NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently stumbled across this little gem, and although somewhat poorly written, it raises what I consider to be some interesting points:

This was written by a conservative druring the late nineties, so I don't take all the points very seriously, but some of them are downright creepy.

ADOLF HITLER (DICTATOR, 1889-1945)

By: Rabbi Daniel Lapin

I have no intention of explaining how the correspondence which I now offer to the public fell into my hands. There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.--Preface to THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS by C.S. Lewis

My Dear Julius,

[Editor's note: Julius Streicher was a Nazi leader hanged after the Nuremberg trials]

Landsberg prison, which I entered on April 1, 1924, and where I wrote MEIN KAMPF, is strangely similar to this place I entered after shooting myself on April 30, 1945. I found myself in both places involuntarily, yet they have each provided me with peace as well as perspective.

As one tends to do in the timeless eternity of our existence here, I often reflect upon my single most regrettable error--underestimating America. Exactly one month after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor I told you at our Berlin headquarters that America is a decayed country. My feelings against Americanism were feelings of hatred and deep repugnance. Everything about the behavior of American society reveals that it's half Judaized and the other half Negrified. How can one expect a state like that to hold together? Well, America did somehow hold together and seized victory from us. However, and this is important my friend, she has finally adopted many of the vital ideas of our movement. Could not this be described as an ultimate vindication of all we lived and died for? Perhaps it is even a victory of sorts.

Let me explain. First and foremost we were socialists. As national socialists, or Nazis, we presumed that government and the people were hostile to one another. Thus, we understood that the old German tradition of citizens' owning guns had to end. On March 18, 1938, we enacted our Law on Weapons and ruled that only government agents may own firearms. You can imagine my approval as I watched Senator Thomas Dodd craft America's Gun Control Act of 1968 by having our own law of 1938 translated for him by an official of the Library of Congress. My dear Julius, we can be proud of how similarly the two laws read. Those gun control efforts are naive and well-meaning, but their results will resemble ours. We told the German people that gun control laws were needed to curb gang activity and preserve democracy, but what those laws did was help us prevail.

We Nazis understood that every German citizen must live for the state. And in the same way that wise farmers accept responsibility for the health of their herds, we used the power of government to keep our flocks healthy. We were disgusted by the addictive powers of cigarettes, since both mind and body were supposed to belong to the Fuhrer. We succeeded in almost criminalizing the smoking of cigarettes.

Our Ministry of Science and Education ordered elementary schools to discuss the dangers of tobacco. Government-sponsored cultural and educational events were declared "smoke-free." In the late 1930s we called for increased taxes on cigarettes and later instituted bans on cigarette advertising. I am most proud of the legislation we introduced prohibiting sales of cigarettes to minors. We set up counseling centers for the psychological treatment of smokers, and we established smoke-free restaurants.

We soon managed to prohibit smoking on Luftwaffe properties and followed that with prohibiting smoking in post offices, government buildings, and many workplaces. In 1940, S.S. Chief Heinrich Himmler announced a smoking ban for all on-duty police and S.S. officers. Our comrade, Hermann Goering, decreed soldiers may not smoke in public, and most cities banned smoking on public transport in order to protect the ticket takers from second-hand smoke. We can indeed be proud that today America has also come to realize the importance of central government taking the initiative in regulating what people do not have the good sense to do voluntarily.

Do you remember that awkwardness in late 1940? The American consulate in Leipzig reported on our policy of conducting compassionate euthanasia on the patients in the Grafeneck Mental Asylum in Wurttemberg. What an uproar resulted in America! But now one of America's most prestigious institutions, Princeton University, has appointed as professor of bioethics one Peter Singer, who openly advocates putting to death the mentally defective, the terminally ill, and even severely disabled infants. He would give parents and doctors the right to actually kill (not just withhold treatment from) newborns with, for instance, spina bifida and hemophilia. Singer insists a newborn has no greater right to life than pigs, cows, and dogs. So the ridiculous idea that all human life is sacred is now finally under attack in America. A sitting President was re-elected after affirming the legitimacy of exterminating infants during birth, and doctors in their province of Oregon have begun doing away with the elderly and weak. Yes, America is certainly coming around to our way of seeing things.

Finally, dear Julius, you will remember what I frequently said and wrote in MEIN KAMPF: "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." I explained that as long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. It is truly heartwarming to see how well this lesson has been learned by the American government. In the name of children, incursions into the private lives of American citizens have been made that we Nazis would have gazed at with open-mouthed admiration. Does it matter that our bodies failed as long as our spirit still triumphs?

