Hitler’s Control-The lessons of Nazi history

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

[SJackson]

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.

[Roscoe]

jackboot licking

Don Matthews wannabes abound.

[esopman]

I fear that we shall ultimately have an empirical test of your proposition. BLOAT Bump.

[Roscoe]

Curious that on Memorial Day so many cop haters would crawl out of the woodwork to spew their tired equation of America to Nazi Germany.

[tpaine]

Lick lick, like dat bootie roscoe..

Lordy but you're a joke.

[Travis McGee]

I sincerely hope that we can avoid it.

The perpetual dirty war which continues to bleed in the beautiful country of Colombia is no fun, and that is the type of situation we may arrive at if we elect bad leaders, and they make bad decisions.

A decision for example to ban semi auto rifles after some outrage. No matter what, that could trigger a dirty war.

[Roscoe]

Like Don Matthews, his wannabes love to equate America with Nazi Germany.

[tpaine]

BTW roscoe, -- many here have asked whenever you start your flagwrapping routine, -- but you never seem to answer..
Have you served? Ever taken the oath? -- I'd bet not.

[tpaine]

Like Don Matthews, his wannabes love to equate America with Nazi Germany.
146 -roscoe-


Maybe roscoe, but wannabe bootlickers like you are even worse.
Hell, you admit that the 2nd only applies to federal law.. Figure that.

[Roscoe]

Admittedly many of Don's wannabes do nothing more that rage impotently from behind their keyboard. Faced with an armed police officer, they would cower, unable to even raise the "courage" to backshoot him.

[gatex]

"Curious that on Memorial Day so many cop haters would crawl out of the woodwork to spew their tired equation of America to Nazi Germany."

Could you list the posts that do this ?

[gatex]

Your link to "They Fought Back," -- says "document not found."

[Roscoe]

Read the thread.

[gatex]

I read the thread -- list them.

[Kevin Curry]

These are sick, sick people, rosoce.

[Roscoe]

If you read the thread, you read 'em.

[gatex]

If they are there -- list them.

[Roscoe]

Their hatred of the police is certainly pathological.

[harpseal]

Actually I do not believe it necessary to have the states siding against the Federal government. The threat of such a war breaking out even if the government is confident it could win is enough to deter the tyrannical actions of all but a mad tyrant to be. I know teh argument can be made that all tyrants to be are mad but those in his entourage without whom he/she would be unable to come to power have too much to lose. Further, there are numerous example from American history of "masacres" and mini wars where the erstwhile victor eventually conceeded many of the points. From teh Haymarket riots and the Pullman strike to the Molly Mcguirres the American Labor movement was seen as a totally subversive group but eventually unions whatever one now thinks of them did provide an impetus for improving the lot of those who worked in factories and trades.

Now another has posited a situation where a group of people armed by the tyrant to be take DC and the tyrant to be orders the military not to be involved. Such a situation would call for an armed response to perhaps uphold a Supreme Court decision. Remember we have precedent for a President defyin the Supreme Court. It was Andrew jackson who stated "John Marshall made his decision now let him enforce it."

Further, the armed citizenry may take up ars in support of a portion of our military should the disaster happen that we face tyranny. political differnces in teh past caused teh last civil war in the USA who can state that such is an impossibility ten, twenty or thrity years down the road. Certainl one can not state with any certainty that next year or next month we will not be facing some situation where an armed citizenry must be called into play

This is not to say there are not dangers in this fact. Clearly any radical change that is supported by the majority may find that the minority takes up arms (either pro or con). However, the fact that this danger is always present serves to limit the tyranny of the majority in and of itself. the presence of an armed populace helpd maintain our rule of law because when a government destroys the rule of law then force of arms is what rules and they do not have a monopoly there.

[tpaine]

Funny that you never ask me if I served.

Not really. You usually don't make the same snotty types of cowardly comments as roscoe.

Of course you know I did, and with distinction.

I'm impressed kevin. Do you realise that tooting your own horn is a type of mental masterbation?

I've been around the world and lived in many nations. Instead of playing mental masturbatory games like the dingbat "constitootionalists" here who scream "jackboot" at every traffic speedlimit sign, I have a good understanding of how well this nation of ours stacks up against other countries. I have witnessed true governmental tyranny up close and personal.

Many of us have kevin. But you of course, have special non-dingbat insights. Yep.

I would NEVER make the gross error of equating the United States of America with a true tyrannical government.

No one has on this thread, kevin. Calm your hype.

  You badly, insultingly overplay your hand when you equate this grand United States of America to the sordid spectacle that was Nazi Germany. At best you display gross ignorance. At worst, you betray a diabolical hidden agenda.

Good grief.. I have a hidden agenda? Get lucid. Talk to a priest about your devil fantacies.

You are all snivelling, spoiled, snot-nosed adult brats so drunk on the magnificent freedoms you enjoy in this country that you complain if life isn't pre-chewed for you. You make want to puke.

Kevin, - you are a sniveling little puke.. Get a grip.