The Holocaust Began With Gun Control

Hitler implemented the gun confiscation which all socialists desperately seek, and then started hauling Jews off to the gas chambers,

Image 16

Image 18

12 Nov 1938, Page 1 – at

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to The Holocaust Began With Gun Control

  1. Marsh says:

    This extreme title, is not going to do anybody any good… it can be answered in different ways.

    • David A says:

      Such as?

        • Clearly Wikipedia in 2015 knows more about it than the people who lived in 1938.

        • Marsh says:

          In January 2013, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) director Abraham Foxman said in a press release: “The idea that supporters of gun control are doing something akin to what Hitler’s Germany did to strip citizens of guns in the run-up to the Second World War is historically inaccurate & offensive, especially to Holocaust survivors & their families”. – end quote –
          Clearly, it’s more than Wikipedia, with numerous credible historians… it’s also crass for “any US political issue”, to gain traction on six million souls from another Continent!

        • Clearly he knows more about it in 2013 than the people who lived in 1938.

        • Tom Moran says:

          Marsh, Yet the Taliban played the Soviets to a draw in Hadjilandistan despite overwhelming Commie air and land superiority ? You seem to be agreeing with the anti-defend yourself groups that that the one month delay caused by the Jewish resistance in the Warsaw ghettos didn’t effect the War machine. Imagine what well armed Jewish business owners would’ve done to put a damper on Kristallnacht?

        • Tom Moran says:

          Let’s ask the surviving Jews in the Ukraine disarmed by Stalin on how they feel about gun control?

        • In a 2011 magazine piece, law professor Mark Nuckols says Nazi gun control theories are part of a “shaky intellectual edifice” underlying “belief in widespread gun ownership as a defense against tyrannical government.”

          I knew that! I knew our country was founded on a shaky intellectual edifice! I think I read it at, too!

        • Marsh says:

          Tom ; I am not about Anti Defend or supporting Gun Control in the United States.. It’s all about wrongly appropriating the Holocaust and misrepresenting historical events.
          We should also be aware a “hypothesis” can be wrong & cause trouble like in AGW.
          There is no correlation with Nazi Germany in the 1930’s and the USA in this Century.
          However, I do share your concerns with the probable threat today, from a certain ilk, following 9/11 & it’s not the time to drop one’s guard or potential to fight back, agreed.

        • Marsh believes that the author of the 1938 article was “misrepresenting historical events”

        • Neal S says:

          Even if we dismiss the Holocaust, are there not many other examples of unarmed and disarmed populations being slaughtered en-masse? But do we find any examples of well-armed populations being similarly slaughtered? It seems to me that regardless of whether the challenge might be an invader, or our own rogue government, being able to defend ourselves can literally be the difference between life and death. You can choose what you want. I know what I’ll choose.

        • David A says:

          Marsh, I went through your wiki arcticle.
          The main point papers to be that the German Jews were not well armed because of prior gun laws.

          The debate misses the mark entirely
          The very few Jews who did resist, were surprisingly effective. Think if 6 million had resisted.

          Do you dispute the historic article linked?

        • Marsh says:

          David ; the 6 million were mostly made up of babies, children, women & elderly. Many of the men would have been non combatant types, that never wanted to use a gun.
          There were Gun restrictions in place even before Nazi’s came to power and it was not
          a society that chose to own guns to any great extent,,, much like Britain then & now.
          You’re looking at it from a different perspective today ; that was another time & place.
          Also, you wont comprehend it all,, if you only cherry pick the parts you like.

        • Marsh,

          You are right we should be looking at it through the eyes of the people in the 1930s.

          If civilian firearms ownership among German Jews was unimportant, why did the Nazis confiscate civilian weapons in all occupied countries? Do you think Czech or French civilians were more warlike than German Jews? The civilians had to surrender not just firearms but also other weapons like swords from World War I, certain knives, etc. Violations of the laws and decrees were subject to prison terms, and under some circumstances to death penalty. Why did the Nazis care? Were they irrational?

          ”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.”