I know you have a question to ask me, my friend: What about the Jews? After all, how can I say that much of America is adopting our views when Jews still exert such disproportionate influence in that country? Grasp the genius of your Fuhrer. You see, dear Julius, with well-meaning earnestness, most American Jews are solidly behind the ideas I have been describing. In the mistaken belief that they are making America safer for minorities, American Jews have joined those advocating ever larger and ever more powerful government. In reality, what they are doing is making America more hospitable to national socialism. When it eventually arrives, they too will see the real dangers, but then it will be too late. Now they only see danger in illiterate thugs with no hair on their heads. American Jews are frightened by a handful of the sort of people we used to execute, instead of being terrified of the institutionalized danger they are helping to create--government with limitless power that could one day be hospitable to tyranny.

We didn't just kill Jews--we were obsessed with them. We knew and understood the power their God conferred upon them. It was either their 3,000-old vision of holiness or our modern ideas of scientific progress that would prevail. Do you recall that Israeli thug, Isser Harel, who founded their cursed Mossad and captured our brother Eichmann in Buenos Aires in 1960? Harel was astounded when Eichmann, upon realizing that he had been captured by Jews, called out the Hebrew prayer "Shema Yisrael," "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One." Eichmann understood. You, Julius, you also understood. You ascended the gallows in Nuremberg and your very last words were "Heil Hitler!" (for which I thank you) and then "Purim Fest 1946." You knew that when the Allies hanged my ten friends, they were playing out a modern day version of the biblical book of Esther in which ten enemies of the Jews were hanged on the festival of Purim.

And it wasn't just the Jews. Joseph Goebbels put it quite well: "The Fuhrer is deeply religious though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so; it is a branch of the Jewish race."

We can be confident America will preserve and develop our Nazi ideas of scientific human perfectability because of one stroke of genius even Reich minister of propaganda, Goebbels has to admire: Those who are advocating socialism in America, whether deliberately or inadvertently, have succeeded in turning the term "Nazi" into a slur that may only be used against those on the right, such as Christian conservatives. Never is it used against those on the left who are precisely the Americans doing most to advance our agenda. We are winning Julius, we are winning. Heil Hitler.

At this time, I would like to invoke Godwin's law.

What is it with gun control?

In Germany we did a lot of classes on Nazi Germany (and I mean a lot) at school. There are documentaries made about it all the time.

And yet, no one ever bothers to mention that the Nazis had gun control. It's just so insignificant. So completely void of consequence.

The only people who seize on that tiny little speck in the giant whole are pro-gun people. Historically, it just doesn't matter whether or not the people have guns.

The only people who seize on that tiny little speck in the giant whole are pro-gun people. Historically, it just doesn't matter whether or not the people have guns.
Not to mention that many gun advocates in America are Nazis.

At this time, I would like to invoke Godwin's law.

*Reviews the cliam and brings out the denied stamp*

BUMP!

Sorry that works when likening somebody or something to the Nazis in a debate.

The article in question was simply a presentation of something found.

*holds up the 2nd Amendment that protects his right to own a firearm if he chooses too*

In Germany we did a lot of classes on Nazi Germany (and I mean a lot) at school. There are documentaries made about it all the time.
I don't trust a class taken in Germany on Germany any more serriously than a class takenon America in America.
The only people who seize on that tiny little speck in the giant whole are pro-gun people. Historically, it just doesn't matter whether or not the people have guns.
I'm not pro-gun. I don't want one and short of societal collapse I would never own one. I tend to think that certain people's preoccupation with them is silly and that they are more than likely regressive. I just don't think others should be restricted from having them.

Gee, too bad Hitler wasn't a socialist, and that "National Socialist" parties are generally different from true socialist parties.

Gee, too bad Hitler wasn't a socialist, and that "National Socialist" parties are generally different from true socialist parties.
The article never claimed he was anything but a national socialist.

What is it with gun control?

In Germany we did a lot of classes on Nazi Germany (and I mean a lot) at school. There are documentaries made about it all the time.

And yet, no one ever bothers to mention that the Nazis had gun control. It's just so insignificant. So completely void of consequence.

The only people who seize on that tiny little speck in the giant whole are pro-gun people. Historically, it just doesn't matter whether or not the people have guns.

It mattered for the Swiss when Germany, for that reason among others, decided not to invade.

The article never claimed he was anything but a national socialist.

There's a difference between Facism and Socialism. I suggest you take a look at the difference between them.

