Guns in the Third Reich - A Response to Ben Shapiro and Others
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 мар 2018
- Thanks for watching folks!
=Support me via=
► Patreon: / danarrows
► TipJar: ko-fi.com/threearrows
► Merch: www.teepublic.com/stores/dan-...
=Other Stuff=
► Twitter: / dan_arrows
► Instagram: / dan.arrows
► Twitch: / dan_arrows
=SOURCES=
ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vie...
www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treat...
www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/op...
www.dailywire.com/news/337/ev...
www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_...
www.holocaust.cz/en/history/f...
www.ushmm.org/learn/timeline-...
www.vox.com/2015/10/9/9486957...
www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treat...
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novembe...
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...
Ben Shapiro on Piers Morgan: • Piers Morgan Gets OWNE...
Ben Shapiro fires back at LateNight Hosts: • Ben Shapiro fires back...
Ben Carson on CNN: • DC: BEN CARSON ON NAZI...
Ben Carson video by Associated Press: • Carson Compares Gun Co...
Shapiro on punching Nazis: The Ben Shapiro Show (01-24-2017)
![Minecraft but Players Can Upgrade [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QRRgLJs4ZPk/mqdefault.jpg)
I remember one video that claimed “ the greatest defense against fascism and tyranny is the traditional family unit”, I’m pretty sure Germany had both traditional family units and gender roles, but that didn’t stop the Third Reich now did it?
lmfao when the tyrannical government comes knocking at your door just scare them away by showing them your traditional family unit.
@@mechanomics2649 A traditional family unit a day keeps the Nazis away
I seem to recall that the Nazis liked the traditional family unit.
The greatest tool of fascists is democracy. Also Germany was a total Reck of a country the republic was so trash and unstable that anything was a better system
@@jamesseale7686 taking kids away from the family to indoctrinated them in schools isn't something I would call traditional. Hell the kids threatened or even betrayed their parents to the Gestapo and SS.
"in Albert Einstein's house they found a very dangerous weapon known as a bread knife."
*British Police Noises Intensify*
i'm just glad they didn't search Feyman too
"Oi, do you have a bread knife licence?"
Very funny
bee BAH bee BAH bee BAH bee bah bee bah............
And they did not find his most dangerous weapon, his mind!
The scariest thing about Tyranny is that the main portion of the populous is not willing to act.
usually the main portion of the population is in favor of tyranny actually
It goes to show how people just accept things because... It's how it is, or it's how it's always been. It's SO, SO easy to defend the status quo. Silence always supports the status quo, inaction always supports the status quo
i forgot the qwote, but i will paraphrase
"first they came for the gays, and i did nothing. then, they came for the jews, and i did nothing. now, they are coming for me, but who is going to stand for me?"
@@twisted_fo0l First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.
@@CDexie Not really, many tyrannies are subversions to the status quo, some are even revolutionary efforts. This applies more than anything in the U.S and U.S-like countries, but most tyrannies don't work like that.
The problem is that it takes a 22 min video to correct 30 second claims... People can make up half truths faster than they can be debunked
"A lie will make it's way around the world before the truth can put it's boots on" Mark Twain.
@Duke Valiant great example to prove my point
@@nobodxy dayum 😆
@@c0nd0rd4myt "If i had more time, i would've written a shorter letter."- Mark Twain.
Yes, Ben Shapiro is very good at gish-galloping
Perhaps Ben Shapiro thinks the Palestinians should be armed?
Despicably Irascible Rapscallion Lmao
I'm gonna guess he falls more in line with Reagan's view of gun ownership as it applies to black people in California arming themselves... particularly black panthers.
Of course not. according him its the PALESTINIANS who are the ones committing a modern day genocide against Israel.
It's not like they were already loaded with automatic weapons, ordenance, rockets, etc., etc.
ooo great line! I am totally stealing this from you, you rapscallion you
I remember that when I was still a Shapiro Stan, I listened to this video. As an ignorant young kid I just assumed you were wrong because Shapiro was the debate master. Months later, I got out of that rut, and I’d like to thank you for contributing to that
So what makes the other side better?
@@nobrang5146 Where I am now vs where I was before?
@@nobrang5146 lack of conspiracy theories? The right killed more than 300,000 due to their incompetence.
@@MeowMeow-ju4vf And foe comparsion Left killed more than 100 000 000.
@@theendcz4567 I was talking about the republicans. How did they kill so many? Does it have something to do with Q?
As an ethnic Jew, I feel immense pride in the fact that you, as a German, are not afraid to criticise a Jewish individual when he's wrong.
I sometimes worry that people are scared to criticise him our of fear of antisemitism.
That is what equality is - no special treatment. Not negatively, but also not positively. Each individual is judged based on their opinions and actions, and since Ben Shapiro's actions and opinions aren't things you agree with, you criticise him.
Keep it up!
Everyone should criticize Shapiro. He's a pretentious buffoon who has no qualms about declaring any Jews who don't hate Muslims and love war crimes as much as he does "fake Jews."
@@Snacks256 If I were to choose a picture to insert next to the definition of _self-hating Jew_ in a dictionary, I would pick one of Ben Shapiro's face.
Doesn't matter which group one belongs to, a fallacious argument is still a fallacious argument.
@@BlackEpyon agreed
This is my theory: Ben Shapiro is a “conservative,” right? To my knowledge, he’s one of those hardline extremists that supports Netanyahu and co. committing literal genocide against Palestinians. There’s an interesting history of Israeli lobbyists drumming up support for financial aid to Israel and a lot of Americans are blindly “pro-Israel.” Okay, so I can very much see this natural alliance between far right anti-semites and far right Israeli militant Netanyahu supporters in the US. I think Ben probably knows he’s being used as a human shield for anti-semites and American and doesn’t care because he’s made a calculation that the Republican Party is stewing in Islamophobia…which is what you need when you’re advocating for literal war crimes against Palestinians. Here’s a new rule for literally everyone: when someone is working against their own interest, the natural conclusion IS NOT “oh, this must mean Democrats really are crazy and calling everyone antisemitic.” No, dig just a tiny bit deeper and you’ll find a cesspit of cynicism and calculation for furthering their own ends, and their ends are magically justified, right? So whatever means you need to get there…makes me so sick thinking about it. Another example of this is Clarence Thomas. He is cruel, spiteful and just an overall piece of shit.
'I'm so grateful for 7k, you guys are awesome'
1 year later: 154k subs
you deserve it man
1 year later: 200k
@@tobiCS_ another week later: 215k subscribers 😁
@@jarletto And well earned!
230k now... +1 👍
@Johnny Chen 263
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." -Karl Marx
Hmm, should I start telling people that private gun ownership paves the road to communism?
Crowley9 yes
No but communism always led the way t0 gun confiscation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_Soviet_Union
Yes. Yes, you should most definitely start telling people that! Hell, I might start telling them that, lol. Assuming that's really a quote from Marx?
If it is real it should really mess with some heads. It might even shock a few brains into functioning properly by forcing them to think about the subject themselves and draw their own conclusion. And that's a good thing
Historical context i would say.
Whats more meaningful is what Communists did. Not what they said or promised or hoped for. And universally, they BAN GUNS and killed people, their own people. Even the Nazi's didnt kill train loads of healthy Germans, their harshness was aimed at non-germans who had drifted into Germany. Nazis were killing Strangers, Communists were killing family members. Thats what makes it so alarming, the scope of killing and the universality of it no matter where it reached.
