Alternate points of view on gun control in National Socialist Germany.
Please share what you know.
Here's one source, one POV.
And here's another source and POV.
Are there any authoritative, impartial, and objective sources on the subject out there? Any sources besides these?
Just the facts, please, preferably with documentation.
I would greatly appreciate any new information brought up, as I am greatly interested in German history, especially from the late 1800s until post-WW2, when half of it was handed over to the most evil system in the history of the world.
the most evil system in the history of the world.
ReplyDeleteI'd vote for Stalin's system.
Brock-
ReplyDeleteAgree. No contest, even.
AP
Some of the distortion used by Jews is that certain classes of people, such as enemies of the state, and those deemed undesirable, were stripped of their German citizenship. Obviously, the hundred thousand Japanese-Americans put in concentration camps here did not maintain their second amendment rights, either.
ReplyDeleteHere is objective proof that the supposed "Hitler quote" about gun control is a lie:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership
A 1945 German newsreel clip showing that German citizens were very well armed throughout the war: http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/IOW/1945/01/01/X01014503/?v=1&a=0
ReplyDeleteAnon 7:42-
ReplyDeleteHelp me understand-
It is my understanding that many people were stripped of their citizenship, as well as many other things such as employment, under NS Germany. I understand these actions to be "stimulus" to "encourage" people to leave the country. As far as I've read, approximately six million or so Jews left the region (mostly to immigrate to America, if memory serves) during the WW2 timeframe. (Forgive me for lack of a reference and exact details; most of my books are packed and in storage due to a recent move.)
It is also my understanding that the mistrust directed towards jews was not just a strictly National Socialist issue, but a reflection of the attitudes in Europe -to include, if memory serves, Churchill himself- (and much of America) in general at the time.
People often bemoan the Germans, and ask "how could they allow Hitler to come to power"?, as if the National Socialists did not have overwhelming popular support during most of their time in power.
I completely agree with you pointing out the blatant hypocrisy displayed by Americans when they point at these actions but ignore some of the very same things that happened right here in the "land of freedom".
I am more and more leaning toward the system we live in as the most evil. Can we even count or possibly know how many lives have been lost due to our "spreading/defending freedom"? How many coups, wars, genocides have come to pass from our foreign, and domestic policy for that matter? And if we look at history, then look at where we are and the path we are heading down, what is coming soon to a homeland near you?
ReplyDeleteI have long maintained, we have guns, a lot of guns, but only to be the most well armed slaves in the history of the world.
Skimming over the second link (Gun Control in National Socialist Germany), it seems to me that a sleight of hand with the verbiage is at play. Pierce claims in his introduction that the NSDAP expanded gun "rights", but reading through the translation of German law, a different state of affairs becomes apparent. Both Weimar and the Nazis redefined everything to be a privilege - a permit for manufacture, a permit for carry, a permit for transfer, and so on. His translation does nothing to dispute the JPFO claim that the Nazi law was the basis for the GCA 68, but Pierce claims in his introduction that the JPFO claims are exaggerated.
ReplyDeleteThe Nazis simply expanded on the Weimar Republic laws that came before. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
VA Rifleman-
ReplyDeleteGood points. Each incremental "not that bad" infringement lays the foundation for the next.
It seems, ideologically, that the only way to stop such a progression is to say "No", forcefully, to each infringement.
Drawing of lines is a self-defeating game though, if words are not backed by action.
While Hitler and the NSDAP are often blamed for citizen disarmament, the foundation was laid through a parliamentarian democracy, much like what we have here today.
...Laying a foundation for what is to come...
AP
I wonder if your readers had a choice, would they rather live in a racialy based state where gun rights were limited to citizens, or in a multiracial democracy where everyone had guns? I'd choose the former.
ReplyDeleteHomogeneous cultures generally have several advantages over non-homogenous ones, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThey have traditions, identity, unity, and generally last longer.
Non-homogenous cultures, as far as I can see, have little staying power, and generally devolve to their natural state- homogenous ones.
That's why we had issues in the balkans. It's one of the drivers behind WW1, and, subsequently, WW2. The forced multi-ethnic nations in Africa, for instance, containing the Tutsi and Hutu within one geopolitical entity, is another example.
It is my opinion that a culture is successful in the long term in direct relation to how zealously it protects its culture...how well it remains homogenous.
Firearm ownership, or the lack thereof, is one stimulus that can be used to encourage demographic shifts.
Having said all that, I still maintain that weapon ownership is a natural right, whether or not it is advisable or expedient to make it "legal".
Perhaps protecting culture and providing for "freedom" is a balance that cannot always be maintained.
One way or the other, I think we'll learn soon enough in America how non-homogenous liberal democracies come to an end.
Brock and AP. I am encouraged by your vote that Stalin was the greater Evil. It shows that you both have taken the Red Pill and have awakened from the Zionist-induced comma in which most "Amuricants" exist as a result of watching too much History Channel.
ReplyDeleteAP, I was a member of Dr. Pierce's National Alliance for many years - up until his death. You cannot find a more intellectually / factually base source for White history and the explanation for our failure as a race to hold on to what our fore bearers bequeathed to us.
My "awakening" began in 1982 after I received a beat down (on Base mind you) by two browns and a black while we were in Tech School at Lowery AFB in Denver.
I soon thereafter came to realized that not all Zoomies saw themselves as Air Force Blue - first. As the 3 non-whites kicked and pummeled me, they kept reminding me that I was different than them - I was a White Boy, a White Mutha Fuka, a Cracker Faggot.
As I recovered physically in the base hospital, I also recovered mentally from the Liberal, open-minded, "Cum By Yall" up bring my parents had instilled in me. I began to research and learn that my country was lost and my people were being misled - by an enemy within the gates. AP, I believe you understand that our founders created this nation for their Posterity. Look up that word in Strong's Concordance - Posterity does not mean any featherless Biped that is lucky enough to cross the border and receive Amnesty. Posterity means the same race as the founding stock: European.
We in the Racialist movement have a saying that I think may be maturing in your thought progression: In the Next Civil War, your skin will be your uniform. I accept that statement generally, but also realize, sadly, there will be many White Liberals (already programmed to Hate themselves, their White Privilege and their Race) who will side with the Non-Whites (i.e., the New Black Panther Party, Nation of Islam, and La Raza) and offer to fight against "Constitutional" militia (both multi-culti [democracy-mongers] and racialist). Racial Nationalists refer to these race-traitors as "Meat-on-the-hoof." Meaning they will end up as the white meat in the cannibal's pots - a daily ration for the very "minority" folks with whom they foolishly allied.
Hitler was possibly our last chance to save the European race from oblivion. As you understand, due to abortion and non-stop non-white immigration, we are not doing to well here in the Good Ol' USA to preserve our numbers.
AP, it has taken me years of study to free my mind from the Jewish/Liberal/Communist lies about Hitler with which I (and everyone else) grew up. You will have to dig to uncover the truth - but it is out there. Don't stop learning just because someone soon accuses you of being - Racist. Anti-Racism is just a cover for Anti-White.
Jake-
ReplyDeleteI see objective evidence pointing to the tendency of people to look out for the groups they most strongly identify with. I believe that in many cases, this group is race. There is nothing wrong with this -for any racial group, it is natural-, however, I do see an obvious prejudice in our society that prevents whites from publicly self-identifying in this manner.
Indeed, for speaking out as vociferously for "white" issues as do Al Sharpton, Jesses Jackson, and others, whites are rewarded with the title "extremist" and "racist".
We have, likewise, on the one hand a style of often overtly racist music known as "Rap", that is accepted as "mainstream", in spite of its anti-white message. An equivalent message coming from a white band would be called "hate music".