At this time, I would like to invoke Godwin's law.

You can't call godwin in a thread about hitler. That's silly, and the sort of thing that hitler would do.

The article never claimed he was anything but a national socialist.
Actually, it did spew that bullshit as well:

Let me explain. First and foremost we were socialists.

There's a difference between Facism and Socialism. I suggest you take a look at the difference between them.
I assure you that I am more than aware of the differences. Though, I despise both equally.
Actually, it did spew that bullshit as well:[
Quote:
Originally Posted by The article
Let me explain. First and foremost we were socialists.
Which it follows with, "As national socialists, or Nazis, we presumed that government and the people were hostile to one another."
Because of that I gave it the benifit of the doubt, but you can interpret that however you wish.
Even if there is some confusion about socialists, it doesn't detract from the rest of the article, especially the stuff about the Jews.

What is it with gun control?


What is it with eurocentrism?

It's a big debate in the US. People mention it and like to talk about it. (Unless you thought that letter was actually written by hitler).

Also, if it doesn't matter historically - which I doubt - , why did hitler ban them?

Even if there is some confusion about socialists, it doesn't detract from the rest of the article, especially the stuff about the Jews.
Of course not. If implied as well, the bullshit about socialists fades in comparison with the surrealism of what's inside the author's mind (by which I mean, of course, the actual author).

Wait, so the article's saying tobacco isn't bad, or at least that people shouldn't be made aware of its dangers?

It mattered for the Swiss when Germany, for that reason among others, decided not to invade.
That's a gross misrepresentation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenbaum

Wait, so the article's saying tobacco isn't bad, or at least that people shouldn't be made aware of its dangers?

Yes. That's exactly what it says. In its totality.

That's a gross misrepresentation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenbaum
It's so cool that, in the event, they'd had to call on each mayor and canton assembly to surrender...

Wait, so the article's saying tobacco isn't bad, or at least that people shouldn't be made aware of its dangers?
The government shouldn’t interfere with the decisions of its citizens.
Actually it shouldn’t exist at all, but that’s a whole other topic.

Historically, it just doesn't matter whether or not the people have guns.

that's not true at all

that's not true at all
Why not?

Either there is an army which can crush an uprising if necessary (especially in modern nations, where the difference between a firearm and a helicopter gunship is quiet pronounced), or the population supports the oppression anyway, as was the case in Germany.

Do you seriously think Nazi Germany could have been brought down in the people'd had guns?

It doesn't make a very good point. So the Hitler had some viewpoints that are widely supported today! Viewpoints can be shared by differeny groups of people.

Frankly, there's not much to debate about, the article was stupid and ineffective. This thread shouldn't exist.

Do you seriously think Nazi Germany could have been brought down in the people'd had guns?

People might have resisted more effectively had they had guns.

Oh yes.

Everything Nazi Germany did was pure evil. EVERYTHING.

:rolleyes:

Oh yes.

Everything Nazi Germany did was pure evil. EVERYTHING.
What good did it do?

People might have resisted more effectively had they had guns.

The Jews. Just the Jews. If ever single German owned a gun, well, all the Jews would be dead because of getting shot in the streets, and the war may have taken a couple more months to win.

What good did it do?
For a while it helped the economy recover from its terrible Weimar levels. That is not to say Weimar was not recovering, but by the time it was almost becoming noticeable it was too late. Nazism helped deal with the high unemployment and stabilise the economy. One of its only positive aspects.

Why not?

Either there is an army which can crush an uprising if necessary (especially in modern nations, where the difference between a firearm and a helicopter gunship is quiet pronounced), or the population supports the oppression anyway, as was the case in Germany.

Do you seriously think Nazi Germany could have been brought down in the people'd had guns?

well no, but that's because the nazis had the overwhelming support of the majority of people. however, it is notable how long the jews in warsaw held out with only small arms.

i was disagreeing with the notion that it doesn't matter if the people are armed. it does. every revolution starts with armed people, and history agrees with me. arns severely limits the power of the people, and that's why i oppose it.

For a while it helped the economy recover from its terrible Weimar levels. That is not to say Weimar was not recovering, but by the time it was almost becoming noticeable it was too late. Nazism helped deal with the high unemployment and stabilise the economy. One of its only positive aspects.
What did they do specifically?

People might have resisted more effectively had they had guns.
Who?

The resistance groups were small and aimed at making people see. Why?

Because the SS wasn't exactly soft on revolts, and not exactly likely to be defeated by them either. A case in point was one of the biggest single, unified uprisings in history, the Battle of the Warsaw Ghetto.

