Culture Politics

Did gun control prevent Jews from stopping the Holocaust?

warsaw ghetto
A group of Jews are taken prisoner during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of April 1943. For use with RNS-GUNS-HOLOCAUST, transmitted on February 6, 2013. Religion News Service file photo

(RNS) As gun control moved toward the top of the American agenda after the Dec. 14 massacre at a Connecticut elementary school, gun rights activists began to invoke a curious analogy: the Holocaust.

On television, radio and in letters to the editor, the argument went that Hitler’s gun control laws left European Jews defenseless, and that the Holocaust would not have happened — or at least would not have been as catastrophic in scale — had Jews had guns.

warsaw ghetto

A group of Jews are taken prisoner during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of April 1943. Religion News Service File Photo.

But here’s the question: Is it true?

Many American Jews and others have had enough of the claim, and are denouncing as specious the comparison between the Third Reich law that forbade Jews to own guns and current gun control proposals under consideration by President Obama, Congress and state legislatures.

The Anti-Defamation League “has always strenuously objected to the use of Nazi analogies to advance any kind of political debate, including the gun control debate,” said Deborah Lauter, the group’s civil rights director. “We believe it’s historically inaccurate and incredibly insensitive, particularly to Holocaust survivors and their families.”

Beyond that, she said, it’s just a false comparison.

“In no way could armed people have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi state,” she said, noting that some European Jews had access to a small number of firearms. “There could be symbolic resistance, as we saw in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, but it would not have stopped the Nazis.”

The invocation of the Holocaust to argue against gun control is an abuse of history, said Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

“When it doesn’t hold up to any kind of serious historical argument, then it feels manipulative in terms of using the death of our 6 million (Jews) and the 5 million others who were butchered by the Nazis,” said Saperstein, a vocal proponent of strengthening U.S. gun laws.

Even so, many who fear for their Second Amendment rights in the U.S. today continue to draw a parallel to Hitler.

As Andrew Napolitano, a senior judicial analyst at Fox News, wrote on Fox on Jan. 10: “If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and the ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.”

A few days later, former Major League Baseball pitcher John Rocker wrote on about “the undeniable fact that the Holocaust would never have taken place had the Jewish citizenry of Hitler’s Germany had the right to bear arms and defend themselves with those arms.”

And in the Washington Jewish Week on Jan. 24, letter writer Jonathan E. Grant railed against the current “suicidal tendencies of the Jewish community,” and the strongly pro-gun control positions of many of its most prominent institutions.

“Have we learned nothing from the events of World War II, when the ban on the civilian possession of guns led to the deaths of our people?” Grant wrote. “Had the Jews had pistols and rifles, 6 million of our people would not have died like vermin in the hands of the Nazis.”

Not so, say many Jewish and non-Jewish scholars.

Though none dispute that the Nazis in 1938 issued “The Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons,” which prohibited Jews from having guns or any other kind of weapon, they find nonsensical the assertion that this law is what doomed European.

Guns could not have made the difference, columnist Michael Moynihan wrote in the Tablet, an online magazine of Jewish culture. The Holocaust was a state-sanctioned outpouring of violence from the German public, so the idea that gun control stood in the way of Jewish survival “vastly overstates the effectiveness of a tiny minority resisting a genocidal machine,” he wrote.

Antony Polonsky, a professor of Holocaust studies at Brandeis University, takes issue with a common corollary: that the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising — in which about 750 Jews took up arms, killed about 25 Nazis and briefly slowed the deportation of Jews to concentration camps — shows that an armed minority can resist its genocidal oppressors.

The uprising was the largest single Jewish revolt against the Nazis. But the Nazis killed thousands of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, and the 50,000 who survived were sent to concentration camps. “The people who participated in it were killed,” said Polonsky.

The record also shows that the Nazis accelerated the liquidation of remaining Jewish ghettos after the uprising.

That’s a pattern with anti-Jewish violence, said Polonsky. “Attempts at self-defense provoke more violence.” The same occurred when Jews took up arms during the Russian pogroms of the early 20th century, and when blacks did the same in the American South before the civil rights era, he said.

When gun rights advocates aren’t using the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to make a case against gun control, they often invoke Sobibor, an extermination camp in Nazi-occupied Poland that was shut down by the Germans after a Jewish revolt — involving first an ax and then explosives and guns.

But the rebellion was but one reason why the Germans destroyed the camp and hid all evidence of mass murders there, wrote Moynihan. They also wanted Sobibor to disappear because the Allies were fast approaching.

“The heroism of those who resisted the Nazis in Warsaw and Sobibor is undeniable and should be honored,” he wrote. “But these actions were taken after it became undeniably clear that the incarcerated Jews were soon to be murdered; clearly, against-all-odds resistance is likely when desperation demands it.”

“America isn’t Nazi Germany,” Moynihan concludes, “and it cheapens the experience of Holocaust victims to suggest otherwise.”

About the author

Lauren Markoe

Lauren Markoe has been a national reporter for RNS since 2011. Previously she covered government and politics as a daily reporter at the Charlotte Observer and The State (Columbia, S.C.)


Click here to post a comment

  • “America isn’t Nazi Germany,” Moynihan concludes.

    One should remember that Nazi Germany wasn’t Nazi Germany in 1932. And yet, less than a decade later, the German government was loading certain members of its population into cattle cars to be systematically eradicated. The road ahead is always murky, and we don’t always see the eventual consequences of our own actions, or the actions of others, today.

    I think it is historical revisionism to suggest that disarmament of a populace is not a key step in establishing absolute despotism. This proved to be the case time and again throughout the 20th century in Europe, Asia, and Africa. But it should also be said that having guns alone would not have saved the Jews of Europe from Hitler’s regime.

    The resistance of tyranny requires both the means to fight (arms) and a willingness to fight. Up until the point that extermination became the naked objective of the Nazi regime, Jews were all too willing participants in their own demise. With few notable exceptions, the Jews capitulated to their own abuse, believing perhaps that if they cooperated, went along, behaved – that they would survive and eventually things would get better.

    The lesson we should take from the six million lost is two-fold: first, never to allow oneself to be physically disarmed by one’s own government. One should ask, “why does my government fear me, that they should want to disarm me? Am I the one who cannot be trusted, or is it them?”

    And second, to be always vigilant of tyranny, to resist it whenever it first raises its ugly specter, and to not wait until things are “undeniably clear” before making a last desperate act of resistance. A final act that is most often merely symbolic in effect.

  • I am a Jew and i agree with the premise. History repeats itself. People forget this fact. One day there will be a program in America.

    Everywhere we have been welcome, sooner or later they come for us.

    If i was armed with 20 or so wellmsrmed friends, we may not be able to defeat the anti Semites but there will be a lot of dead bodies when they come for us.

    Does the phrase Never Again have no meaning?

  • If the Syrian rebels for instance were deprived of their Ak’s they would have been annihilated within days.

    Royce is a utopian. I doubt he has ever held a gun. You can go write letters and protest but I prefer to pack my own parachute. The intelligencia have the means to flee to the next lillypad. Those left on their own have to fight rather than go like lambs to thee slaughter.

  • This, of course, is a rhetorical question. We know now what many of the Jews and others didn’t know.

    I would like to propose three questions:
    (1) Will regular armies always be more effective and stronger than loose individuals?
    (2) Should armed resistance to take things to the bitter end and at what human costs?
    (3) Who can predict the future?

    Some reflections:
    (1) Had the Jews been equipped with small arms then, they would have been brought to their knees by tanks, mortars and howitzers. Today, if better equipped they would be droned or nuked, whatever.
    (2) Compare Syria. The rebels there are somehow co-responsible for taking violence to a higher level and this, in fact, at the costs of non-combatants / civilians. Also, they are at risk of becoming as bad persons as their adversaries? Furthermore, I know of no examples of freedom fighters, who did not somehow derail (in the field of human rights, self-enrichment, personality cult and so forth) once they got hold of power.
    (3) This is my argument against the NRA: nobody owns a good functioning crystal ball to predict the future. The NRA says: bad people kill, good people don’t. Well, of course, as such the NRA is right, but always and only in hindsight. The problem is that you don’t know in advance who the bad guy is. Handing out stronger weapons to people, who seem to be good guys today, only increases the risks of tomorrow.

  • The reason why journalist get away with trying to debunk and refute any acknowledgement of a freedom fighter for Jewish rights is based on those killed by Nazi, are dead. But if I were to ask those led to the showers,”If you had a chance to fire a bullet at Nazi soldiers but still die would you?” What do you think the answer would be? It is not about winning. It’s about the God-given right to resist Tyrants. Who is Masada? Sadly you have forgotten.

  • Thank you for the article. I agree with you, Moynihan, and the ADL, that bringing up the Holocaust in the current gun debate cheapens that atrocity. Of course, people in the resistance, whether Polish members of the Home Army or those heroic souls of the Warsaw Uprising, led by Mordechai Anielwicz, had more and better weapons, they would have been albe to do more. The same could be said about the Syrian and Afghan freedom fighters – and previous posters have a good point there. However, we are not talking about taking away guns entirely; reasonable people are looking for a compromise that would allow for ownership but have certain laws to ensure that these weapons are less likely to fall into the hands of non-law-abiding people. I want to point out that though I disagree with much of what other responders are saying, I believe they do so with honorable intentions and make valid points. All of this needs to be part of the dialogue to ensure all sides are respected, while the public interest is served as well as possible. There are not perfect solutions, but something must be done – hence, the need for dialogue and compromise. What I do object to are individuals and groups that bring up the Holocuast to make a one-sided case. That is just wrong. It besmirches the Holocuast and its victims; it also weakens their own arguments.

    Let’s have a dialogue on guns and try to reach an acceptable compromise. But we must leave the Holocaust out of the discussion.

  • Armed Jews make a difference. Most of those who said that “armed Jews” could not have fought the Nazis always say that German military might made an insurgency impossible.

    But that was NOT true on Kristallnacht. Armed bands of Nazi hooligans dragged Jews out of their homes and killed them on the streets. While it is true that resistance at that time may not have prevented the Holocaust, it is certainly true that the unarmed Jews were NO match for the Brown Shirts. Why? Because the Jews had no weapons. Jews could have “taken the Brown shirts with them,” and should have, if they were armed. Hitler always thought Jews were pacifists. Unfortunately for them, they were.

    When they come for Jews now, the Jews are armed: including with nuclear weapons. It has not prevented wars with our enemies, but it has certainly prevented our annihilation. Ahmadinejad knows that the Jews are armed. He also knows that we have “ways” of delivering those weapons on the Mulluhs.

    The legacy of the Holocaust is that the World must now deal with armed Jews. When (and if) they come for me and my family, they should understand that we will defend ourselves, Obama gun control or not.

    Every new American president is told by the CIA that Israel will NOT go down, and WILL use nuclear weapons against the entire Arab world, if necessary to protect themselves.


  • If Prof. Polonsky really said this, ““Attempts at self-defense provoke more violence.”…”when blacks did the same in the American South before the civil rights era,” he’s wrong. It’s fairly well-known that African-Americans possessing guns helped prevent much violence by white marauders after the Civil War. This fact has been correctly cited by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in one of the recent gun regulation decisions.

  • Everyone seems to be missing the point of the article. It’s the absurdity of comparing what we as citizens of this country can mutually do to prevent gun violence to what Hitler did to Europes Jews.

    Resistance to the Nazi’s was not just futile, it often led to more intense slaughter of the rebels families and communities. There was no way for the citizenry to fight back.

    The lesson learned was not that we need handguns, but that we need a State of Israel.

    And lastly, no one is trying to disarm anyone in the United States. So the whole comparison is moot anyway.

  • In regard to this, “Resistance to the Nazi’s was not just futile, it often led to more intense slaughter of the rebels families and communities. There was no way for the citizenry to fight back,” the downside to lack of resistance was death. What could be worse? The Nazis relied upon an industrial killing machine and lack of resistance. My father, a career combat US Army officer, used to say that there were not enough bullets in Germany to kill all the Jews; if the Jews had resisted, the Nazi killing machine would have ground to a halt.

  • As a child of Holocaust survivors I of course would love to take a time machine and arm Jews with the firepower and the ammunition that the Nazis had.

    I would go further I would give them an atomic bomb also.

    But this comparison to promote no gun controls is ludicrous.

    I would not compare the two at all. End of story on the Holocaust.

    But I would point out that too many people especially in inner cities are being killed, and guns are way too easy to obtain.
    Background checks need to be more strict and uniform.

  • Looking to the past history to judge todays complex world is hubris. No one knows the result of arming the Jews in Nazi Germany. If you want to look at the results of gun ownership, look to todays experience. Gun ownership around the world has not stopped any group from being persecuted. Using Nazi Germany to promote gun ownership is like telling your children about the boogey man so he”ll stop crying and stay in bed. This argument doesn’t mean anything because we cannot go back and test the hypothesis. If you look at the world today and check out gun ownership and tyranny, does it really prevent any country from anarchy or tyranny? Going back in history, there have been many changes in history without ready access to guns.
    The point I’m making is it is somewhat childish to promote the answer to tyranny is gun ownership. The reality is no one can predict the result of more guns in the hands of citizens. Using the example of the Jews in Nazi Germany is fraught with so many suppositions. Our assumption is that more guns equals less tryanny. History and current events tells a different story. More guns does not equal peace. Peace has more to do with men’s hearts than what they have in their hands.

  • In regard to this, “Gun ownership around the world has not stopped any group from being persecuted,” well, no. For example, the Finns in the 1930’s and 40’s resisted both the Nazis and the Soviets with force of arms, and were defeated, but not persecuted. They were respected.

  • “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.”

    ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Says it all.

  • It seems you forgot the American Revolution in your statement:
    Furthermore, I know of no examples of freedom fighters, who did not somehow derail (in the field of human rights, self-enrichment, personality cult and so forth) once they got hold of power.

  • In regard to this, “many politicians ARE advocating banning and confiscation,” practically no politicians are advocating banning and confiscation. Some are advocating banning some very specific types of weapons, like full automatic, assault rifles, large clips. But I know of none who are advocating confiscating existing weapons, except those in the hands of criminals.

    Excerpt: Mercury News has more details:

    The 10-bill package constitutes the single largest gun control push in decades in the Golden State, which already boasts some of the nation’s strictest gun laws. It joins equally controversial proposals from Assembly Democrats that would regulate and tax ammunition sales and consider taking the state’s 166,000 registered assault weapons from their owners

    And if you want a left wing source:

    And Feinstein’s bill bans over 150 types of rifles, and if interpreted loosely by using HER definitions… any gun with a “grip” can be banned as an “assault weapon.”
    The problem on page 13:
    All semi-autos are outlawed, not just some.

    Pro-rights and anti-rights attention has been focused on the tremendous list of guns that would be banned under Feinstein’s bill, which takes up a significant portion of the 122 pages of this proposal.

    Here’s the problem none of the “news” reports have spotted:

    The list of guns doesn’t matter.
    Magazine size doesn’t matter.
    If the semi-auto firearm has anything to grip it by, it is banned.
    It’s very clever actually.

    According to the bill, any semiautomatic firearm that uses a magazine — handgun, rifle or shotgun — equipped with a “pistol grip,” would be banned. That sounds like a limitation, but it is not.

    A pistol grip (on page 2) is defined (on page 13) as “a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” In other words, the gun list does not matter. It is a smokescreen designed to distract people from the true meaning of the bill. And it has done a magnificent job. It worked!

    Any semi-automatic firearm that exists, with anything on it you can grip, is banned. (There is a grandfather clause for old stuff.)

  • My previous reply seems to not have been published.
    Check out the California bills for a gun ban and possible confiscation of guns.

    Feinstein’s bill also has elements of confiscation as owners cannot transfer weapons. Furthermore, if her definition of “assault weapon” is followed, ALL semi auto guns with a “grip” are banned.

  • Polonsky’s stance that resistance to an atrocity will lead to greater atrocity cheapens the legacy of the Holocaust more than any comparison to gun control. The idea that it would have been slighty less horrific not to resist is the height of lunacy, or a least academic miopia. To make a stand even in the face of overwhelming evil is at the very soul of freedom lovers everywhere. It utterly defines the human experience. We all love our comforts and living at peace with those we love, but there are among us many hardy souls that when faced with a life in chains and certain death, will stand. They will stand for all of us, damn the consequences. They stood at the gates of Thermopylae and the streets of Concord and Lexington. They stood at the Alamo and Stalingrad, and they stood in the streets of Warsaw. To disarm the people and handicap those brave souls among us is the greatest atrocity of all and a definitive sign that tyranny is coming, maybe not today. But it is coming.

  • Hi, Cargosquid, you are absolutely right. I got stuck with my head too much in the 20th and 21st century! Perhaps, I can add to what I already said that most of the modern-day freedom fighters are either pursuing more or less the same undemocratic ideology/ies as the people they oppose (something they may cleverly conceal) or for one or another reason (blinded by success or power or a lack of pragmatism or general support) don’t manage to put their ideals into practice. (To which I must add that, perhaps, all the bad vibes went into the destruction of the indigenous population.)

  • The following is an excerpt from the book of the same title, available from National Vanguard Books, PO Box 330, Hillsboro WV 24946 USA.

    Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945
    by William L. Pierce
    A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist government of Germany under Adolf Hitler did not permit the private ownership of firearms. Totalitarian governments, they have been taught in their high school civics classes, do not trust their citizens and do not dare permit them to keep firearms. Thus, one often hears the statement, “You know, the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was outlaw firearms,” or, “The first thing Hitler did in Germany was round up all the guns.”
    One can understand why many American gun owners want to believe this. They see in the current effort of their own government to take away their right to keep and bear arms a limitation of an essential element of their freedom and a move toward tyranny, and they want to characterize the gun-grabbers in the most negative way they can. Adolf Hitler has been vilified continuously for the past 60 years or so by the mass media in America, and certainly no politician or officeholder wants to be compared with him. If the gun-confiscation effort can be portrayed convincingly as something of which Hitler would have approved, it will have been effectively tarred.
    This identification of the inclination to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms with National Socialism and Adolf Hitler has been strengthened recently by clever magazine advertisements which show Hitler with his arm outstretched in a Roman salute under a heading: “All in favor of gun control raise your right hand.” A Jewish group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), quite noisy for its size, has been especially zealous in promoting the idea that the current gun-control effort in America has its roots in Germany during the Hitler period. This group has gone so far as to claim in several articles published in popular magazines read by firearms enthusiasts that the current restrictive legislation being proposed by the U.S. government is modeled on a gun-control statute enacted by Germany’s National Socialist government: the German Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) of March 18, 1938.
    Again, one can understand the motivation of the JPFO. Many non-Jewish firearms owners are well aware that the movement to restrict their rights is led and promoted primarily by Jews, and anti-Jewish feeling has been growing among them. They know that the controlled news media, which are almost unanimously in favor of abridging or abolishing the Second Amendment, are very much under the influence of Jews, and they know that the most vocal anti-gun legislators in the Congress also are Jews. It is natural for a group such as the JPFO to mount a damage- control effort and attempt to prevent anti-Jewish feeling from becoming even stronger among gun owners. Their strategy is to deflect the blame from their kinsmen in the media and the government and direct it onto their most hated enemies, the National Socialists — or at least to create enough smoke to obscure the facts and keep the gun-owning public confused.
    Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the National Socialists with gun control, the entire premise for such an effort is false. German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his: a left-center government which had contained a number of Jews.
    It is not just that the National Socialist firearms legislation was the opposite of what it has been claimed to have been by persons who want to tar modern gun-grabbers with the “Nazi” brush: the whole spirit of Hitler’s government was starkly different from its portrayal by America’s mass media. The facts, in brief, are these:
    The National Socialist government of Germany, unlike the government in Washington today, did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. Unlike American presidents, he did not have to wear body armor and have shields of bulletproof glass in front of him whenever he spoke in public. At public celebrations he rode standing in an open car as it moved slowly through cheering crowds. Communists made several attempts to assassinate him, and his government stamped down hard on communism, virtually wiping it out in Germany. Between upright, law-abiding German citizens and Adolf Hitler, however, there was a real love affair, with mutual trust and respect.
    The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man’s character.
    Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany in 1928, five years before the National Socialists gained power. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Five years later his government got around to rewriting the gun law enacted a decade earlier by his predecessors, substantially amel ior a ting it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years; and provisions restricting the amount of ammunition or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped). Hitler’s government may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but the National Socialists had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. Again, the firearms law enacted by Hitler’s government enhanced the rights of Germans to keep and bear arms; no new restrictions were added, and many pre-existing restrictions were relaxed or eliminated.