I honestly think that most Americans simply don't understand the concept of a dictatorship. As in, they don't understand that a dictatorship can exist by popular demand, that you could willigly give up your freedom and not just have it taken away by an outside force. They talk about it with such a distance, it's honestly sounds insane at times. You get the feeling that one day, tyranny just comes in crashing out of nowhere and kills your dog for no reason. But that's not how it works, it's a creeping process most of the time.
Also, I know I'm generalizing, that's just the impression i got.
Especially when you look at Trump. Trump pretty much empowered the Police and slowly creates a dictatorship and police state with it. Right path my ass, Trump is pretty much a dictator.
Well, one does not need a dictator figure to live under a dictatorship.
in another word, you do not need Trump to convince people they are already under dictatorship.
*Corruption is Legal in America*
ruclips.net/video/5tu32CCA_Ig/видео.html
Seems like a bit of a non sequitur
That is a very very good and true observation.
All dictatorships are permitted by the people, they may not support the dictatorship, but they don't actively oppose it. When a nation collectively withdraws this silent permission dictatorships collapse, from the French revolution through fascist Italy to Argentina in the 80's and East Germany in the 90's. If there is a critical mass against it, no government can survive.
"The pen is mightier than the sword," it has been said. In the hands of an oppressor, propaganda is often one of the most powerful weapons of oppression. The pen, like the sword, can be double-edged.
During Saddam's reign in Iraq, almost anybody had a gun. Did that make the country more free and democratic? Hell no.
Anton A
If the armed populace was not doing anything to stop the government, then how would it?
François Miville
And how would you resist those people threatening Algerians with guns?
No, they didn't have guns. It was a disarmed populace, though after the invasion, guns flooded in as sectarian tensions rose and extremist groups invaded.
@@Christobanistan The requirement to own a gun at home in Iraq was to be male and have a home to keep it at. Minorities who were in active conflicts with Saddam did not count, but the general population was armed. You couldn't legally walk down the streets of Baghdad with a weapon in 2003 but they were around. It seems like people sometimes ignored these restrictions as well in the hinterlands.
A quirk of nations with conscription systems where everyone did army service is that they're terribly well-armed as a whole. Iraq had a large conventional armed force. Iraq had a number of security forces to balance eachother, and a large armed force with mandatory service.
What happens after the US invasion is that the heavy weaponry in the Iraqi army armouries starts to drift. The US forces did not seek out and destroy iraqi units in detail, there was lots of heavy weapons around and aforementioned conscripts trained to use them.
@@thorsummoner Saddam's regime worked on a system with multiple security agencies and military/paramilitary forces to balance one another and maintain regime security. His family members had their personal guard, the ba'ath party had a militia, the Republican Guard was a sort of loyal army core etc.
The Nazis literally started as an armed militia designed to 'protect their liberties'. One of the most successful of its type of all time, in fact. The Freikorps was just a bunch of LARPing ex-Army pensioners without a pension. Then it snowballed into brownshirts and eventually Hugo Boss was designing them slick, mass-produced uniforms.
Luis D.
He is saying that guns can build a tyranny just as much if not more than they can fight it
DUDE YOU FUCKING NAILED IT!!!
The freikorps were nearly perfect analogues to the private "militas" we have running around playing commando in Idaho, and they played an instrumental part in putting general authoritarians, and later the Nazis specifically into power. Thank you. Please, make this your motto. Make it your mantra. Make it your "Carthago delendam est." Because more people need to be reminded that these jerkoff gun fanciers playing soldier off in the woods mean to do mischief in the name of protecting their own peculiar vision of "liberty."
HitchensImmortal it’s actually from the same example being used by Bencil Sharpener here, and there’s no equivalency. it’s a different point entirely.
@@Kurvaux It seems the problem we have found is not the existence of power, but imbalance in power.
Guns exist, and that creates risk even if there is no malice. But the worst risk is when some groups have them and others are prohibited.
In this way firepower is no different from political or economic power.
Well actually Freikorps were invented way before Nazism was even a thing in the 1800s as a mercenary group, the nazis just worked with Freikorps on taking out leftists in Germany
Its an objective fact that a german accent will make you learn history 56% better
Guilherme Caron
With a 100% chance of self hating guilt 😄
N. Aalders With a 150% of not knowing what you are talking about, while sitting in your Chair made of Bicmacs and Star spengeld Guns
Dip Shit
With you having a 100% change of failing to recognize I am not an American tub of lard. 😂
Guilherme Caron i even learnt some things quite easily about ww2 and some of the german equipments by german youtubers and players such as mikegoesboom, military history visualized and military aviation history (one of them is Austrian)
Dip Shit Naff off.
The French Army had tons of guns, tanks, airplanes, etc. , but that didn't stop the nazis.
😂😂😂😂
yeah they should have used brass knuckles instead
don't worry i'll save the nation with me, jethro, and cletus with our outdated muskets
@@JustAnotherNamelessGuy usually non-violence is the best way. As a side note, MLK applied for a concealed carry permit.
yeh.... thats because the nazis attacked with a revolutionary new strategy born with the tank redesign overhaul. Owning guns isnt about being able to stop a foriegn power, its about making the trouble of ripping people from their homes incredibly difficult. Its not about winning... its about holding on until a political rival to the majority oppressive government gains enough support to diminish the current tension.
If having guns stopped killings then America should be the safest, most crime free, and peaceful country on the planet.
@@zaibatsublkn5452 why are you so scared of a little more accountability for your guns?
@@rybread1346 Tell me why I should give away MY GUNS because some fucktard with little to no morals have shooted up school? Also can't you arm the teachers and other staff?
@@zaibatsublkn5452
But doesnt arming teachers and staff cost alot of money thus putting a drain on our already stretched education budget?
@@genieglasslamp5028 >Muh budget
Human lives are more important than money whose value might as well go down to 0. Oh and by the way, government isn't gonna provide teacher's with assault rifles, they have to do it on their own.
@@zaibatsublkn5452
So not only do teachers have to buy their own schools supplies they now somehow have to buy their own guns take time that could be spent planning lessons, or helping students, they have to train themselves too. Let's say a teacher doesnt want to buy a gun then said teachers class is harmed in a school shooting is that teacher now to blame for the students harm because they didnt get a gun?
If only Anne Frank had had an MG42...
Maximilien Robespierre this but unironically.
/his/ wants its memes back
Anne Frankly, she doesn't
I love the noise that thing made. Ever notice that -- especially for us now, since "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers" -- the MG-42 is probably the most distinctively recognizable small arms weapon in all of WWII. The closest you can come to mimicking it is by making the exasperated noise where you fill your mouth with air and then blow it through closed lips. Everybody seemed to sit-up (well, not literally... that would have been suicidal) whenever they heard that noise during the war because of how immediately identifiable it seemed to be.
That would have made for an interesting diary entry
Ben Shapiro seems like the kind of guy who was really good at debate club as an undergrad and that made him an expert on every topic he could think of.
He's all performative debate - obfuscation, false dichotomies, ad hominem attacks and all the emphasis on boldness over deliberation, everything designed to look smarter in front of a crowd and win favor over an opponent.
So when it comes to being a good journalist or historian or logician, he's got nothing. It's all about acting smart without doing your homework.
Dunning Kruger Effect strikes back
Excellent comment.
Raymond.. On Nov. 11, 1938, the German minister of the interior issued "Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons." Not only were Jews forbidden to own guns and ammunition, they couldn’t own "truncheons or stabbing weapons."
In addition to the restrictions, Ellerbrock said the Nazis had already been raiding Jewish homes and seizing weapons.... the Democrats plan is to incite riots between conservative police under their control and armed conservatives.... it is a win-win situation for the socialist globalist progressive.
@@docequis9796 you're a witless buffoon.
I dont get it, why does the Socialist Internationale always send newsletters with all the details of nefarious socialist plots to literally everyone else but card-carrying members? How do the plots keep progressing if they only ever inform the enemies of everything and never the members?
I never get those newsletters and I've been ready for the barricades for years!
A large gun owning population cannot deter their governments authoritarianism because a lot of those armed citizens might actually agree with and support their tyrannical government. Kind of like America.
The US is not authoritarian, as proof, what you saying is perfectly legal. Corrupt police, sure, brutal border control, sort of, but authoritarian, no.
@@pimppimpproductions6497 you're right America isn't authoritarian it's fascist
@@IoAKAIolite Oh p-fuckinglease. If America was fascist everyone who wasn’t white would either be put in prison, killed or censor. I’m guessing you’re not white yet you’re still giving your opinion on America on YT. If America was fascist that your comment would have been deleted and you’d be hunting down and executed.
@@moonmangames8560 I you do understand that fascism can more subtle right?
Kind of like how systemic racism is a problem but hidden behind slightly more subtle words eith plausible deniability?
@@IoAKAIolite Then it’s not fascism anymore, it’s just racism.
At first when he said "bread knife", I was scared it was some sort of dangerous weapon, but then I realized that I was delirious from hunger. Gimme a sandwich.
🥪 better late than never.
I feel that.
As a Turkish citizen, I do not see the logic behind the idea of preventing a tyrannical government by having large number of guns. The weapons may be an advantage to fight against a tyrannical regime, but it certainly is not enough to win against the oppressor.
Here in my country, people can get different kinds of weapons if they like. They can get handguns, hunting rifles or shotguns, they can even get an AK-47 if they live in rural areas. By U.S. and European standards, Erdogan is already an authoritarian man and the country has already turned into a tyrannical regime by having the largest number of journalists jailed, poor human rights records, poor checks and balances in the government. In other words, it is a tyrannical regime in Ben Shapiro’s or Ben Carson’s word. Yet, the Erdogan’s government still has a huge number of popularities in the nation where half the country will rather die than electing another government. If the opposition groups revolt against Erdogan, it will only make his job easier to finally get rid of whatever opposition left in the country under the excuse of combating against terrorism. So, revolting against the government and shooting Erdogan’s men is equal to giving him a golden gift basket for their supports to help his cause.
Also, Erdogan has the control of the entire military, police-force, and intelligence agencies. However, if the opposition groups start a civil-war, for example, then he may not even bother to mobilize the army but rather he can give weapons to his supporters and send them to fight against the oppositions. Then, he can simply justify his actions by saying to the world that there are uprising events happening because of the opposition groups and he will remove them to protect the democracy from collapsing. So, tyrannical governments do not acknowledge themselves as they are tyrannical and claim that they are functioning democracies, republics, or something else even though they are not.
In short, there is no ultimate solution to stop a tyrannical government from gaining power because the guns which are used to prevent a tyranny can easily be used as a back bone for tyrannical regimes to rise at the same time. Look at the Syria for example, for a time the opposition groups were winning when they were supplied from other countries but once the Russia, a professional military were involved in the conflict, they began to retreat to the point that they lost all the chances of winning.
To prevent a tyrannical government, one needs more than just guns. They need a strong public popularity, allies from outside that will support and supply the oppositions against the tyrannical government, advanced weapons to combat against the government's armored divisions, air and sea dominance, professional people who knows how to fight or how to survive against the odds such as sickness, starvation, dehydration, physiological traumas or PTSD, and low morale. If an opposition group lacks any of these to fight against tyranny and rely only to their guns, that means they lost the war before even it begins.
Thank you for such a well composed and thought-out comment from the perspective of someone living in an authoritarian regime.
What is truly remarkable is that people like Ben Shapiro will bend over backwards to defend every one of Trump's attacks on institutions that put checks on executive power, to defend attacks on voting rights, to defend calls for violence against protestors; and then, whenever people make the point that if the press is undermined and voting rights are undermined to a degree that allows a minority of the population to hold hegemonic power over the majority, violence will be the result, their response is: "Bring it on. We have the guns."
I don't understand how anyone can say that and not understand that they aren't using their gun ownership to keep the power of the government in check, but rather as a "might makes right" argument for why they should have permanent and complete control of the government, so they can force the laws they want on the less well-armed portion of the population.
Americans play too many video games and watch too many action movies to think about reality.
Look at Trump now. He's taken children from their families at the border and what do his supporters have to say? "Oh they're illegal immigrants, they deserve it!"
Gun nuts often fail to realise that THEY are supporting tyranny. Which is incredibly ironic.
They would never fire at a police officer or soldier, because they support them when an unarmed black man is killed. They make excuses for the police like: "He was a thug, why did he resist?" (Even if the victim clearly didn't do anything and the cops were the aggressors).
Let's face it. People who brag about owning guns are selfish cowards who male up excuses for school shootings. If you see someone defending gun ownership, they're supporting police violence (which is state tyranny, again ironically) and dead shoppers / school children.
@@unbeatablesniper16
1. Children have been being separated from their parents at the border since Obama's presidency, and *yes.* They are literally breaking the law by crossing the border illegally.
2. Have you heard of even one of these stories? I'm sure bad cops are out there as there are bad people, but the vast majority of these are caused by the people resisting arrest and acting overall very sketchy, something you should know never to do. Even then, far more white people are killed by police each year than blacks.
3. The founding fathers expected us to have the same spunk over the years and they were certainly wrong about that, I'll admit.
4. That's a cowardly tactic yourself bringing school shootings into it. People doing illegal things aren't going to follow a gun ban anyways, or they'll just find another way. Guns are banned in Britain right now, and their crime rate is soaring. Saying nobody is entitled to guns because sometimes bad people have them is completely idiotic.
@@cheesychipmunk8382 So how are you going to use your gun against the government?
@@cheesychipmunk8382 saying "crime happens no matter what" is a sad excuse to just ignore all the school shootings you have. America has stabbings, driving murders, paedophile rings in Hollywood and the government, corrupt police and judges, terrorism, break ins and muggings.
Crime is rated differently in different countries too. Here in the UK for example. Spitting is classed as assault. Somebody could be charged with assault even if they don't hurt someone, but the police believe they "may" have been a physical threat. So crime rates are always going to be difficult to compare. My point still stands. How many school shootings happen in Europe the past 5 years? How many shootings in the US this year alone?
You have more shootings and mass shootings (3 or more victims) than the rest of the developed world combined.
With your attitude about the matter, I wouldn't be surprised if you'd actually enjoy shooting somebody yourself.
Gun nuts give me the impression that they want to have an excuse shoot people and act like an action hero.
I really wanted to hate this video, but you’ve grudgingly convinced me that you’re right and Shapiro is wrong.
You might need to reevaluate your views then if you want to hate the truth in favor of your ideology. Or are you one of those people that thinks only SJW lefties can be ideological?