Either there is an army which can crush an uprising if necessary (especially in modern nations, where the difference between a firearm and a helicopter gunship is quiet pronounced), or the population supports the oppression anyway, as was the case in Germany.


So there is no insurgency in Iraq? Nothing to see there, move along &c.

And even if the state millitary can crush an uprising (assuming they can fully mobilize in time), it is a lot more difficult when the populace is armed. Especially when the discontent is widespread.

And historically, governments have realized the advantages of disarming populations to control civil disturbances. For example england in the early 19th century during the luddite uprisings, when the government seized all weapons in private hands.

For a while it helped the economy recover from its terrible Weimar levels. That is not to say Weimar was not recovering, but by the time it was almost becoming noticeable it was too late. Nazism helped deal with the high unemployment and stabilise the economy. One of its only positive aspects.

It brought order - of a sorts - back to the streets as well.

(Stupid communists, they did more to put the Nazis in power than anyone).

What did they do specifically?
Basically by creating a war economy they helped absorb a lot of the unemployed and elevated living conditions (at least from an economic point of view) for a reasonable amount of time. It's when the war machine was set in motion that this changed.

It brought order - of a sorts - back to the streets as well.

(Stupid communists, they did more to put the Nazis in power than anyone).
Yes, although it was an extremely strict order, based on Terror more than anything else (the SS/Gestapo combo was deadly under Himmler).

And indeed, the Communists gave Hitler much ammunition from whence to advance his ideas. They were little better in my view.

So there is no insurgency in Iraq? Nothing to see there, move along &c.
So you're talking explosives and RPGs, not handguns?

Especially when the discontent is widespread.
If the discontent is actually widespread, violent uprising is not actually necessary to affect political change. Ghandi would come to mind, or Prestroika and Glasnost.

And indeed, the Communists gave Hitler much ammunition from whence to advance his ideas. They were little better in my view.
You don't actually beleive that the communists burned down the Reichstag do you? Not that I'm assuming you do, just clarifying.

Who?

The resistance groups were small and aimed at making people see. Why?

Because the SS wasn't exactly soft on revolts, and not exactly likely to be defeated by them either. A case in point was one of the biggest single, unified uprisings in history, the Battle of the Warsaw Ghetto.

There also was never a very strong resistance movement against the Nazi occupation.

Afghanistan and Vietnam are two examples of where an armed populace has managed to defeat a more powerful, more technologically advanced force, and there are others.

You don't actually beleive that the communists burned down the Reichstag do you? Not that I'm assuming you do, just clarifying.
Of course not. Yet their actions didn't make it too hard for people to believe that they did. Let's just say I dislike both KPD and NSDAP.

Of course not. Yet their actions didn't make it too hard for people to believe that they did. Let's just say I dislike both KPD and NSDAP.
I'd prefer the KPD to the Nazis.
They were controlled by Stalinists, but they had some good anti-statist amongst them.

Of course not. Yet their actions didn't make it too hard for people to believe that they did. Let's just say I dislike both KPD and NSDAP.

The KPD did have a bad record in the years preceding Nazi rule, but if anything, their problem was not their overly partisan anti-Fascism, but rather their incapability to distinguish bourgeois conservatives (and even left-wing reformists) from Fascists. They also, like the other members of the Comintern, adhered too closely to Moscow's line.

The KPD did have a bad record in the years preceding Nazi rule, but if anything, their problem was not their overly partisan anti-Fascism, but rather their incapability to distinguish bourgeois conservatives (and even left-wing reformists) from Fascists. They also, like the other members of the Comintern, adhered too closely to Moscow's line.
Exactly why I dislike them so much.

I'd prefer the KPD to the Nazis.
They were controlled by Stalinists, but they had some good anti-statist amongst them.
I'd rather shoot myself than follow either.

Afghanistan and Vietnam are two examples of where an armed populace has managed to defeat a more powerful, more technologically advanced force, and there are others.
Armed, yes. But not with handguns.

So unless you're going to make nails with heads, and argue that every household in the states should be equipped with RPGs, Stinger Missiles and a healthy stash of explosives, your examples miss the point.

So you're talking explosives and RPGs, not handguns?

There was a paucity of handguns in Iraq before the US invaded. However, had they been as widespread as in the US, I am sure they would be used right now. The point is that lightly armed insurgents aren't that easy to put down with a modern millitary.


