Salon: The Hitler Gun Control Lie


PDA






wlewisiii
January 12, 2013, 11:18 AM
The Hitler gun control lie
Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong
BY ALEX SEITZ-WALD

"This week, people were shocked when the Drudge Report posted a giant picture of Hitler over a headline speculating that the White House will proceed with executive orders to limit access to firearms. The proposed orders are exceedingly tame, but Drudge’s reaction is actually a common conservative response to any invocation of gun control.

The NRA, Fox News, Fox News (again), Alex Jones, email chains, Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher, Gun Owners of America, etc., all agree that gun control was critical to Hitler’s rise to power. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (“America’s most aggressive defender of firearms ownership”) is built almost exclusively around this notion, popularizing posters of Hitler giving the Nazi salute next to the text: “All in favor of ‘gun control’ raise your right hand.”

In his 1994 book, NRA head Wayne LaPierre dwelled on the Hitler meme at length, writing: “In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolf Hitler.”

And it makes a certain amount of intuitive sense: If you’re going to impose a brutal authoritarian regime on your populace, better to disarm them first so they can’t fight back.

Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute."

More here. http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

If you enjoyed reading about "Salon: The Hitler Gun Control Lie" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
76shuvlinoff
January 12, 2013, 11:26 AM
But Hitler did ban guns for the "Jews and other persecuted classes.." The people he attempted to annihilate. This was not gun control?

Robert
January 12, 2013, 11:31 AM
Meh, so according to him we should ignore the fact that the Nazis did indeed disarm select groups of people in order to better control them? Um ok... The Jews did fight the Nazis, in Warsaw. Yes they lost but they made a hell of a stand that led to the razing of the gehetto.

And the Russians lost so many men fighting the Germans due to their insane combat style. Rather than fall back and regroup, and make avnew plan in the face of an entrenched defender we will just keep throw human wave after human wave into the MG42s. And if you want a rifle there are plenty laying around comrad, just pick one up.

While we too often point to a flawed notion of history I am not overly impressed with the article as a whole.

M-Cameron
January 12, 2013, 11:37 AM
so in essence, the author is saying "hey guys, you know that whole history thing....lets all just ignore it because its conflicting with my pre-existing anti-gun ideals"

Robert
January 12, 2013, 11:47 AM
"hey guys, you know that whole history thing....lets all just ignore it because its conflicting with my pre-existing anti-gun ideals"
Exactly, and it's not really gun control because it only targeted select groups of people. So unless you are one of those people, gun owners in our case, you have nothing to worry about.

Tinker
January 12, 2013, 11:51 AM
An article from Salon? Should change thier name to SLANT. :D

Enough said.

Deanimator
January 12, 2013, 12:05 PM
And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute."
The ONLY reason why someone would not have wanted the Jews of Europe to be armed would be to prevent potential harm to NAZIS.

Again, we return to the idea that if somebody from "the government" doesn't "protect" you, you have a DUTY to be slaughtered.

longdayjake
January 12, 2013, 12:05 PM
Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is that the author of this piece implies that an armed populace still is not enough to fight of a tyrannical army. Well, you talk to anyone who was in Iraq and Afgan and they will tell you that any insurgent that actually took the time to aim was considered a sniper and really demoralized the troops. The type of weapon didn't really matter so long as the shots hit home. Imagine how much harder it would be for an American army to invade an American town where there are thousands of people who know how to aim and they all have AR's or M14's and most everyone has a scoped high powered "hunting" rifle. How long do you think our troops would have lasted in Iraq had that been the case there?

Jorg Nysgerrig
January 12, 2013, 12:06 PM
To be fair, we had a very similar discussion here in November:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=686380

I agree with the Salon author that most pro-2A folks that mention Hitler do so without putting it into the context of the history of German weapon laws and merely do so for a convenient emotional response by associating gun control with one of history's most despised personalities.

As I said in the other thread, "Germany's history of gun control is rather complicated and the Nazi party only had a small part to do with it. The major legislation in 1919, 1920, and 1928 had very significant impact on gun ownership longer before Hitler came to power."