@@kazunabe4288 Maybe that comment was him reevaluating
Also to op once you get out of the Conservative bubble you realise that Shapiro is wrong about quite a lot, dishonest about more, and a colossal hypocrite. He's really not worth anyone's time.
pingu idk, this argument from three arrows is pretty weak. He talks as if in order for these points to be valid, the Jews must have been able to put up an organized ‘resistance’ against the Nazis or kill Hitler. In which he completely ignores an individual attempting to defend himself/herself from their basic liberties being infringed upon.
Cegesh So no one should have the capability to defend their basic rights because ‘they’ll most likely lose’?
I only have one exception to this wonderful video: the quote "Everyone involved in the uprising was either killed or deported and then killed".
That is luckily not entirely true - my grandfather fought in the Uprising and was injured. He was smuggled out of the ghetto by the resistance to a German field hospital where he posed as a Nazi officer, with my grandmother posing as his nurse. They were discovered after a while, but fled and found shelter in the basement of the German embassy in Poland (which as it turns out hid Jews during the war!).
They both survived the war and the rebellion, and thanks to them I am here to tell this story.
great story!!
I am austrian. Austrians having guns resulted in armed militias, which were even bigger than the austrian army, fighting for absolute power. Guns being held by political parties was one of the main reasons for austria to go fascist
That is 100% what it's going to look like stateside.
da hast recht grüße aus tirol :)
Political power is violence and violence is political power, any group seeking to bring into being their desired political body they must first fight to make sure it survives
That's what destroning the house of Habsburg does
That's just nonsense.
YO THIS CHANNELS IS GOOD
T1J YO YOUR CHANNEL IS GOOD
T1J YOUR COMMENT IS IN ALL CAPS
So his point on "debunking" Carsen and Shaprio is that, the Jews were already dehumanized so by the time Hitler went for the guns, it was a moot point. While Carsen and Shapiro are fighting for all the rights of all individuals over a government seeking to limit and restrict them. That's not really debunking.
Barro the Broadcaster that's not what he argued. He argued that the Jews never stood a chance and that in a way sharpiro and the like were almost putting the blame on the Jews. This thought that they could have saved themselves if they just had guns. The truth is they couldn't. He even brings up attempts at armed rebellion that ended horrendously for the Jews. Cause the truth is it wasn't disarming the Jews that was their downfall it was the fact that all of Germany was against them not just the government but the people. Any armed resistance would just be used as more reason to justify their extinction. You've missed the point
No, part of his argument was that any armed resistance was a moot point. I don't think he was ever saying that Shapiro blamed the Jews. As I said, 3A was arguing it was a moot point for the Jews to have guns. Nothing you've said contradicts or challenges what I've said. Shapiro and Carsen are still advocating for individual rights against government restrictions.
Everyone seems to forget that there was armed resistance to the Nazis. It was called Poland. If an army can't stop another army, what makes you think a couple thousand people with grandpa's rifle can?
Mike McKeen Vietnam, the war on terror.
We wiped out sadams forces easily, the insurgents where the real problem.
@@SkadooHusky I suppose pointing out that the Nazis were intent on holding large portions of Europe as their own territory and intended the systematic slaughter of millions of citizens, and the USA didn't, hasn't crossed your mind?
The difference was intent and the willingness to achieve goals. The USA had no intention of committing genocide and claiming Iraq or Vietnam as its own. If that had been the case, you'd probably find the conduct of US forces to be much different than it was. In fact, we did see the US commit similar atrocities in Vietnam. The My Lai massacre comes to mind. And that's the crux of it; how far are you willing to go in achieving your objectives? The US could have been far more brutal than it was. European powers did horrendous things during their colonial years, and the US could have taken that route and held not only military supremacy, but total civil supremacy.
But it's not like the USA was easy on anyone. Take a look at the outcomes of major battles and offensives in Vietnam. After 1968, the Viet Cong was all but wiped out. They initiated the Tet Offensive and got slaughtered. It was a bloodbath that the VC never really recovered from. After 1968, Viet Cong never managed to launch another major offensive. The NVA did, but even then, they understood that they weren't going to be successful unless they could match American military power, which rarely ever happened. The casualty figures tell the tale. The US military could damn near march with impunity anywhere in S. Vietnam. They could launch incursions at will into North Vietnam. By 1968, the US had air superiority, with the only real danger coming from AA guns and missiles on the ground. North Vietnamese jets didn't engage directly too much in the latter half of the war, because they lost on a regular basis.
I guess the point is that while insurgents make the news, when you ask the commanders on the ground what their concerns are, it's the things that can actually impede them in their tasks. US commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't resort to brutal tactics against civilians, because they needed the cooperation of the civilians. That wouldn't have helped achieve their goals. Insurgents are a problem, but they're a manageable problem. Guys with rifles can impede your progress, but they can't fuck up your whole day like an enemy company with tanks can. That's the difference between guerrilla fighters and organized armies.
Mike McKeen it has crossed my mind.
The US military would have it's own issues if such a thing where to happen.
Depending on the situation it might divide into factions or even completely fall apart.
Either way, thier will be plenty of defectors bringing equipment to the rebellion.
@@SkadooHusky The military isn't just the hardware, it's the logistics. Getting ahold of an enemy tank is great, but not if you can't fuel the thing or get more ammo for it.
But the original point is that militias and civilian resistance don't really measure up well against trained, disciplined, well-supplied armies. From the early days of the American Revolution when militia fled again and again in the face of the English army, until the Continental Congress paid for a professional army. The Viet Cong essentially stopped functioning as an organized militia/guerrilla force after 1968, and the NVA grew as a result. The Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the late 1970s-Early 1980s were getting slaughtered wholesale and couldn't stop the Soviets until, mysteriously, US weaponry started showing up on the battlefields. The Soviets had a lock on the border and could stop most weapons shipments coming in from Pakistan until Stinger missiles arrived.
But even then, the Soviets didn't lose militarily. They gave up because their economy was in a tailspin. Just a couple years after they left Afghanistan after a ten year occupation, the USSR collapsed and the Berlin wall came down.
Histrionics paints a rosy picture of the common man in his valiant struggle against the government oppressor. History tells us that the valiant common man, usually gets killed in that struggle, in greater number than government oppressors.
Bielski partisans. Google it and learn something.
Hungarian revolutionists in '56 were armed.
Czechoslovakian protesters in '68 were armed.
They all failed. And they were all people with guns trying to rise up against an opressor.
What Americans seem too hard to comprehend is that guns alone won't work against a tyrannical government. It's high level organisation and support (i.e.: French revolution) and international backing (i.e.: Bosnian war) that can even hold a candle against conflicts like these.
No one in this video, as well as anyone in the comments, has ever said that guns alone can defeat an opponent. Aside from being a property violation, gun restriction takes away yet additional tools to fight back. Win or lose, you should have the right to defend your life from someone trying to kill you.
@@BlueSpawn yes
Also, the peaceful revolution '89 looks worked out without any guns? No fun shots.
@@radschele1815 89’ Revolution only worked because Gorbachev refused to send in Soviet troops
The US armed forces themselves study revolutions. Regime stability is another detail they consider. Or how close is the regime to elite infighting. Like a palace coup or an army uprising.
There's a variant of coup where the security forces lets a revolt against the regime happen by just standing aside, and then cleans out excess revolutionaries to re-establish a junta they prefer.
Functional revolutionary groups often have an existing organization. Unions, church groups, local government, an opposition party etc.
The "Knowing Better" channel referenced this video and I am glad they did. Very interesting and informative.
Thank you!
Looking forward to checking out more stuff.
Which video?
@@ohmygoditisspider7953 Moderate's Guide to Gun Control.
