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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
[quote]
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:
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:
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?
valor55, what do you mean by “… loopholes like Executive Orders”? Loopholes in what?
I find them uninteresting.
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.
So does Switzerland. Why did you leave it out?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.