Thursday, March 20, 2014

ANSWER: Historical trivia: What was the reason given by the Nazis for Kreystalnacht?

OK, I should accept "(4) all of the above" since to some extent they were all true.

But, the assassination of Ernst vom Rath, a official at the German Embassy in Paris, by Herschel Grynszpan on 7 November 1938 was the event which most closely caused Krystalnacht.  The German government retaliated to this event by barring Jewish children from German state elementary schools, indefinitely suspending Jewish cultural activities, and putting a halt to the publication of Jewish newspapers and magazines, including the three national German Jewish newspapers

There is ironic twists to this event:  Vom Rath was a professional diplomat with the Foreign Office who expressed anti-Nazi sympathies, largely based on the Nazis' treatment of the Jews, and was under Gestapo investigation for being politically unreliable at the time he was killed.

But, an act of violence created far more violence.  In fact, looking at Krystalnacht points out the truth of  N. A. Browne's The Myth of Nazi Gun Control:
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. (See Bogus Gun Control Quotes and endnote [1].)

A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Nor were they alone in this mode of appeasement. The defiance of "never again" is not so much a warning to potential oppressors as it is a challenge to Jews to reject the passive response to pogrom. Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided.
The simple conclusion is that there are no lessons about the efficacy of gun control to be learned from the Germany of the first half of this century. It is all too easy to forget the seductive allure that fascism presented to all the West, bogged down in economic and social morass. What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. There is the danger to which we should pay great heed. Not fanciful stories about Nazi's seizing guns.
I would also add that you read this paper for further debunking of the Hitler non-sense.

But, the bottom line is that no one who knows anything about the Second World War and the Third Reich buys into the "Hitler was for gun control."

If anything, Hitler was pro-gun.  He probably would have welcomed armed Jewish resistance as a reason to exterminate the Jews. 

Remember that the usual result of Jewish Ghetto uprisings was a quicker trip to one of the dedicated Operation Reinhard extermination camps (e.g., The survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto were sent to Treblinka).

FYI, the first nation to have an actual gun registration programme was Great Britain (The Gun Licence Act 1870, Pistol Act of 1903, and The Firearms Act of 1920)--Where is the British Genocide?  I would also add that the Home Secretary ruled that self-defence was no longer a suitable reason for applying for a firearm certificate in 1937, and directed police to refuse such applications on the grounds that "firearms cannot be regarded as a suitable means of protection and may be a source of danger"

28 comments:

  1. "Where is the British Genocide?" Ireland

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Laci doesn't like to talk about his days in the British occupation force.

      Delete
    2. Didn't know he was part of that til you said it before.

      I've got a song for him:

      Enjoy!

      Delete
    3. Apparently screwed up my html

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28Bq_2soGIA

      Delete
    4. That's a fine song. I like the one with Paddy Reilly and the original Dubliners, myself, but this has some punch to it.

      Sure, the mutt'll be after ignoring it.

      Delete
    5. That's an excellent version too. However, the attitude exuded from this one is more appropriate for Laci.

      Delete
    6. I just wish the last verse was included with the Young Dubliners' version.

      Sinead O'Connor also did a nice version with the Chieftains--more of a lament.

      And while we're discussing songs about the prowess and glory of England:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js7x3u2GHYs

      Delete
  2. You mean if the Jews had defended themselves, the Germans would have shot back?

    Oh Noes! That, like, totally eviscerates the idea that if the Jews had guns, the Nazis would have taken their ball and gone home!

    Course, that's not what anybody is saying. We're saying that if the Jews had been armed and had used their arms, they'd have stood a better chance. Maybe they could have fought off the Gestapo, and maybe they would have died, but better to die on their feet, taking some of the bastards with them, than to be herded into gas chambers and wind up dead anyway.

    At least you're weakly acknowledging that the Nazis would have come after the Jews anyway. This assassination just gave them a scapegoat. They were already rounding up the disabled and killing them, and to the eternal disgrace of the men and women in Germany at the time, almost none of them resisted.

    Finally, regarding your comments about British gun control, keep patting yourself on the back. You began controlling guns, eventually taking them out of most people's hands, then stabbings became more common, so you started with knife control.

    Now, you have to be 18+ to look at or purchase cutlery in Britain. Congratulations! By the way, the world is laughing at you--when I was studying there and saw the 18+ signs on silverware, it wasn't just me and the American exchange students laughing--it was the Canadians, the Germans, the Dutch, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Jews had over 5,000 guns in the Ghetto. They used them to kill German, but were exterminated by German superior forces. Having guns did not stop their extermination.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous, you miss the point. There are times when it's better to die with your attacker than to die while your attacker enjoys watching you go.

