|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, March 01, 2002 - 02:40 pm: Edit|
True, the average German was better off economically as a result of Hitler's policies. Anyway freedom to bear arms or not would not have made any difference to Hitler gaining power as there was never any popular opposition to him anyway. Hitler's downfall was trying to fight the war on 2 seperate fronts. As for with marching into Russia in winter with an army not equipped for the weather, that really was bizzare.
|By Don_Walsh on Friday, March 01, 2002 - 01:05 pm: Edit|
Lord H, I agree that Hitler gained huge popular support in Germany, I am quibbling though about the timing. You imply that he had huge popular support before getting into the Hundeburg coalition. I don't think that is so, although it has been a long time since I read The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich.
I think rather that he gained such popular support only later, after consolidating power, and with the help of Goebbels' propaganda machine, and also, it must be granted, policies that certainly made things etter (temporarily) for the average German. In the Mussolini-made-the-trains-run-on-time sense, you see.
I am not arguing that his policies were 'good', but they were effective at gaining him the support of the German masses, along with all the appeals to 'ein Volk' and so on.
Fortunately, Hitler was a shitty military strategist, and micromanaged the OKH, the German general staff, which made a lot of Prussian aristocrat (Landsraad) professional soldiers hate him. And ultimately cost him the war. Along with some basic facts of logistics and economics that he also ignored.
So what do you want from an Austrian corporal and housepainter named Schicklegruber?
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, March 01, 2002 - 11:24 am: Edit|
I wasn't suggesting Hitler was democratic but he did enter a coalition government and gain control of it. Gaining control of a weak coalition (or a political party) by devious means and then carrying out a dirty trick to consolidate one's position isn't exactly uncommon. Thankfuly most politicians who use demcoracy in this way are not as bad as Hitler.
He didn't have to organise an armed revolution and apart from a tiny German resistance (I was once lectured by a German Professor who took up arms in resistance to Hitler) nobody seemed to oppose him. The supposed silent majority didn't seem to appear until it was clear that Germany was losing the war. He didn't exactly get a bad turnout or a lack-lustre response for his speaches and rallies.
I come across so many people who seem to think that Hitler used armed revolution to gain control in Germany against the wishes of the German people at the time. Its as if nobody wants to contemplate the uncomfortable thought that Hitler had huge popular support. Afterall who could support such a man? Surely not civilised Western Europeans, surely not in a democracy and surely he couldn't take power without the use of force? If we ignore the fact that he had popular support and pretend that he forcibly took power against the wishes of the people then we ignore the fact that the same thing could happen again.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, March 01, 2002 - 11:09 am: Edit|
A lesson to be learned from the Versaille Treaty is if you overly 'punish' a defeated nation by crippling it economically it will bite you again. If you take away a nation's pride and rub its nose in the dirt then when someone comes along who appears to take action to regain the nation's pride then people will support him.
|By Drbeer on Friday, March 01, 2002 - 03:20 am: Edit|
I think Nazi Germany came about for many more reasons than just the fact they were unarmed.
I would venture to say that was the least of the reasons for the rise of Nazi Germany.
Most of it, in my opinion, came from the Versaille Treaty and the fact that Germans didn't feel they were the cause of WWI in the first place.
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 04:56 pm: Edit|
Here's an authentic Hitler quote about guns, if that helps, courtosy of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://www.jpfo.org):
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
-- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)
|By Baz on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 01:56 pm: Edit|
The source from which I got that quote said that he agrees, it is of sketchy provenance. I'm glad you pointed that out for me. I like quotes (some say it is because I don't have anything to say for myself) so I would like to have the new quote installed instead-
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 01:40 pm: Edit|
I certainly hope you don't think I am "making stuff up".
|By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:53 am: Edit|
The Party was a minority lording it over the non Party majority, and the Russians are a minority in CIS lording it over all the ethnic minorities. The ethnic minorities are only minorities if considered individually.
|By Baz on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:52 am: Edit|
I'm checking with my source to see if I can independently validate that quote. If it is bogus, I appologize. I had been mislead my self. I certainly hope you don't think I am "making stuff up".
|By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 07:26 am: Edit|
Hah. Then ask him what was the purpose of a Communist Government?
"Sword and Shield of the Party" indeed.
|By Pablo on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 02:17 am: Edit|
I was told by a polisci professor I had (who was retired form the KGB and spoke German, Farsi, French, English, Arabic, and Spanish all fluently enough to carry on with natives) that the purpose of a democracy is rule by the people. The purpose of a Government is to keep the majority from oppressing the minority.
Just thought I'd share that.
|By _Blackjack on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 04:23 pm: Edit|
The gun control laws in Weimar Germany (which date from 1928) were actually designed to control paramilitary organizations like the Brownshirts. They were, if anything, detremental to his rise to power.
The specific quote is totally bogus, BTW. There are strong enough arguments to be made against gun control without making stuff up, not to mention invoking Godwin's Law.
Here are some references, from a PRO-gun site:
|By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 02:54 pm: Edit|
It wasn't quite that simple.
Hitler managed to get into a coalition government with a weak leader (old tired Paul von Hindenberg), staged a phony crisis (the burning of the Reichstag, supposedly by Communists, actually by his own men), and (sorry, Hob) seized power.