OptimusPrime
January 12, 2013, 12:11 PM
That article is ridiculously silly. It explains the logical path: a) disarmed the entire population from the end of ww1; b) then expanded gun rights on the eve of massive mobilizations (ww2 started in 39 but Germany was prepared for shooting in case the Czech appeasement didn't go so smooth), but if you we're a party member then it was wide open; c) killed all the "other persecuted classes" who had been disarmed for over 20 years.
The author actually proved our point, thank you.
A disarmed population or group has no recourse against the whims of a tyrant in matters small or large. We choose to be governed by laws because that's good for a society; but come tell me to get in the back of a truck and I've got news for you.

Deanimator
January 12, 2013, 12:13 PM
But Hitler did ban guns for the "Jews and other persecuted classes.."
There used to be a retired BATF agent who posted a lot in the political groups in usenet. He'd written a vanity book about his macho exploits in the BATF.

One day, he made the TRAGIC mistake of defending the Gun Control Act of 1968 after someone rightly pointed out the fact that it was modeled on the Nazi gun control law. In fact, not only did he defend the GCA 68, he defended the NAZI gun control law. He said, "Any German citizen could own a gun."

I have a cruel streak of which I'm quite proud, so I just asked, "Were Jews 'German citizens'?"

No answer. So I asked again... and again, and again, for WEEKS until he finally answered, "No."

Then giving the knife a final delicious twist, I asked, "So, why do you SUPPORT a law which disarmed Jews, but NOT the Nazis who wanted to slaughter them?"

He never answered THAT one. It's been over ten years without a reply.

Scratch an anti-gunner, find a Klansman... or a Nazi.

Greenmachin3
January 12, 2013, 12:16 PM
Ottoman Empire: Armenian Genocide. Conscript all Armenian men of age into military. Segregate them and put them in labor camps instead of military service. Call Armenians threats to national security even though they are legitimate people of the empire and pass a law that disarms them. With all men of fighting age in work camps, extermination of the remaining disarmed people was easy.

What Hitler did was very similar. How is this even debatable? The balls of that article saying disarmament meant no difference. Oh yeah? Just look at the Bieslki Partisans in Poland. They were able to fight, and they did. Wherever people were willing and able to fight, they did.

VAgunner
January 12, 2013, 12:18 PM
To be fair, we had a very similar discussion here in November:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=686380

I agree with the Salon author that most pro-2A folks that mention Hitler do so without putting it into the context of the history of German weapon laws and merely do so for a convenient emotional response by associating gun control with one of history's most despised personalities.

As I said in the other thread, "Germany's history of gun control is rather complicated and the Nazi party only had a small part to do with it. The major legislation in 1919, 1920, and 1928 had very significant impact on gun ownership longer before Hitler came to power."

If you do not know your past then you don't know your future..... :eek:

Greenmachin3
January 12, 2013, 12:22 PM
Jorg,

Fair enough. I agree that it is rather an emotional button to associate gun control with Hitler.

On the other hand, it was the gun control that allowed the exploitation. And I think that's the major point here. If infringement occurs the way they're proposing, does that leave the door open for a future president or political leader to exploit it? I think so.

kwguy
January 12, 2013, 12:22 PM
Exactly ^^^ (post #10). What kind of revisionist nonsense is that? Gun control for the Jews only is not "really" gun control (wink wink), because the nazi's were still allowed to have them?! Really?! Wow.

kwguy
January 12, 2013, 12:31 PM
You know, I just realized, the tools of the 2A (firearms) are always under attack because those tools are misused by a small criminal portion of the population. However, the tools of the 1st Amendment, the press, media, etc, are misused waaaaay more often in the form of misleading, misanthropic lies and half truths that are published all over the place.

GCMkc
January 12, 2013, 12:36 PM
Stopped reading the article when I read this sentence.

"The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns"

Sounds like gun control to me.

kwguy
January 12, 2013, 12:39 PM
^^Good point.

xXxplosive
January 12, 2013, 12:39 PM
And this is why I can't figure why a Jewish woman like Diane Fienstein would be against 2A with this type of history behind her clan.......I dunno.

gearhead
January 12, 2013, 12:43 PM
Not unlike gun control in some of our more urban areas, where gun control is for the masses but the privileged few seem to be able to get permission to carry a weapon. I can understand how Salon would find this somehow reasonable.

danez71
January 12, 2013, 12:45 PM
University of Chicago law professor

That explains it right there.

stsimons
January 12, 2013, 12:47 PM
I would not waste any time reading Salon or taking seriously anything therein. The bottom line is that the Jews had marginal ability to defend themselves against genocide because they did not have weapons.

