Hitler’s Control-The lessons of Nazi history

This week's CBS miniseries Hitler: The Rise of Evil tries to explain the conditions that enabled a manifestly evil and abnormal individual to gain total power and to commit mass murder. The CBS series looks at some of the people whose flawed decisions paved the way for Hitler's psychopathic dictatorship: Hitler's mother who refused to recognize that her child was extremely disturbed and anti-social; the judge who gave Hitler a ludicrously short prison sentence after he committed high treason at the Beer Hall Putsch; President Hindenburg and the Reichstag delegates who (except for the Social Democrats) who acceded to Hitler's dictatorial Enabling Act rather than forcing a crisis (which, no matter how bad the outcome, would have been far better than Hitler being able to claim legitimate power and lead Germany toward world war).

Acquainting a new generation of television viewers with the monstrosity of Hitler is a commendable public service by CBS, for if we are serious about “;Never again,”; then we must be serious about remembering how and why Hitler was able to accomplish what he did. Political scientist R. J. Rummel, the world's foremost scholar of the mass murders of the 20th century, estimates that the Nazis killed about 21 million people, not including war casualties. With modern technology, a modern Hitler might be able to kill even more people even more rapidly.

Indeed, right now in Zimbabwe, the Robert Mugabe tyranny is perpetrating a genocide by starvation aimed at liquidating about six million people. Mugabe is great admirer of Adolf Hitler. Mugabe's number-two man (who died last year) was Chenjerai Hunzvi, the head of Mugabe's terrorist gangs, who nicknamed himself “;Hitler.”; One of the things that Robert Mugabe, “;Hitler”; Hunzvi, and Adolf Hitler all have in common is their strong and effective programs of gun control.

Simply put, if not for gun control, Hitler would not have been able to murder 21 million people. Nor would Mugabe be able to carry out his current terror program.

Writing in The Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Stephen Halbrook demonstrates that German Jews and other German opponents of Hitler were not destined to be helpless and passive victims. (A magazine article by Halbrook offers a shorter version of the story, along with numerous photographs. Halbrook's Arizona article is also available as a chapter in the book Death by Gun Control, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.) Halbrook details how, upon assuming power, the Nazis relentlessly and ruthlessly disarmed their German opponents. The Nazis feared the Jews — many of whom were front-line veterans of World War One — so much that Jews were even disarmed of knives and old sabers.

The Nazis did not create any new firearms laws until 1938. Before then, they were able to use the Weimar Republic's gun controls to ensure that there would be no internal resistance to the Hitler regime.

In 1919, facing political and economic chaos and possible Communist revolution after Germany's defeat in the First World War, the Weimar Republic enacted the Regulation of the Council of the People's Delegates on Weapons Possession. The new law banned the civilian possession of all firearms and ammunition, and demanded their surrender “;immediately.”;

Once the political and economic situation stabilized, the Weimar Republic created a less draconian gun-control law. The law was similar to, although somewhat milder than, the gun laws currently demanded by the American gun-control lobby.

The Weimar Law on Firearms and Ammunition required a license to engage in any type of firearm business. A special license from the police was needed to either purchase or carry a firearm. The German police were granted complete discretion to deny licenses to criminals or individuals the police deemed untrustworthy. Unlimited police discretion over citizen gun acquisition is the foundation of the “;Brady II”; proposal introduced by Handgun Control, Inc., (now called the Brady Campaign) in 1994.

Under the Weimar law, no license was needed to possess a firearm in the home unless the citizen owned more than five guns of a particular type or stored more than 100 cartridges. The law's requirements were more relaxed for firearms of a “;hunting”; or “;sporting”; type. Indeed, the Weimar statute was the world's first gun law to create a formal distinction between sporting and non-sporting firearms. On the issues of home gun possession and sporting guns, the Weimar law was not as stringent as the current Massachusetts gun law, or some of modern proposals supported by American gun-control lobbyists.

Significantly, the Weimar law required the registration of most lawfully owned firearms, as do the laws of some American states. In Germany, the Weimar registration program law provided the information which the Nazis needed to disarm the Jews and others considered untrustworthy.

The Nazi disarmament campaign that began as soon as Hitler assumed power in 1933. While some genocidal governments (such as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia) dispensed with lawmaking, the Nazi government followed the German predilection for the creation of large volumes of written rules and regulations. Yet it was not until March 1938 (the same month that Hitler annexed Austria in the Anschluss) that the Nazis created their own Weapons Law. The new law formalized what had been the policy imposed by Hitler using the Weimar Law: Jews were prohibited from any involvement in any firearm business.

On November 9, 1938, the Nazis launched the Kristallnacht, pogrom, and unarmed Jews all over Germany were attacked by government-sponsored mobs. In conjunction with Kristallnacht, the government used the administrative authority of the 1938 Weapons Law to require immediate Jewish surrender of all firearms and edged weapons, and to mandate a sentence of death or 20 years in a concentration camp for any violation.

Even after 1938, the German gun laws were not prohibitory. They simply gave the government enough information and enough discretion to ensure that victims inside Germany would not be able to fight back.