God bless you sir. Great to hear from an actual German. It's a constant war on facts here in the states. Fight the good fight!
@cread 61o excuse me? Have you heard of a thing called grammar my good man?
@cread 61o Commas mostly, also needs rephrasing. I would just re write it.
@@PurplePalmTreeParadise really?!
As Aldous Huxley put it, the dictator simply requires the consent of the ruled. No gun control necessary.
@Dangerous RN The Cherokees armed themselves; even converted to Christianity and Anglicized their language. But unfortunately the government, which ruled against the states. in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, didn't break an age treaty and sent them on the Trail of Tears.
Their neighbors, God-fearing, freedom-loving American conservatives did it. The most dangerous entity in the nation isn't the government. It's gun nuts.
@Dangerous RN Sure, it did help. But now that happened almost 250 years ago and world is not the same. Your guns are no match for well trained army, with drones, tanks, rocket launchers, satellites and whatever else the government has. And just because you have a gun, and you may be a good shot at the range, being fired at is a completely different thing all together. You'll most likely piss your pants before being shot.
@RN They got most of their munitions after starting the war...from France. The ones they had already were largely those brought by British militants. A lack of gun control had nothing to do with it.
yeah aight It was Ol' Andy Jackson who defied John Marshall,Chief Justice&the Supreme Court, and carrying out his Indian Removal act. I blame encroaching settlers, Andrew Jackson& an impotent court for the betrayal of the Cherokees&other "Civilized tribes" of the southeast&Gulf coast.
@@codebus lmao youre just making the shitty asumption that all soldiers would side with the gov and the US millitary is actually competent in assymetrical warfare
I'm pro-gun and even I'm disgusted by Shapiro's terrible arguments and callous attitudes. Arming the populace doesn't do much on its own. Arming the populace won't lead to an overthrow of tyranny if people have come to accept, or worse, support this tyranny. Arming the populace and overthrowing tyranny can happen, of course, but you need to actually have a populace that wants a revolution, or else it just won't happen. Hell, in Russia, it's not like the Bolsheviks revolted because they got access to guns. They revolted because general sentiment was against the government, and the mentality of revolution, of overthrowing tyranny, of doing what's necessary even if it's dangerous and illegal, that mentality had to be there first. Arming themselves was merely a tool they used to depose the Tsar, and I imagine most modern conservatives would side with a dictator over a revolution in a heartbeat.
(Also there are other reasons to have guns than overthrowing the government but the point is that the people who talk about revolution are usually the same people who would try to put it down)
I agree, arming the populace is questionable. However, allowing the populace to arm themselves through a long tradition of peaceful use, that's cool. And somewhat protective.
@@nmarbletoe8210 I mean, I'm not even condemning the idea of arming the populace, or of revolution. I'm just saying that the right wingers who fantasise about it would be more likely to fight against a popular revolution than to support it. That's how it tends to go in most of the world.
It's also stupid that right wingers try to claim leftists are scared of guns simply because they want universal background checks, mental health checks, and a ban on assault weapons. Besides the fact that all of these things are overwhelmingly supported, I've found no valid arguments against them. Letting civilians arm themselves is a good idea, but it has to be well regulated.
@@insertpersonhere4871 Agree
@@stingywingy1607 Yeah the left/right thing isn't very accurate. I'm liberal on many (most?) subjects but doggonit if I don't love guns. The three best reasons to own them: they are fun fun fun!
I'm in favor of ubc, mental health exceptions only if ordered by a court, but not a new ban on assault weapons, because we already have that.
Rather than obsessing about putting more guns in people's hands maybe we should think about how to oppose the tyranny and violence of state power. Like... through political action that might actually be effective, rather than an AK-47 and a prayer
yes, totally agree. and yet... the most effective action organizer MLK applied for a carry permit.
@@nmarbletoe8210 he also died from a gunshot wound.
@@douchopotamus3755 Yes, showing that his concern was justified. The authorities should have let him have the permit.
@@nmarbletoe8210 yup, he definitely would have shot that sniper first
@@douchopotamus3755 If you are arguing the point, "Guns don't solve everything." then I agree.
I looked up the Treaty of Versailles so I could read article 261 in its entirety. It wasn't there, but was under the article 169. You said article 261 3:13
Just a little correction.
There's another US myth that contributes to this wider argument. That it was the rugged, unorthodox guerrilla fighting Militiamen that beat the all powerful British Empire during the Revolutionary War.
The reality is far from this and although, yeah, they helped. . the continental army in pitched battles had a greater hand. And that's even before you consider all the allied support the Colonies received. Uber Patriots often downplay the involvement of the French and don't even acknowledge the Spanish who had a hand in our revolution. And if I told you the Dutch sided with us, you'd stare at me like I was crazy. . but they did!
And so to this day we are convinced that armed citizens can defeat whole Empires. . . when the situation is so much. . much. . more complicated.
Then explain the Taliban or ISIS existing fighting for so long against the military of US and its allies?
@@themanwithnonamecalledwyat7575
They had very important state sponsors like Saud Arabia and the United States. What do you think how could an ordinary citizen buy a rocket launcher?
How did the Talibans combat Soviet helicopters? With rocket launchers supplied by the American government.
How did the ISIS combat Syrian tanks? With rocket launchers supplied by Saud Arabia.
actually you're very wrong. only 3% of the population stood up to the British and the majority sided with the British. we got limited help from the enemies of the british, but it was VERY limited. we had to steal most of our artillery and mortars FROM THE BRITISH. it REALLY was a bunch of ragtag farmers that beat the British.
@@themanwithnonamecalledwyat7575
ISIS existed for so long as their terror tactics kept the militias and the badly trained military scared. Just look at how easily Mosul fell. It took considerable time to train local militias and military to fight the ISIS and even then they really needed the Western airstrikes.
Also ISIS could always retreat to Syria where everything was so chaotic that none could really figure out what was happening when alliances shifted and changed.
@@Songbird645 True so what evidence do you have that American citizens wouldn't will have others state sponcers? Considering the drug cartels and illegal aliens have clearly shown that the country has very lose borders it wouldn't be to hard to sneak guns north of the Mexican border.
another example of how trying to stop a fascist regime with violence did not work would be Austria: in February 1934, the Social Democratic Party with their well-organised militia, the Republikanischer Schutzbund, made a last attempt to stop the fascist Dollfuß regime. This was a party of nearly half a million members in a country of about 7 million, having won more than 41% of the vote in the last general election and ruling the capital city (where most of the fighting took place) with a large majority. Even they were beaten in just four days by the combined forces of the army, the police and fascist militias
Hungary was literally allied with Germany for most of the war, but when Hitler got tired of Horthy, the Nazis rolled in to start the massacres and deportation.
Saying it didn't work out in one case does not mean no one should try.
How many armed Americans defended the escaping slaves? How many armed Americans went after the government for Jim Crow? How many armed Americans show up at ICE facilities to free the kids in cages or stop the mass hysterectomies? How many armed Americans go after the government telling them to stop interfering and setting up coups in foreign countries?
The problem is complacency and fascism. Arming complacent people won't do anything.
Actually, _unarmed_ (white) Americans defended escaped slaves and freedmen on the streets of Boston. Slave catchers came north, sometimes after a specific escapee, sometimes looking for whomever they could catch, and abolitionist gangs would beat them senseless if they tried to enter the city. They could do this, not because they had guns, but because they were the majority, and they knew a Boston jury would never convict an abolitionist for assaulting a slave catcher. That was what the Fugitive Slave Act was about, forcing Northern state governments to help and protect slave catchers. As long as you have the law and the majority on your side, you don't need guns, and without them, guns aren't going to protect a minority.
