Gun Control in the Third Reich
Page 1
THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE is a non-profit, non-partisan, scholarly research and educational organization that sponsors comprehensive studies in political economy. Our mission is to boldly advance peaceful, prosperous, and free societies, grounded in a commitment to human worth and dignity.
Politicized decision-making in society has confined public debate to a narrow reconsideration of existing policies. Given the prevailing influence of partisan interests, little social innovation has occurred. In order to understand both the nature of and possible solutions to major public issues, the Independent Institute adheres to the highest standards of independent inquiry, regardless of political or social biases and conventions. The resulting studies are widely distributed as books and other publications, and are debated in numerous conference and media programs. Through this uncommon depth and clarity, the Independent Institute is redefining public debate and fostering new and effective directions for government reform.
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
David J. Theroux
RESEARCH DIRECTOR
William F. Shughart II
SENIOR FELLOWS
Bruce L. Benson
Ivan Eland
John C. Goodman
Robert Higgs
Lawrence J. McQuillan
Robert H. Nelson
Charles V. Peña
Benjamin Powell
William F. Shughart II
Randy T. Simmons
Alexander Tabarrok
Alvaro Vargas Llosa
Richard K. Vedder
ACADEMIC ADVISORS
Leszek Balcerowicz
WARSAW SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
Herman Belz
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
Thomas E. Borcherding
CLAREMONT GRADUATE SCHOOL
Boudewijn Bouckaert
UNIVERSITY OF GHENT, BELGIUM
Allan C. Carlson
HOWARD CENTER
Robert D. Cooter
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Robert W. Crandall
BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
Richard A. Epstein
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
B. Delworth Gardner
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
George Gilder
DISCOVERY INSTITUTE
Nathan Glazer
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Steve H. Hanke
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
James J. Heckman
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
H. Robert Heller
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE
Deirdre N. McCloskey
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, CHICAGO
J. Huston McCulloch
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
Forrest McDonald
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA
Thomas Gale Moore
HOOVER INSTITUTION
Charles Murray
AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
Michael J. Novak, Jr.
AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
June E. O’Neill
BARUCH COLLEGE
Charles E. Phelps
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER
Paul Craig Roberts
INSTITUTE FOR POLITICAL ECONOMY
Nathan Rosenberg
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Paul H. Rubin
EMORY UNIVERSITY
Bruce M. Russett
YALE UNIVERSITY
Pascal Salin
UNIVERSITY OF PARIS, FRANCE
Vernon L. Smith
CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY
Pablo T. Spiller
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Joel H. Spring
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, OLD WESTBURY
Richard L. Stroup
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
Robert D. Tollison
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY
Arnold S. Trebach
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
Gordon Tullock
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
Richard E. Wagner
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
Walter E. Williams
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
Charles Wolf, Jr.
RAND CORPORATION
100 Swan Way, Oakland, California 94621-1428, U.S.A.
Telephone: 510-632-1366 • Facsimile: 510-568-6040 • Email: info@independent.org • www.independent.org
Gun Control in the Third Reich
Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State”
STEPHEN P. HALBROOK
All Rights Reserved. Copyright © Stephen P. Halbrook, 2013
May not be copied, reproduced, or distributed without written permission.
All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by electronic or mechanical means now known or to be invented, including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review. Nothing herein should be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Institute or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way,
Oakland, CA 94621-1428
Telephone: 510-632-1366 Fax: 510-568-6040
Email: info@independent.org Website: www.independent.org
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Halbrook, Stephen P.
Gun control in the Third Reich : disarming the Jews and “enemies of the state” / Stephen P. Halbrook.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-59813-161-1 (hardcover : alk. paper) —
ISBN 978-1-59813-162-8 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Firearms—Law and legislation—Germany—History—20th century. 2. Gun control—Germany—History—20th century. 3. Jews—Legal status, laws, etc.—History—20th century. 4. Germany—Politics and government—1933–1945 I. Title.
KK6010.H35 2013
363.330943’09043—dc23 2013022225
Cover Design: Denise Tsui
Cover Image: Peter Zelei/iStockphoto
Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction
PART I
Dancing on a Volcano: The Weimar Republic
1
Insurrection and Repression
2
The 1928 Law on Firearms
3
Keeping Firearm Registrations out of the Wrong Hands?