          Hitler’s Table-Talk at the Fuhrer’s Headquarters 1941-1942, by Henry Picker

          “Der größte Unsinn, den man in den besetzen Ostgebieten machen könnte, sei der, den unterworfenen Völkern Waffen zu geben. Die Geschicte lehre, daß alle Herrenvölker untergegangen seien, nachdem sie den von ihnen unterworfenen Volkern Waffen bewilligt hatten.“

          Adolf Hitler, 11. April, 1942, Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1942, von Henry Picker

        • Ted says:


          I have no interest in taking sides this particular discussion, as I have nothing enlightening to add about the history of Jews under Nazi Germany. While I have my guesses and assumptions, I don’t know whether the holocaust would have happened if Nazi gun laws had been different. Clearly you don’t, either, as all you’ve done is link to things written SEVENTY FIVE YEARS LATER, and called everyone else stupid. Tony’s talking about contemporary accounts of people who lived through it, not fairy tales told by political hacks with no personal memory of the era. If you have an argument to make, then make it. If you can refute the evidence presented to you, then refute it. This “cherry picking” BS is a complete copout. It amounts to nothing more than saying you don’t know, therefore everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Show us the data you think is being cherry picked. Show us contemporary accounts refuting what Tony is saying. If you don’t have that data, then you’re straight up lying to us. We all deal with this imbecilic cherry picking charge every day, and I’m sick of it. Tony runs this site largely for the purpose of dispelling this inanity, and I don’t come here to see even more of it. So if you think you have information, put up or shut up.

          Rant off, for now.

        • David A says:

          Marsh, so you do not dispute the article posted, and you admit that if the population was armed, they would have fared better, as the one small group that was armed created quite a problem for a short time. The US founders knew the history of an unarmed populous being the victims of government democide. (Death by Government)

          Nothing in your link gives any logical reason that if the Jews were well armed they would not at least have taken a very heavy toll on the Germans. BTW, ladies and children can shoot just fine.

        • Marsh says:

          Ted : Some of my relatives were in those Concentration Camps as political prisoners and some escaped Europe to tell their story. One Uncle, now deceased, was lucky to have survived WWII… so my knowledge, goes back before Wikipedia or the Internet
          and has nothing to do with the US media or your baseless, critical assertions.
          Also, I generally have a high regard for Tony ; but misappropriating the subject of the
          holocaust for a political end is wrong in this way and it challenges all my principles.
          Further, you inferred I “called everyone else stupid”.. wrong, I did no such thing here.
          Your misinformation continues; ignoring what I stated and presenting your version…
          The Nazi’s wore down the opposition and what they termed as undesirables over many years with restrictions & difficult living standards. Most were tired, unhealthy & did not realise, the deportation ended up in the death camps ( the final solution came later ).
          During the late thirties, there was little to no chance of taking on the Nazi SA or SS even if they had hypothetical guns & training; end result would’ve been much the same.
          My uncle was used as slave labor road crew & took the opportunity to escape one day. Most of his friends were not so lucky, they met their end in those death camps. Also had relatives fighting the Germans in the Air & on the Ground ; long before the United States entered the War.

        • Marsh,

          The pros and cons of abbreviated talk of the Internet age …*)

          I agree with you that the disarmament of 1938 was not the start and the fatal direction was already set. I also believe the Nazis decided to disarm the Jews partially for the very reason you mention: To dispirit them and further wear them down. Of course, they also did it simply because they could but knowing something about daily life in the Third Reich gives us a glimpse what it must have been like to loose the last few weapons people had. Short of their faith, only the strongest could have kept their spirit up (Imi Lichtenfeld springs to mind). So in some ways, the gun laws of 1938 were the beginning of the end.

          *) Linking the wikipedia blurbs and citing Foxman didn’t do your argument any good.

        • Ted says:

          “Also, you wont comprehend it all,, if you only cherry pick the parts you like.”

          Okay, so you didn’t specifically use the word “stupid.” You just said we can’t comprehend that which you claim to know. Enlighten us. Also, please elaborate on the rest of my “baseless, critical assertions” and “misinformation.”

          If you took the phrase, “fairy tales told by political hacks with no personal memory of the era,” as a personal insult, I apologize. The political hack I was referring to was not you, but Abraham Foxman, who you quoted as evidence for your own assertions. I stand by calling him a political hack, and he plainly can have no memory of the 1930’s.

          So you have relatives who were there. What did they tell you about the subject? That would constitute the contemporary accounts I asked you for. You entirely misinterpret the point of my rant. My complaint is with your accusation of cherry picking, thrown out without details. It’s an accusation I think everyone on this site is disgusted with, and I think it requires more than mere invocation. What, specifically, is being cherry picked? Exactly what information has Tony ignored, in coming to his conclusion? The point he makes in this post is the expressly stated purpose behind the organization called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, which is generally accepted as the single most outspoken pro second amendment organization in existence. It’s not something Tony just dreamed up on his own. Your complaints about that conclusion sound far more politically motivated than the conclusion itself.

