I have seen some online debates about gun control lately that seem to stem from publication of the book "Gun Control In The Third Reich" by Stephen P. Holbrook.
Has anyone out there read this book? I'm curious if you think the author did a good job citing his sources.
Book: "Gun Control In The Third Reich"
Re: Book: "Gun Control In The Third Reich"
A book written by a paranoid nutcase to pleasure knuckle-draggers who believe in the "if only people were armed the Nazis would have never gotten to power..." crap.
Over 90% of all Holocaust victims weren't even citizens of Germany or subject to German laws "disarming" civilians in occupied areas, a policy every occupier in history has done including the country of the author of this book (which in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in massacres of the recently disarmed civilians once the Americans left which I doubt he would have opposed).
Over 90% of all Holocaust victims weren't even citizens of Germany or subject to German laws "disarming" civilians in occupied areas, a policy every occupier in history has done including the country of the author of this book (which in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in massacres of the recently disarmed civilians once the Americans left which I doubt he would have opposed).
Re: Book: "Gun Control In The Third Reich"
Please leave present day politics out of the forum.
/Marcus
/Marcus
Re: Book: "Gun Control In The Third Reich"
I wasn't looking to debate gun control, I was merely asking if those who read the book felt it was a reliable source.
AJFFM did not answer my question. I was hoping to hear from someone who looked at the footnotes.
AJFFM did not answer my question. I was hoping to hear from someone who looked at the footnotes.
Re: Book: "Gun Control In The Third Reich"
I will answer my own question, as I have now read the book. I think the historic research in the book is valid. I do not find it to be a pseudo-historic propaganda piece. The sources are well-cited; the author used a variety of sources: legal documents from German archives, periodicals of the era, post-war memoirs, etc. It's a legitimate scholarly work.
How one might want to interpret it and apply it to the world today is up for debate, and as Marcus said, that debate doesn't belong here.
How one might want to interpret it and apply it to the world today is up for debate, and as Marcus said, that debate doesn't belong here.
-
Michael Kenny
- Member
- Posts: 8269
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Book: "Gun Control In The Third Reich"
When I read a book I always check out (as far as possible) the cited sources. It helps you get a feel of the authors agenda.
How many did you check?
How many did you check?
Re: Book: "Gun Control In The Third Reich"
The reason I dismissed this book outright is because it is written by an ideologue who if he were to be asked about the occupation policies of his own country which were identical to those of the Nazis on the subject of gun control he would flip out and characterise the question as unfair and inapplicable while defending his own country's policies.
Read this peer reviewed article instead of a book written by a gun nut in his ma's basement:
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewco ... ontext=flr
Read this peer reviewed article instead of a book written by a gun nut in his ma's basement:
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewco ... ontext=flr
Re: Book: "Gun Control In The Third Reich"
What do you mean "check?" I don't have the time or inclination to find back issues of The New York Times, Der Strümer and Der Völkische Beobachter. This book has a 14-page bibliography. I am familiar with the Goebbels Diaries & Klemperer's "I Will Bear Witness," which were cited several times. If you want to read the book & check the sources to see if anything was falsified, feel free. Let me know what your results are.
-
Michael Kenny
- Member
- Posts: 8269
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Book: "Gun Control In The Third Reich"
By 'check' I mean confirm that the sources exist, are quoted correctly and not truncated or twisted to mean anything other than the original intent.
You would be suprised how many times an author resorts to trickery in order to 'prove' a point.
You would be suprised how many times an author resorts to trickery in order to 'prove' a point.
Re: Book: "Gun Control In The Third Reich"
AJFFM, that looks like a really interesting article, thanks for sharing. I only read the beginning at this point, but hopefully I'll get to read the whole thing later.
My original question was about the author's research. He certainly may be an ideologue, and he wouldn't be the first author of a non-fiction book who delved into archives trying to prove a point. I wanted to know if the author was backing up his opinions with historic fact, or if the book was just a lot of opinion with no historic research. After reading it, I think he put together a decent chronicle of firearms laws in the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich. As for conclusions based on that, be they the author's own conclusions or someone else's, it's all conjecture. Nobody knows what would have happened "if things had been different."
