Hitler’s Control-The lessons of Nazi history

National Review ^ | 5-23-03 | Dave Kopel

[SJackson]

An interesting article, 55 page PDF file: Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of German Jews

[SJackson]

*bang_list

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[William McKinley]

A tangentally related thread on the nature of fascism.

[RLK]

I have seen the smiling fact of Hitler return --at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

[LS]

Two things, and I admit that I haven't read either Halbrook's new book nor the article. But I have had the "Jewish gun" debate before with a professor of German history, who has explained to me that the Nazis had to impose FEW gun controls---the WEIMAR REPUBLIC had alerady outlawed all "hunting guns, sports clubs," and virtually all private ownership of weapons, in, I think 1926!

I'll be interested to read Halbrook's book, then. In our zeal to blame the Nazis, it is worth remembering that at the very least, the FOUNDATIONS for gun control were laid in the DEMOCRATIC WEIMAR REPUBLIC.

Second, and equally important "lesson" that the author doesn't address or appears to gloss over is that the way Hitler gained power was through threatening to shut down the German government. (Where have we seen this threat before? Maybe 1995?)

My point to students when I teach this is that whenever your government gets so big that you can't live without it (save for national security-type issues), you are already in trouble. Yes, Hindenberg and the others let Hitler in, but the fate of Germany was sealed the moment that, in response to a threat to "shut down the government," the German people could not say, "Go Ahead! Be MY GUEST!"

[Eric in the Ozarks]

in a frightening female face.

[Tribune7]

Good job, National Review.

[Tribune7]

in a frightening female face.

You might get an argument on the female part.

[Paul Ross]

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Sig !

[El Laton Caliente]

The pathetic part is that the Democratic German Government put the gun control in place to "protect themselves" from the Nazi thugs and gangs. Worked really well didn't it!

All the Nazis had to do was "reinterpret" the existing laws to disarm anyone that wasn't a Nazi party member. Sounds a little like the 1989 assault weapons "regulation" change doesn’t it?

The only gun control that has ever worked for the law-abiding public is the ability to hit what you aim at...

[Travis McGee]

This type of genocide, perpetrated against a disarmed America, will never happen in our lifetimes.

[sharktrager]

One minor point.

The German military was fierce, but it's downfall was not solely attributable to the size and economic strength of the allies.

Hitler is given credit for being a military genious, but that is far from the truth. The tactics which succeded early in the war were divised by others, and Hitler was not initially eager to try them.

Hitler called for a halt of bombing of British airfields and ordered that the bombers target civilian areas. This was out of anger after a bombing run on Berlin. Had Hitler not made this change, the RAF would have been eliminated as a fighting force within a matter of weeks. Even RAF officers conceeded this fact.

This flaw resulted on continued combat with England, and ultimately the 2 front war.

Hitler also allowed a British force in Greece delay his assault on Russia. This delay was a primary reason for his ultimate defeat as, if he had moved when planned, his rate of advance would have passed Moscow before winter hit, and he could have turned that front in to a fight against partisans rather than a military force.

Rommel's success in Africa was actually against his orders. He was supposed to take his small force and basically allow the Italians a means of escape. Instead he launched an offensive. Because of his success, and the needs of the Russian front, Rommel was never adequately supplied. Once the US opened a second front in Africa he was doomed.

Rather than retreat from Stalingrad, Hitler ordered that his forces fight to the last bullet. As a result he lost over 200,000 men who could have been available for a spring offensive or to defend against the allies.

Finally, he refused to acknowledge that the Normandy invasion was more than a diversion until a solid beach-head was developed and enough forces were in France to not only defend their territory, but to launch aggressive offensives.

Hitler gets credit he doesn't deserve, and I wish the truth were more widely known.

[theFIRMbss]

>Hitler gets credit he doesn't deserve, and I wish the truth were more widely known.

And why in the world
didn't Germany invade
Britain when they could?!

(Did Hitler himself
hold back because he believed
Brits were "saxon" kins?)

[LS]

Yep. The Weimar Republic was a disaster in almost every respect.

[sharktrager]

Hitler had a belief that England would sue for peace. The royal family would be forced out, and Edward would come back and resume his reign.

In fact, this might have happened had he destroyed the RAF. Instead he strengthened the resolve of the Brits, and was stuck fighting a war that was not the German strong suit. Germany did not have the large fleets of long range heavy bombers necessary to truly pound the Brits in to submission. His smaller, faster, bombers were great for blitzkreig type fighting, but not for seige type combat.

The Germans also were not as experienced in naval assaults as the Allies were on D-Day. They were dependant on use or artillary and armor that wouldn't have been available. With the RAF still a viable force, any landing would have been difficult to achieve. It could have been done, but we must remember that one reason Normandy worked was that the Germans had almost no fighters in the area they could use against the allies.

[DPB101]

In 1919, facing political and economic chaos and possible Communist revolution . . .

Not "possible", actual. Communists did, briefly, take over a part of Germany. From Lenin's 1919 "Message of Greetings To The Bavarian Soviet Republic":

(We) heartedly greet the Soviet Republic of Bavaria. We ask you insistently to give us more frequent, definite information on the following. What measures have you taken to fight the bourgeois executioners . . . have councils of workers and servants been formed in the different sections of the city; have the workers been armed; have the bourgeoisie been disarmed . . have you taken over all the banks; have you taken hostages from the ranks of the bourgeoisie . . .full text

[longtermmemmory]

the Pink Swastika, chronicles the dominance of homosexuals in hitler's Nazi party, it makes for an interesting read. It aslo give some useful information about the american Nazi movement and its ties to the homosexual rights movement.
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/pinkswastika.hold/book.html

quote:

At the door of the Bratwurstgloeckl, a tavern frequented by homosexual roughnecks and bully-boys, Roehm turned in and joined the handful of sexual deviants and occultists who were celebrating the success of a new campaign of terror. Their organization, once known as the German Worker's Party, was now called the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, The National Socialist German Worker's Party -- the Nazis.

Yes, the Nazis met in a ``gay'' bar.

It was no coincidence that homosexuals were among those who founded the Nazi Party. In fact, the party grew out of a number of groups in Germany which were centers of homosexual activity and activism. Many of the characteristic rituals, symbols, activities and philosophies we associate with Nazism came from these organizations or from contemporary homosexuals. The extended-arm ``Sieg Heil'' salute, for example, was a ritual of the Wandervoegel (``Wandering Birds'' or ``Rovers''), a male youth society which became the German equivalent of the Boy Scouts. The Wandervoegel was started in the late 1800's by a group of homosexual teenagers. Its first adult leader, Karl Fischer, called himself ``der Fuehrer'' (``the Leader'') (Koch:25f).

[RLK]

Much of what you said is true. Hitler had the war won, but threw it away with some kook decisions.