Under the Hitler regime, the Germans had created a superbly trained and very large military — the most powerful military the world had ever seen until then. Man-for-man, the Nazis had greater combat effectiveness than every other army in World War II, and were finally defeated because of the overwhelming size of the Allied armies and the immensely larger economic resources of the Allies.

Despite having an extremely powerful army, the Nazis still feared the civilian possession of firearms by hostile civilians. Events in 1943 proved that the fear was not mere paranoia. As knowledge of the death camps leaked out, determined Jews rose up in arms in Tuchin, Warsaw, Bialystok, Vilna, and elsewhere. Jews also joined partisan armies in Eastern Europe in large numbers, and amazingly, even organized escapes and revolts in the killing centers of Treblinka and Auschwitz. There are many books which recount these heroic stories of resistance. Yuri Suhl's They Fought Back (1967) is a good summary showing that hundreds of thousands of Jews did fight. The book Escape from Sobibor and the eponymous movie (1987) tell the amazing story how Russian Jewish prisoners of war organized a revolt that permanently destroyed one of the main death camps.

It took the Nazis months to destroy the Jews who rose up in the Warsaw ghetto, who at first were armed with only a few firearms that had been purchased on the black market, stolen or obtained from the Polish underground.

Halbrook contends that the history of Germany might have been changed if more of its citizens had been armed, and if the right to bear arms had been enshrined it Germany's culture and constitution. Halbrook points out that while resistance took place in many parts of occupied Europe, there was almost no resistance in Germany itself, because the Nazis had enjoyed years in which they could enforce the gun laws to ensure that no potential opponent of the regime had the means to resist.

No one can foresee with certainty which countries will succumb to genocidal dictatorship. Germany under the Weimar Republic was a democracy in a nation with a very long history of much greater tolerance for Jews than existed in France, England, or Russia, or almost anywhere else. Zimbabwe's current gun laws were created when the nation was the British colony of Rhodesia, and the authors of those laws did not know that the laws would one day be enforced by an African Hitler bent on mass extermination.

One never knows if one will need a fire extinguisher. Many people go their whole lives without needing to use a fire extinguisher, and most people never need firearms to resist genocide. But if you don't prepare to have a life-saving tool on hand during an unexpected emergency, then you and your family may not survive.

In the book Children of the Flames, Auschwitz survivor Menashe Lorinczi recounts what happened when the Soviet army liberated the camp: the Russians disarmed the SS guards. Then, two emaciated Jewish inmates, now armed with guns taken from the SS, systematically exacted their revenge on a large formation of SS men. The disarmed SS passively accepted their fate. After Lorinczi moved to Israel, he was often asked by other Israelis why the Jews had not fought back against the Germans. He replied that many Jews did fight. He then recalled the sudden change in the behavior of the Jews and the Germans at Auschwitz, once the Russian army's new “;gun control”; policy changed who had the guns there: “;And today, when I am asked that question, I tell people it doesn't matter whether you're Hungarian, Polish, Jewish, or German: If you don't have a gun, you have nothing.”;

— Richard Griffiths is a doctor of psychology with research interest in gun issues. Dave Kopel is a NRO contributing editor.

Came closerHERE than many realize. Spent many an evening out under the starts there where some very dedicated and couragous individuals on the front lines.

... and had they pushed it, had blood been spilt by the gov ... it would have set dry tender off all over the west, and probably all over the nation.

I know that several groups made it very clear behind the scenes what would happen if those farmers with whom I stood were harmed.

I've hunted the Modoc area for 40 years, and know well how independant most folks up there can be.
As you say most of this countrys rural & small town citizens are exactly the same.
They will not tolerate much more of big brothers infringements, imo.
Lots of soccer moms and limo liberals will be very surprised when, where, & ~why~ the fight will start.

It won't take much ..
There has been "a long Train of Abuses and Usurptations".

American troops having to use force on other Americans

And you are advocating that Americans use force against American troops? Sentiment flows both ways, you know. If you are killing American troops, other Americans might identify more with the dead troops than with you. Have you thought about that? Do you believe you will win the hearts and and minds of other Americans by killing their sons and daughters, i.e., American servicemen?

The vast majority of Americans are simply not as worked up as you are. Most believe life is pretty good here. What makes you believe they are dry tinder just waiting for a spark to light the flame that will burn off their oppressors? As sick and twisted as the two senators from California are, the electorate that voted them in is quite happy with them. That's what happens when you give people the power to vote. Sometimes they choose stupidly.

This talk of armed insurrection, of targeting the sons and daughters of other Americans as "evil agents of the gubmint," is sheer lunancy.

There are many problems that need to be fixed in this country. Sophomoric barstool bloviations about the revolution are not the way to go about doing it.

Yep, it came very close at KF. I wonder how much "chatter" got back to the DC chain of command, and how much those rumors affected their desire not to push the situation too far, for fear of a chain reaction they couldn't control?

In the end a handful of federal agents operate purely at the pleasure of the locals. They can mass in hotspots, but the hotspots will just dissipate, and they will be as vulnerable as ever elsewhere. I cover this topic in detail in my novel of course.