But apparently, a lot of people out there are entertaining themselves by debating the issue.
My original question was about the author's research. He certainly may be an ideologue, and he wouldn't be the first author of a non-fiction book who delved into archives trying to prove a point. I wanted to know if the author was backing up his opinions with historic fact, or if the book was just a lot of opinion with no historic research. After reading it, I think he put together a decent chronicle of firearms laws in the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich. As for conclusions based on that, be they the author's own conclusions or someone else's, it's all conjecture. Nobody knows what would have happened "if things had been different."
But apparently, a lot of people out there are entertaining themselves by debating the issue.
Re: Book: "Gun Control In The Third Reich"
I have had a chance to read the full 29-page “peer review” article by Bernard E. Harcourt. Again, I say Thank You to AJFFM for sharing. It was certainly interesting to read Gun Control in the Third Reich and Harcourt’s article back-to-back. After reading both, I still think the historic record presented in Gun Control in the Third Reich is valid, as Harcourt corroborates Halbrook’s research.
Both writers have an agenda. Simply put, Halbrook is anti-gun-control; Harcourt is pro-gun-control. Both are trying to use Third Reich History to back up their ideology. Both want to say that Hitler was wrong and their own perspective is the opposite of what Hitler did. The two writers are both attorneys. Bernard Harcourt has a PhD in Political theory and Stephen Halbrook has a PhD in Philosophy. I just looked both up on Amazon and Wikipedia and I see that Bernard Harcourt has written several books on political issues, including gun control, but none on WWII or the Nazi Regime. Stephen Halbrook has written several books on gun control, as well as Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II and The Swiss & the Nazis: How the Alpine Republic Survived in the Shadow of the Third Reich. I checked out the description and reviews of The Swiss and the Nazis on Amazon, and none of it mentions that gun control is a topic covered.
Both writers seem to agree on what the laws in Weimar Germany and the Third Reich were. They seem to agree on historic events. What they disagree on, is how to interpret that information and apply it to a modern debate on current political policy.
On page 670 of his article, Harcourt states that “Neither Halbrook nor [another author] are historians…and their ideological commitments are so flagrant…that neither can be trusted entirely in these historical and statutory debates.” I take issue with that statement, at least as it pertains to Stephen Halbrook (I did not read the other author’s work). In fact, I find it amusing that one lawyer is saying we can’t trust another lawyer in legal debates.
My Webster’s dictionary defines “historian” as “a student or writer of history, especially one that produces a scholarly synthesis.” Many of us on the AHF who have never written books qualify as student historians by that definition. Halbrook, who has written three books pertaining to Third Reich history definitely qualifies for producing scholarly works, even more so that Harcourt, who has not written any books on Axis History. Just look at Harcourt’s list of books and you will see that they all come from a politically liberal viewpoint, so he has “ideological commitments” as well. I don’t think we should dismiss either author’s work because they have ideological opinions and preferences, but I think people need to be aware that when reading about history, some sort of political bias is usually expressed. Even a viewpoint such as “The Nazi regime was a bad one that got millions of innocent people killed” is a bias, albeit a very popular one that most of us agree with.
On pages 674 – 678 of his article, Harcourt cites Gun Control in the Third Reich several times and does not deny the historic accuracy of the book, indeed he corroborates it. If Halbrook is not to “be trusted” as far history is concerned, why doesn’t Harcourt check Halbrook’s sources (as our good friend Michael Kenny suggests) and prove that Halbrook is offering up falsified historic information? He does not, but the idea to check and debunk faulty sources certainly crossed Harcourt’s mind, because he does mention a quote that was mistakenly attributed to Hitler in many writings which has no verifiable historic source. That misquote does not pertain to Gun Control in the Third Reich, however, as I do not remember reading the quote in Halbrook’s book, nor does Harcourt claim that the Hitler misquote was ever in the book.
There are a few other things that I will comment on later, but my main point is that Harcourt does not disagree with Halbrook’s research, only the conclusions Halbrook draws based on his research.