BCCL
January 12, 2013, 12:50 PM
Wow, you wonder if he read that article out loud to himself before publishing it.......

"The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general."

Uh, yeah it would moron.

"Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning?"

Yes, when that word "force" is involved.............

" If guns don’t kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide)."

Cart before the horse Ace, gun control in the form of civilian disarmament is ALWAYS a tool of genocidal regimes.........

The author is a loon.

Deanimator
January 12, 2013, 12:52 PM
And this is why I can't figure why a Jewish woman like Diane Fienstein would be against 2A with this type of history behind her clan.......I dunno.
As a Jewish friend has put it, I have one word for you: "Judenrat".

There's always somebody willing to shove somebody ELSE onto the boxcar, with the fantasy that they won't end up there themselves, or at least with the hope that they'll be last.

Past a certain point, "stupid" and "evil" become indistinguishable.

Deanimator
January 12, 2013, 12:53 PM
The author is a loon.
Or a calculating liar...

M-Cameron
January 12, 2013, 12:57 PM
As a Jewish friend has put it, I have one word for you: "Judenrat".

There's always somebody willing to shove somebody ELSE onto the boxcar, with the fantasy that they won't end up there themselves, or at least with the hope that they'll be last.

Past a certain point, "stupid" and "evil" become indistinguishable.

exactly, look at the american slave trade......many of the native Africans sold into slavery were in fact captured by other native Africans....

yokel
January 12, 2013, 12:58 PM
Well, this is not only a naïve but also a dangerous attitude because governments do in fact have a penchant to accrue power at the expense of the liberties of individual citizens.

What we learn from history is that folks do not learn its lessons! Despite what we have learned about the deleterious effects of draconian gun control in other countries, particularly during the previous bloody century, our foes continue to beat the drums calling for more gun control.

Whatever their professed or unacknowledged aims and designs, the upshot remains that domestic disarmament is not only dangerous to one's liberties but also counterproductive in achieving safety.

In District of Columbia v. Heller(2008), Supreme Court Justice Scalia writes that “when able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.” Maj. Op. at 25, an argument that may at first blush seem anachronistic and impractical but that history shows ought not be taken lightly.

wlewisiii
January 12, 2013, 01:00 PM
Facts are horrible things when they don't fit the narrative aren't they?

So very High Road here. Not.

OptimusPrime
January 12, 2013, 01:05 PM
One part that I cannot understand is that we are arguing for the author to have these rights too. All members of these boards wish that ALL US citizens keep these individual rights, this is not an us vs. them argument. There is no losing side here, ideally. We all have a right, embrace it and don't throw it away.

kwguy
January 12, 2013, 01:11 PM
I don't think anyone is begrudging the author his 1st amendment rights, it's just disappointing to see that right being abused in an attempt to oppress others' rights.

Cosmoline
January 12, 2013, 01:16 PM
The article is full of misinformation and lies. For one thing the leaders of the Warsaw Uprising were NOT all sent to the death camps as the article claims. Many of them managed to get out and survive the war PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY WERE ARMED AND FOUGHT BACK. They went on to play a pivotal role in establishing Israel:
A number of survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, known as the "Ghetto Fighters," went on to found the kibbutz Lohamey ha-Geta'ot (literally: "Ghetto Fighters'"), which is located north of Acre. The founding members of the kibbutz include Yitzhak Zuckerman (Icchak Cukierman), who represented the ŻOB on the 'Aryan' side, and his wife Zivia Lubetkin, who commanded a fighting unit. In 1984, members of the kibbutz published Dapei Edut ("Testimonies of Survival"), four volumes of personal testimonies from 96 kibbutz members. The settlement features a museum and archives dedicated to remembering the Holocaust. Yad Mordechai, a kibbutz just north of the Gaza Strip, was named after Mordechaj Anielewicz. In 2008, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi led a group of IDF officials to the site of the uprising and spoke about the event's "importance for IDF combat soldiers."[39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

For various twisted reasons, the left wants us to assume that putting a bullet through Karl Silberbauer's head would have been futile. But even if the Frank family had still be killed, it would have kept that reptile from living another minute instead of enjoying a long retirement. Resistance, even against something as potent as the Nazi state, is not futile.