    At the end of the Second World War, American GIs in the occupying force were astounded to discover how many German civilians owned private firearms. Tens of thousands of pistols looted from German homes by GIs were brought back to the United States after the war. In 1945 General Eisenhower ordered all privately owned firearms in the American occupation zone of Germany confiscated, and Germans were required to hand in their shotguns and rifles as well as any handguns which had not already been stolen. In the Soviet occupation zone German civilians were summarily shot if they were found in possession of even a single cartridge.
    Jews, it should be noted, were not Germans, even if they had been born in Germany. The National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded full rights of citizenship. National Socialist legislation progressively excluded Jews from key professions: teaching, the media, the practice of law, etc. The aim was not only to free German life from an oppressive and degenerative Jewish influence, but to persuade Jews to emigrate. The German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, specifically excluded Jews from manufacturing or dealing in firearms or munitions, but it did not exclude them from owning or bearing personal firearms. The exclusion of Jews from the firearms business rankled them as much as any other exclusion, and in their typically ethnocentric fashion they have misrepresented the law involved as an anti-gun law in an effort to cast their enemies in a bad light.
    It should be noted in passing that the restrictions placed on Jews by the National Socialists had the intended effect: between 1933 and 1939 two-thirds of the Jews residing in Germany emigrated, reducing the Jewish population of the country from 600,000 when Hitler became Chancellor in 1933 to 200,000 at the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. Jews in the United States, looking at this period from their own narrowly focused viewpoint, have described these peacetime years of the National Socialist government as a time of darkness, terror, and regression, whereas for the German people it was a time of hope, joy, and spiritual and material renewal.
    Much the same type of distortion is seen in the portrayal of the United States in the early 1950s: the so-called “McCarthy Era.” Senator Joseph McCarthy (Republican, Wisconsin) used his position as chairman of the Senate’s Government Operations Committee to expose the widespread communist infiltration of the U.S. government and other U.S. institutions which had taken place during the Second World War. A substantial majority of the communists who were dragged reluctantly out into the light of day by his efforts were Jews. As a result, the controlled media always have portrayed the period as one of terror and repression, when everyone was frightened of Senator McCarthy’s “witch-hunt.” Of course, it was nothing of the sort to non-Jewish Americans, who were not intimidated in the least. History viewed through a Jewish lens — i.e., through media controlled by Jews — always is distorted in a way corresponding to Jewish interests and concerns.
    Both the German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, enacted by the National Socialists, and the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, which was enacted by an anti-National Socialist government, are given below in full, first in facsimile and then in English translation. A little background information first, however, may help the reader to understand their significance.
    After Germany’s defeat in the First World War (a defeat in which Germany’s Jews played no small part, demoralizing the home front with demonstrations and other subversive activity much as they did in America during the Vietnam war), the Kaiser abdicated, and liberals and leftists seized control of the government in 1918. Hitler, recovering in a military hospital from a British poison-gas attack which had blinded him temporarily, made the decision to go into politics and fight against the traitors he felt were responsible for Germany’s distress.
    The tendency of Germany’s new rulers after the First World War was much the same as it is for the liberals in America today: they promoted cosmopolitanism, internationalism, and egalitarianism. By 1923 economic conditions in Germany had become catastrophic, and there was much public unrest. The communists had made major inroads into the labor movement and were a growing threat to the country.
    Hitler had indeed gone into politics, and his National Socialists battled the communists in the streets of Germany’s cities and gradually came to be seen by many patriotic Germans in the working class and the middle class as the only force which could save Germany from a communist takeover and total ruin. Hitler’s National Socialists continued to win recruits and gain strength during the 1920s. The communists, with aid from the Soviet Union, also continued to grow. The political situation became increasingly unstable as the government lost popular support.
    The government’s response was to substantially tighten up restrictions on the rights of German citizens to keep and bear arms. The Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, was the most substantial effort in this regard. This law was enacted by a left-center government hostile to the National Socialists (the government was headed by Chancellor Wilhelm Marx and consisted of a coalition of Socialists, including many Jews, and Catholic Centrists).