Both writers have an agenda. Simply put, Halbrook is anti-gun-control; Harcourt is pro-gun-control. Both are trying to use Third Reich History to back up their ideology. Both want to say that Hitler was wrong and their own perspective is the opposite of what Hitler did. The two writers are both attorneys. Bernard Harcourt has a PhD in Political theory and Stephen Halbrook has a PhD in Philosophy. I just looked both up on Amazon and Wikipedia and I see that Bernard Harcourt has written several books on political issues, including gun control, but none on WWII or the Nazi Regime. Stephen Halbrook has written several books on gun control, as well as Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II and The Swiss & the Nazis: How the Alpine Republic Survived in the Shadow of the Third Reich. I checked out the description and reviews of The Swiss and the Nazis on Amazon, and none of it mentions that gun control is a topic covered.
Both writers seem to agree on what the laws in Weimar Germany and the Third Reich were. They seem to agree on historic events. What they disagree on, is how to interpret that information and apply it to a modern debate on current political policy.
On page 670 of his article, Harcourt states that “Neither Halbrook nor [another author] are historians…and their ideological commitments are so flagrant…that neither can be trusted entirely in these historical and statutory debates.” I take issue with that statement, at least as it pertains to Stephen Halbrook (I did not read the other author’s work). In fact, I find it amusing that one lawyer is saying we can’t trust another lawyer in legal debates.
My Webster’s dictionary defines “historian” as “a student or writer of history, especially one that produces a scholarly synthesis.” Many of us on the AHF who have never written books qualify as student historians by that definition. Halbrook, who has written three books pertaining to Third Reich history definitely qualifies for producing scholarly works, even more so that Harcourt, who has not written any books on Axis History. Just look at Harcourt’s list of books and you will see that they all come from a politically liberal viewpoint, so he has “ideological commitments” as well. I don’t think we should dismiss either author’s work because they have ideological opinions and preferences, but I think people need to be aware that when reading about history, some sort of political bias is usually expressed. Even a viewpoint such as “The Nazi regime was a bad one that got millions of innocent people killed” is a bias, albeit a very popular one that most of us agree with.
On pages 674 – 678 of his article, Harcourt cites Gun Control in the Third Reich several times and does not deny the historic accuracy of the book, indeed he corroborates it. If Halbrook is not to “be trusted” as far history is concerned, why doesn’t Harcourt check Halbrook’s sources (as our good friend Michael Kenny suggests) and prove that Halbrook is offering up falsified historic information? He does not, but the idea to check and debunk faulty sources certainly crossed Harcourt’s mind, because he does mention a quote that was mistakenly attributed to Hitler in many writings which has no verifiable historic source. That misquote does not pertain to Gun Control in the Third Reich, however, as I do not remember reading the quote in Halbrook’s book, nor does Harcourt claim that the Hitler misquote was ever in the book.
There are a few other things that I will comment on later, but my main point is that Harcourt does not disagree with Halbrook’s research, only the conclusions Halbrook draws based on his research.
Re: Book: "Gun Control In The Third Reich"
A few more thoughts that crossed my mind while reading the article by Bernard E. Harcourt…
In the first paragraph, Harcourt states that “you will hear that one of the first things that Hitler did when he seized power was to impose strict gun registration requirements” then he goes on to use a couple of quotes from Gun Control in the Third Reich which do not mention gun registration. Halbrook does not state in his book that Hitler imposed gun registration, he states several times that Hitler used Weimar era gun registration records to disarm Jews and political opponents.
On page 660, Harcourt states that you are “more likely to see a swastika at a gun show” than at “the anti-gun Million Mom March.” He’s probably right about that. I’ve never been to a gun show, so I don’t know what they are like, but Harcourt does imply that there’s a neo-Nazi element at gun shows because a swastika may be present, and that may not necessarily be the case. If someone is selling WWII-era weapons, there may be swastikas on the weapons, or the vendor may make a sign with swastikas on it to show that they have Axis items for sale. If people collect or sell Axis weapons, that doesn’t necessarily make them neo-Nazis. I collect Third Reich paper documents; that doesn’t make me a neo-Nazi.
