Eyewitness to Hitler Warns - Keep Your Guns and Buy Guns

FlyersFan

ETA ** I should say that the title of this thread came from the article.
I didn't make the title up. 'eyewitness to Hitler' ... their title, not mine.

Nice thread. I starred and flagged but the reason of why I'm making a comment is in what I've quoted. I don't understand why you have to make it so clear to everyone the title and the mentioning of Hitler's name? Hitler (good or bad) is an historical figure, actually a big actor of the first half of 20th century. Isn't any worst that Alexander the Great or Napoleon (both psychos, murderers and dictators IMO). And if the comparison with what Hitler did is the right one, you have to name it. Stating the facts is not wrong (damn political correctness ).

Telos
Stating the facts is not wrong (damn political correctness

).

But all the facts stated aren't facts. They are mistruths at best. The exception to this is the percentage of people who voted for the unification of Austria and Germany in 1938 (which is within a percentage point of the actual vote, but leaves out the fact that it wasn't a free vote).

reply to post by knownothing


Exactly, so perhaps guns will not help and we're all $&%*ed!

reply to post by tridentblue


Yeah they have bigger n better weapons and we don't stand a ....wait a minute...Didn't the French resistance face the same problem?
Ok, they got tanks and missiles and....If they start on us, we take our little primitive guns, kill them and take their equipment.
That is unless the soldiers defect from an overreaching government.
Let's not raise the white flag just yet folks.
Unless you just don't think you're as tough as them "sissy Frenchmen".
/sarcasm tag provided for those who might be French and not catch my humor.

iRoyalty
I do not condone violence and I do not think everyday citizens NEED guns.

However,

The reason the Nazi party went as far as it did was because there was no organised resistance. When guns were shipped in there were just pockets of resistance.

The reason American will NEVER get invaded is because every citizen would take up arms. There would be snipers on every street and armed militia on every road, you want to stop a totalitarian government? Get a gun.

it already was invaded decades ago. Even before JFK. But certainly after that there's been non puppet acting as the nations video spokes model.

knownothing

Telos
Stating the facts is not wrong (damn political correctness

).

But all the facts stated aren't facts. They are mistruths at best. The exception to this is the percentage of people who voted for the unification of Austria and Germany in 1938 (which is within a percentage point of the actual vote, but leaves out the fact that it wasn't a free vote).

I'm sorry but I don't think I follow you. Which one aren't facts, these below? :

- Hitler was elected with 98% of the vote.
- Hitler destroyed the existing medical system when he brought a national healthcare plan into being.
- First, people were forced to register their guns to cut down on crime.
- Then they were forced to turn them in or risk capital punishment for keeping them.

I don't care about semantics but I cannot think of anything being more factual than the above.

Telos
I don't understand why you have to make it so clear to everyone the title and the mentioning of Hitler's name? Hitler (good or bad) is an historical figure, actually a big actor of the first half of 20th century.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously. That's convoluted.

Here at ATS we are supposed to take the title from the article when possible.
The title of the article is what I posted.
Therefore, I was making it very clear that I didn't invent the title.

The title says she was an 'eyewitness to Hitler'. That could mean two things ...
It could mean that she worked with him and was a first hand eyewitness ...
Or it could mean she lived through what he caused.

Clarification about where the title came from was appropriate.

reply to post by Telos


Yes those below, none of those 'facts' are actually true*. Please see my post on page one of this thread.

*The hitler elected with 98% of the vote is incorrect, but the Austrian people did vote with almost that percentage of the vote to unify with Nazi Germany in 1938, but the election wasn't fair nor free.

FlyersFan

I have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously. That's convoluted.

I think you misunderstood my post. Once again, the way you commented on the part I've quoted sounds like you were excusing yourself for mentioning Hitler (thus my remark)

I was gonna add on to my previous post but figured it'd just be easier to make a new sheet.
Seriously folks, if you doubt what the lady says in the article, READ!
Whether it be a book, old newspaper or web article or heck, even watch documentaries.
Try as much as you can to get "primary source" though, as a firsthand report is days better than a 3rd generation story.
Sure there will be lies, spin, and just outright propaganda.
But the more you read and see more sources stating the same things that have never even met each other, you will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Knowledge is power, and time is cyclical.
At the very least, bury a pistol somewhere close to home.

g146541
Seriously folks, if you doubt what the lady says in the article, READ!

