By Stephen P. Halbrook
Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
When I was offered
Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and "Enemies of the State
to review, I was filled with quite a bit of curiosity. In 2013, when
there seems to be a shooting a day by some disgruntled person, there is
quite a discussion going on about gun control and the 2nd amendment. A
lot of it on both sides is hyperbolic and weak with facts. One of those
analogies you see quite often on the anti-gun control side is about the
Third Reich in Germany in the 30s and 40s. The basic argument is that
Nazi Germany had gun control and it either led to or was an important
factor in the rise of Hitler and it could happen here. On the other
side, the pro-gun control side states that using this is a ridiculous
statement in that gun control was not the reason that the Third Reich
occurred. So a serious, non-hyperbolic look at what actually went on in
Germany during the rise of Hitler could actually be helpful to know.
The
first thing to be aware of is who wrote the book and who published it.
And, for that matter, who is reviewing it. Stephen P. Halbrook has
written extensively on gun rights and the second amendment. The
publisher is the Independent Institute, a Libertarian think tank whose
basic stance on this topic is that any restriction on gun control, no
matter how small, is anti-constitutional. My own position is that I
support the second amendment but understand that some restrictions, like
gun registration, may be necessary to protect that right and to prevent
abuses, just like there are minimal restrictions to the right to free
speech and the right to assembly to protect people against irresponsible
and harmful behavior. In the arena of gun control debate, I would
probably be considered moderate or in the middle. In most other things, I
would definitely be considered liberal. So there is the philosophical
starting points for all to see.
My first reaction to this book
was how well researched and devoid of preaching this book is. Halbrook
did an impressive job of researching his subject and preventing his
viewpoint from overpowering the facts. He starts his look into German
gun control laws in 1918 when gun possession was pretty much prohibited
and severely punished. He continues to the gun control laws of 1928 by
the relatively liberal Wiemar Republic that allowed possession of
firearms but called for national registration. In the 30s the Nazis took
control of the country and used these laws to firther restrict gun
possession and to search for and find arms possessed by those they felt
were a threat to the regime. In 1938, a new law was passed that forbade
"enemies of the state", and specifically Jews, to possess firearms. The
Nazis massed an aggressive campaign to seize weapons and arrest anyone
against their government, securing the control of the country to Hitler
and the Third Reich.
My synopsis is quick and simple but suffice
to say Halbrook present detailed evidence of this scenario. Much of this
evidence is claimed have been made available only recently. The author
does not claim that the gun control laws caused the rise of Hitler's
Third Reich but he does make a good case in that it was a significant
factor in its success and was also a factor in the lack of armed
resistance in Germany during this time. I also think he made a good
case for the idea that any law restricting human actions, not just gun
control laws in my opinion, have consequences and should be monitored
for the potential of abuse by the government.
I really admired
Halbrook's research and presentation. The historical facts seem not in
dispute. However what can be in dispute is the intent and conclusion of
the author and the publisher. For the question now is how much of this
can be related to our current national and world environment. While
Halbrook's book for the most part appears "to the facts" there are
occasional statements that made me wonder. In the introduction of this
book, the author states a movement in the United States exists that
claims firearms should only be allowed for the military and police.
That seems odd to me since I know of no group that takes that extreme
and, if there is, it would be a very insignificant movement. I do know
that pro-gun registration groups are commonly attacked as wanting to
take's guns away from everyone when it is simply not true, I wondered if
what I read was an example of that mentality. Another instance happens
when the author relates an instance in the 30s in which a German Nazi
attacks a Jewish family with a blunt weapon and a gun. The author
implies that this incident in another culture would be used as
propaganda against the Aryan using the weapon. I was very mystified
until I realized that these sentences could have been written in 2013
during or after the incident in which George Zimmerman shot Trayvon
Martin with a gun and could be implying Zimmerman was used in some form
of propaganda attack, even though what actually happened is still
disputed in most circles. I may be totally off here but I can't think of
any other interpretation. I would love to ask the author what he was
meaning or implying when he wrote that paragraph.
For the most
part, Halbrook wisely leaves us to make our own conclusion but he is
certainly trying to lead us to certain ones. I have my own questions
needing answers in order to offer a conclusion. For instance, there is
no doubt that Germany's laws, even those of the alleged "Liberal" Wiemar
Republic, were much more restricted than anything existing or even
proposed in America. Is it fair to compare one country with a tradition
of second amendment gun rights to a country where such rights would be
basically unheard of. Also, taking the current world situation in mind,
all countries in Europe and Northern America, in other words most
developing countries, have gun control or registration with America's
laws being the weakest. I would be hard put to see where any of those
democratic countries are in danger of heading toward tyranny at this
time even if certain extreme conservative groups love to yell words like
"Tyranny" when addressing the current administration.
Another
interesting conclusion that the author makes is this. If there were not
gun control registration laws in Germany, there could have been an
effective resistance by both Jews and people against the Third Reich.
That is one of those speculations that is hard to prove but I would
essentially agree with it in the abstract. However, I do want to point
out it is not a slam dunk. It is good to remember that at about the same
time and across the Atlantic, Japanese-Americans were being rounded up
into relocation camps with no apparent opposition and resistance despite
the existence of the second amendment.
I do think we need to be
very careful at what solutions we use even though I think national gun
registration is essentially a sensible solution if done correctly. What I
don't understand is why conservative groups, meaning in this case
Republicans, are so concerned about the possible abuses of gun control
laws while they actively pass laws that force pregnant women into
invasive ultra-sound procedures just for considering their legal birth
control options or pass voter ID laws that will effectively curtail the
right of minorities and women to vote under the guise of preventing
non-existent voter fraud.
So I think the conclusions can still be
argued. But I do commend the author and the publishing country for
providing a sane and well researched look at a part of history that is
usually drowned in insinuations and exaggerations. I think it would be
good for both sides to read this book, weight the information and the
discuss the right way to address gun control issues using more sense and
less accusations.
I want to thank the author, the Independent
Institute and Netgalley for allowing me to read and receive this book. I
suspect the author and publishing company may not be happy with some of
my review but hope they will take solace in the fact that I actually
enjoyed and work and found it informative. I also hope they appreciate
that, in this particular instance, they were not preaching to the choir.