Deanimator
January 12, 2013, 01:20 PM
All members of these boards wish that ALL US citizens keep these individual rights, this is not an us vs. them argument.
There is a right to speak. There are NO rights to:

be listened to.
speak without contradiction.
be respected for what one says.


If I had a dime for every anti-gunner (or any other anti-rational authoritarian) to whom I had to explain this (generally to their great anguish), I'd be able to buy myself a 40mm Pom Pom gun and a pallet of ammunition loaded with solid gold projectiles.

LemmyCaution
January 12, 2013, 01:23 PM
And this is why I can't figure why a Jewish woman like Diane Fienstein would be against 2A with this type of history behind her clan.......I dunno.

Because Dianne Feinstein is of a protected class. She will always have the state monopoly on force behind her, so she doesn't personally need a firearm. The state will always have firearms, and the state is her proxy. She's for gun control because it expands the disparity of power between her proxy and the commoners, allowing her to do as she pleases with our tax dollars without fear of meaningful objection.

And keep in mind I'm saying this from an antiwar, pro-labor, leftist viewpoint.

Deanimator
January 12, 2013, 01:37 PM
Because Dianne Feinstein is of a protected class. She will always have the state monopoly on force behind her, so she doesn't personally need a firearm.
I'm sure Nikolai Bukharin and the other "Old Bolsheviks" thought exactly the same thing...

Nikolai Bukharin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Bukharin)

Old Bolsheviks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Bolshevik)

316SS
January 12, 2013, 02:07 PM
One part that I cannot understand is that we are arguing for the author to have these rights too. All members of these boards wish that ALL US citizens keep these individual rights, this is not an us vs. them argument. There is no losing side here, ideally. We all have a right, embrace it and don't throw it away.

I disagree. Since the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are naturally derived, not granted by the State, my hope is that ALL PEOPLE enjoy can enjoy them, not limited to US citizens. I think we are hypocrites if we don't advocate for the rights of all people.

The Declaration of Independence reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..."

And yes I realize that the founding fathers excluded women and colored people, but I do not.

There is a right to speak. There are NO rights to:

be listened to.
speak without contradiction.
be respected for what one says.


Amen. The First Amendment protects my right to tell the author he's a moron, at best.

fdashes
January 12, 2013, 02:19 PM
Could the Jews have stopped the millions killed by the Nazi with more guns in their possesion? Probably not,,,,guarenteed not most likely. BUT..without any doubt they would have more of a chance then rounded up and murdered without a fighting chance. To all the Jews I respect.....NEVER AGAIN!!!

hso
January 12, 2013, 02:21 PM
Just post a link to jpfo in the comments to the article.

xXxplosive
January 12, 2013, 02:29 PM
IMO..........the face of Fienstien morphs into the face of Schicklgruber.

Robert
January 12, 2013, 02:33 PM
Facts are horrible things when they don't fit the narrative aren't they?

What? Yes, Hitler did not start the gun control movement in post WW1 Germany. No argument there. But that does not negate the fact the he targeted specific groups and systematically disarmed them while leaving other groups alone. The author of the article seems to be willfully ignorant of that fact as it does not seem to fit his narrative.

So very High Road here. Not.
How so? Because we do not accept the article and agree with what it has to say? Please show me where any member has breached the rules or attacked you personally for posting this. We are free to disagree, or agree, so long as we do it in a respectful manner. And that means no personal insults, attacks or the like. That does not mean that we have to be accepting of everything posted.

Cosmoline
January 12, 2013, 03:08 PM
Could the Jews have stopped the millions killed by the Nazi with more guns in their possesion? Probably not,,,,guarenteed not most likely.

It's always a question of costs and benefits, even with crazy dictators. If the costs of internment and death camps was a huge commitment of personnel to fight armed resistance then the Nazis wouldn't be able to do that AND wage all the various wars they got involved with during their short run. The Warsaw Uprising didn't kill many of them, but it tied up troops and embarrassed the party. Multiply it by ten or a hundred or a thousand and you have real trouble for Hitler's schemes.

Just as, in the present case, the potential for mass noncooperation and disobedience raises the costs of enforcement of some new ban. And given the financial situation of our federal overlords, those costs are a critical factor.

ilbob
January 12, 2013, 03:19 PM
The reality of life in Weimer Germany was that Nazi party members (especially the SS and SA) were generally well armed regardless of the legality. Changing the law to what was already the de facto situation really did not change anything.

