Myths, Legends, and Propaganda

swampyankee said:

In the case if the rise of the Nazis, I think a much stronger case could be made that widespread gun ownership facilitated their rise than vice versa. I also think this is a side issue with absolutely no relevance to the behavior of the German Army in WWII.

Click to expand...

I would agree. I just thought it ironic that a thread entitled "Myths, Legends and Propaganda" would trot out a palpably untrue piece of information about gun control in Germany prior to WW2.

One should remember the security forces during the Weimar Republic were not trustworthy or reliable; they largely would not and largely did not act against the right wing forces that wanted to overthrow the republic.

When the nazis took over, the security forces quickly demonstrated their willingness to support the nazi regime. The pre-nazi security forces would have given the anti-Weimar activists guns and wouldn't even try to enforce gun restrictions against the Freikorps.

The Soviet Union was the country with Draconian gun laws. All weapons, actually: pistols, rifles, bayonettes, knives, etc.
Only smoothbore weapons were permissible and only after several administrative procedures. If memory serves right, some party members were allowed a pistol.
Violation of the law saw severe consequences - this existed between the 30's and Stalin's death in the 50's.

buffnut453 said:

Gun control in Germany originated with the Entente Powers and the treaty of Versailles. The objective was to "demilitarize" Germany and the dragnet included weapons owned by civilians. Initially, the state did little to enact the law, indeed there was little they could do because there was no registration mechanism for firearms until 1928.

During the 1920s, the emergence of extremist paramilitary organizations caused concern within the Weimar Republic, leading to a new law in 1928 which demanded gun registration and enabled permits to be issued for a range of activities, to include buying and selling guns. The 1928 law also provided an "easy permit" mechanism sponsored by the automobile associations for any car owners who frequently had to drive in the countryside. Permits could only be issued to "... persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Ironically, that precise language was exploited by the Nazis to prevent Jews and other "undesirables" from owning weapons.

After the Nazis ascended to power, new gun laws were rolled out in 1938 which drastically reduced the constraints on gun ownership:

• The 1928 law applied to all weapons but the 1938 law focused solely on handguns and exempted any long-barrel weapons from the permit requirements. Essentially, the 1938 law completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, and the possession of ammunition.
• Lowered the legal age for gun ownership from 21 to 18.
• Removed all gun ownership restrictions from a broad swathe of society including holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and National Socialist German Workers' Party members (prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted from the gun ownership rules).

Bottom line is that gun ownership was pretty common in Germany throughout the period. At no stage were guns ever forcibly removed from the population. Thus, I think the perception that only very few people owned guns is mistaken.




I can agree with this part of the statement. No amount of pistols or hunting rifles will deter a military force equipped with tanks, armoured cars, and air assets.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. If that is the case ,and it seems like your knowledgeable on the particulars as opposed to articles that ive read so many times that just state that the Nazis confiscated private firearms with no explanation of the legal or practical mechanisms, then I wonder why its become such a common " truism" if not true.
Is it posible that what was in the law and what the government actually did were to some degree different? Don't know just a thought. Or posibly that they did confiscate from the groups and individuals that were likely to cause them trouble but not the majority ,in which case its one of those things thats true half way and just through journalistic lazyness and perhaps agendas on the part of some got expanded so to speak over time.
Again, don't know just thoughts on how this could become so commonly accepted fact if not at least entirely true.

The German gun laws in the mid-latter part of the 30's were more aimed at the Jewish population, restricting not only firearm ownership, but any form of weapon. These laws also included manufacturing, selling or distributing of weapons even if the company was partly owned by Jews.

There's plenty of "articles" on the subject floating around out there, as with any subject, you have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

buffnut453 said:

I would agree. I just thought it ironic that a thread entitled "Myths, Legends and Propaganda" would trot out a palpably untrue piece of information about gun control in Germany prior to WW2.

Click to expand...

I wasn't" trotting out" propaganda or anything else. It was a small detail in an an otherwise sound( I believe anyway) assertion that it was unrealistic and going to be unproductive for private German citizens to forcibly confront the SS and that very few had the oportunity if so inclined to actually do something to stop it. And that the fact that many that did have an opportunity to do something did and were even willing to risk and in many cases give there lives to do so, so at least we can take a little encouragement about human nature form that.
You may be entirely correct and private gun ownership was widespread or perhaps they did confiscate from all those they felt might case them trouble which would have for practical purposes most of the same impact as total confiscation, don't know.
Your assertion that there was almost no gun control/ confiscation in Nazi Germany is the first time in decades of reading such ive ever hear that claim. It very well may be true however. For now not saying your right or wrong, just keeping an open mind and going to try to do some research as to what the actual situation( posibly as opposed to or maybe in line with official laws) was.
When I've read something as historical fact for literally decades and never seen it challenged and then when it is challenged for the first time and I said I have an open mind to the new information I think accussing me of " trotting out propaganda" etc. is a bit harsh don't you?

michael rauls said:

Very interesting. If that is the case ,and it seems like your knowledgeable on the particulars as opposed to articles that ive read so many times that just state that the Nazis confiscated private firearms with no explanation of the legal or practical mechanisms, then I wonder why its become such a common " truism" if not true.
Is it posible that what was in the law and what the government actually did were to some degree different? Don't know just a thought. Or posibly that they did confiscate from the groups and individuals that were likely to cause them trouble but not the majority ,in which case its one of those things thats true half way and just through journalistic lazyness and perhaps agendas on the part of some got expanded so to speak over time.
Again, don't know just thoughts on how this could become so commonly accepted fact if not at least entirely true.

Click to expand...

It's hard to get very deep into this without getting political.
Most people believe what they want to believe, and never take the trouble to do any research .

I found it out in the early 70's when I was stationed in Germany and joined the Rod and Gun Club on base.
Since most of our hunting was off base, were had to learn current German gun laws, and co-ordinate with local German gun clubs.

My natural curiosity led me to ask questions about earlier German gun laws, like WW2 era.
I found to my surprise that WW2 era German gun laws were much less restrictive than the then current gun laws, as long as you were a German citizen.
And I found this out from Germans old enough to have been young adults during the Nazi period.

It's easier just to believe what is generally believed, and to do nothing to try to challenge that believe.
Surely the NRA wouldn't lie to us ?

tyrodtom said:

It's hard to get very deep into this without getting political.
Most people believe what they want to believe, and never take the trouble to do any research .

I found it out in the early 70's when I was stationed in Germany and joined the Rod and Gun Club on base.
Since most of our hunting was off base, were had to learn current German gun laws, and co-ordinate with local German gun clubs.

My natural curiosity led me to ask questions about earlier German gun laws, like WW2 era.
I found to my surprise that WW2 era German gun laws were much less restrictive than the then current gun laws, as long as you were a German citizen.
And I found this out from Germans old enough to have been young adults during the Nazi period.

It's easier just to believe what is generally believed, and to do nothing to try to challenge that believe.
Surely the NRA wouldn't lie to us ?

Click to expand...

Great post, very informative. That you actually heard how it was from people that were there at the time. I for one always want to know the truth whether it lines up with what I previously belived to be true or bolsters any policy positions I might or might not have.
It's sounding to me like perhaps thay did confiscate guns from anybody that they thought might give them trouble
, which would have most of the same impact as total confiscation, but that the frequently( or always from what ive read) asserted " fact" that the Nazis confiscated all private firearms is not accurate.
Looks like one of those the devil is in the details kinda things. Did the Nazis confiscate many guns? Yes. Was there total or even majority confiscation? No.
As the fact check sites would say" rating; partially false" or "partially true" if one prefers.

GrauGeist said:

The German gun laws in the mid-latter part of the 30's were more aimed at the Jewish population, restricting not only firearm ownership, but any form of weapon. These laws also included manufacturing, selling or distributing of weapons even if the company was partly owned by Jews.

There's plenty of "articles" on the subject floating around out there, as with any subject, you have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Click to expand...

It's something I've never dug into as its own subject. Always just read it as a passing statement of fact in articles and even a few documentaries on other aspects of the war over the years. I am eager to spend some time reading up on it. New information is always fascinating. Especially if different from what previously believed to be true. At least for me.

michael rauls said:

I wasn't" trotting out" propaganda or anything else. It was a small detail in an an otherwise sound( I believe anyway) assertion that it was unrealistic and going to be unproductive for private German citizens to forcibly confront the SS and that very few had the oportunity if so inclined to actually do something to stop it. And that the fact that many that did have an opportunity to do something did and were even willing to risk and in many cases give there lives to do so, so at least we can take a little encouragement about human nature form that.
You may be entirely correct and private gun ownership was widespread or perhaps they did confiscate from all those they felt might case them trouble which would have for practical purposes most of the same impact as total confiscation, don't know.
Your assertion that there was almost no gun control/ confiscation in Nazi Germany is the first time in decades of reading such ive ever hear that claim. It very well may be true however. For now not saying your right or wrong, just keeping an open mind and going to try to do some research as to what the actual situation( posibly as opposed to or maybe in line with official laws) was.
When I've read something as historical fact for literally decades and never seen it challenged and then when it is challenged for the first time and I said I have an open mind to the new information I think accussing me of " trotting out propaganda" etc. is a bit harsh don't you?

