Hitler banning guns. The title was added when it was put on the board, and is just meant to be a short hook to explain the general gist of the Mailbag item. So it could have been titled, "Did Hitler really say the quote about banning guns in 1935 (or 1936)?" but that would be a bit long.

In rereading it now, I see that I focussed on the quote, probably because that is what people ask about most often (as evidenced by the fact that it has been debunked elsewhere).

So, yes, the title could have been clearer, and I probably could have been as well in my answer.

David B
06-17-2000, 02:07 PM
In taking a look at your links to write a follow-up to address the issue you raise, I see that the first link doesn't go where you say, but instead goes to a "gun control hall of fame." The problem is that several of the quotes it lists, including the Hitler one, were debunked by Cramer! That was the whole point of the answer I wrote, and you're sending people there as a credible link?

Sneevil
06-17-2000, 03:40 PM
The first link points to a page that lists various gun control laws passed by despotic nations during the last century (and the resultant murder counts of the populace).

The March 18, 1938 Nazi Germany law is included within that context.

Your assertion that 'Cramer' may have 'debunked' any alleged quotes by Adolf Hitler does not diminish the historical fact that Hitler did, in fact ban gun ownership/possession prior to the extermination of millions of innocent people.

David B
06-17-2000, 07:32 PM
Sneevil said:
Your assertion that 'Cramer' may have 'debunked' any alleged quotes by Adolf Hitler does not diminish the historical fact that Hitler did, in fact ban gun ownership/possession prior to the extermination of millions of innocent people.First question: Why did you put quotes around Cramer and debunked?

And, yes, he banned gun ownership for some people before exterminating millions. He also eliminated their freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and pretty much every freedom in our Bill of Rights.

FYI, I'm working on an addendum to the Mailbag answer.

dtilque
06-18-2000, 01:28 AM
A few months ago there was a letter to the editor in the local paper. It was from a veteran who was in Germany just after the war (and probably fought in the war).

According to this letter, the Germans were not disarmed by the Nazi government, but rather by the Allied occupiers. He recalled seeing hugh stacks in the street of guns turned in by German civilians. Everything from muzzle loaders to Lugers.

Admittedly, a letter to the editor is not an especially convincing document to base an argument on, but you could check it out and see if it is true.

Sneevil
06-18-2000, 10:17 AM
According to this letter, the Germans were not disarmed by the Nazi government, but rather by the Allied occupiers. He recalled seeing hugh stacks in the street of guns turned in by German civilians. Everything from muzzle loaders to Lugers.

If this is true, it serves to demonstrate that those who were armed lived, those who were not died.

hawthorne
06-18-2000, 10:26 AM
If this is true, it serves to demonstrate that those who were armed lived, those who were not died.
This is a complete 180, Sneevil. Previously you were suggesting that an armed civilian population would have prevented despotism. Now you say that it did nothing to stop it, but helped some survive.

In reality of course, whether Hitler adjusted gun laws or brought them in demonstrates nothing, just as his protection of badgers or adoption of a vegetarian diet demonstrates nothing.

picmr

Sneevil
06-18-2000, 01:23 PM
picmr said:
This is a complete 180, Sneevil. Previously you were suggesting that an armed civilian population would have prevented despotism. Now you say that it did nothing to stop it, but helped some survive.[quote]

Simply cause and effect. Those who allowed themselves to be disarmed went to the ovens. Those who remained armed survived. Not too complicated, is it? Or maybe you would care to explain how 6 million armed Jews could have been carted off like cattle to their slaughter?

and:
[quote]In reality of course, whether Hitler adjusted gun laws or brought them in demonstrates nothing, just as his protection of badgers or adoption of a vegetarian diet demonstrates nothing

The first half of that statement is correct, however, I don't understand how it relates to the second half. At the risk of offending the pc police, I quote myself:

Whether or not Hitler initiated the gun ban, or built on prior law to accelerate the process
is moot. The point is that Hitler knew, and history has proven, that a disarmed citizenry
can and will be tyrannized and exterminated at will. The lesson here is that gun control is
progressive and dangerous for those who are unarmed.

David B
06-18-2000, 01:36 PM
Go back and check the Mailbag item again. The addendum I mentioned has been added.

valor55
06-18-2000, 05:25 PM
I thought it was a good response on David's part to the question. I have several observations about his answer.

I find the parrallels between the German gun control laws and American ones interesting.

Germany (and now America) had laws requiring guns with serial numbers.

Germany (and now America) had laws requiring permits to purchase and carry firearms.

Germany (and now America) had age restrictions for possessing firearms.