If the discontent is actually widespread, violent uprising is not actually necessary to affect political change. Ghandi would come to mind, or Prestroika and Glasnost.

Ghandi was sucessful because of british public sentiment. Conversly, had gun possesion in India been widespread 100yrs earlier, possibly India would have achieved independence much sooner. Perstroika and Glasnost came from within the Polituburo itself originally and required Gorbachev.

Widespread discontent can be supressed in an unarmed populace indefinitely.

Peaceful protest didn't mean shit in tianamen square.

In any event, you miss the central point. Some people feel that it is better to die on their feet than live on their knees.

Armed, yes. But not with handguns.

Fine, ban handguns. I don't care. But let people keep their assault rifles, they may come in handy one day.

So unless you're going to make nails with heads, and argue that every household in the states should be equipped with RPGs, Stinger Missiles and a healthy stash of explosives, your examples miss the point.

I have considered it before. It does make some sense, under the right circumstances. Certainly, making the military a popular institution instead of an aspect of the state apparatus would reduce aggression and help prevent repression.

Armed, yes. But not with handguns.

So unless you're going to make nails with heads, and argue that every household in the states should be equipped with RPGs, Stinger Missiles and a healthy stash of explosives, your examples miss the point.

I am curious. Why do you care whether or not people in the US have handguns?

There was a paucity of handguns in Iraq before the US invaded. However, had they been as widespread as in the US, I am sure they would be used right now.
A good point actually. Saddam didn't disarm the populace, did he. And every household did have an AK (or almost every one).

The point is that lightly armed insurgents aren't that easy to put down with a modern millitary.
If there is a popular uprising in the US, using handguns, I would guarantee you that the military could easily put it down, if it was serious enough.
Either that, or the military would side with the uprising, but then there wouldn't be a need for an armed populace anyways.

Ghandi was sucessful because of british public sentiment. Conversly, had gun possesion in India been widespread 100yrs earlier, possibly India would have achieved independence much sooner.
I don't know enough about the specifics, but I would argue that the difference between an armed civilian and a soldier was smaller then that it would be today.

Perstroika and Glasnost came from within the Polituburo itself originally and required Gorbachev.
But it nonetheless was required because of the popular discontent.

Widespread discontent can be supressed in an unarmed populace indefinitely.
Martin Luther King is another example, as are the peace protests against Vietnam.
If widespread enough, at some point violent oppression is no longer practical.

Peaceful protest didn't mean shit in tianamen square.
But that was hardly a widespread movement. It was a single protest, confined to one demographic group.

In any event, you miss the central point. Some people feel that it is better to die on their feet than live on their knees.
And they die if they push it too far, guns or not.

I am curious. Why do you care whether or not people in the US have handguns?
I don't really. But I will confront a silly argument nonetheless.

You can make good arguments for gun ownership based on all sorts of things. But the power to overthrow the government certainly isn't one of them.

What is it with gun control?

In Germany we did a lot of classes on Nazi Germany (and I mean a lot) at school. There are documentaries made about it all the time.

And yet, no one ever bothers to mention that the Nazis had gun control. It's just so insignificant. So completely void of consequence.

The only people who seize on that tiny little speck in the giant whole are pro-gun people. Historically, it just doesn't matter whether or not the people have guns.

It should be noted that Germany has very significant gun control, so there would be no reason to distinguish Hitler's advocation of gun control.

I am sure that the videos are eager to point out the evils of Nazi Germany, so I sincerely doubt they are interested in calling out gun control.

A good point actually. Saddam didn't disarm the populace, did he. And every household did have an AK (or almost every one).

My understanding is that the sunnis, who were quite content with Saddam, were always allowed to own guns. And just before the invasion, Saddam started to distribute AKs to anyone who wanted them. I don't believe that handgun ownership was ever widespread.

If there is a popular uprising in the US, using handguns, I would guarantee you that the military could easily put it down, if it was serious enough.
Either that, or the military would side with the uprising, but then there wouldn't be a need for an armed populace anyways.

You have to remember that handgun ownership is part of a smaller subset of gun ownership. In reality, the debate about handguns reflects a wider concern about the possesion of private firearms, and the extent to which ownership can be regulated.

(And possibly the millitary could put down a general insurrection. But you can't deny it is more difficult to do so when there are eighty million private handguns than without; if nothing else, it creates a nightmare for security forces, knowing that millions of handguns are in the hands of disgruntled rebels who are prepared to trade their lives to kill their percieved oppressors)

But it nonetheless was required because of the popular discontent.