In any case, once Hitler took power he determined what the law was and the German legal system at that time was an arm of the party and did exactly as it was told. It was not possible to even charge someone unless the party approved, and the party meant Hitler himself for the most part, although obviously he did not deal with every decision personally.

The history of Germany at that time is pretty fascinating and does not make for any simple pronouncements.

I doubt the Jews would have fought back even if they had guns to do so with. They were more interested in profit and then thought they could buy their way out of trouble. When it became clear that was not going to work those with half a brain and the means to do so left the country. Most of the rest ended up dead.

OptimusPrime
January 12, 2013, 03:21 PM
316, you disagree how? I am remarking on the irony that we are standing up for all Americans to enjoy the RKBA. Me, you, every senator, every liberal author, we wish all citizens to enjoy our rights. They are fighting to throw those rights away but we are fighting to preserve their rights too. I am only an American, I can't speculate how other countries should regard their rights.

OptimusPrime
January 12, 2013, 03:36 PM
Another thought occurs to me about this article.
Freedom means that I can stand up for my neighbors. So many comments are made about what the Jews, Gypsies, Czechs, etc. should or would have done. Don't forget that these camps of Dachau and Auschwitz were built near urban centers along train lines. There were regular German citizens all around the camps, they all knew what was up. This has been well-documented and dissected of how the populace knew but couldn't do a thing about it.
Regardless of religion or culture, if a camp was in our back yard the author seems to think nothing would be done about it on behalf of our fellow man. The Holocaust survivors benefitted from truly heroic and brave people throughout Europe who sheltered them, and they generally did that while unarmed. What if the population were armed, how many millions more would have been saved? Or never rounded up in the first place?
Armed free men protect themselves and their neighbors, the author would do well to realize that.

Deanimator
January 12, 2013, 04:02 PM
When it became clear that was not going to work those with half a brain and the means to do so left the country.
Most of the ones who couldn't contribute to the development of a fission bomb, or some other militarily useful technology, had no place to go.

Besides that, some DID leave but weren't able to go FAR enough. Who suspected in 1936 that France or the Netherlands wouldn't be far ENOUGH?

And then there were the Jews who were never in Germany to start with. A room temperature IQ crypto-Nazi at work once told a Jewish friend to "go back where he came from", to which my friend replied, "Where, Auschwitz?". His father was a native born Romanian Jew living in that country when the war started. Should he have "left the country"? And to where, POLAND??? That's where he ended up anyway.

That of course leaves aside the question of why one would NOT want to kill Nazis if ones ultimate fate was extermination regardless of what one did. Apart from dim witted unilateral pacifists, nobody's EVER been able to give me a coherent explanation of the downside of taking some of ones wouldbe murderers with you.

Carl N. Brown
January 12, 2013, 04:11 PM
73 Fordham L. Rev. (Fordham Law Review, November, 2004)
Symposium: The Second Amendment and the Future of Gun Regulation: Historical, Legal, Policy, and Cultural Perspectives

* Bernard E. Harcourt, ''On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)'', 73 Fordham L. Rev. 653 (2004)

* Deborah Homsher, ''Response to Bernard E. Harcourt's "On Gun Registration"'', 73 Fordham L. Rev. 715 (2004)

* Robert J. Spitzer, ''Don't Know Much About History, Politics, or Theory: A Comment,'' 73 Fordham L. Rev. 721 (2004).

Reply:
* Stephen P. Halbrook, ''Nazism, the Second Amendment, and the NRA: A Reply to Professor Harcourt'', 11 Texas Rev L. & Pol 113 (2006)


Harcourt (anti-NRA) quoted William Pierce:what:, author of the ''Turner Diaries'' and leader of the neo-Nazi National Alliance and National Vanguard, as a reliable :barf: source on the assertion that "German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens..." (Harcourt at page 668) which is true if you don't count German Jews as citizens of the Third Reich and Harcourt did not deny "The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population" (Harcourt at page 671). However, Harcourt does claim that Stephen Halbrook, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) and National Rifle Association (NRA) promote a myth of Nazi repression of firearms owners, the Nazis repressed only certain firearms owners.

Heres's a hint Hitler banned the .22 LR rimfire hollowpoint. Duh. New def for dum-dum.

Salon: The Hitler Gun Control Lie And Salon told it.