    Five years later, in 1933, the National Socialists were in power, Hitler headed the government, and the communist threat was crushed decisively. The National Socialists began undoing the social and economic damage done by their predecessors. Germany was restored to full employment, degeneracy and corruption were rooted out, Jews and their collaborators were removed from one facet of national life after another, and the German people entered a new era of national freedom, health, and prosperity.
    Finally, in 1938, the National Socialist government got around to enacting a new firearms law to replace the one enacted by their opponents ten years earlier. The highlights of the 1938 law, especially as it applied to ordinary citizens rather than manufacturers or dealers, follow:
    Handguns may be purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), which must be used within one year from the date of issue. Muzzle- loading handguns are exempted from the permit requirement. [The 1928 law had required a permit for the purchase of long guns as well, but the National Socialists dropped this requirement.]
    Holders of a permit to carry weapons (Waffenschein) or of a hunting license do not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun.
    A hunting license authorizes its bearer to carry hunting weapons and handguns.
    Firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, may not be sold to minors under the age of 18 years. [The age limit had been 20 years in the 1928 law.]
    Whoever carries a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein). A permit is not required, however, for carrying a firearm for use at a police-approved shooting range.
    A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular, a permit may not be issued to:
    1. persons under the age of 18 years;
    2. legally incompetent or mentally retarded persons;
    3. Gypsies or vagabonds;
    4. persons under mandatory police supervision [i.e., on parole] or otherwise temporarily without civil rights;
    5. persons convicted of treason or high treason or known to be engaged in activities hostile to the state;
    6. persons who for assault, trespass, a breach of the peace, resistance to authority, a criminal offense or misdemeanor, or a hunting or fishing violation were legally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than two weeks, if three years have not passed since the term of imprisonment.
    The manufacture, sale, carrying, possession, and import of the following are prohibited:
    1. “trick” firearms, designed so as to conceal their function (e.g., cane guns and belt-buckle pistols);
    2. any firearm equipped with a silencer and any rifle equipped with a spotlight;
    3. cartridges with .22 caliber, hollow-point bullets.
    That is the essence. Numerous other provisions of the law relate to firearms manufacturers, importers, and dealers; to acquisition and carrying of firearms by police, military, and other official personnel; to the maximum fees which can be charged for permits (3 Reichsmark); to tourists bringing firearms into Germany; and to the fines and other penalties to be levied for violations.
    The requirements of “trustworthiness” and of proof of need when obtaining a permit are troubling, but it should be noted that they were simply carried over from the 1928 law: they were not formulated by the National Socialists. Under the National Socialists these requirements were interpreted liberally: a person who did not fall into one of the prohibited categories listed above was considered trustworthy, and a statement such as, “I often carry sums of money,” was accepted as proof of need.
    The prohibitions of spotlight-equipped rifles and hollow-point .22 caliber ammunition were based on considerations that the former were unsporting when used for hunting, and the latter were inhumane.
    Now read the German firearms laws for yourself, either in the original German exactly as they were published by the German government in the Reichsgesetzblatt or in the complete English translations which are provided here. If you want to skip over most of the legal gobbledygook and go directly to the most pertinent part of the National Socialist Firearms Law — the part pertaining to the purchase, ownership, and carrying of firearms by private citizens — turn to page 35 (Part IV of the Law). Note, as already mentioned above, that two separate and distinct types of permits are referred to: a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), required only for purchasing a handgun; and a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein), required for carrying any firearm in public. Interestingly enough, as also mentioned above, a hunting license could take the place of both these permits.
    When you have read the two laws reproduced here, you will understand that it was Hitler’s enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today. Then as now it was the Jews, not the National Socialists, who wanted the people’s right of self- defense restricted. You will understand that those who continue to make the claim that Hitler was a gun-grabber are either ignorant or dishonest. And you will understand that it was not until 1945, when the communist and democratic victors of the Second World War had installed occupation governments to rule over the conquered Germans that German citizens were finally and completely denied the right to armed self-defense.
    For further information, write National Vanguard Books, PO Box 330, Hillsboro WV 24946 USA.