The popular discontent was there long before peristroika. The USSR had little difficulty in keeping it down. And reasonable people can argue that peristroika and glasnost were forced upon the regime more because of economic failure, afganistan, and the difficulty in maintaining a huge millitary than the populaces actual discontent with the government.

Martin Luther King is another example, as are the peace protests against Vietnam.

Martin Luther King was able - pretty much - to work within the government. And his case is different from those who live under totalitarianism. Disgusting though the laws of the southern states and the racism in general of that time was, there was still a free press, due process, and federal government that was at least open to the type of changes that he was advocating.

I don't think he is a good example in that respect.

But that was hardly a widespread movement. It was a single protest, confined to one demographic group.

There are thousands of protests in China every year. The government puts them down with impunity, when it feels they have gone to far.

And they die if they push it too far, guns or not.

That's the point. Some people are would rather die in armed resistance, than live in subjugation. It's having the opportunity to at least strike a blow back that counts.

I don't really. But I will confront a silly argument nonetheless.


It's an acculturation thing probably then. It seems silly to you, because you don't live here. One of the biggest arguments against further restricting gun ownership in the UK - at the time it was debated - was that it would negatively effect sport. (Target shooting). I found that ludicrous.

The reasons for restricting free-speech in Europe seem silly to many americans, for much the same reason I imagine.

This is just a post since Adolf Hitler seems to have come back to life here.

Has anyone seen the movie, Hitlers Children, Dr Josef Mengele created 50 or 100 duplicate Hitlers from Hitlers, I forgot what part of Hitlers body, and choose especial American familys to raise them as secretly adopted American born kids, then he checks in on them.

Has anyone seen a movie called Hitlers daughter? I only saw the last few minutes of the movie, in the end Hitlers daughter who either grew up in America or was born in America some how, wins the election and becomes President of the USA, on election night,in her celebration acceptance speech, she promises that she is the one that can do great things for America?



Your comments?

Hilter was kinda young when he died, I thought he was in his 60's

What is it with gun control?

In Germany we did a lot of classes on Nazi Germany (and I mean a lot) at school. There are documentaries made about it all the time.

And yet, no one ever bothers to mention that the Nazis had gun control. It's just so insignificant. So completely void of consequence.

The only people who seize on that tiny little speck in the giant whole are pro-gun people. Historically, it just doesn't matter whether or not the people have guns.

It is because of what I saw on a T-Shirt once, "There can be no First without a Second"

this of course relating to the 1st and 2nd Ammendment to the United States Constitution

many of the anti-nazi resistance cells where able to hold onto their weapons, and fight back, but it was really only a very small majority that had them

Not to mention that many gun advocates in America are Nazis.

no, most of the gun rights advocates are conservatives. The NeoNAzi bastards who support them are so far right that they cannot even see the right wing. Please do not call me a Nazi because of my desire to protect my family from burgalars and big government

The Jews. Just the Jews. If ever single German owned a gun, well, all the Jews would be dead because of getting shot in the streets, and the war may have taken a couple more months to win.

that is bullshit, there was an organization of Germans who did what they could to try and stop that satanic beast. Hitler knew that Germans where going to oppose him, and that is why he took away gun ownership rights, to take away their ability to successfully oppose him.

What did they do specifically?

The Audobon (did i spell it right)
The coolest highway in the history of the world

*thinks*

maybe FDR should have tried to make our highways more like it, it takes seven years to repair our highways, and they have to be repaired every seven years.

that is bullshit, there was an organization of Germans who did what they could to try and stop that satanic beast. Hitler knew that Germans where going to oppose him, and that is why he took away gun ownership rights, to take away their ability to successfully oppose him.

They got better weapons from Britain.

Would they have gotten those had they kept their handguns?

The Audobon (did i spell it right)
The coolest highway in the history of the world


Autobahn.

Actually, it's losing out. It's not as well-lit as the Belgian highways.

Why not?

Either there is an army which can crush an uprising if necessary (especially in modern nations, where the difference between a firearm and a helicopter gunship is quiet pronounced), or the population supports the oppression anyway, as was the case in Germany.

Do you seriously think Nazi Germany could have been brought down in the people'd had guns?

The french resistance did better (not hard to do) than their standing army.
Costa Rica rebuffed a Nicaraguan (US funded and supplied) invasion only with the populace; they have no army. I don't see whats so hard to see about the difficulties in conquering an armed civilian populace, don't you keep up with the news in Iraq? Standing armies are good on the offensive, but militias (armed civilians) are unmatched on the defensive. Name a war where a standing army defeated a militia on their home ground (and they were armed)and I'll name you two where the case was different.