PART II
1933: Enter the Führer
4
The Nazi Seizure of Power
5
Disarming the Politically Unreliable: The Case of Brandenburg
6
Defining Enemies of the State
PART III
Gleichschaltung: Forcing into Line
7
From the Night of the Long Knives to the Nürnberg Laws
8
The Gestapo
9
Hitler’s Gun Control Act
PART IV
Reichskristallnacht: Night of the Broken Glass
10
October Prelude: Arresting Jewish Firearm Owners
11
Goebbels Orchestrates a Pogrom
12
Jewish Victims Speak
CONCLUSION
Whither the German Resistance?
Bibliography
Credits for Illustrations
Index
About the Author
ILLUSTRATIONS
Acknowledgments
THIS WORK WOULD not have been possible without assistance by others, in particular the research in n
umerous German archives by Sebastian Remus and Katya Andrusz. Therese Klee Hathaway assisted with numerous translations, helped along by Oliver Harriehausen and David Moses. I also am grateful to Stefan Grus, Jay Simkin, Lisa Halbrook Hollowell, Heather Barry, Dave Fischer, and Joshua Prince for their research assistance.
The author published some preliminary research for this study in “Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews,” 17 Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law 483 (2000), and “‘Arms in the Hands of Jews Are a Danger to Public Safety’: Nazism, Firearm Registration, and the Night of the Broken Glass,” 21 St. Thomas Law Review 109 (2009). He is grateful to the editors of those journals for their insights and suggestions.
Once the manuscript was created, Alice Rosengard provided invaluable advice in helping to make it more readable, and Professor Alexander Tabarrok, Independent Institute Research Director, challenged me to address hard questions about the thesis. Gail Saari and Anne Barva greatly assisted in smoothing out the text. Thanks are due to Independent Institute President David Theroux and Acquisitions Director Roy M. Carlisle for bringing the book to publication. I alone am responsible for the interpretations given here as well as for any errors.
Introduction
ALFRED FLATOW WAS a German Jew who won first place in gymnastics events at the 1896 Olympics. In 1932, he registered three handguns as required by a decree of the liberal Weimar Republic. The government had warned that the police must carefully store the registration records so that no extremist group could ever obtain them. That fear was realized, however, when an extremist group led by Adolf Hitler seized power the following year and used those very same registration records to disarm “enemies of the state.” In 1938, the records were used to disarm Jewish gun owners such as Flatow, whose arrest report stated: “Arms in the hands of Jews are a danger to public safety.”1 He would later die in a concentration camp.
Shortly after confiscating firearms from Flatow and numerous other Jews, the Nazis instigated the pogrom know as the Night of the Broken Glass (Reichskristallnacht) against a defenseless Jewish population, who were threatened with twenty years in a concentration camp for possession of a firearm.
Countless studies have documented how the Nazi dictatorship repressed its political opponents, Jews, and other “enemies of the state.” For whatever reason, historians have paid no attention to Nazi laws and policies restricting firearms ownership as essential elements in creating tyranny. A skeptic might surmise that a better-armed populace might have made no difference, but the Nazi regime certainly did not act on that premise. While many historically unique factors ultimately led to the Holocaust, Nazi policies prohibiting possession of firearms helped to consolidate Hitler’s power at home, exacerbated persecution of the Jews, aiding their arrest and deportation, and foreshadowed some of the more severe policies undertaken during the war.
In those days, as now, controversy has raged about whether civilians should have a right to possess firearms at all and, if so, should register with the government any firearms they do possess or whether firearms should be prohibited except to the military and police. Prohibitionists contend that firearms harm civilians who possess them in crimes, suicides, and accidents. Governments must disarm civilians for their own good.
The Nazis had policies to eliminate social ills of many kinds, from guns to cancer.2 They did not have in mind the good of the people they disarmed, however. They were not concerned with Jews whose children might have accidents with firearms, who might commit suicide, or who might have a gun taken away by criminals when trying to defend themselves. Instead, the Nazis confiscated firearms to prevent armed resistance, whether individual or collective, to their own criminality.
With selective memory of the historical events, a movement currently exists in the United States and Europe that denies the existence of any right to keep and bear arms and argues that firearms should be restricted to the military and the police. Yet considering the premises of that movement, it can hardly be argued that the Nazis disarmed Germany’s Jews for benign reasons or that the Jews were better off without firearms in their homes on the basis that firearms are allegedly more dangerous to their owners than to any aggressor. Nor would it be rational to contend that only the discrimination in the Nazi case was wrong and that not just Jews and other persona non grata, but all citizens, should have been disarmed for their own good. The paradigm that government should have a monopoly of small arms implies the surreal normative postulate that citizens—or, rather, subjects—should be treated as the Jews were in Nazi Germany.