Who is talking about "armed insurrection" other than you Kevin?

We are talking about protecting the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC, the way every soldier has sworn to do since the start of the republic.

If certain soldiers follow illegal orders to destroy the constitution, and choose to become traitors and domestic enemies, that is their problem.

The vast majority of Americans are simply not as worked up as you are. Most believe life is pretty good here.

Sure kevin, it is good here, -- the 'best' in fact, and we aim to keep it that way. What you deny is that our liberties have been decreasing as our wealth increased. Poor tradeoff.

What makes you believe they are dry tinder just waiting for a spark to light the flame that will burn off their oppressors? As sick and twisted as the two senators from California are, the electorate that voted them in is quite happy with them. That's what happens when you give people the power to vote. Sometimes they choose stupidly.

Our constitution doesn't allow for stupidity. - It is not to be violated.
Supposedly our 'public servants' are sworn to uphold those principles.
'Happy' folks like you find no problem with that. Yet you know better..

That, - kevin my son, -- is 'sick & twisted'..

I could also see foreign troops on US soil after a disputed presidential election where the loser after the court battles does not concede and an incumbent administration backs the loser. It also is pretty far out there but considering the events of November and December 2000 it may not be that far out there.

No I am NOT advocating Americans use force against American troops. What I am saying is that it could concievably happen if the situation in this nation deteriorated. Historically American troops have been used against American civilians in the past and there has been some resistance. Sometimes ended with amnesties sometimes ended with more draconian means. We are discussing the underlying principles of the Second Ammendment and the possibility of an armed rebellion succeeding.

Clearly the outrages must be grave, prolonged and not ammenable to peaceful redress. In short a tyranical leadership must be in place and unwilling to leave (elections if held are frauds etc). Then an armed populace will start probably by going after the political apparatus. Are we at that point? NO. Is it concievable we could under some future administration get to that point? Yes, that is the reasoning behind the Second Ammendment.

Invasion was never a serious threat. The Germans just didn't have the amphibious capability or experience. Had they tried it would have been a slaughter.

The D-Day invasion came only after the German air and naval forces had been completely neutralized, after the Allies had built a huge fleet of specialized craft, and after they had had practiced and refined their amphibious tactics in North Africa, Italy, and the Pacific.

Making an opposed landing on a hostile shore is just about the riskiest undertaking in land warfare. The Nazis couldn't have done it in 1941, and in any event Hitler was already looking East.

BTW, a number of the people you are conversing with on this thread are former special forces, former SEALS, former military of all types. They've been there and done that and are passing on to you many years of accumulated experience and knowledge in this area. Just FYI.

I appreciate their comments, as well as their patriotism and loyalty to constitutional government. Let's hope that the day never comes when we find our whether improvements in military/anti-terrorist/anti-insurgent technology and operational methods have rendered the second ammendment obsolete.

You're painting with a pretty broad brush in saying "most" people in the NC Highlands agree with Rudolph.

I really doubt at this point he's living the rustic life with the help of friendly locals. I think it more likely that he hasn't been found because he's either dead or far away, perhaps in another country.

Kevin, I can't speak for any one else, but I can for myself.

This entire exrecise and thread is not advocating anything. I have seen no one here calling for insurrection. What is occurring is a discussion of what would happen if the 2nd amendment ever came into play in the event of either outside agression, or an internal overthrow of the constitution.

I did mention that during the horrific and atrocious events of Klamath (which I believe represented just that type of thing, ie. the abject trampling of citizen rights) that there were warnings given of what might occur if the farmers were harmed (as in shot down) by their own. Given the actions of the Clinton's before, it was a very real consideration. Luckily, thankfully, it did not occur and I thank God for it. I am glad this administration was not so disposed.

But, there have been events in our country that have people concerned. You may not have experienced them, some people have, some people have not.

Just be clear, as far as I am conerned, this thread and the talk on it has been nothing but pure hypothesis. No advocation of the things you spoke of. I pray that the what if's and hypothesis never have any call to become reality. But one of the prices of liberty is eternal vigilance, both against foes external and internal.

Invasion was never a serious threat. The Germans just didn't have the amphibious capability or experience. Had they tried it would have been a slaughter.

For invasion to have been a serious threat the RAF would have had to have been neutralized and the Germans would have needed to spend the fall and winter of 1941 build up a valid amphibious capability. A. Hitler instead wanted to focus on operation Barbarosa for which the Army was teh instrument of choice. Has the air Battle of Britain been won by the Luftwaffe then things might have been different. Had operation Sea Lion been tried one can only imagine what one flotilla of destroyers plus a crusier and Battleship would have done to it. Now the German Battle Crusiers Acharhorst and Gneiseneau could have been committed to Sea Lion but then the full Home Fleet would have engaged. The German's needed air supremacy to mount an invasion and that was something the British realized.

Woudl there have been costs to the British Navy in such a battle for the Channel most assuredly from submarines and German air if nothing else but the Germans lost too many of their own destroyers in the invasion of Norway to make Sea Lionb feasable. Of course had the luftwaffe concentrated on the radar network and RAF fighter stations they may have won the Battle of Britain.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.