        • Marsh says:

          Ted : Just take a look at the range of comments to me on this subject. Almost everyone has jumped to the wrong conclusion away from the Holocaust issue.
          Even you’re questioning me being politically motivated ? I have never been an advocate for Gun Control or supported Gun Control in any way whatsoever!
          Most of them have gone off on a tangent, away from the subject of the Holocaust.
          Some are questioning on other countries, different weapons & other hypotheticals,
          clearly the Holocaust is sidebar here “it’s about the right to bare arms & defend”.
          Of course the Wiki site provides both sides of the Nazi gun control theory… but the focus of readers here is obvious ; regardless as to the facts involving the Holocaust.
          The argument , has shifted away from the title and onto another agenda.

        • Marsh says:

          Colorado : You make some very valid points that I agree with. Taking the Guns in 1938 would have diminished their Confidence in the future, at a time of immense stress and
          perhaps was the beginning, of the end ( in that context ).
          I honestly don’t believe the Jews could have done much, given the shear magnitude of the Military in Germany, before going to War,,, it would have been an impossible task.
          Sure, they could have achieved some retribution against the Nazis ; then die in glory.
          Problem was ; in 1938 most believed they were to be deported, this reduced the
          absolute need to fight, (death camps were still a secret from the public at the time).
          With Germany becoming unworkable for Jews , leaving was not such a bad move.
          There was a lot of subterfuge & stealth; deportees were unaware of their plight.

        • Sir Nicholas Winton died on July 1 this year. He was 106 years old.

          For 50 years he had told hardly anyone what he had done.

          “Why did you keep it secret for so long?”
          “I didn’t really keep it secret. I just didn’t talk about it.”

        • Tom Moran says:

          Marsh, I’m sorry to hear about the death of your family members. Do you wish that they had been armed?
          “Just because the Nazis shot those who tried to resist them with armed force does not mean that Jews should not have had the ability to fight the Nazis. It is difficult to think of a more evil argument than the argument that you will undoubtedly be killed whether or not you have a gun, so we might as well remove your ability to defend your life. Defending your own life is a basic human right. Jews are human beings, even if the media would hope to treat them as less than that. Ask any Holocaust survivor whether they would, in retrospect, have preferred to have a gun rather than being forced at gunpoint onto a train and then into Auschwitz, separated from their soon-to-be-gassed families, and then forced into starvation for years. As Warsaw Ghetto fighter Emmanuel Ringelblum wrote”:

          Husbands tore out their hair because they had let the Germans, unharmed, take away those dearest to them, their wives and children; children loudly reproached themselves for allowing their parents to be taken away. Oaths were sworn aloud: Never shall the Germans move from here with impunity; we will die, but the cruel invaders will pay with their blood for ours.

          Anyone who would deny such people guns because “it wouldn’t have mattered anyway” ought to be cut off from the class of decent human beings.

        • Marsh can speak for himself but just in case: I didn’t see him arguing the Jews shouldn’t defend themselves or shouldn’t have the right to do so. I understood him arguing that “misappropriating the subject of the holocaust for a political end is wrong”. I agree with the principle but I don’t see where Tony did any of that. We have different sensibilities based on our personal histories and the dead of the past speak to us in different ways. Tony, some of us here, and clearly many Jews themselves, do not believe bringing up the Holocaust in the context of civilian disarmament is a misappropriation of the subject.

          Marsh is entitled to an opposing view but in my view he made the mistake—after his first rather mild disagreement with the title of Tony’s post—of implicitly endorsing in his reply to David some of the “different ways” included in the Wikipedia entry. I don’t think he meant to do that but the damage was done. I read the article. It includes among other things the deplorable views of gun-grabbing professor Mark Nuckols who habitually does exactly what Marsh disapproves; he uses tragedies for political ends *).

          I will always support the natural right of any people to defend themselves by force but I also agree with those who say that the 1938 Nazi gun laws didn’t make much difference. The German Jews were only 0.75% of the population of the Third Reich. 133 to 1 are bad odds, even more so for people who lived dispersed among the generally hostile German population. During the coming war, the Nazis didn’t mind using the Wehrmacht or the SS against civilians—as they have shown by exterminating entire villages for even a single German killed—but in 1938 they didn’t need to use their powerful military against the Jews in German cities (as Marsh suggested they could have). They had plenty of other forces to do it and the support of the citizenry. Also, the Nazis were itching to use any armed incident as a pretext to pogrom and murder. They demonstrated it by organizing the Kristallnacht pogrom after the assassination of Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan in Paris. The die was cast long before 1938.