Almost absolutely agree. The loud and armed people in the US tend to almost unilaterally come down on the side of the powerful, defending the cruel and powerful's right to be cruel and powerful. It's not complacency, it's conspiracy.
I love what you said at 20:03
"...if it's not guns who kill people, it's not gun restrictions that commit genocides, it's people who do."
Thank you for your research and work!
That's why I oppose people taking away gun rights chip by chip. F*** Feinstein.
But the gun restrictions enable both!
Anyone else think that it’s funny that the Ben Shapiro fan boys, who usually flood the comment section of any video remotely critical of him, are absent from this videos comment section? It’s almost as if their lord and savior has been proven wrong.
They are here, in the form of top comments about doubting his (ex) lord and savior
Im a fan of shapiro in a lot of cases, including being a supporter of the 2A of the constitution of the US and appreciate most of his arguments in favor of such - this argument he made is bad, I recognize it as a bad argument, and I really appreciate the history and accuracy presented in this video.
I still support my right and the rights of others to own and bear arms in my country - but this isnt the reason or argument I would use, and the reason I wouldnt use this argument is presented beautifully in this video.
Maybe not everyone conforms to your view of the world. I dont know.
@@BFSearle Considering what you wrote, I'm interested in your thoughts about the *motives* behind the bad arguments about the nazis and the guns that Shapiro as well as others advanced; considering that such an elaborated and specific viewpoint can't be just accidental or unintentional.
@@VersusThem I would honestly believe they are making these arguments as political points without trying to fully understand the history accurately.
It is true that the Jews were forcibly disarmed - thats a fact. Its a bad argument and an emotionally fallacious one to argue if they had had guns they could have prevented the holocaust - but I wouldnt think the argument being presented by Shapiro is maliciously and knowingly false - I just think he has a preconcieved bias towards a particular position on the 2nd amendment and uses his misunderstanding of history to fit that narrative, not intentionally.
As far as Carson goes, that guy is... completely strange to me. Most of the stuff he says is utter nonsense.
Imagine using one of the biggest tragedies in human history, where your ancestors were the victims, just to score some cheap conservative political points.
disgusting doesn't really apply. Way to soft a word.
Imagine using school shootings caused by mentally ill people to push an invalid argument that would probably leave people defenseless and lead to many more deaths. But only the right is wrong ey. The left is superior to them after all.
Michał Stanisławski except....the left is looking at these tragedies and saying “we should try to prevent these”, while the right (the parts that don’t deny or belittle the holocaust, at least) is going “look, the Holocaust was bad and they didn’t have guns! we should ____!”
@@gyz9599 So one side is seeking political gain over the corpses of children. And the other is trying to protect their rights with flawed arguments. You tell me which is worse. There is no reliable data that would prove that making guns illegal in the USA would make gun crime less frequent. It's actually the opposite in most cases as a person is most likely to shoot others if he knows that he himself won't be fired upon.
@@michastanisawski9093 it's more like one side is trying to prevent even more senseless killings of and children while the other is using flawed arguments to prevent any meaningful gun legislation of being passed at the cost of even more people being killed. No one actually wants to take away anyone's rights, it's just a common NRA talking point used so they can keep earning money.
Whenever I hear Shapiro, Carson or Crowder talk about this matter, I've always suspected they're cherry-picking facts and taking things out of context just to support their political narrative. Not being a German historian myself, I don't have the background or the time to build a formal rebuttal. But, I'm glad this channel does. I'm glad someone who actually knows something about history has responded to them. Listening to them speak versus this channel makes it so embarrassingly obvious none of them know jack squat.
Of you wish to know more about those roles, there is a German documentary called into the abyss. From ZDF, it might be still on their page, the ZDF Mediathek.
Don't let this video fool you on the big topic here. The video is right with regards to Germany and their gun control policies of the time. But this particular example does not mean that gun control is a good thing. Everyone tends to casually look over the fact that Germany was an exception. One of the few tyrannies that allowed gun ownership for the majority. How about the Soviet Union, China and Iran? All of these are tyrannies who have taken away the rights of the population to own firearms.
@@hektorsoininen
You are looking at the end game of tyranny whereby the state had complete control over the populace.
If you look back at the founding periods of the Soviet Union, China and Iran. They have plenty of weapons running around but they still supported the governments all the same. Thats because the tyrants and the authoritarians of today are actually the reactionaries of the past. Iran's current government revolted against the Shah who was quiet authoritarian himself, Lenin led the revolt against Tsarist Russia that was a monarchy at the time, the Chinese communist party defeated the Nationalist who were also authoritarian and have facists support as well.
In short, having a well arm population would not have prevent these government rises because they were ridding the popular wave to power. Once they were in power however then they began systematically cutting off people and groups.
The people of these countries willingly come UNDER authoritarian rule, not the other way around.
@@hektorsoininen Saddam's regime was mentioned above. You could legally have a firearm at home if you were male before 2003. No restriction on type, anything from a pistol to an AK. It had to be stored at home though, at least in Baghdad itself.
A quirk of conscript armies is that lots of ordinary chumps will fill out the ranks, with access to their kit. An iraqi conscript would have access to, and training on, weapon systems a US militiaman could only dream of.
Part of Saddam's system of control was a balance of security forces. It's why dictatorships can have for security forces that seemingly do the same job, to balance one another.
Wait is Ben Shapiro the same guy who worship Ayn Rand and her joke of an ideology that is Objectivism? Why does people even listen to that clown in the first place is beyond me.
Because people listen to those who say what they want to hear.
They listen to him cause there's an anti SJW movement and conservatives have scratched that itch we have to shit all over the "radical progressives". Also, I think Objectivism appeals to idiots who want to feel like they are the "logical" "ethical" ones who have all the great virtues that others lack.
Toàn Khánh honestly ben shapiro is just the dumb mans idea of a smart man
Honestly - Ben is a master in arguing the way "emotional driven" people think facts work and for people who want to have complex topics made easy but still looking "factual". I understand his appeal. Problem is that he always makes some factual statements mixed with his own perspective and some normative statements and circular logic to create an outcome that falls apart the second someone with actual logical skills or scientific background slightly looks at it.
Really happy to see this channel grow so fast. You've earned it
Just found it yesterday and for sure he’s earned it
Yup, deserves it for sure! Thanks /pol/, I guess they really can do good by shining the spotlight on awesome chaps like Three Arrows and Shaun.
What I hate about Shapiro bringing up his Jewish grandparents is that he clearly doesn't care about whether or not they would have survived had they had guns, he's just using them as a prop for his modern political agenda. In reality, the holocaust has no bearing on the discussion about gun control, it's just a cheap, sick way of emotionally manipulating the audience
He cares. He thinks he's right. If you don't agree, ok but don't start blaming victims.
@@nmarbletoe8210 If he cared about anyone Jewish he'd drop half his current arguments.
Stephen Miller does a similar thing with his Jewish heritage
I like how he hates identity politics and that black kids today talking about systemic racism are using their history over something that "doesn't exist" when he uses his Jewish identity saying why he is right and if you speak against him, you're anti-semitic. I thought facts didn't care about your feelings Ben.
@@nmarbletoe8210 It took the full might of the Soviet Union to capture Berlin. You really think a few anti-fascists with guns would have stopped the Third Reich?