  • William Pierce and National Vanguard Books are notorious neo-Nazis, and nothing they say is to be believed.

  • Monday, 04/08/13 common era

    American Jews should thank G-d for the 2nd Amendment.
    Hypocritical politicians and Hollywood celebrities who are eager for some “common sense gun control laws” often themselves have fulltime armed security details and some even have concealed-carry permits. The A.D.L. is useless now, just as it was during and before WW2.

  • I am a middle schooler doing a research project on this and many similar topics and many things said in this artical are very inaccurate and WRONG , But one huge fact is that the warsaw ghetto uprising was a prime example of how guns have the possibility to make the difference because truly as accurate as it is possible to find , the jews killed somewhere from 500 to 2000 germans and the battle lasted for about two days .
    Look at americas history and how we overcame the mass force of the british and a few germans with little weapons or men and won (we had god on our side) .

    if they with far less advanced weaponry won against the brits , the jews could have done twice that.

    Hearing such arogant writers say such stupid things makes me mad .

  • Ronald regan once said that guncontrol basically gives the weapons to the criminals and takes them from us , look up the erfurt massacre in gun controlled germany , gun control only promotes these things to happen , and backround checks are a joke , it all comes down to morals and that the government needs to be less involved in every aspect of our lifes .

  • Look at the wonders of what Gun Control has done for Cuban citizens. Maybe the freedom hating Liberals would love to live in Cuba since it’s a Liberal eutopia, fit with a dictator that hasn’t left power in over 50 years. I’m sure having a disarmed populace has nothing to do with a +50 year dictatorship.

  • Does anyone find it weird how the people in the article didn’t even argue how guns WOULDN’T help prevent the deaths of millions at the hands of Hitler?

    Common sense and logic says that 6 million armed Jewish people would’ve stand a better chance than 6 million unarmed Jewish people.

    The burden of proof falls on the pro gun-control advocates to prove how 6 million armed Jewish people wouldn’t have helped, since the pro gun-rights people have history on their side.

  • I do not believe the people of the USA should ever be without arms to protect themselves. An ex-muslim Ali Sina of Sina writes: “Islam is not a religion. Considering Islam a religion is a foolish mistake that could cost millions of lives. Islam is a political movement set to conquer the world. It is the Borg of the non-fictional world. Islam has one goal and one goal alone: to assimilate or to destroy.” The Muslim Brotherhood is in the White House advising the President of the USA on middle east policy – they have a manifesto that describes exactly how they plan to take over the west – we are like the Jews were before the Holocaust sitting here waiting for it to happen while we let them be part of our government, have more freedoms and encroach on America’s way of life – much as they are on Britain’s. This video explains perfectly what they are doing – in light of the fact that our current President is in bed with them I will keep my gun and hope that all my neighbors have them too!

  • Let me summarise my main focus. I am very much opposed to the uncontrolled circulation of arms in a given society and insist that the use of thereof should be limited to professionals (police, regular army) and licensed recreational users. If we take the USA as an example, the economic, psychological, health and so forth damage and consequences of the abuse of privately owned fire arms are huge. If we exclude the free expression of a deeply felt need of strict adherence tot the constitution as a kind of psychological healthy relaxation of the mind, which benefits actually are there?
    I have no direct access to the White House, so I have to do with the newspapers. But to my opinion, it is inconceivable that Obama would e.g. sell the USA, US Army, civil servants and other key figures to Saudi Arabia, so that the home of the free will become a Muslim state. If he is negotiating with die-hard Muslims, this seems to me a perfectly sensible case of political realism. After all, you can’t nuke them, can you? And of course, even if you pursue a foreign policy, which aims at reducing the Muslim threat worldwide, still today – I mean this very day 6 May 2013 – we need fuel for our cars and gas to cook diner. By the way, I think that there wouldn’t exist a Muslim issue, hadn’t there been any oil in that part of the world (Middle East and Southern Asia).

  • You are not Jewish for the word is not program, it is POGROM and the isn’t a Jew who would make a mistake. So don’t use our struggle to make your hateful ways come to light. I know no Rabbi who promotes carrying arms outside a wartime situation and that is not America.

  • Can find more BS excuses to do nothing even when there is no threat. Only will get worse when threatened. You make a great victim.