I'd rather shoot myself than follow either.

why shoot yourself when you can shoot them:mp5: :D

There was a paucity of handguns in Iraq before the US invaded. However, had they been as widespread as in the US, I am sure they would be used right now. The point is that lightly armed insurgents aren't that easy to put down with a modern millitary.




Ghandi was sucessful because of british public sentiment. Conversly, had gun possesion in India been widespread 100yrs earlier, possibly India would have achieved independence much sooner. Perstroika and Glasnost came from within the Polituburo itself originally and required Gorbachev.

Widespread discontent can be supressed in an unarmed populace indefinitely.

Peaceful protest didn't mean shit in tianamen square.

In any event, you miss the central point. Some people feel that it is better to die on their feet than live on their knees.

Amen man, Amen

This is just a post since Adolf Hitler seems to have come back to life here.

Has anyone seen the movie, Hitlers Children, Dr Josef Mengele created 50 or 100 duplicate Hitlers from Hitlers, I forgot what part of Hitlers body, and choose especial American familys to raise them as secretly adopted American born kids, then he checks in on them.

Has anyone seen a movie called Hitlers daughter? I only saw the last few minutes of the movie, in the end Hitlers daughter who either grew up in America or was born in America some how, wins the election and becomes President of the USA, on election night,in her celebration acceptance speech, she promises that she is the one that can do great things for America?



Your comments?
:eek:
*kneels down, crosses himself*
Oh Lord Jesus please do not let this be true. I implore you not to let this be true.

many of the anti-nazi resistance cells where able to hold onto their weapons, and fight back, but it was really only a very small majority that had them
Sorry mate that I have to do this...but would you mind giving me some names of those groups or their members?

Do you seriously think Nazi Germany could have been brought down in the people'd had guns?
Yes, if only because somebody would've just assassinated the son of a bitch.

Ah, yes, the Nazi gun control myth.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies.

For a while it helped the economy recover from its terrible Weimar levels. That is not to say Weimar was not recovering, but by the time it was almost becoming noticeable it was too late. Nazism helped deal with the high unemployment and stabilise the economy. One of its only positive aspects.

From the last book i read on the subject (Burleighs "new history of the third reich") the fabled Nazi economic miracle didn't actually exist, and the standard of living for the average German had actually declined between 33 and 39.

Sorry mate that I have to do this...but would you mind giving me some names of those groups or their members?

Here are links to some

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=1aercsckb647h?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Widerstand&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc03a&linktext=German%20resistance%20movements
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=1aercsckb647h?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=White+Rose&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc03a&linktext=White%20Rose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edelweiss_Pirates

these are just the first ones i can find, but i do know personally that some of my family tried to sabotage some factory and where sent...somewhere

What good did it do?

Do you mean for just Germany or the entire world? Because it did quite a bit of good for both.

Germany:
Fixed the economy which was hell ever since the end of WW2
Gave the German people hope that the future would be better
Ended basically any chance of future dictators in Germany
Got them a Pope (hehe he's a Hitler Youth kid)

World (some of this is because of WW2, being as Hitler [basically] started it):
Developed jet engines
Ended the worldwide depression
Created the U.N.
Hurried the development of nuclear weapons
Stopped what would have been a far worse war, USSR vs Western Europe (plus possibly the USA)
Ended European colonization of a large part of the world
Ended trench warfare forever
Didn't allow WW2 to go chemical/biological
Stopped the Soviets from gaining all of Eastern Europe and most of Central Europe meanwhile denying the Allies the ability to be camping on Stalin's doorstep
Stopped a possibly better leader from taking over Germany, which may have resulted in the German win or at least an unfavorable stalemate in WW2

That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there is more. Not to say Hitler was good either Germany or the world as a whole, but it is false to say he was all bad.

From the last book i read on the subject (Burleighs "new history of the third reich") the fabled Nazi economic miracle didn't actually exist, and the standard of living for the average German had actually declined between 33 and 39.
Because cash was fuelled into the war economy, yes. Compared to Weimar though, they were better off.

these are just the first ones i can find, but i do know personally that some of my family tried to sabotage some factory and where sent...somewhere
But they were not the sort of groups who could have used handguns. Either they were from the military, so bans wouldn't have affected them, or they were teens like the Weiße Rose, who were just trying to get people to see what was happening.