316SS
January 12, 2013, 04:28 PM
316, you disagree how? I am remarking on the irony that we are standing up for all Americans to enjoy the RKBA.

(My emphasis).

I disagree in the sense that you limit this to discussion to Americans. Instead I would hope that we would advocate for the natural rights of all people, Americans and non-Americans alike, including the inalienable right to bear arms.

Carl N. Brown
January 12, 2013, 04:28 PM
One of my favorite notes from Halbrook's article is this:

"Nazis Hunt Arms in Einstein Home, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 21, 1933, at 10 (describing the failed Nazi hunt for a cache of weapons in Albert Einstein’s home; the hunt revealed nothing more dangerous than a bread knife)."

The result of repressing Einstein over private arms led Einstein to immigrate to the U.S. and clue in FDR about the potential of e=mc2. Talk about unintended consequences.

AlexanderA
January 12, 2013, 04:39 PM
Laws disarming Jews in Europe dated back to the Middle Ages. As a result, Jews became conditioned to have nothing to do with weapons. Hitler didn't have to pass a law disarming the Jews, because, by and large, they didn't have any guns to begin with. As to the rest of the German population, they were mostly pro-Hitler. Hitler actually encouraged gun use among his followers (that is, most of the German population) through organized shooting events, as part of the preparation for war.

happygeek
January 12, 2013, 05:56 PM
source on the assertion that "German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens..." (Harcourt at page 668) which is true if you don't count German Jews as citizens of the Third Reich and Harcourt did not deny "The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population" (Harcourt at page 671).


Of course Hitler and his National Socialist government wanted the 'good German citizens' to have guns, the Nuremberg Laws disarmed the Jews by stripping their German citizenship. I guess Salon doesn't think the Nuremberg Laws count as gun control.

I'd imagine one reason why the NSDAP (National Socialist party) would want the 'good German citizens' to be armed was because there were over 4,000,000 forced laborers, i.e. slaves, from occupied Eastern Europe, 1.4 million from Poland, and 2.1 million from the USSR working in Germany during the war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labour_under_German_rule_during_World_War_II).

The 'good German citizens' were unlikely to oppose the National Socialists, they'd voted them into power in 1933 after all and were benefiting from the government's policies, until 1943 - 1944 anyway.

BHP FAN
January 12, 2013, 06:06 PM
COSMOLINE is exactly right, and I just want to add THIS... an uprising actually closed a death camp. ALWAYS resist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobibor_extermination_camp

dfsixstring
January 12, 2013, 06:25 PM
If you'll research the history of gun control legislation in this country, you'll see that the first attempt (by dems) after the civil war was against blacks. The Dems wanted to prohibit freed blacks from owning guns. This was also another instance of when the Republicans came to the aid of blacks. It is always about controlling people and NEVER about freedom or safety.


Dfsixstring
SR9c
LCP
RST4S

Deanimator
January 12, 2013, 06:26 PM
COSMOLINE is exactly right, and I just want to add THIS... an uprising actually closed a death camp. ALWAYS resist.
When you tell them about things like that, it actually seems to make them ANGRY as if it were some sort of cosmic injustice that people would actually use VIOLENCE to AVOID being murdered.

By all appearances, they can excuse even the most hideously violent AGGRESSION, but anything that hints at violent SELF-DEFENSE profoundly offends them. They treat all humanity as some kind of herd of antelope or a "bait ball" of fish. For them, the kudu biting the lions or the sardines biting the swordfish is just "wrong". They believe that your only "defense" should be numbers and keeping to the center of the "herd" or "school"...

Deanimator
January 12, 2013, 06:29 PM
If you'll research the history of gun control legislation in this country, you'll see that the first attempt (by dems) after the civil war was against blacks.
It was Indians before that.

But the point is well taken that the point of gun control is ALWAYS control, NOT guns, and inevitably control of disfavored races, ethnicities or religions.

The history of gun control in North America is the history of violent White supremacism. Pointing that out makes anti-gunners literally insane with rage. It even provokes some of them to racial and ethnic slurs. Needless to say, I throw that back in their faces EVERY chance I get.

BHP FAN
January 12, 2013, 07:06 PM
Deanamator, you make an excellent point, gun control is racist. It's also class warfare as the wealthy 2% can hire security, and the rest of us have to be our own security.