He was about as democratically elected as Hun Sen in Cambodia -- who LOST the election, threatened to return to civil war, got brought into the government by Prince Rannaridh, as an UNelected "prime minister #2", grabbed all the ministries with guns, blew up a rally by opposition figure Sam Remsy, and when the FBI was asked to help with the investigation of that mass murder, pulled a coup against the man who brought him into the government.
Hitler managed a slightly better show than that, but only just.
Of course all elections conducted once Hitler was in office are suspect, so arguing that the German people "voted him into power" at that point is about as meaningless as the one (Communist) party, mandatory voting, elections in Laos last week. Yes, and at the same time, a resounding No.
I suppose for a time, Hitler appealed to German pride and, at least they thought, it was better than burp guns in the streets which is what the Weimar Republic was like, constant street war between the reds and the brownshirts (SA). It was as if those political factions were street gangs -- and they were! There was a Nazi Party decoration for those who fought the street battles, with appropriately low Party numbers, signifying they joined before Hitler was in power. It is called the Order of Blood. Fratricidal German blood.
Germany had its silent majority. The Nazis were a minority. THAT lesson, that a minority can obtain political power in a civilized Western nation and wreak havoc on half the world, is the still pertinent one of the European theatre of WWII.
Of course the same applies to the Bolsheviks, they were also a tiny minority, they also were in a civilized, Western part of their nation (I would argue that Tsarist Russia was neither entirely Western nor entirely civilized but that is just nekulturny little me.)
Let's not forget that their revolution was also a very close run thing -- I mean, it almost didn't succeed, not once but many times.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 11:27 am: Edit|
The point about the Nazis in Germany is that the German people at the time voted for Hitler. He did not 'sieze power', he was voted in and had massive popular support. The only time the bulk of Germans at the time stopped backing him whole-heartedly was when he was obviously losing the war. This demonstrates that the wishes of the electorate is not always a good thing. Majority wishes do not mean always mean it is the right thing (of course the majority will always think it is the right thing).
In Germany the Jews were so gradually and systematically psychologically demoralised that by the time they were being marched off to the camps there was no fight left in them. In Poland there had not been so long a period of psychological demoralisation before the death-camps so the Polish Jews still had their sense of self-worth left intact and were ready for a fight.
Anyway if there had been a right to bear arms in Germany then you can be sure that Hitler would have excluded the Jews from this and the rest of the German population would have supported him in this. The guns would have been taken off the Jews long before any of them could even imagine what fate Hitler had in store for them.
|By Raschied on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 08:31 am: Edit|
I think the point with Nazi Germany is being missed. While it's true the general populace went along with Hitler, do you think the German Jews would've walked peacefully into the concentration camps if they were allowed gun ownership?
In Poland, they managed to get weapons, and held out against the Nazis for over 3 months. See "Uprising."
|By Pablo on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 12:28 am: Edit|
Except in Berlin. Thats why hitler moved the capitol. Berlin was the center of education and arts in Germany, and gave hitler the least support.
Of course, if most Germans wern't starving at the time, Hitler would have gotten alot less support. The so called "war reparations" from WW1 bankrupted the country. Like in Italy, it was peace and stability, but at gunpoint.
Also, don't forget there were SS brigades made up from every single country in europe. Hitler was supported by facist rednecks from all over.
|By Heiko on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 09:39 am: Edit|
"All ya gotta do is look at what happened in Nazi Germany and you'll understand what an unarmed population is really worth..."
So you really think if all the Germans had had guns, they would have rebelled against Hitler?
You forget that the Nazis weren't a bunch of extraterrestrians who came down on earth to suppress the Germans - the Nazis were Germans and most of the population was in favor of this government (at least in the beginning). The Nazis achieved with very professional propaganda that everyone opposing them would be singled out and regarded as an enemy by all of his neighbours, even his friends. A gun would not have helped him very much...
|By Baz on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 07:24 am: Edit|
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
-Adolph Hitler, april 15, 1935
|By Pikkle on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 04:06 pm: Edit|
All ya gotta do is look at what happened in Nazi Germany and you'll understand what an unarmed population is really worth...
|By Etienne on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 03:55 pm: Edit|
I see that you're starting to understand. That was the point of having armed citizens from the very beginning.
|By Baz on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 02:40 pm: Edit|
I'm thinking about running for office and bringing the entire thing down from the inside...
|By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 01:56 pm: Edit|
You speak the truth. Our governments treat us like their servants and it's our own bloody fault because we just sit there and let them. We are the cause of how they treat us because we do nothing about it (except grumble into our beer now and then).
I think I'm softening in my disagreement with the USA's gun laws. There is a point to having armed civilians.
|By Baz on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 12:39 pm: Edit|
before I get flamed over that let me clarify-
When I said attacked the southern states for doing what they had a right to do, I meant secede. Not slavery, that would be an even bigger mudpit.
Secession is another "sticky" constitutional issue. Most of those that have studied it believe that since the const. gave some of the state's powers to the fed. government for a stronger union, that the states can take those powers back whenever they want and leave the union. They are probably right theoretically, but we see what happened when it was actually tried.
|By Admin on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 11:12 am: Edit|
fire away ...
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation