Gun Control: Getting History Right

 I recently saw a post on one of my social media feeds which, frankly, annoyed me. The post read "In the 20th Century, China, Russia, and Germany killed over 125,000,000 of their own citizens! All three were Socialist Governments. All three disarmed their citizens FIRST!  Now, considering the Liberal goals of Socialism and Disarmament in the U.S. remember this: "Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it".  The backdrop contained a grinning skull aside the Capitol building, which, I'm sure, was to reinforce the ominous nature of the message.

The obvious intent of the post was to inspire fear that the Left would strip everyone of their guns and usurp the 2nd Amendment, which has long been use by the Far Right to motivate firearm enthusiasts and those interested in self-protection for decades now, as well as push their fundraising drives.

I have no issue with the general nature of the message itself. I'm a strong advocate of the 2nd Amendment, and I have no qualms when it comes to self-defense or protecting my family, friends, or possessions. If someone values my stuff more than their own life or want to inflict harm on someone I care about, they might want to reevaluate their life choices first.

However, as a amateur historian, I do have an issue with the part of the message concerning China, Russia and Germany. First, let's make it crystal clear, I'm no apologist for Communism, Marxism, Socialism, or Nazism. I am, nevertheless, a stickler for getting facts straight and not trying to bend or twist facts to fit a political message (especially one which tells me about not learning from history).

As I said, I am a published amateur historian (and political economist) with many decades of research under my belt. I regularly contribute to popular Q&A website, with emphasis on the two world wars where I've earned "Top Writer" status multiple times with tens of millions of views worldwide. I think that gives me some credibility. So, let's delve into this claim about China, Russia, and Germany being "Socialist" nations and disarming their populations.   

Between China and Russia, only China remains a Communist country. However, from 1917 until 1991, Russia was epicenter of global Communism. Revolution came to Tsarist Russia in February 1917 when a coalition of Left leaning factions forced Tsar Nicholas II to abdicate, leading to the formation of the Provincial Government led by Alexander Kerensky, a moderate Socialist and member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (aka the "SRs").

Kerensky helped form the Russian Constituent Assembly, which was the first democratic government body in Russian history. It's worth noting that the Assembly consisted of numerous political parties, of which the most radical, the Bolsheviks, were a bit player at this point. However, due to various internal and external events (including continued military defeats), Vladimir Lenin and his Bolsheviks were able to successfully mount a putsch or coup (often called the "October Revolution"), which overthrew the Provincial Government and forever dissolved the democratic Assembly.

Previously, Kerensky had ordered all citizens (but not military) to turn in their guns out of fear of a counter revolution, but the possibility of a military led coup by pro-Monarchists and Far Right groups forced him to partially rescinded that order, returning them to the masses. However, those weapons mostly ended up in the hands of Lenin's Bolsheviks who lead an assault on the Winter Palace, thus overthrowing the Kerensky Government and ending Russia's experiment in democracy.  But it wasn't an end of the violence.

After Lenin's seizure of power, a bloody civil war (1917 -1923) ensued between the Bolsheviks and the pro-democracy and pro-Monarchists forces, as well as army units from Japan, Poland, China, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, England, France, and the U.S. In addition, there were the "Separatists" of the three Baltic states, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. As a result, weapons were disseminated to anyone willing and able to fight. The result was the death of some 10 million people.  

Following Lenin's death in January 1924, the "Man of Steel", Joseph Stalin began a brutal reign which lasted until his death in 1953. When we think of Communism, what we envision is Stalinism, which was not the same as Lenin's Communism which itself was even further from Marx's and Engel's vision.

Lenin had introduced "NEP" (New Economic Program), a type of limited free enterprise. Stalin eliminated it, along with private ownership of land and replacing it with "Collectivization".  It was disastrous for the Russian People; creating the largest man-made famine up to that point and the deaths of at least seven million people in an attempt to jump start the modernization of the economy and bring it on par with the West.

Simultaneously, Stalin instituted systematic statewide terrorism to "encourage" compliance.  Starting in December 1924, one of its first acts was, naturally, seizing all weapons (most were from the world war, and subsequent civil war). Only those authorized---the military and state security apparatus (like the NKVD---predecessor to the KGB) were permitted weapons. Those caught were sentenced up five years in prison per offense and/or fined.

There were a few exceptions, such as licensed ownership of smooth bore hunting rifles. In 1935, similar restrictions were applied to knives.  Beginning in 1941, citizens were encouraged to turn over all weapons (without question) to the Soviet military to aid in their war against Nazi and Axis forces.