This is one of the first left leaning videos that has successfully changed my mind about something. Fully supported by facts and where they get their sources. Although I am still for gun rights, this video successfully proves that the " Hitler banned all guns and that's why he could commit genocide" argument is truly unrealistic.
It’s also not really left-wing it’s just stating historical facts. I like your comment though.
@@ottovonbismarck1352 it's obviously left wing inspired, but he stayed neutral and calm.
@@Etzelsschizo how is saying that if the Jewish people in Europe had guns it would not make much of a difference to the overall implementation of the Final Solution left wing? It’s more of a fact given the organization of the Third Reichs military and “police” forces along with the wide spread anti Semitism.
Yeah. I should also mention that big parts of the left do actually support personal gun ownership. It's not inherently a right wing thing.
Mainstream progressives and left liberals tend to be against it, but there's many anarchists and socialists who do support it. In America you have stuff like the Socialist Rifle Association for instance.
@@frocco7125 Charlton Heston’s and John Wayne’s heads would explode in their graves if they heard “socialist” and “rifle association” in the same sentence lol
A small group of people can't take on an entire nation of Nazis as long as they have guns? Clearly you haven't played Wolfenstein!
Excuse me, Wolfenstein is communist propaganda. Didn’t you hear, there was a Russian character who held socialist claims, and the game clearly doesn’t like Nazis considering you’re forced to shoot hundreds of them. Clearly Marxism’s influence over gaming and pop culture in play if people are opposed to Nazism.
/s
Seriously, I feel really bad for all the people and vets who actually lived at the time when Nazis weren’t socially accepted members in the “political” discourse.
Dude, you're talking about a video game. That's not the same as real life.
@@emmacat3202 r/wooooosh
Clearly you don't understand insurgency or guerrilla fighting and how effective it can be.
About that... has anyone completed Wolfenstein without a SINGLE GUN? I somehow think that'd make your resistance against the NAZIs much weaker.
I'm thinking that the reasoning for the flagging is either;
A) You're right.
or
B) They're angry that a German knows more than the wehraboos.
Thanks for helping this political push though! Team up with Shaun sometime too.
Who will win: a bunch semi organize internet alt right user that a good amount of support and sympathy and make people convince people that flagging there video was okay or one skeleton and German three arrow boi(s)
„Wehraboo“, nice. Gonna use that.
Shiggy the Kid in many online WW2 communities that word is thrown around a _lot._ The mindset is also very pervasive among people who only have superficial knowledge of WW2.
Redbad of Frisia
In short it usually means someone over valiant of the Wehrmacht regardless, but usually this goes hand in hand with nazi apologists.
no bully lol I know dude. I just wanted to share something about it since Shiggy seems unfamiliar with it.
The 1, 456,000th time Shapiro made a preposterous argument. Kudos Ben, your determination to be the fastest speaking false claim/ argument King is going well.
What false claims did he make?
@@justinnamuco9096 He's made tonnes of false claims, to be honest. I'd love to debate him on economics, to be frank, because he'd be easy to embarrass.
Ben Shapiro utterly destroyed by three arrows.
With facts and logic
He cant hold a candle against bow and arrow, and still thinks guns are good.
"Ben Shapiro utterly destroyed three arrows." there i fixed it for you
@@origionalwinja More like, i once was popular, but then i got three arrows in the knee.
Ben Shapiro destroyed this guy in his own video... He spoke for about 5 minutes about how a oppressive government used gun control to control the population, then Hitler took over and replaced their system with PEOPLE Control and Social Control. Leftists today like to use all three, their favoured weapon being the outraged tweet.
I think Ben Carson removed his own brain.
Ma Pa I hate Carson but the Pyramids were made by well payed workers. Not slaves. However slavery was widespread in Egypt as it was in Greece, Rome, and pretty much everywhere except post Cyrus Iran.
No, he's a zombie.
Think about.
Slow movements.
Uses the tactic of rushing single shooters in hordes.
Works with brains.
IT'S ONLY LOGICAL.
Carson is a talented enough surgeon to do that, so it makes sense.
Peter D he swapped it for a sweet potato years ago.
Well, getting the brain out was the easy part. The hard part was getting the brain *out*. ruclips.net/video/hqm8_Du8V2Q/видео.html
Your channel is honestly both a beautiful rebuke of the alt-right, and full of new interwar/WWII information. I've recommended this to all my friends
Hitler and Goebbels were leftists only in the fervid minds of right-wing morons.
If white supremacists/neo-nazis are all left-wing, why do NONE of them consider themselves such? Why did the white supremacist Richard Spencer decide to call the movement he's attempting to build the altright and not the altleft?
The right believes in the preservation of hierarchical social relations based on class, race, and gender. Fascists embody that belief system and take it to its most extreme logical conclusion.
Castroy64, stop being a fucking worthless cud-chewing fool and learn something. You only live once, dipshit.
A.H Man well no. "the right" is a heterogenous thing just like the "the left". facists and racists may believe in "the preservation of hierarchies based on race, class and gender". Most people on the right dont. they believe in hierarchies based on not identity, but competence. I hope you are aware of that.
@Ely Krishna
" Your channel is honestly both a beautiful rebuke of the alt-right, "
Eh, you'd be hard pressed to find it.
"and full of new interwar/WWII information."
Not nearly as much as you think. And the problem is that much of the Interwar/WWII information he has is Wrong, and even when it's not he correlates it all quite badly.
He doesn't seem to draw a connection between the Nazis not having to disarm many people in the 1930's with the fact that the Weimar Republic had been disarming the German public for over a decade. He also has an exaggerated belief in the effectiveness of the firearms liscensing act to keep guns out of the likes of Hitlers' Hands when ou primary sources tell us all too well that the NSDAP was quite well armed and generally stole or bought most of their weapons.
As well as the idea that the Versailles treaty banned or limited domestic German gun ownership.
Also things like the Yugoslav Front, an admittedly obscure topic but one which saw Communist partisans start out as a band of armed and barely trained civilians and turn into an ARMY that overthrow the Axis puppet states and tossed the Germans out.
And I could go on. Like I have in this comment, motivated y both my Right wing leanings and a literally autistic obsession with History.
ruclips.net/video/gfHXJRqq-qo/видео.html&lc=Ugwk-Xr9aWopqtTablF4AaABAg
I will give him credit for studying and trying to approach without being too sensationalist, but he doesn't know nearly as much as he thinks.
@A.H Man " Hitler and Goebbels were leftists only in the fervid minds of right-wing morons. "
Including Hitler and Goebbels themselves?
Now I'm all too happy to define them as Morons, but the idea that some internet commentor knows their ideology better than they themselves is...Interesting.
research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb47.htm
"England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people’s state. And it is not the case that we think England is the richest land on earth. There are lords and City men in England who are in fact the richest men on earth. The broad masses, however, see little of this wealth. We see in England an army of millions of impoverished, socially enslaved, and oppressed people. Child labor is still a matter of course there. They have only heard about social welfare programs. Parliament occasionally discusses social legislation. Nowhere else is there such terrible and horrifying inequality as in the English slums. Those with good breeding take no notice of it. Should anyone speak of it in public, the press, which serves plutocratic democracy, quickly brands him the worst kind of rascal. They do not hesitate to make major changes in the Constitution if they are necessary to preserve capitalist democracy." - Joseph Goebbels, England's Guilt.
"If white supremacists/neo-nazis are all left-wing, why do NONE of them consider themselves such?"