I found the information on the bottom of page 661 interesting, that there were gun registration requirements as far back as 1660 in England. What’s sad is that Harcourt tells us that the English Bill of Rights of 1689 declared, “…the subjects which are Protestants may have arms.” Apparently, Jews were not afforded equal rights in 1600’s England, either.
On page 668, Harcourt quotes a National Alliance pamphlet that says that Hitler did not ban private gun ownership. I think they make a twisted point here. Hitler did not ban private gun ownership for everyone, just the Jews, Gypsies, and anyone the Nazis deemed “unreliable.” That is still banning private gun ownership, they were banning selectively. The German people were most certainly disarmed because of their religion, ethnicity or political beliefs. Not a good thing.
On page 677, Harcourt writes, “Were the Nazis engaging in propaganda on the question of gun control? On this point, Halbrook offers no evidence.” I disagree; Halbrook offered the evidence (a passage from the Völkische Beobachter) and Harcourt just cited it! Harcourt implies that reports in the Völkische Beobachter are not propaganda, but “transparent statements of what is in the new law.” Seriously?! The Völkische Beobachter was a Nazi newspaper, an instrument on Nazi propaganda. I think we need another dictionary definition here. Propaganda: “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”
Propaganda does not necessarily need to be an outright lie, just information that has a “spin” on it, and there is definitely a spin on that passage. The Völkische Beobachter starts by saying that it “should be emphasized” weapons and ammunition can not be sold to kids under 18. (They’re protecting children.) Then is says that “issuing of [gun] permits…is linked to reliability…No permits may be given to Jews.” Therefore, Jews are not “reliable” and can not be trusted with guns. Not propaganda? No bias, no spin? Jews are having their rights stripped away from them; the law is treating them unequally, but the Völkische Beobachter does not want its readers to “emphasize” that.
At the end of Harcourt’s article, he says that we need more “historical research and serious scholarship” on Weimar and Nazi gun laws. Halbrook wrote in the beginning of Gun Control in the Third Reich that he wrote his book because he felt there was a deficit in that area. It’s kind of a shame that Harcourt needed to berate one of the few people who stepped in to do the research and write a book on this topic because they are from opposite ends of the political spectrum. They differ in their opinions on what conclusions to draw from the historic facts, but both writers do agree on the historic facts. I found corroboration pages 670 and on pages 672 – 678.
In the first paragraph, Harcourt states that “you will hear that one of the first things that Hitler did when he seized power was to impose strict gun registration requirements” then he goes on to use a couple of quotes from Gun Control in the Third Reich which do not mention gun registration. Halbrook does not state in his book that Hitler imposed gun registration, he states several times that Hitler used Weimar era gun registration records to disarm Jews and political opponents.
On page 660, Harcourt states that you are “more likely to see a swastika at a gun show” than at “the anti-gun Million Mom March.” He’s probably right about that. I’ve never been to a gun show, so I don’t know what they are like, but Harcourt does imply that there’s a neo-Nazi element at gun shows because a swastika may be present, and that may not necessarily be the case. If someone is selling WWII-era weapons, there may be swastikas on the weapons, or the vendor may make a sign with swastikas on it to show that they have Axis items for sale. If people collect or sell Axis weapons, that doesn’t necessarily make them neo-Nazis. I collect Third Reich paper documents; that doesn’t make me a neo-Nazi.
I found the information on the bottom of page 661 interesting, that there were gun registration requirements as far back as 1660 in England. What’s sad is that Harcourt tells us that the English Bill of Rights of 1689 declared, “…the subjects which are Protestants may have arms.” Apparently, Jews were not afforded equal rights in 1600’s England, either.
On page 668, Harcourt quotes a National Alliance pamphlet that says that Hitler did not ban private gun ownership. I think they make a twisted point here. Hitler did not ban private gun ownership for everyone, just the Jews, Gypsies, and anyone the Nazis deemed “unreliable.” That is still banning private gun ownership, they were banning selectively. The German people were most certainly disarmed because of their religion, ethnicity or political beliefs. Not a good thing.