As another poster said above: It's a myth that the ban on handguns would have somehow stopped a resistance if it had existed. Guns were still around, people could get hold of them - hell, many people were making them every day.
But there simply was no large organisation which would have been able to stop the Nazis by force of arms. There either wasn't enough support for it, and where there was, it was impossible to actually contact anyone because the Gestapo could hear everything.
The vast majority of attempts on Hitler were one-man jobs. The only notable exception was Stauffenberg's bomb, and that was a military thing, not civilian resistance.

It mattered for the Swiss when Germany, for that reason among others, decided not to invade.
Not to mention that in Colonial America/Revolutionary times, if you were serving as a minuteman/in the Continental army, you were required to bring your own gun; the military would supply you w/some ammo but the gun is your responsibility to have (not to mention we really didn't have the capacity to be supplying rifles for our soldiers)

Not to mention that in Colonial America/Revolutionary times, if you were serving as a minuteman/in the Continental army, you were required to bring your own gun; the military would supply you w/some ammo but the gun is your responsibility to have (not to mention we really didn't have the capacity to be supplying rifles for our soldiers)
Good to know that some people still live in the 1700s. And on a continent where the state is castrated.

Good to know that some people still live in the 1700s. And on a continent where the state is castrated.
Yes, well considering we've gone 230 years without degenerating into a totalitarian state (no Bush cracks, it only embarrases your points even further), I'd say there are two main reasons as to why that hasn't happened:
1) The Constitution - it is the oldest national constitution still in use, not to mention has served as the basis of many other national constitutions
2) 2nd Amendment - the original intent of allowing citizens to bear arms was to serve as a check against both foregin and domestic threats. Considering we haven't had a military junta established yet, there's gotta be something that has the government nervous about doing that

Rabbi Daniel Lapin is wrong.

There is a huge difference between a society pushing for foreign superiority than one pushing for native superiority.

Yes, well considering we've gone 230 years without degenerating into a totalitarian state (no Bush cracks, it only embarrases your points even further), I'd say there are two main reasons as to why that hasn't happened:
1) The Constitution - it is the oldest national constitution still in use, not to mention has served as the basis of many other national constitutions
2) 2nd Amendment - the original intent of allowing citizens to bear arms was to serve as a check against both foregin and domestic threats. Considering we haven't had a military junta established yet, there's gotta be something that has the government nervous about doing that
So, tell me, do countries unlike America become military junta-led as a rule?

So, tell me, do countries unlike America become military junta-led as a rule?

Do cigarettes ALWAYS cause cancer?

hmmm Socialism... Intresting... I think I identified with supporting every single thing in that artical (abortion, euthanasia, science ect) But not the rascism or the gun control. Oh well.

Do cigarettes ALWAYS cause cancer?

Surgeon General: Smoking MAY CAUSE lung cancer.

Not in all cases but your risk factor goes up.

Not to mention that many gun advocates in America are Nazis.
Ummm....
no!

Surgeon General: Smoking MAY CAUSE lung cancer.

Not in all cases but your risk factor goes up.
My uncle died from lung cancer.
He smoked like a steam locomotive.

Ummm....
no!
Hey, he said "many". Not "most", not "the majority of", just "many". Which is probably true.

Indeed, I would even argue that most Nazis in the US are against gun control.

Hey, he said "many". Not "most", not "the majority of", just "many". Which is probably true.

Indeed, I would even argue that most Nazis in the US are against gun control.

Most of the people I have met that are agianst gun control didnt seem like Nazis to me. I think the goose-steps and Hitler mustaches would be obvious. I dont recall seeing any swastikas and pics of Hitler in gun stores or at NRA meetings. Most of them seem like the type that would shoot a nazis on sight.

Most of the people I have met that are agianst gun control didnt seem like Nazis to me. I think the goose-steps and Hitler mustaches would be obvious. I dont recall seeing any swastikas and pics of Hitler in gun stores or at NRA meetings. Most of them seem like the type that would shoot a nazis on sight.
What can't you understand man?

*holds up the 2nd Amendment that protects his right to own a firearm if he chooses too*
We have no rights.

We have no rights.

This is the 2nd time I used this smiley in a span of half an hour I think:

:rolleyes:

The whole article has a bad case of reductio ad Hitlerum.
Reductio ad Hitlerum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum)

The whole article has a bad case of reductio ad Hitlerum.
Reductio ad Hitlerum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum)
The interesting thing about that article is that it says Leo Strauss came up with the idea.

And he's one of the people where I would actually see genuine similarities between his ramblings and the Nazis.