How Adolf Hitler Prevented ‘Subject Races’ From Possessing Arms. Obama’s Military Purge
During a speech in 1942, Adolf Hitler said, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms.” In other words, Jews and others whom Hitler wanted to wipe from the earth first had to be separated from their guns.
This was not new position for Hitler. Rather, it was something he had put into practice from the moment he came into office.
When Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, he seized gun registration information that had been compiled by Germany’s previous government under the premise that the information would not fall into the wrong hands or be used for an all-out confiscation scheme. But as gun scholar Stephen P. Halbrook makes clear in his new book, Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State,” Hitler’s hands were the wrong hands. And Hitler and the Nazi movement used all the information they could find—as well as the threat of brute force and death—to force Jews and others to hand over their firearms.
As Halbrook put it: “The Nazis thought it was pretty important to be sure the Jews weren’t armed.”
Gun Control in the Third Reich covers gun control under Hitler but, perhaps more importantly, it covers the methodology of that gun control in great detail. In so doing, Halbrook helps the reader sees how registration led to confiscation, and how confiscation turned citizens into subjects and eventually into victims—victims of their own government and/or of an invading force.
Halbrook also shows how propaganda was used to further gun control and how terms like “assault rifle” did not exist until Hitler created them.
Obama’s Military Purge
This year alone, nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the administration, and retired generals and current commanders who have spoken to TheBlaze believe that political ideology is the primary impetus behind the effort. “I think they’re using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don’t agree with them or not toe the party line,” a senior retired general told website. ”Remember, as Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis.” The general spoke on the condition of anonymity because he still provides the government with services and believes this administration would retaliate against him.
The terminations have a distinctly political odor surrounding them in at least three cases. In all three of these cases, Benghazi is at root. U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham was heading the United States African Command when our consulate came under attack on September 11, 2012. Ham told Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) he was never given a “stand down” order preventing him from securing the consulate. Yet the Washington Times, citing sources in the military, said he was given the order and immediately relieved of command when he decided to defy it. The Times further noted that Ham “retired” less that two years after receiving the command when all other commanders of similar stature have stayed on far longer. Sources told TheBlaze Ham was highly critical of the Obama administration’s decision not to send reinforcements to Benghazi.