Deanimator
January 12, 2013, 07:12 PM
Deanamator, you make an excellent point, gun control is racist. It's also class warfare as the wealthy 2% can hire security, and the rest of us have to be our own security.
There are few things more nauseating than a cowardly billionaire telling working people that they shouldn't be able to defend themselves, while cowering behind phalanxes of heavily armed men.

BHP FAN
January 12, 2013, 07:29 PM
Even more so, when that fat cat is one of our ''civil servants''!

ilbob
January 14, 2013, 12:34 AM
Most of the ones who couldn't contribute to the development of a fission bomb, or some other militarily useful technology, had no place to go.

Besides that, some DID leave but weren't able to go FAR enough. Who suspected in 1936 that France or the Netherlands wouldn't be far ENOUGH?

And then there were the Jews who were never in Germany to start with. A room temperature IQ crypto-Nazi at work once told a Jewish friend to "go back where he came from", to which my friend replied, "Where, Auschwitz?". His father was a native born Romanian Jew living in that country when the war started. Should he have "left the country"? And to where, POLAND??? That's where he ended up anyway.

That of course leaves aside the question of why one would NOT want to kill Nazis if ones ultimate fate was extermination regardless of what one did. Apart from dim witted unilateral pacifists, nobody's EVER been able to give me a coherent explanation of the downside of taking some of ones wouldbe murderers with you.
German Jews had a lot more of a shot at moving on, but the sad fact is that very few that had the means actually did. Jews in the east just never had the chance to go anywhere, and in any case, very few would have done so. I would bet the Jews that moved to France of Holland had a better shot at surviving than those that chose to stick around.

People are very good at fooling themselves into believing what is convenient rather than what is in fact truly going on. Many Jews (maybe most) actively opposed any attempt by Jews at self defense on the grounds that it might annoy the Nazis.

BHP FAN
January 14, 2013, 01:24 AM
''I would bet the Jews that moved to France of Holland had a better shot at surviving..''

I've been to Anne Frank's house...in Holland.

RetiredUSNChief
January 14, 2013, 01:25 AM
And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute."

Germany lost about 5.5 million servicemen in WWII.

Around 6 million Jews were rounded up and slaughtered during the holocaust, which itself killed 11 million people.

Perhaps the Jewish people couldn't have stopped the Holocaust. But I rather imagine that if a significant percentage of the ablebodied portion of those 6 million Jews who were slaughtered were armed, they could have made it a very costly venture for NAZI Germany through underground and direct armed civilian conflict. And all in the heart of Germany, too. Germany would have lost quite a bit more than 5.5 million as a result.

Or maybe less, if it had resulted in shortening the war somewhat.

If a body of 6 million armed people (11 million when you count everybody affected by the Holocaust) were to find out that they were to be put to death by their government by the trainload, you can bet there would have been internal problems in the country of Germany.

Heck no, NAZI Germany didn't want them armed. It's a real problem when scapegoats and social dissidents shoot back by the millions.

BHP FAN
January 14, 2013, 01:29 AM
Wow, Chief, I'm impressed. Why more people don't get this, I just can't understand. It seems like common sense, to me. I guess common sense just isn't that common, anymore.
USN HTFN, DDG-19 1976-1980, by the way.

RetiredUSNChief
January 14, 2013, 01:45 AM
Wow, Chief, I'm impressed. Why more people don't get this, I just can't understand. It seems like common sense, to me. I guess common sense just isn't that common, anymore.
USN HTFN, DDG-19 1976-1980, by the way.

I, too, do not get this at all.

It's stuff like this this which was the reason General Dwight D. Eisenhower directed the careful and explicit documentation of all the graphic evidence at these concentration camps. It was an unprecidented round up and slaughter of people on a scale never before witnessed in human history...a scale so large as to be unbelievable otherwise, and which would thus be more easily subject to denial by future generations.

It happened. Period. And it happened the way it did. Period.

Efforts today to minimize what happened get on my nerves, whether it be by people outright denying it ever happened, people saying the events leading up to it (like gun control) were a lie, or they ignore the fact that the 6 million Jews were only about half the total slaughtered.

Shadow 7D
January 14, 2013, 05:13 AM
They forget the rest of those interned
they forget that common german criminals of certain classes were sent to the camps

they forget that all 'undesirables' were interned to DIE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badges

BHP FAN
January 14, 2013, 05:32 AM
Never Forget.We Shall Remember.