Following Stalin's death in 1953, Soviet authorities began slowly loosening restrictions on firearms, including smooth bore shotguns, although registration was still required. To discourage illegal ownership, prison sentences were lengthened to 14 years. However, voluntary surrender of unregistered weapons carried no fines or punishment.

Communist China, founded in 1949 under Chairman Mao Tse-tung (Zedong), was based on the Stalinist model. Like Soviet Russia, it consisted of a all powerful central government under the direction of the Politburo with an elected chairman, who serves as a virtual dictator.  The system itself was intended to be repressive from the start.

When it came to gun control in China, one has to remember that China had been a autocratic monarchy for centuries until 1912 when the Qing dynasty was overthrown during the Xinhai Revolution. Private ownership was highly restricted. After China became a Republic, albeit a highly corrupt one, interrupted by a period small civil wars led by petty warlords (1916 -1928). It also endured invasion by the Japanese, marking the start of World War II and included a semi-covert civil war with Communist forces led by Mao, which ended in 1949 with Mao's victory. All of which made gun acquisition easier.

Nevertheless, gun ownership has always been restricted regardless of who was in power. There were a few exceptions, such as gamekeepers and licensed hunters. During the various wars and social upheavals, guns did occasionally fall into the hands of the masses, however, due to the strict punishment, most were eventually turned into the government voluntarily.   

Again, there were exceptions, such as Hong Kong, which was under British rule from 1841 until 1997. The same applied to Macau, which fell under Portuguese rule. The Miao people are allowed to own smooth bore muskets, though gunpowder is strictly controlled. Today, China remains highly repressive when it comes to guns---even toy guns---with very few exceptions.

Do you remember "Which of these is not like the other?" children's game? Well, in this case, it would be Nazi Germany. First, despite the official name of the ruling party, the National Socialist German Workers Party, Germany under Hitler wasn't "socialist" per se. Hitler's definition of "socialism" was actually "community". Thus, "National Socialism" actually meant a society or community of Germans by and for Germans.

It's true that under Hitler, Germany implemented a wide range of "social" (not "socialist") programs similar to what Britain, France, the United States and other Western nations did such as unemployment benefits, healthcare, mandated vacations, work safety laws, etc. He also legalized unions, albeit under a state union called "DAF" which stood for German Workers Front. Nevertheless, pre-war German workers did at least as well as their Western counterparts.

Also, unlike Russia and China (and Communist countries ever since) private enterprises remained private and thrived. During the war years, those key to the war effort received preference in terms of resources, contracts, and so forth. The Nazi Government did not, however, eliminate capitalism or seize control of private corporations as happens under Communism or Socialism.

As an aside, actual Socialists, as well as Communists, anarchists, and Social Democrats, were typically sent to detention camps for "reeducation" to use the political euphemism of the time. I suspect they wouldn't have been real fond of libertarians either.

As a point of historical reference, there was a "Left Wing" faction within the National Socialist movement, nominally led by brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser and SA Chief, Ernest Rohm. They wanted the concept of "socialism" to be much more literal than Hitler intended despite repeated warnings. 

However, that came to a quick end late June and early July 1934 during a purge known as "The Night of the Long Knives" in which Hitler and leading Nazis eliminated all non-Right Wing hardliners and political enemies. An estimated 150-200 individuals were murdered and hundreds more arrested; some were tortured and others imprisoned. Thus, ending any Left leaning tendencies within the Nazi Party.

When it came to gun control, one has to remember that following the carnage of WWI, there emerged a global pacifist movement. Everyone was sick and tired of death, bloodshed, and war. As a result, the new Weimar Republic's government, led by the Left Wing Social Democrat Party, instituted a policy of restricted gun ownership (the Weimar Republic was a democratic republic formed in 1919 followed the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II at the end of WWI). It was intended to be a literal attempt to turn "swords into plowshares", and was generally popular with the public.

As with Russia and China, there were exceptions for hunters, gamekeepers, and others with a demonstrable need. However, for the average citizen, gun ownership was curtailed through restrictions, aided by the creation of a gun registry. However, the Weimar Government wasn't long for this world.

 In 1919, Germany was hit with a period of hyperinflation. Unemployment and inflation hit record levels. One person in three was unemployed. In December 1922, a loaf of bread was 160 Marks. By December 1923, it was 20,000,000,000 Marks!  In November 1923, one U.S. Dollar was worth 4,210,500,000,000 Marks. Some used what money they had to stoke fires to keep warm or cook...or as toilet paper. The Depression of 1929 hit Germany the hardest of all industrialized nations, making the situation dire.