Click to expand...

I'd be interested to learn the sources you've been reading. Like you, I'm keen to keep an open mind.

A key problem with the idea of harsh gun controls is the logistics of carrying out such a plan. Since there was no registration process for guns until 1928, it's improbable that much progress would be made from then until 1933 when the Nazis came to power, not across a nation of some 80 million people and a process relying on paper registration and card indexes (and at a time when the global recession put much higher priorities on the tables of the powerful). As noted, some 5 years after the Nazis came to power, they drastically reduced gun controls, particularly for loyal citizens.

As noted previously, I entirely agree with the impracticality of armed citizens standing up to the might of the state. That may have been possible in earlier generations but not by the mid-20th century.

If you're a private citizen, by yourself, maybe with your family, no matter how well armed, you still have to sleep.

With the Gestapo's " night and fog" methods, what could you do ?

You can't stay awake and alert 24/7.
They'd come with overwhelming force in the early hours of the morning. Even if you slept with a pistol under your pillow you'd just slow them down, maybe.

Everybody knew this, If you didn't agree with the current politics you kept you opinions to yourself and just hoped things would pass and not hurt you and those you loved too much.

MiTasol said:

I think it fair to say both sides were equally guilty of this.
For many years the Australian ABC would show a ww2 film called Battle of the Bismark Sea on ANZAC day. Then someone noticed it was showing RAAF and USAAF aircrew strafing lifeboats and floats so it is not shown any more.

Click to expand...

Actually, I'm surprised. I thought that aspect of the battle was pretty well known.

buffnut453 said:

I'd be interested to learn the sources you've been reading. Like you, I'm keen to keep an open mind.

A key problem with the idea of harsh gun controls is the logistics of carrying out such a plan. Since there was no registration process for guns until 1928, it's improbable that much progress would be made from then until 1933 when the Nazis came to power, not across a nation of some 80 million people and a process relying on paper registration and card indexes (and at a time when the global recession put much higher priorities on the tables of the powerful). As noted, some 5 years after the Nazis came to power, they drastically reduced gun controls, particularly for loyal citizens.

As noted previously, I entirely agree with the impracticality of armed citizens standing up to the might of the state. That may have been possible in earlier generations but not by the mid-20th century.

Click to expand...

Well to be honest It's very difficult to remember the name of a documentary you saw 10 or 15 years ago or articles I read last year. I can barely remember what I had for breakfast sometimes but I have never before heard this frequently asserted........well asertion......challenged.
As I said not something ive ever dug into as a seperate issue but something that would be mentioned in passing in articles about other aspects of the war. Also gun control opponents frequently site this and before you roll your eyes, yes I would expect biased " facts" from both sides of any political debate the fact that adversaries from the other side never challenged this inspite of having every motivation to do so if not true would seem to speak volumes.
Just did a search on Duck Duck go( it is a neutral search engine that doesn't have algorithms that skew the results one way or the other on issues the way Google does) and skimmed some articles( about a dozen) . There were a few claiming total confiscation and one claiming none but the consensus was that alot of gun confiscation did take place but was limited to those groups and individuals that the Nazis might cause them trouble. Which of course as a practicality will have most of the same affect as total confiscation.
Looks like most issues wherein both sides can point to something and claim to be right but the truth, as usual, is somewhere in between.

As a German, Soviet or Japanese soldier (these probably having the strictest rules)
....and other servicemen in other countries.....

What were you to do if you disobeyed orders? What would the consequences be with the mentality of the time?

....Dire I'd imagine.

Total gun confiscation did in fact happen, several times in Germany.
After WWI and again after WWII.
The firearm ban post 1918 became lax and the key years to look for, regarding German gun legislation would be 1928, 1933 and 1938.
1938 is the year laws were introduced that completely disarmed Jews (as mentioned above) and were strictly enforced. So this can be seen as total confiscation if an artical takes it out of context.

