Third Reich "Pageantry"
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
Red Flag 1
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,580
As to the original post, the size and the magestry that the Nazi party presented was overwhelming. It was a function of presentation, as well as content. I was always drawn to the image of the German power and might prior to the start of, and during WW II. Prior to my PCS to Germany, I read everything I could get my hands on. It became clear how much power the media had then, and now. The 20/20 insight history provides a clear view of what was presented -v- what was reality. The time one believes that it could never happen again; it will happen again. There is a clear divide, even predictable, in who will be covering what. We are so blasted by 24/7 "total news" coverage, that it is mind numbing. An hour's worth of news is shaped, rewritten, and rebroadcast throughout the entire day. The media is deciding what we see/hear, what is important, and what the media's take is on everything. We have lost the personal ability to decide what is important, the media decides, and shapes what they think is important; then crams it down our throats 24/7. Not unlike the Nazi media did, and of late, Pravda. Again, if you think it could not/would not happen again; insures that it will happen again. I believe it is going on today.
The link to the Life page is just great, and thanks.
Back to my wee little cave here in the valley.
RF 1
The link to the Life page is just great, and thanks.
Back to my wee little cave here in the valley.
RF 1
Brill
SOF Support
With the intended purpose to "demonstrate" or at least implant the seed into the mind of the observer, that a German (or those about to be conquered) subject cannot challenge the state. If you do attempt to challenge, you will be labeled...an activist (Occupyer, Teapartyer, gun whacko, Shadowspear'ist, etc).
"If all your friends are supporting the State, would you jump of the bridge too?" :-"
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Why did we attempt to draw comparison to Obama or any president...if we are to choose one it might be JFK. But the biggest rally I can think of on this side of the pond was at the Lincoln Memorial when MLK delivered his "I Have a dream" speech. I personally enjoy believe pomp and circumstance has a place in the military and it isn't practiced enough because all these ceremonies always seem to be a shit show. However, good lord how did he marshall the resources like that, I see how the German people bought it for so long, the NAZIs certainly sold it well.
As far as Third Reich pageantry goes, I like this one the best.
"Be That Guy."
"Be That Guy."
james skeans
Unverified
This does scare me very much. Because i do see the resemblance between Hitler and Obama. And Obama's policies are scary close to Hitlers before the war he started. like taking away gun rights and all of the camps--Im afraid we may have a long 4 years ahead of us, and hopefully we can come together. But its hard when most Americans have no clue whats going on in the world outside of the U.S. And right now it looks scary too me, because i do know what happening
james skeans
Unverified
What camps are those?
Didn't you know they are building death camps for all Kiwi's? I think they are just South of Mordor... Bunch of hobbits any way.
Please elaborate on this...most interesting post.
To be honest, Mara, I only really rate that third link and even he calls for more research. Interesting paragraph on page 676 (I would quote it but the formatting goes funny and is no fun to fix at 0223).
What's with all the Kiwi hate? It's not like I said all your women are being rounded up and sent off to the waxing camps.
Why don't you "rate" it, because you don't like what it says? That doesn't mean any of it isn't true. I thought the second link in particular provided useful context and was backed with credible sources.
These are three of the first things that popped up when I Googled to find out the answer to Pardus' question. I haven't put a lot of effort into it, if you have then post up your findings.
I think there is one irrefutable truth here, though: in 1938, the Nazis, under Hitler, began disarming the Jews. Those are the gun rights that Hitler took away, which is a direct answer to the question asked, and the reason for the links above.
Sigh...
Like a lot of historical events reduced to 21st Century soundbites, both sides are right in the debate though I think "Hitler was anti-gun" is appropriate. Somewhat.
The Germans, post WWI and pre-Hitler, tightened gun ownership and regulation in 1928. When Hitler came into being he confiscated firearms (thanks to the 1928 laws which required registration) from his political opponents. A new law in '38 solidified this position and to sum it up, "less restrictive gun laws for those in the Nazi party." So, yeah, Hitler was less restrictive for "good" Germans and used gun laws against "bad" Germans. The law in 38 also barred Jews from possessing weapons, but they were only 2% of the population. Given the rabid anti-Semitism in Germany at the time, I don't think guns would have helped their cause one bit, but the reality is political opponents were barred from gun ownership. Based on 10 minutes of reading, I can't find where firearms registration was ever overturned, so that was something the Nazis never had to press for; a little aikido on the German population.
To sum up:the general population could own guns and the rules were relaxed for age of ownership, but political opponents were barred. As long as you were on the right side, firearms ownership wasn't an issue.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/23/hitler-gun-control_n_2939511.html
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf
Like a lot of historical events reduced to 21st Century soundbites, both sides are right in the debate though I think "Hitler was anti-gun" is appropriate. Somewhat.
The Germans, post WWI and pre-Hitler, tightened gun ownership and regulation in 1928. When Hitler came into being he confiscated firearms (thanks to the 1928 laws which required registration) from his political opponents. A new law in '38 solidified this position and to sum it up, "less restrictive gun laws for those in the Nazi party." So, yeah, Hitler was less restrictive for "good" Germans and used gun laws against "bad" Germans. The law in 38 also barred Jews from possessing weapons, but they were only 2% of the population. Given the rabid anti-Semitism in Germany at the time, I don't think guns would have helped their cause one bit, but the reality is political opponents were barred from gun ownership. Based on 10 minutes of reading, I can't find where firearms registration was ever overturned, so that was something the Nazis never had to press for; a little aikido on the German population.
To sum up:the general population could own guns and the rules were relaxed for age of ownership, but political opponents were barred. As long as you were on the right side, firearms ownership wasn't an issue.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/23/hitler-gun-control_n_2939511.html
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf
Hitler didn't need gun control (registration, possession, or confiscation) to rise to power or consolidate his hold. He used it to eliminate a potential threat from his political rivals. He had enough of a grip on the people that he didn't need gun control, but when things went south and even the army was turning on him the people didn't have the means to rise up had they wanted to. Gun control in Nazi Germany didn't play a role in the country's future, but it did elimiate A) any potential threats and B) the people's ability to "vote with a bullet."
You can debate the efficacy of an armed populace in Nazi Germany, but that's not the point.
You can debate the efficacy of an armed populace in Nazi Germany, but that's not the point.
Don't assume that. I don't like them because one of the links is infowars which is hardly a credible source. The second one I admit I should have read properly other than looking at the dramatic title on it. The third I liked because it is scholarly and published in the proper manner. Why do you assume I didn't like what they had to say, anyway?
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,534
I was at the Moffitt Cancer Center for most of the day yesterday and watched the news during that time, it's the only thing to do since I couldn't get any service with my phone. It's the first time I've watched the news for hours. Your aren't lying about it being mind numbing, I felt like I was being brainwashed. The same two major stories are drilled into your head every few minutes and minor stories fill the void between the commercials and major stories.
Similar threads