Germany had no constitutional tradition similar to that expressed in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which declares: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This is part of the Bill of Rights, which Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter wrote “reflects experience with police excesses. It is not only under Nazi rule that police excesses are inimical to freedom.”3 The right to have arms, which reflects a universal and historical power of the people in a republic to resist tyranny, was not recognized in Hitler’s Third Reich.
Reacting to the Nazi experience, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation in 1941, just before Japan’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, authorizing the president to requisition certain property for defense but prohibiting any construction of the act to “require the registration of any firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport” or “to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and bear arms.”4 A sponsor of the bill explained: “Before the advent of Hitler or Stalin, who took power from the German and Russian people, measures were thrust upon the free legislatures of those countries to deprive the people of the possession and use of firearms, so that they could not resist the encroachments of such diabolical and vitriolic state police organizations as the Gestapo, the Ogpu, and the Cheka.”5
What seemed obvious then was no longer so in 1968 when Congress debated whether to include a national firearms registration system in the Gun Control Act. Opponents raised the specter of the—at that time—more recent Nazi experience,6 and proponents denied that the Nazis made any use of records to disarm enemies.7 It would have been curious, however, had the Nazis, who had detailed blacklists on political enemies, not used registration and licensing records to disarm anyone perceived to be an “enemy of the state.” Although a 1968 Library of Congress study focused on Nazi policies in the occupied countries, it was “unable to locate references to any German use of registration lists to collect firearms.”8 Its research was obviously minimal.
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the Second Amendment guaranteed only government-approved militias or an individual’s right to possess firearms. Arguing the former, a friend-of-the-court brief by pacifist Jewish and Christian organizations faulted Nazi Germany only for “discriminatory laws that barred Jews from having firearms,” referring to “the myth that arming everyone might allow an oppressed minority” to resist.9 Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership argued the latter, focusing on the Holocaust and other genocides against unarmed populaces.10 The Supreme Court agreed with this approach, noting that “when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.”11
During World War II, Great Britain supplied its citizens with arms contributed by the United States and private American citizens to fight an anticipated Nazi invasion,12 but it now bans most guns. In 2011 in Switzerland, whose traditional militia army consisting of a populace with arms at home helped to dissuade a Nazi invasion, more than 56 percent of voters rejected an initiative to require registration of all firearms and to prohibit many firearms.13 A proposal to ban civilian possession of firearms in Brazil in 2005 initially seemed headed to victory but was defeated near the end of the campaign.14 The United Nations holds that whereas governments should be armed, individuals have no right
to armed self-defense, and it seeks to repress private firearms ownership at the international level.15
Just a year before Hitler took power in 1933, the German interior minister directed “the secure storage of the lists of persons who have registered their weapons. Precautions must be taken that these lists cannot…fall into the hands of radical elements.”16 As examined in this book, the minister’s caution was well founded: those records would fall right into the hands of the Nazi Party, which used them to disarm its political enemies and the Jews. In 2013, the eightieth anniversary of the Nazi seizure of power, Germany implemented a central database of all registered, lawful firearms, which is required of all European Union countries by the following year.17 The German interior minister was said to have “promised to guarantee a very high level of security of the data,” although one skeptic noted that “everything that is registered can be taken away by the government.”18
In the wake of the domestic and international controversy about whether to require registration of firearms or even to prohibit civilian firearms ownership, interest by U.S. legal scholars on the subject of Nazi firearm policies has emerged.19 In response to the theses they present, firearm prohibitionists have minimized the significance of Nazi firearms policies, contending that Hitler wished only to disarm and kill Jews.20 Yet that would seem to be the most critical issue in the debate.
This book seeks to highlight hitherto unknown historical facts to advance the scholarly literature on the development of Nazism, particularly before World War II, which was the prelude to the Holocaust, with respect to the repression of civilian firearm ownership. Given the enormous literature in the related fields, it seems incredible that the disarming of the German Jews is rarely if ever mentioned. Virtually none of the many tomes on the Third Reich so much as hints at the role that Weimar-era legislation and decrees were used by the Hitler government to consolidate power by disarming political enemies, Jews, and other “enemies of the state.”