Shadow 7D
January 14, 2013, 06:09 AM
They forget, they don't care
ADHD
'slow'
talk with a lisp, speech impediment
walk with a limp
are you disabled...

I could go on, the horrors,
these people don't get how things are else where
they don't know the crap that goes on in the world
the don't here the translator telling your captain how the old Clan chief (iraq) quit after Al Quada killed his son, and served his head during negotiations.

they don't get how bad stuff gets, where this path leads.
if the left did, why would they ever want to walk it?

Seanxlu
January 14, 2013, 09:46 AM
+1 on Diane Feinstein being Jewish. She either is forgetful or believes history doesn't repeat itself.

JFtheGR8
January 14, 2013, 10:12 AM
Facts are horrible things when they don't fit the narrative aren't they?

So very High Road here. Not.

Don't be upset when members of a pro-gun forum debunk a anti-gun piece of media. Defending our 2A right has become a top priority as of late and there is flawed logic in the article.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

Double Naught Spy
January 14, 2013, 10:15 AM
Perhaps the Jewish people couldn't have stopped the Holocaust. But I rather imagine that if a significant percentage of the ablebodied portion of those 6 million Jews who were slaughtered were armed, they could have made it a very costly venture for NAZI Germany through underground and direct armed civilian conflict. And all in the heart of Germany, too. Germany would have lost quite a bit more than 5.5 million as a result.

Or maybe had Germany drafted the Jews like other citizens, Europe would be called Germany now.

Heck no, NAZI Germany didn't want them armed. It's a real problem when scapegoats and social dissidents shoot back by the millions.

No, Germany did not want them armed because it would have been inconvenient. Armed but disorganized people would not have stopped a military power. Germany did many to defeat several countries before the populaces and militaries were disarmed, some of which attempted organized resistance.

As Shadow 7D pointed out that the 6 million exterminated were not just Jews. Plus, they were not just Germans. In reality, most probably were not. According to the sources cited in Wiki, only 1-3.1 million German civilians died as a result of crimes against humanity. Not all of those were German Jews. Total German deaths from the war were less than 9 million and nearly 6 million were military casualties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

RetiredUSNChief
January 14, 2013, 10:48 AM
Or maybe had Germany drafted the Jews like other citizens, Europe would be called Germany now.



No, Germany did not want them armed because it would have been inconvenient. Armed but disorganized people would not have stopped a military power. Germany did many to defeat several countries before the populaces and militaries were disarmed, some of which attempted organized resistance.

As Shadow 7D pointed out that the 6 million exterminated were not just Jews. Plus, they were not just Germans. In reality, most probably were not. According to the sources cited in Wiki, only 1-3.1 million German civilians died as a result of crimes against humanity. Not all of those were German Jews. Total German deaths from the war were less than 9 million and nearly 6 million were military casualties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Some good points.

However, there are many ways for armed resistance to occur and it doesn't have to be in open conflict on a battlefield against a well armed and organized army. History is repleat with guerilla and underground movements.

Armed resistance by underground movements behind enemy lines cannot be underestimated in their value and effectiveness towards overall war efforts. They may not be a coordinated combat infantry, but efforts at espionage, infiltration, disruptions of supply lines, sabatage, and assinations are powerful tools, well suited for underground movements and guerilla tactics.

As for "the 6 million exterminated were not just Jews" comment, that is incorrect. 6 million Jews WERE exterminated in the Holocaust. However, they represented approximately 1/2 of the total 11 million who died in the Holocaust.

I already covered that, and the German military casualties, in my previous postings.

;)

hq
January 14, 2013, 11:20 AM
Two common misconceptions have to be pointed out.

First of all, gun control originated from Weimar republic and one of the main reasons were to prevent extremists like the national socialist party from obtaining them. That didn't help at all, nazis were very good at circumventing laws while many other, competing socialist movements (social democrats, communists) weren't and there has been a lot of speculation how much strict gun laws actually HELPED nazis to gain power. After they did, they used the existing legislation and their own (racially biased) additions to it to their advantage. When Kristallnacht occurred in November 1938 there was little chance of resistance because the intended victims had been disarmed years earlier.

Always take a look at the big picture. Anti-gun lobby can keep their monopoly of distorting facts to their own advantage.

If you enjoyed reading about "Salon: The Hitler Gun Control Lie" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!