Crime, alcoholism, and drug use was rampant. Germany was forced to pay huge reparations despite the loss of its industrial heart--the Ruhr, and most of its commercial shipping and fishing fleet (thanks to the Versailles Treaty). The country survived mainly on borrowed money and in-kind trade. When the Nazis came to power in 1933 as part of a coalition of conservative parties, Hitler repudiated the Versailles Treaty and its reparations, retook the Ruhr, and began a massive rebuilding of the economy. 

When it came to gun control, the Nazis actually removed restrictions with several exceptions. Those exceptions included Communists, Socialists, anarchists, non-citizens, and Jews. Criminals were also forbidden from possessing weapons as well as those of "questionable character", which included prostitutes, drug addicts or dealers, and alcoholics. Later, it applied to anyone deemed "unreliable" by the State.

As for the average German citizen, gun ownership was generally open, provided the guns were registered (preference went to those who were Nazi Party members). The notion that the Nazis took guns away from all its citizens is not entirely accurate (neither is the notion that the Nazis were "socialist" or "Left Wing"). So, the next time you see someone post something like I mentioned earlier or bring it up in conversation, you'll know better. Want to know more? Check out the links below. 

 

Gun Control in the Soviet Union

Gun Control in China

How the Nazis Used Gun Control

The Nazi gun control argument

German Economy in the 1920s

Reading the Signs: Understanding the True Meaning of Protest Signs

Recently we had "Day Without Immigrants" protests & marches. Not unsurprisingly, there were signs like "Immigrant Rights" or "Humans Aren't Illegal". Whenever we read an article or see a news report, you can bet that most are using terms like "undocumented immigrant" as a matter-of-fact. Most of us don't even notice it anymore, even though that they are not simply random words. They are designed to create a subtle psychological impact on us and how we process the situation being presented. The use of slogans and phrases to influence or manipulate how people think and react to a given event is an ancient art and an integral part of warfare just as much as marketing, it's counterpart, is in the consumer world. It's key to presenting a specific perspective or creating a certain attitude, be it toward an enemy on some battlefield or developing brand loyalty. It can be used to sway people toward or away from some objective, such as a manufactured future enemy just as well as why one brand is healthier or brighter than its competitor. During wartime, propagandists often search for powerfully emotional themes and vulnerable groups within enemy ranks and the civilian populations. They, in effect, are searching for a weakness in the enemy society that allows them to exploit and divide their forces.

Bolshevik leader Vladimir Ulyanov, better known as "Lenin", was strong proponent of the use of slogans, before, during and even after the revolutions of 1905 and 1917, including "Peace Bread Land" and "All Power to the Soviets" ("soviet" is the Russian term for worker committees). According to Lenin, slogans were designed to persuade people to join your cause, while at the same time, providing a simple, short, and easily conveyable explanation of what and why you were doing something. The slogan, "Peace Bread Land" for instance used just three words to define its domestic policy. "Peace" referred to withdrawing their troops from the Eastern Front and ending its war with Imperial Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire during World War I. "Bread" of course stated their goal of providing food to the millions of starving Russians , and "Land" implied giving the peasants the land (or at least some of it") on which they had been toiling as serfs for the wealthy. The slogan, "All Power to the Soviets" was directed mainly to factory workers, but also to the ordinary soldier and sailor, as well as the peasants. It called for the creation of worker's committees ("soviets") which would seek to manage the needs of each. Naturally, it didn't matter whether they, the Bolsheviks, actually intended to carry through with their pledge or how they intended on even doing so! It's only objective was to persuade in a easily understood and memorable way.

The true master of propaganda, and the individual by whom everyone else is measured, is Nazi Minister of Propaganda and Enlightenment, Paul Joseph Goebbels. While the Nazis were politically right of center compared to the left of center Bolsheviks (later Communists), the methods they used were similar with the exception that they were refined to a sharp edge. Everything was stage managed, from the use of radio (they even distributed small radios to every family so they could listen to broadcasts), to sports and political events (the concept of political commercials, for instance, can be traced back to "The Triumph of the Will, which was filmed and directed by Leni Riefenstahl). They even politicized sports, starting with the 1936 Olympics, which was held in Berlin, with the film "Olympiad" , also directed and filmed by Leni Riefenstahl. According to Goebbels, propaganda had to simple , easily understandable, and plausible.