Germany (and now America) had restrictions on types of ammo and firearm accessories that are legal.

Some of these restrictions are reasonable but many people today (Like Rosie O'Donnell) involved in the debate are calling for much more radical controls. This is a slippery slope.

The Nazis exempted themselves but prevented their political rivals from gaining these permits. Politicians in America have the protection of Federal Law Enforcement agents who are exempt from restrictions on carrying, purchasing, type of ammo used and the types of guns and gun features they purchase.

I understand that's all okay now because "the economy is good" but history shows we are likely in for hard times in the future. It's cyclical and we are not destined for this prosperity forever. The Nazi's took power in Germany and implemented totalitarianism. Who is to say that a charismatic leader won't take power here and use loopholes like Executive Orders to implement policies which take away freedom and liberty. Deja vu?

Boris B
06-18-2000, 08:25 PM
valor55, what do you mean by "... loopholes like Executive Orders"? Loopholes in what?

I find the parrallels between the German gun control laws and American ones interesting. I find them uninteresting.

Germany (and now America) had laws requiring permits to purchase and carry firearms.What current American laws are you talking about? The National Firearms Act of 1934 has permit requirements; it is hardly a recent law and the requirements apply to machineguns, suppressors, short-barreled shotguns, and the like. Usually, pro-gun people argue (incorrectly) that machineguns are irrelevant because they are illegal; are you arguing they should be available without registration? I can't tell.

Germany (and now America) had age restrictions for possessing firearms.So does Switzerland. Why did you leave it out?

Germany (and now America) had restrictions on types of ammo and firearm accessories that are legal.Germany (and now America) had law against robbing banks. Coincidence?

Here's a parallel: Weimar Germany, like the U.S. today, was inhabited by heavily-armed right-wing militias (e.g. the Freikorps in old Germany, the Freemen in the modern U.S.) with anti-government agendas. In both cases, militia members argue that their nation is governed by traitorous lackeys who serve foreign enemies. The fringe of the militias, in each case, will occasionally try violent means (the beer-hall putsch or the Oklahoma City bombing) to overthrow the government; the craftier centers are content to stick with electoral politics, veiled threats, and street agitation to gain power. In both cases, right-wing militias criticize the state for being alternately monolithically evil or hopelessly divided and ineffectual.

Am I comparing anti-government extremists in so-called "militias" to Nazis? Only to the degree that the government and anti-gun people have been compared to Nazis.

Gunter
06-19-2000, 06:29 AM
I am refrained by law from speaking about certain subjects touched in this thread. I suggest readers who can manage german look at the site below...

Sneevil
06-19-2000, 09:17 AM
SDStaffer David:
Thanks for the addendum and the comprehensive list of cites and references.

Gunter:
Appreciate the link, but I don't read German.

Anybody:
Who can read German and provide a summary/interpretaion of Gunter's link?

jcatcher
06-19-2000, 10:36 AM
As a supporter of gun control initiatives (generally), I was interested in finding out the truth of the Hitler/gun control issue, as it seems to come up in many discussions on the subject. I look to "The Straight Dope" for, well, the straight dope, so I have to say I am a little disappointed to see the answer containing more than a little politican spin.
"Did gun control, then, pave the way for the Nazi rise to power?" Strawman alert!! This is not the question, nor is it related to the question, but it is an easily conquered argument. This is exactly what I look to the SD to avoid seeing. If the answer is X, say it's X, and move on. I can take it. Later

C K Dexter Haven
06-19-2000, 10:46 AM
The question posed was whether Hitler single-handedly disarmed Germany. The answer, given by David, was no.

The person asking the question noted the inference, that gun control leads to totalitarianism. It is hard to let such an inference go by, without comment.

I find the parallels between Nazi Germany and the US, made above, ... well, I was gonna say, stupid. How about the parallels to present-day Canada, where guns are extensively controlled? or to present-day Britain, where guns are extensively controlled?

The Nazis were out to purge the country of any opposition and of any "undesirables" like Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Slavs, etc. In the face of that outrage, taking something as trivial as gun licensing as the point of comparison, just plain misses the mark. You might as well note that they flew their flag at political rallys, and we do that too. Hmpfh.

Arnold Winkelried
06-19-2000, 11:07 AM
originally posted by Sneevil:
Anybody:
Who can read German and provide a summary/interpretaion of Gunter's link?


Well, my high school german isn't as good as it used to be, but what I got from the link is that it's an article saying that Switzerland shouldn't join the European Union, and isn't really guilty of hiding money that was put in swiss banks in World War II by jewish victims of the Nazis.