On page 677, Harcourt writes, “Were the Nazis engaging in propaganda on the question of gun control? On this point, Halbrook offers no evidence.” I disagree; Halbrook offered the evidence (a passage from the Völkische Beobachter) and Harcourt just cited it! Harcourt implies that reports in the Völkische Beobachter are not propaganda, but “transparent statements of what is in the new law.” Seriously?! The Völkische Beobachter was a Nazi newspaper, an instrument on Nazi propaganda. I think we need another dictionary definition here. Propaganda: “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”
Propaganda does not necessarily need to be an outright lie, just information that has a “spin” on it, and there is definitely a spin on that passage. The Völkische Beobachter starts by saying that it “should be emphasized” weapons and ammunition can not be sold to kids under 18. (They’re protecting children.) Then is says that “issuing of [gun] permits…is linked to reliability…No permits may be given to Jews.” Therefore, Jews are not “reliable” and can not be trusted with guns. Not propaganda? No bias, no spin? Jews are having their rights stripped away from them; the law is treating them unequally, but the Völkische Beobachter does not want its readers to “emphasize” that.
At the end of Harcourt’s article, he says that we need more “historical research and serious scholarship” on Weimar and Nazi gun laws. Halbrook wrote in the beginning of Gun Control in the Third Reich that he wrote his book because he felt there was a deficit in that area. It’s kind of a shame that Harcourt needed to berate one of the few people who stepped in to do the research and write a book on this topic because they are from opposite ends of the political spectrum. They differ in their opinions on what conclusions to draw from the historic facts, but both writers do agree on the historic facts. I found corroboration pages 670 and on pages 672 – 678.
Re: Book: "Gun Control In The Third Reich"
That book, and its accurate or not sources are irrelevant for any debates about gun control.
As AJFFM said most of the Jews weren't even Germans, no to mention that thanks to their strong paramilitary forces the Nazis would win anyway.
And those Jews, members of the German elites, respectable and unadventurous businessmen, doctors, lawyers were not going to defend themselves with guns.
It was much different in Poland where most of the Jews lived. Guns were readily available, even the poorest had them, illegally even military grade weapons were used. During the occupation guns were readily available too, from various sources although not always cheaply. But still, for survival as a group, and in cities guns were irrelevant and pointless.
It was much different for personal survival especially in the rural areas. Friends, resourcefulness/self reliance, and a gun were the best ingredients for that.
As AJFFM said most of the Jews weren't even Germans, no to mention that thanks to their strong paramilitary forces the Nazis would win anyway.
And those Jews, members of the German elites, respectable and unadventurous businessmen, doctors, lawyers were not going to defend themselves with guns.
It was much different in Poland where most of the Jews lived. Guns were readily available, even the poorest had them, illegally even military grade weapons were used. During the occupation guns were readily available too, from various sources although not always cheaply. But still, for survival as a group, and in cities guns were irrelevant and pointless.
It was much different for personal survival especially in the rural areas. Friends, resourcefulness/self reliance, and a gun were the best ingredients for that.
Last edited by wm on 23 Mar 2015, 00:26, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Book: "Gun Control In The Third Reich"
Jews weren't allowed to live in England at the time let alone own guns:Geli wrote:
I found the information on the bottom of page 661 interesting, that there were gun registration requirements as far back as 1660 in England. What’s sad is that Harcourt tells us that the English Bill of Rights of 1689 declared, “…the subjects which are Protestants may have arms.” Apparently, Jews were not afforded equal rights in 1600’s England, either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Nat ... n_Act_1753
Re: Book: "Gun Control In The Third Reich"
WM, the book does not discuss Poland or the war years much. It is about firearms legislation in Weimar Germany & Nazi Germany up to 1938. It concludes after a lengthy, but interesting section on Kristallnacht. The conclusion, titled "Whither the German Resistance," briefly mentions the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The author theorizes that firearms legislation in these years before WWII had an impact on Germans who may have formed an armed resistance movement. The author does not limit his discussion to Jewish Germans, but also describes how the laws affected Gypsies, Communists, SDP members, anyone anti-Nazi, and foreigners living in Germany. He also discussed how sport shooting clubs were affected.