I'm rather tired of my pride in my race being called "hate". I do not "hate" anyone based on their skin color alone. For me, pride in race is not about hate; that is negative and cannot, by definition, be productive. Pride in race is about love, community, and looking out for one's own "tribe". It is (or should be) a positive issue.
As far as the propaganda against Hitler and NS Germany goes-
I look at it as propaganda, one nation (or a collection of "allies") against another.
For such a costly war, there has to be a justification. By painting WW2 as a battle against ultimate evil, this purpose is met.
There are no absolute "good vs. evil" fights. I believe we provoked Japan (although for bombing us, they deserved to be pounded into martial oblivion, IMO). I believe we had no business fighting in Europe.
Often the Holocaust is used as justification for WW2. Even if one were to accept the oft-changing (downward) number of victims as fact, this was not "discovered" until the end of the war. America's involvement in WW2 was not about anti-semitism, as this was prevalent in much of Europe (even Churchill) and America. It was not about the holocaust, either.
Hitler's actions are often viewed without looking at the context of the Red threat and the rapacious Versailles treaty. Further, the French/German struggles of the previous century are never considered, either.
People attack Hitler for the Anschluss (a popular thing, for ethnic Germans) and his actions against Poland (in the interests of ethnic Germans, ripped from their homeland by WW1).
I have even read some evidence pointing to his invasion of the Soviet empire as a pre-emptive strike on the verge of a Soviet push into Europe.
I am undecided on this, but IMO, I do not fault Hitler for attacking the Soviets, provoked or not. I do not think the Soviets would have been worse off under NS than they were under Marxism.
Likewise, people often condemn NS as "totalitarianism", based on the government's actions during a total war. America, during WW2, was just as oppressive as far as suppression of speech, excessive taxes, and the like. To judge a system based on its wartime actions is to not look at the bigger context.
AP
Here are some questions-
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to have "freedom" in a non-homogenous society, or will a multi-culti society always consist of separate groups seeking their own advantage at the expense of others?
How important is "culture", and should protecting it be a focus of a geopolitical entity, or are "borders" all that matter?
By painting WW2 as a battle against ultimate evil, this purpose is met.
ReplyDeleteAnd painting all Germans troops as no better than baby killers. Read the foreword to the book Tigers in the Mud below which reminds me exactly of the way they paint Confederate soldiers these days and of course comparing the Battle Flag to the Swastika as though Hitler dreamed up the design instead of the fact that it is a 2,000 year old symbol of Buddhism which you see displayed prominent in Vietnam. I wore a Swastika necklace for years that a girl had given me until it was lost.
http://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2011/12/tigers-in-mud-combat-career-of-german.html
It was my disgust towards the demonization of the South that led me to question the same treatment of NS Germany.
ReplyDeleteOh dear. Now I guess I'm a "neo-confederate" and a "nazi sympathizer". Ever notice how the safest path is to accept whatever you're told?
I will add that book to my list!
AP
AP, your recent postings illustrate an uncanny enlightenment. You may soon be ready to snatch the pebble from the hand, Grasshopper.
ReplyDeleteBrock and AP, the Greatest war-time account of the battle against Bolshevism that I have ever read is "Campaign In Russia," by Leon Degrelle (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n3p20_Weber.html). Hitler said of him, "If I were to ever have a son, I would want him to be like you." You would have to find a used copy as the book is long out of print.
Prior to reading "Campaign In Russia." I thought Guy Sajer, "The Forgotten Solider" was Da Bomb. But Sajer's book (while starkly brutal in detail) is apologetic and defeatist by comparison. On the other hand, Degrelle explains exactly what he was fighting for and why - the only regret he had was that National Socialism did not prevail in the epic struggle.
If you can read Degrelle's book without cheering after reading one page and then crying as you read the next, then you are a better man then me. Degrelle, a wanted war criminal in his own Country, Belgum, survived the war and found asylum in Franco's Spain.
Regarding the preemptive German attack, please see, "Stalin's Secret War Plans: Why Hitler Invaded the Soviet Union (http://wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html).
Back to Gun Control, while I cannot refute VR assessment of Dr. Pierce's mis-translation of the German Documents, I do know that Dr. Pierce understood that if he made a factual error in his efforts to show Gun Control as a product of the overall Jewish plan to disarm the Goyim, that he would be made a laughing stock - and Dr. Pierce was not one for being laughed at.
Also, while I do believe that Aaron Zelman was genuine in his efforts to preserve US gun rights, the fact that I cannot find any reference to him revealing to his readership that the predominate movers and shakers behind Gun Confiscation schemes are overwhelmingly Liberal (Communist) American Jews in positions of power and influence (http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Rabbi_0232.htm) and (http://thezog.wordpress.com/who-is-behind-gun-control/) cast suspicion on the accuracy of his translation of the Documents.
However, the one thing that all should be able to agree upon is that Jewish politicians were behind the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.
And, let us not forget how gun ownership is working out for the Palestinians in Democratic Israel. Oh, that's right only Jews can own guns in the Racial Ethno-State and its conquered territories - I mean the settlement areas.
Keep up the good work. “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” ― Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays 2, 1926-29.
RE: Degrelle-
ReplyDelete$70 on Amazon, or free here:
http://ia600200.us.archive.org/9/items/Campaign-in-Russia-Leon-Degrelle/Campaign-in-Russia-Leon-Degrelle.pdf
I do see a glaring inconsistency in the US & EU's efforts and enforcement of multi-culturalism, and their support of the mostly homogenous and repressive Israel.
It's akin to an anti-gun politician with a CCW, or better yet, an armed bodyguard.
Many Germans fought for their "evil" NS government with what can only be described as fanaticism. They saw it in action. Even when their cause was utterly lost, they fought on...and on. Even after Hitler's death, and the fall of Berlin.
It was only the heroism of the SS and Wermacht, fighting a losing battle for their nation, that forestalled the Soviet advance, and ensured more of Europe did not fall prey to the Marxist empire.
AP
AP, what a great find!!! Campaign in Russia - on line. Even if someone despises National Socialism, the book reads like a survival manual for the common solider.
ReplyDeleteI also found a gem for which I hope everyone with "skin in the game" will make time to view. As an introduction to the NS vs Communist issue, please see: Waffen SS The Epic Story - Leon Degrelle (Full Film) [http://youtu.be/_NbHFEKGLPc].
Also, while most people at least acknowledge that the SS and Wermacht, fought a losing battle for their nation and their efforts forestalled the Soviet advance, what most Americans don't understand is the dreaded German Waffen SS was composed of over a million Foreign Volunteers, of which Leon Degrelle was one. There were French, Belguim (Walloonian), Latvian, and Estonian volunteer units who fought alongside Germans even after their nations were "Liberated" by the Allied/Soviet forces.
I found it in paperback for $40 http://www.alibris.com/booksearch.detail?invid=10915667483&qwork=899072&qsort=p&page=1 and put in a request for a Kindle.
ReplyDelete=======
It was only the heroism of the SS and Wermacht, fighting a losing battle for their nation, that forestalled the Soviet advance, and ensured more of Europe did not fall prey to the Marxist empire.
Waffen SS was composed of over a million Foreign Volunteers
=========
Remarkable, to say the least. Quite evident, that they preferred German occupation over Russian.
Harald Nugiseks
http://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2011/02/harald-nugiseks.html
"Several Western scholars refer to the campaign as the Battle of the European SS for the 24 volunteer infantry battalions from Denmark, Estonia, East Prussia, Flanders, Flemings, Holland and Norway within the Waffen-SS. Roughly a half of the infantry consisted of the local Estonian conscripts motivated to resist the looming Soviet re-occupation. The German force of 22,250 men held off the Soviet advance of 136,830 troops. As the Soviet forces were constantly reinforced, the casualties of the battle were 150,000–200,000 wounded and dead Soviet troops and 157–164 Soviet tanks."