Mojo
06-19-2000, 12:56 PM
I agree with Jcatcher that the answer was not complete. Perhaps statistics of gun ownership from that time are not readily available, but I think to answer the original question ("Did he effect total gun control in Germany, or is this a bit of modern fiction to lend weight to the gun-lover crowd?"), one would need to know how many non-nazi officers owned guns, not just what laws were on the books. I have a very hard time believing DavidB's statement that gun control was enacted, "but only for the Jews". Perhaps someone will provide proof that shows I'm wrong but I can't imagine gypsies, homosexuals, slavs, blacks, et. al. allowed to possess firearms either.

Chronos
06-19-2000, 01:47 PM
Quoth CKDextHavn:
they flew their flag at political rallys, and we do that too. Hmpfh.
When were you ever at a political rally where we flew Nazi Germany's flag? Just so you don't start thinking that you have a monopoly on corny jokes, you understand.

Boris B
06-19-2000, 02:24 PM
On Gunter's link, I went to babelfish.altavista.com
http://babelfish.altavista.com/translate.dyn;$sessionid$2STM5BIAAG2UVUPXYKHSFEQ
I don't know if this kind of link will work but I may as well try it.

Anyway, here is an excerpt, no more graceful than you'd expect a translator to be, but better than I could do without taking several hours, The majority of Swiss and Swiss rejects a further increase of the foreigner number. The majority of Swiss and Swiss wants to remain also in the future gentleman in the own house and holds nothing by an European Union membership. The majority of Swiss and Swiss does not have the nose from the rushing campaign against our country full and feels urge to pay Jewish organizations for not committed measurement acts of penalties.
After the translation ends, the writer talks about how political correctness makes it difficult to frankly discuss racial issues. I have no idea wwhat the overall point was.

David B
06-19-2000, 05:58 PM
Mojo -- the Jews were the only ones singled out in the law I mentioned (late 1938). Nobody else was. So, like I said, total gun control was enacted for them.

Boris B
06-20-2000, 10:55 AM
By the way, I mean, "no more graceful than a COMPUTER translator".

On that "Swiss and Swiss" thing - the original uses schweizerinnen und Schweizer - female and male Swiss. The translator was just simplifying.

Mojo
06-20-2000, 11:22 AM
David, I'm not arguing the fact that Jews were the only people mentioned in the 1938 law. What I am wondering is how available guns were to the general populace aside from Nazi soldiers and Jews. Just because there's no law(s) prohibiting firearm ownership doesn't mean that they could own firearms.

David B
06-20-2000, 09:51 PM
Well, I think that was kind of explained. The previous government passed the gun law to try to take guns away from the Nazis and Communists, who were fighting each other. Hitler used that law to prohibit guns from those he didn't like. So how available? Not very, unless the Nazis wanted you to have one or you managed to illegally obtain one.

Gunter
06-21-2000, 01:12 AM
Illegally obtaining a gun was/is still out of the question for a nation composed of such law abiding citizens as the germans. The morality of a law is not to be challenged in the german mind.

Imagine for a moment the following scenario: The German Communists win the 1926 elections, impose single party rule (SOP for Communists), join the Soviet Union (as the German Soviet Socialist Republic), which then annexes Poland (Polish Soviet Socialist Republic). Germany is now the powerhouse of Soviet industry, Ukraine the breadbasket, and Russia/Siberia the oil supplier. The British Government whines about Poland, but does not declare war.

Encouraged by success in Germany, Communists are either elected or couped into power in all of eastern and central Europe, including Austria and Italy (which provides all year harbour facilities on the Mediterranean Sea, complementing North Sea and Baltic harbours).

Mass produced tanks - a russian novelty - quickly overcome resistance in Benelux, France and Spain, where they have been called in to "assist in the quelling of civil disruption".

Mojo
06-21-2000, 10:09 AM
DavidB- Thank you. I did read the addendum you posted but must've glossed over the "undoubted reliability" part which answers what I was asking. The laws were already there, they were just enforced differently when the nazis came to power.

Conteacher
06-24-2000, 02:16 AM
I'm a newbie here, so I'll make sure to offend as many people as possible. As Europe has had a long history of semi-civilised stabilty, guns had been controlled. There was no "Wild West". Guns had long been controlled in Germany before Hitler. Also, any idiot who thinks that private ownership of guns can control tyranny, was obviously asleep when the FBI taught David Koresh how to properly use firearms.

Sneevil
06-27-2000, 11:51 PM
As Europe has had a long history of semi-civilised stabilty, guns had been controlled. There was no "Wild West".