Yes, please do read history books on this, so that you can have your doubts confirmed

Does it matter, really, if he won the popular vote? Does it matter what year any of restrictions were pulled in and implemented? No, because it all simply happened. It is not a fairy tale. Hitler was real but to me he was a puppet just as the current POTUS. The Nazi party was not Hitler, he was part of the Nazi party. A movement to control every aspect of a citizens life and make the average citizen totally dependant on the government. To know that those citizens are doing at every moment. Socialism...no free market capitalism...sound familiar?

It is not about the man but about those who are pushing the man. The change in the US is a long time coming and is coming to fruition. The last phase is one more major war to spread the herd even thinner and make more dependance. Total dependance.

We are just a few steps away from a new Enabling Act in this country. If you do not know what that is I suggest you look it up. I mean, what does this sound like....

The Enabling Act allowed the cabinet to enact legislation, including laws deviating from or altering the constitution, without the consent of the Reichstag. Because this law allowed for departures from the constitution, it was itself considered a constitutional amendment and thus its adoption required a two-thirds majority, with at least two-thirds of deputies attending the session.

Hmmm....scary folks and while we all sit around drinking our Starbucks and paying 4 bucks a gallon for gas we are growing closer and closer to a society where we will wake up and it will be too late and a simple choice will need to be made. Are you in or are you out?

knownothing
reply to post by Telos

 

Yes those below, none of those 'facts' are actually actually true*. Please see my post on page one of this thread.

*The hitler elected with 98% of the vote is incorrect, but the Austrian people did vote with almost that percentage of the vote to unify with Nazi Germany in 1938, but the election wasn't fair nor free.

edit on 18-12-2013 by knownothing because: (no reason given)

I don't like to argue endlessly. However I quickly crosschecked what you said and came up with this (I dislike wikipedia as a source of information but I guess sometimes comes handy)

Regarding the percentage of the election:

Parliamentary elections were held in Germany (including recently annexed Austria) on 10 April 1938.[1] They were the final elections to the Reichstag during Nazi rule and took the form of a single-question referendum asking whether voters approved of a single list of Nazis and pro-Nazi "guest" candidates for the 813-member Reichstag as well as the recent annexation of Austria (the Anschluss). Turnout in the election was officially 99.5% with 98.9% voting "yes".[1] In Austria official figures claimed 99.73% voted in favour with a turnout of 99.71%.

en.wikipedia.org...

Regarding the healthcare system:

With the world economic crisis of 1929, welfare state expenditures had to be reduced for housing, nutrition, support payments, recreation and rehabilitation, and maternal and child health. What remained of the humanistic goals of reform were state mechanisms for inspection and regulation of public health and medical practice. Economic efficiency became the major concern, and health care became primarily a question of cost-benefit analysis. Under the socialist policies of the period, this analysis was necessarily applied to the selection of strong persons, deemed worthy of support, and the elimination of weak and “unproductive” people. The scientific underpinning of cost-benefit analyses to political medical care was provided by the new fields of genetics and eugenics.

Read more: www.fee.org...

As for the gun law, maybe the lady being that old just confuses the year when the gun law was changed. That doesn't mean what she's saying in principal is wrong. How is that for a fact check and denying ignorance? (which btw you don't have to come to ATS to do it. Should be a motto to all intelligent people).

Telos

knownothing

Telos
Stating the facts is not wrong (damn political correctness

).

But all the facts stated aren't facts. They are mistruths at best. The exception to this is the percentage of people who voted for the unification of Austria and Germany in 1938 (which is within a percentage point of the actual vote, but leaves out the fact that it wasn't a free vote).

I'm sorry but I don't think I follow you. Which one aren't facts, these below? :

- Hitler was elected with 98% of the vote.
- Hitler destroyed the existing medical system when he brought a national healthcare plan into being.
- First, people were forced to register their guns to cut down on crime.
- Then they were forced to turn them in or risk capital punishment for keeping them.