To help him do this, all slogans, like with the Communists, needed to short and catchy phrase such as "One Germany, One Reich, One Leader". Pictures too needed to catch the eye (and memory), and so they made use of certain colors and images. Music was incorporated to convey a mood too. The message had to be subtle and believable. It had to be presented "as if" it was understood; where the viewer and listener would make the desired leap or connection in their own mind without have to be told. Name calling, as childish as it seems, is used to anger, humiliate, and dehumanize your opponent. Lastly, it always incorporated obvious truths, especially ones that could be easily verifiable, therefore making the propaganda portions virtually invisible to the populace. But Germany wasn't the only country to use propaganda. So did Great Britain and the United States, especially through the use of movies (Hollywood produced dozens of propaganda films during the war. Hollywood as well as radio and television networks continues to put out films with subtle political and social agendas). After the war, Japan produced a whole movie genre warning of the dangers of nuclear war and/or radiation (ever hear of "Godzilla" or "Mothra"? They were all about radiated animals).

So, does any of this sound familiar? It should. It's where we got the concepts of "spin" and "alternative facts" today. We see examples of it every day thanks to the marketing and advertising industry, from commercials for products or services to the TV and print news programs and articles to politically oriented commercials. It's used in just about everyone social movement you can think of. It's even incorporated into many of TV shows we enjoy every night. I suppose you can think of it almost as the creation and maintenance of an alternative reality, and that brings us back to the beginning...the protests and the signs.

What we are witnessing are not random spur of the moment "pop up" protests. They are organized. Someone is underwriting them, and whoever that is, they have a specific political agenda; perhaps an attempt to either change immigration laws or more than likely, to simply make borders and national sovereignty obsolete. Therefore, they gloss over or blatantly ignore current realities, such as the signs reading something like "Equal Rights for Immigrants". As everyone knows, all immigrants have "equal rights" with all other citizens. They are subject to the same laws and the same benefits as everyone else. However, that's not their intent with this sign. The originator of the slogan is obviously attempting to blur the distinction between ordinary immigrants who came here legally and the illegal immigrant who didn't, and, therefore, are not entitled to the same protection and guarantees. When you read the sign, it's suppose to create a question in your mind and make you think everyone isn't being treated fairly. It's supposed to make you react emotionally (as does most propaganda) and want to side with their position.

How about " No Human is Illegal"? Again, the anticipated emotional response would be "hell no, we're free". But what they aren't saying is this isn't about some form of human slavery. It's about individuals who have and are acting in a criminal matter (i.e.: they broke federal immigration law and they are likely using taxpayer based services, again criminally since they aren't entitled to those services). Therefore, in mixing both a truth with a lie as Joseph Goebbels suggests, logic should tell you that, no, humans aren't illegal but their actions are sometimes. A sign which reads "Welcome Immigrants" isn't necessarily being directed to someone who has gone through the legal process for immigration, but may be aimed at those who "jumped ahead of the line" and came here illegally, thus hurting the chances of those trying to do it the right way.

Having a "Day Without Immigrants" is equally ridiculous since America is a nation of immigrants. If it was actually intended as written, all of us would have taken the day off! But, of course, it wasn't. Again, it's about confusing or blurring the terms "immigrant" and "illegal immigrant" and attempting to using them interchangeably the way some people do "socialism", "fascism", and "communism", which are separate and distinct terms for different forms of government. Calling someone "undocumented" seems to imply that they merely left their green card or passport in their other pants or purse back home. It's not. It means these are individuals who willingly and knowingly decide to break the law, however, by calling them "undocumented" simply sounds nicer; friendlier and takes the seriousness of their actions out of the equation. It's like calling a drug dealer a "unlicensed pharmacist " or saying that a bank robber was making an "unapproved withdrawal"; it downplays the crime. "Love Trumps Hate" makes a claim that their actions are just and right while trying to equate President Trump's with what's unjust and wrong.

All of these phrases are being used to manipulate the conversation on illegal immigration. The techniques aren't new, but how they're being spread, by social media, is. By controlling the terms of a conversation and the meaning of the terms used, it is easy to control its direction. If one can do that ,then by default they control the outcome of the conversation. Don't allow them to control the conversation by controlling its terms. Challenge them at every step; correct them when and wherever---especially when it's coming from the media, be local or national. Our future depends on it.


Marxist Internet Archive: V.I Lenin "On the Slogan for a United States of Europe"


Psywarrior: Joseph Goebbels: Propaganda Principles


How Propaganda Works