GrauGeist said:

Total gun confiscation did in fact happen, several times in Germany.
After WWI and again after WWII.
The firearm ban post 1918 became lax and the key years to look for, regarding German gun legislation would be 1928, 1933 and 1938.
1938 is the year laws were introduced that completely disarmed Jews (as mentioned above) and were strictly enforced. So this can be seen as total confiscation if an artical takes it out of context.

Click to expand...

There were certainly laws that made it illegal to own firearms after WW1. However, the degree to which they were pursued is very much open to question. The actual peace treaty was not signed until 23 July 1919 and by 1922 there were already concerns about armed militant groups. The fact that such groups existed suggests that the disarmament process was patchy at best.

Since there was no gun registration process, any gun confiscation effort would have involved going from door to door and literally searching the entire house...and even then, a well-concealed weapon would likely not be found. I very much doubt the effectiveness of such an approach even if it was attempted (which, as far as I know, it wasn't).

Indeed - which is why I said the ban post WWI (through 1928) was lax. There simply wasn't enough manpower nor enough commitment in the Government to carry out enforcement.

In the case of the 1938 legislation, though, it was a different Government with tighter population control and a smaller target group.

Sid327 said:

As a German, Soviet or Japanese soldier (these probably having the strictest rules)
....and other servicemen in other countries.....

What were you to do if you disobeyed orders? What would the consequences be with the mentality of the time?

....Dire I'd imagine.

Click to expand...

You need to read the book Ordinary Men, by Christopher Browning, it about Reserve police Battalion 101.
They assisted in the round up, and execution of Jews in Poland in 1942.
At first some men had a hard time fully participating in every aspect of a cleansing operation.
In other words some men couldn't bring themselves to shoot women, children, and invalides.
But eventually most participate d, the only thing that seemed to work to get the reluctant policemen to comply was pressure from their other comrades to do their share.
No threats of execution, demotion, or transfer to the fighting front was used, just peer pressure worked.

What were you to do if you disobeyed orders? What would the consequences be with the mentality of the time?

Click to expand...

No US soldier was executed for disobeying orders, but 1 was for desertion and 102 were for rape. The amount of rape by the US forces during the invasion of Normandy was so high it caused dismay among the French resistance. This is also why President Macron went to the memorial for the French resistance rather than the Omaha Beach memorial during the 75th anniversary last year.

Just as an aside: Germany, pre-WWI, was far from a democratic country, probably not quite as far away as was Russia, but certainly farther away than the UK or France. The pro-democracy activists were certainly not well-considered by the security forces, and were actively targeted by security services pre-WWI. Post-WWI, when the pro-democracy activists had control of the government, the security services actively supported the anti-democracy forces, such as the Freikorps. Had the Weimar government had reliable security services, the Freikorps would have been suppressed. No government will countenance armed rebellion, and no government will write into its basic law a right to armed revolt.

Trying to get back onto the topic of WWII Wehrmacht behavior.

There are two broad categories of war crimes: "ordinary" war crimes, such as using civilians as hostages, massive reprisals against civilians in an attempt to suppress partisan activity, and "extraordinary" war crimes, like genocide. Western Allies' armies were innocent of the second (one can argue that the Soviet Armies were guilty of the second during their suppression of reconquered territory, such as Ukraine); the WWII Heer was not, as the Wehrmacht was not loath to support the extermination of peoples in the invaded lands to the east of Germany. Did any German general or field marshal ever write a letter to his high command that mass murder of Jews or Rom should be stopped? High ranking military officers are supposed to exercise judgment, not be unthinking automata, so such letters would not be outside of normal expectations. One may not expect low-level officers or other ranks to exercise moral judgment concerning their orders, but they are still not automata. One would expect things like letters home to include upset at doing something (while "went into village and killed all the men, women, and children in reprisal for shooting Hauptmann Säuglingsvergewaltiger" would likely be censored, I'm sure that something would get through).

Of course, the major reason for the German invasions eastward was to replace the Slavic populations that were living there: the numbers would be reduced by starvation and the remaining population enslaved. At best, this would be "ethnic cleansing" (what marketing genius thought that up for mass murder and forced migration?); in the real world this would be genocide. It's just that nobody had thought of that word yet.