I don't care about semantics but I cannot think of anything being more factual than the above.

Yes none of those are facts, that is correct. Bismark created Germanys national healthcare in the 1880s. The only change the Nazis made to it was removing medical ethics from it so they could doctors do things in the name of racial purity. And as pretty much everybody knows the Nazis were pro gun, they reduced gun laws and promoted shooting among children. And why not, with modern weapons even then, a mob with small arms was no threat. If you even tried to cause trouble they would just retaliate to such an extenct that you would never again. When the Brits assasinated Heydrich the German just externimated the entire village that they had hid in. However by creating a love of guns among the youth the Nazis ensured a better trained and more willing future consripts. Not that I think the Goverment today creates a love of guns culture in the US because those people are far more likley to join the military. However, if I was in the tin foil hat crowd I might look at who truly benefits from the 2nd Amendment and Amricas gun culture. Tax paying gun companies and the US military. Interesting that.

reply to post by FlyersFan


The problem is that this new “Hitler” the American NATO empire doesn’t do things the Nazi way.
Their tactic is to pretend to be good and for the people and surreptitiously pull off what Hitler did overtly.

In that case it is a creeping Nazism. The American NATO empire will never do a blitzkrieg methodology, it will be over a longer period of time than the Nazi onslaught.

The accumulation of guns will NOT IN THE LEAST prevent this, in-fact that will just make it more destructive. When people fantasize, like Alex Jones types, that their little guns can stop an Army, believe me the PTB aren't at all worried, for when it happens they will just bring more troops to take those guns away and in the process kill more people!

I guess you replied without reading what I posted after.

reply to post by FlyersFan


When I was in college back decades ago, I took a course called "The Holocaust" and in it we discussed the psychological propaganda that happened and how ordinary people were manipulated into demonizing groups, the Jews in particular, as causing the ills of the German society. Hitler could not have succeeded though without the treaty of Versailles which hamstrung Germany and put it on a road to poverty and economic destruction that created the fearful atmosphere that something had to be done or they would be ruined.

I see it repeating today in demonizing Christianity, conservatism, Tea Party types via movies, books, mass media, and liberals controlling the educational system where they get to indoctrinate our children who go into college with fairly traditional views and come out as communist flag waving Che Guevara t-shirt wearing liberal progressives.

Stalin (another socialist) said,

"Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed. "

"Give me control of Hollywood and a generation of the young and I will control the world"

“When one person dies, it's a tragedy, but when a million people die, it's a statistic.”

Everything Hitler did was legal, and that is the point I think we all need to realize. Our laws are being changed before our eyes, and while we debate the minutia of subjects it is quite possible that the current Narcissist in the White House could become another megalomaniac dictator or lay the legal foundation for the next President.

Telos
How is that for a fact check and denying ignorance? (which btw you don't have to come to ATS to do it. Should be a motto to all intelligent people).

All good, except
Hitler wasn't elected by the election in Germany in 1938 (the election your mentioning is 'elections' for the German parliament. These elections were carried out in a one party police state, I would be surprised if the Nazis hadn't got that much of the vote), Hitler was Chancellor, it would be a bit like confusing the Presidental election with the election of congressmen).

1929 was 4 years before Hitler was 'elected'. The Germans had state healthcare since the late 19th century (a good 40 years before Hitler came to power), the economic impact of the crash of 1929 caused cutback in spending but that's not the same as what she's saying, and the Nazis changed some aspects (such as reducing it's scope)

I laugh at these people who jump on the anti-Hitler bandwagon.

Hitler never took the guns from the German people and was actually all for Germans having a personal firearm.He was in favor of this and even pushed for it.

Viking9019
I laugh at these people who jump on the anti-Hitler bandwagon.

Hitler never took the guns from the German people and was actually all for Germans having a personal firearm.He was in favor of this and even pushed for it.

Unless you were a Jew. Hitler did disarm Jewish citizens. The 1938 Nazi Weapons Law confiscated all firearms from German Jews. This law was enacted the day after Kristallnacht. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
11 November 1938


With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the Führer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:

§1
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

§2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§3
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in §1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

§4
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

§5
For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

§6
This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.

Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior
Frick