      Delete
    3. And your point, Anonymous?

      Yes, they were murdered. And they had been being murdered before that. And they would have been murdered had they not fought back. At least they stood up and fought, took plenty of Nazi's with them, and tied up those German units.

      It's just too bad they waited as long as they did--imagine if they'd taken up arms sooner--broke out of the Ghetto and formed a partisans movement like happened elsewhere. Maybe the result would have been the same, but they might have fared better.

      At the very least, they would not have fared worse.

      Delete
    4. At least they were able to fight the evil. An honorable death. Their defeat does not negate the utility of firearms in these situations.

      Delete
    5. You're freaking me out. I want to unread your comment to save my brain.

      Delete
    6. "The utility of firearms" as ss put it, is the very thing we're questioning. It's the same argument we always have about US gun owners being the last defense against government tyranny. You guys are delusional.

      Delete
    7. No, gun control freaks lack any sense of honor. They believe that life under a master is at least life and is therefore superior to standing up in defense of one's rights.

      Delete
    8. Mike,

      Do explain how the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto would have been better off calmly filing onto the box cars rather than availing themselves of guns.

      Delete
    9. " We're saying that if the Jews had been armed and had used their arms, they'd have stood a better chance."

      Your statement is false. Jews did have guns and did fight back. My point was to correct your error, or lie, and it is a common lie.

      Delete
    10. " It's the same argument we always have about US gun owners being the last defense against government tyranny. You guys are delusional."

      Lets look at a more modern example. The Taliban in Afghanistan. They have outlasted the Soviet military, albeit with aid from the US, and the combined forces of multinational forces led by the US. Or do you really think there has been any kind of decisive victory? And what do you think will likely happen after we leave at the end of the year?

      Delete
    11. Yes, Anonymous, Jews in some countries had guns (Poland wasn't part of Germany where gun ownership for Jews was much lower seeing as they couldn't get permission) and the Jews did occasionally use their guns--like in the Warsaw Ghetto after it was obvious that they were being systematically exterminated and they were fully surrounded and blocked in.

      You have said nothing that contradicts the idea that if more Jews had been armed and if more of them had used their arms--especially at an earlier stage, they might have stood a better chance, and they certainly could not have fared any worse than they did, or than they would have if there had been no uprisings in places like Warsaw.

      Delete
    12. The gun control side is still left with the question of whether it's better to be murdered helplessly or to take some of the bastards with you.

      Delete
    13. The idea that armed Jews could have stopped the Nazis, is laughable. It took most of the heavily armed world to stop the Nazis. And if the world had not come together to fight the Nazis, one country alone (even America) could not have stopped them.

      Delete
    14. "Do explain how the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto would have been better off calmly filing onto the box cars rather than availing themselves of guns."

      Simon, when we question the utility of guns in overcoming a tyrannical government we're not saying people would be "better off calmly filing onto the box cars." This is an example of your twisting the argument in a dishonest way. WE DON'T SAY THAT. It's also an example of one of those loaded questions that you and Kurt like so much. Within the question is a statement, in this case the false statement that we claim people are better off willingly submitting.

      Delete
    15. But Mikeb, that's exactly what you do insist. Your side wants an unarmed citizenry that complies with everything the government demands. Please don't bother denying that. We all can read and draw valid conclusions from what your lot says.

      Delete
    16. "The idea that armed Jews could have stopped the Nazis, is laughable."

      Possibly not, but they at least stood up to them while they could. Given freedom of movement, they would have likely done much better.

      Delete
    17. Mike,

      Laci's premise, which Anonymous picked up, was that guns wouldn't have been useful to the Jews and that they might have been better off if they didn't shoot. You may not hold to that, but when you join their side in an argument, how else are we to take it?

      Delete
    18. "Possibly not"
      Again laughable.
      Absolutely not.
      If you want to give a person a false sense of security by giving them a gun to fire before they die, fine, but the inference that they might survive, or change the outcome that they will die, is simply not true and history proved it to not be true. More guns would not have helped the Jews to survive.

      Delete
    19. I'd say that the Bielskies and the Jews who took their captors guns and broke out of one of the camps would disagree with you, Anon.

      Delete
    20. So it wasn't the guns that saved them, but escaping imprisonment. I agree.

      Delete