          I pray for the dead and I pray that we, the living, will never be asked to make the choices the Jews in Nazi-conquered Europe had to make. I also pray that if called upon I would have the strength of character so many Jews showed in the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

          *) New gun laws? Don’t aim at only mass shootings like Sandy Hook.
          By Mark Nuckols December 19, 2012

        • Marsh says:

          Colorado, Yes I made one mistake. The Wiki Nazi Gun Control Theory with Foxman was a bad example,, I don’t agree with Foxman’s statements overall ; he has another agenda I found later.

        • Marsh says:

          Tom : I appreciate & thank you for the statement. In principle I agree with most of what you said and absolutely the right to defend and right to have guns. I never argued that
          point – it’s more about if the outcome of the Holocaust would have been any different.
          The SA, SS and Wehrmacht were highly trained and the only thing that exceeded their fighting skill was their hatred – ( many brain washed from being in the Hitler youth ). If one of their own was shot before the War… retribution was typically ten times worse.
          Most homes being inspected involved a truck load of troops armed to the teeth and
          ready for anything. Challenging them with a few hand guns or rifles is no match…
          In 1938, if one followed the rules, “worse what people expected” was Deportation
          and clearly, many gave in to this crewel deception to save the family. But for this trickery, Guns would have been kept and used against the evil Nazis… they knew nothing of the Death Camps ahead… hindsight today is another matter.
          Some of the interment camp & Ghetto fighting “during the War” occurred because
          they became aware, of what was happening to deportees Railed to the next Camp.
          Again, the determination for German Jews to fight, was not realised before the War.
          Unlike France and other Countries that hated the Germans during occupation. A resistance movement was possible on a large scale due to the wider support from
          most of their Country folk… the German Jews had little support unfortunately; we only have to reflect on how the public turned a blind eye to the atrocities in Deutschland &
          their occupied Countries.
          My uncle was separated from the family as he was 17 at the time and able to work.
          If the whole street of their small town had Guns… maybe they could have won on the day,,, but they all would have been in a mass grave the next. Getting away early or escape to the woods was the best bet. That is when having a Gun would have been an advantage to a lot of those men and women, making their way out of the Country.
          On a side note : My uncle ( by marriage to mum’s sister ) had a Polish father & spoke
          both languages. He managed to get to the French resistance and made it to England.
          Once cleared as Polish ; eventually he ended up as ground crew for an Air Force Base where they had a Polish Fighter Squadron flying Hurricanes out of England.

  2. Eric Simpson says:

    So true.

    Ben Carson on the 2nd Amendment (watch first minute and a half only):

    From the video:
    “I would rather you not have it [a semi-automatic weapon]. However, if you live out in the country somewhere by yourself and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, I’ve no problem with that.” -Ben Carson

  3. gator69 says:

    Happened to my Highlander ancestors. First no swords, then no homes.

  4. JJ Swiontek says:

    Hi Steven, I agree. So much so that I teach Colorado Conceal Carry. If you know anyone who needs their permit and/or gun safety training, let me know. Based in Denver, but I teach all along the front range.

  5. Smokey says:

    Marsh said (way upthread):

    “There is no correlation with Nazi Germany in the 1930’s and the USA in this Century.”

    Hmm-m-m. I might disagree with that.

    Not trying to start an argument here; time will tell.

    If it was exclusively up to Pres. Obama the correlation would be obvious, and stark (IMHO, of course). The guy is determined to expunge the 2nd Amendment — which was not written to protect the rights of hunters or sportsmen…

    Why does Obama want to get rid of that pesky 2nd A? Not to stop gun violence, he doesn’t really care about that. But every dictator in modern history has taken that step; no exceptions.

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
    – Alexander Solzhenitsyn

    No guns makes it easy peasy for the gov’t.

    • Marsh says:

      Smokey ; What Obama is doing is certainly disturbing but he will be gone before long one way or another. I can’t imagine the weight of the Military turning upon its Citizens,
      I have too much respect for the common soldier. In the broader context, yes I agree with you ; in most situations being armed is best , because terrorism is on the rise.
      Where American Guns could have lessened the Holocaust :: “if” United States had
      entered WWII from the very beginning ! That would definitely have shortened the War. The fact that the “final solution” was in the last few years of the War,, millions could have been saved ; that is extremely likely – if the US joined the Allies much earlier.
      During WWII , 72 million perished overall it is estimated. Yes, hindsight could change every battle and decision to hasten & lessen the loss ; we cannot change history. But
      we can learn from mistakes and not repeat them ; on that I also agree.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s