Hitler, Stalin and Milosovich 'civilised'? (and that's only during the last century)

Also, any idiot who thinks that private ownership of guns can control tyranny, was obviously asleep when the FBI taught David Koresh how to properly use firearms

Gassing and burning women and children "taught" David Koresh? "taught" him what?

Your grip on reality is so weak, I'm wondering which mental institution you're posting from????

Czarcasm
06-28-2000, 12:13 AM
That's funny-the newest testimony from members of Mr. Koresh's cult is that the fire was started by his little group, NOT the Feds.

Danielinthewolvesden
06-28-2000, 04:17 AM
I doubt if a lack of Gun Control would have stopped Hitler from coming to power, or persecuting the Jews and others. However, having guns to fight back would have led to more "warsaw uprisings" and less people led like lambs to the slaughter. My people were led into those camps, also, and altho some did fight back, I beleive dying after taking one of the Nazis down 1st is a better way to go than dying helpless. Even a few 10's of thousands of Nazis dead would have made the world a better place.

C K Dexter Haven
06-28-2000, 07:30 AM
Sneevil: <<Your grip on reality is so weak, I'm wondering which mental institution you're posting from???? >>

[moderator hat on] I'm letting this stand, but it's in a sort of grey area.... coming close to an insult of a type not permitted in this forum. Treading near the edge of a fuzzy line.

This is a forum for polite interchange of ideas. You wanna do name-calling, go to the forum called BBQ PIT. [/moderator hat off]

Gunter
06-28-2000, 09:00 AM
Why did the Hungarian Jews not resist deporation to concentration Camps?

C K Dexter Haven
06-28-2000, 11:17 AM
Most of those being deported, whether Jews or others, believed the Big Lie -- that they were being transported to work camps. Life was miserable, but they didn't imagine the horrifying reality, that the Nazis planned a systematic extermination. Germany, after all, represented the height of civilization, in music, in philosophy, in film and arts, etc.

Resistance, in any form, meant certain and immediate death; they hoped that compliance gave them a chance at life.

Danielinthewolvesden
06-28-2000, 09:36 PM
I agree with CKD, BUT- some did not fight back, as they had nothing to fight back with. In the later period it was starting to get more obvious that the camps were death traps. Unfortunately it was too late for many of the 1st victims of Nazi oppression, ie the Jews. Some of my people became partisans, and fought back in the Carpathian mts. Others were deported to the "work camps". The survival rate was about the same- grim, but it is better to die fighting, IF you can. For most German Jews, they had no opportunity to do so, nor the knowledge of what was going to happen.

If there had been more guns, there would have been more dead Nazis. And that's a GOOD thing.

Chronos
06-30-2000, 05:45 PM
Just curious, Daniel, but who are your people?

Danielinthewolvesden
07-01-2000, 04:47 AM
There is a tiny (almost) country in Europe, known variously as Ruthenia, Galicia, Trans-Carpatho Ukraine, etc. If you define it as a "country" (It was an independent country for exactly one day, but a semi-autonomous part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, for decades), and you define Russia as not being "European", it was the "last european county to free the serfs". To find it, follow the old map of Czechoslovakia, which is shaped like a tadpole. In pre WWII days, it was the tip of the tadpole, after the war, the Czechs gave it to Russia (No, really), and it was incorperated into the Ukraine. During WWII, while the Nazis were partitioning up Czech., Ruthenia declared its independence. Nazi- allied tanks rolled in the next day. Some of the unarmed city dwellers protested- they were rounded up & sent to slave labor camps, as "slavic" undesirables. Many of the cossacks became partizens, further infuriating the Nazis.

MY Great-Grandfather, and Grandfather, and the whole brood, moved out just before WWI, as the Imperial Government started to take away their "semi-autonomous" status, resulting in terrible things like; taxes, army drafts, and freeing the serfs. (An actual quote from my Grandmother; Me @ 8yrs- "Babuska, were we Cossacks in the Old Country?" "No, Dear, we kept Cossacks to keep the serfs in line") They moved to Sask*, Canada, but many kept in touch with "the old country", and relatives, and sent $$ for aid. After the Nazis took over, there was a great dearth of info, but some heard that whole families were sent to "the camps".

Now. aren't you sorry you asked? :D

* where there are scads of 'cousins", all of us look a bit alike, too, poor bastards. :D

Northern Piper
07-01-2000, 10:02 AM
So, Daniel, are you going to come to Stubblejumper Dope-Fest in Weyburn (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=26802) and then look up your cousins?