There's so much wrong with this it isn't even farqing funny. And I say this as someone who spent years tracking them and other hate groups.
Firstly
A: Anybody who thinks Neo-Nazi is synonymous with White Supremacist doesn't know much. Both are utter scum, but there are plenty of White Supremacists that aren't Neo-Nazis (the old school Klan are an example. Ever try reading "The Turner Diaries?" It's hateful bilge by American Neo-Nazis fantasizing about the genocide of everybody they don't like.
Including Sheetheads.)
B: There HAVE been plenty of undeniable White Supremacist Leftists. Don't believe me?
Take a farqing look at the Rand Rebellion.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Rebellion
"The racist aspect was typified by the slogan; "Workers of the world, unite and fight for a white South Africa!" and by several pogroms against blacks."
Obviously not everybody involved in the rebellion was a racist (or even a Leftist given the Reformed Chruch's influence on miners). But a number of them were.
and
C: Most people are so utterly uninformed about White Supremacist, Neo-Nazi, and Paleo-Nazi or Fascist rhetoric that they have no farqing idea what they say. And you can see that from the proliferation of fake Hitler quotes and whatnot to try and pander to different policies.
I know Mussolini defined his movement as a turn towards "the right" from where things were before, but it is mentioned a grand total of once in his ideological manifesto ("The Doctrine of Fascism") and I know it because I know where to look.
And it gets easily drowned out by Musso's discussion about the socialist roots of Fascist doctrine.
How many others can say the same?
"Why did the white supremacist Richard Spencer decide to call the movement he's attempting to build the altright and not the altleft?"
Because Spencer's a parasite who jumped onto the label after Murray Rothbart (who has his own big problems) coined it.
"The right believes in the preservation of hierarchical social relations based on class, race, and gender. Fascists embody that belief system and take it to its most extreme logical conclusion. "
Translation:
You have not the slightest farqing idea what Fascism is except what's been repeated to you at rote.
But you are going to pretend you do anyway.
No, Fascists did NOT support the *PRESERVATION* of hierarchical social relations. They were revolutionaries who favored OVERTHROWING the existing hierarchical social relations and building different ones. Mostly a hybrid national goulash of a community governed by a party.
"The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789, a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century. History does not travel backwards. The Fascist doctrine has not taken De Maistre as its prophet. Monarchical absolutism is of the past, and so is ecclesiolatry. Dead and done for are feudal privileges and the division of society into closed, uncommunicating castes. Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State." -Benito Mussolini, the Doctrine of Fascism.
www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
Fascism defined itself as a merger of elements between the Right and the Left to create a hybrid movement that originated from Marxist Socialism, but which rejected Marxist internationalism as well as many other things.
Hence why it is also called a "Third Way" or "Third Positionism."
Hence we have Hitler's own pithy...
"In our movement the two extremes come together: the Communists from the Left and the officers and students from the Right. These two have always been the most active elements. "
"Castroy64, stop being a fucking worthless cud-chewing fool and learn something. You only live once, dipshit. "
Pot Kettle Black, mate.
Pot Kettle Black.
I want to know my enemies better than they know themselves. That is why I have labored so hard to understand the Fascism that beat up my Italian-American forebearers, as well as the Islamists and others.
NoBanMePLS Then how come Nazis and modern day fascist are not liberal and ARE conservative on literally every issue except welfare and corporate issues?
I mean, I think there should be less gun restrictions than the little we have in the US, but I also believe in strong social safety nets, and the freedom to do any kinds of (adult)sex and drugs ppl want, does that alone make me a conservative?
ben shapiro sounds like sheldon from the big bang theory and honestly it’s my number one reason for disliking him
That’s a fair reason to be perfectly honest.
Ben Shapiro is a Helium boy with an excess of estrogen.
I just want to say, I really appreciate the spanish subtitles. Breadtube needs to thrive around the world, and being able to share it with our non bilingual friends is fantastic.
"If you don't know much about Ben Shapiro..."
...then you're blessed. :)
Highly underrated comment. Bravo.
@Lanzy Fabian how is this a bad thing? Logical fallacies are easy to counter once identified, because they do not follow logic as per their name.
I know his wife is a doctor and universal healthcare would enslave her...
"Ben Shapiro is bad because he might be wrong about a thing."
@@cheesychipmunk8382 I don't know who you're trying to quote, but Ben Shapiro isn't bad, he's just wrong on a lot of things and tries to make people think all his opinions are fact
I am very happy to be a patron!
This is one of the best videos I have watched in a long time. I have been making the exact same arguments in my political debates, and I have yet to find someone with the solid foundational beliefs that you have here.
SHAPIRO PUNCHES HIMSELF IN THE FACE REPEATEDLY.
With "FACTS" and "LOGIC"
Ben Shapiro, or as Benjamin Dixon calls him, "the high school debate champion".
Yet no one will debate him
Caiã Wlodarski if it is difficult then it can be done
Well, to put it nicely, debating is the art of skirting around the truth in the most efficient way possible when the truth paints you in a negative light, and force feeding the truth and all accompanying embellishments when the truth paints you in a positive light.
He'll debate anyone, but college kids are stupid enough to try.
@@ConnorGotsTheFilms anyone remotely skilled in conversation takes Ben to school every time. Didn't you see him piss his pants on the BBC?
Saying that armed German Jews could've fought off the Wehrmacht is kind of like saying that you and the contents of your gun safe would stand a chance against a U.S. Army infantry squad, the M1126 ICV that they came in, and the M109 Paladin behind them giving them fire support.
Guerilla warfare is a thing, and history has shown it can be effective against larger/more equipped armies.
As a proud American, I feel bad saying this, but...
The Taliban, the Vietcong, and other ragtag fighting forces have done a number on the American military time and time again. Guerrilla warfare is quite effective on a large fighting force.
@@johnnyblack2652 do you know that the Americans fought a different war than the Nazis? The Americans had their hands tied behind their back, they couldn't just burn down a peasant village to take out a small guerrila group. And the Vietonc barely did anything except for surviving. They only had to survive long enough so the Vietnamnese and American people would realise that the war is pointless. The Nazi burned down Warsaw during the Uprising '44. And when 13.000 Jewish men rebelled in the Warsaw Ghetto, the Nazis just liquidated it. 13.000 Jewish resistance members dead, and how many Nazis? 100-150. And btw., the Vietcong were almost brought down in 1968. The NVA, AN OFFICIAL MILITARY WITH TANKS, AIR FORCE AND SOVIET FINANCIAL SUPPORT, took the brunt of the Vietnam War.
The Taliban fights similar, they hold no village and only attack occasionally a U.S. Patrol. But they hold nothing anymore. They hide in caves. If you want a real life example where the U.S. hands weren't tied look at ISIS. They don't occupy a single village anymorw and are almost obliterated.
These are fair points and great history lessons to bring up. I used to think like the bens, but after looking at some history videos on Germany after World War 1, you start seeing more of the bigger picture.
Plus I love your accent!
The fact that Ben Shapiro abuses the suffering his own family had to go through just to further his narrative is just gut wrenching.
Except he was right and this video is a shitty argument
@@thellord9360 Why? Ben's argument does not even hold up to basic logical scrutiny, after all, who elected the hypothetical tyrannical government?
@@jamesoconnor8985 you seem to all miss the fact that hitler took away the guns of the jews before doing all these terrible things to them. If the Jews having the right to the means to defend themselves wouldn't have mattered like Ben thinks it would've, then why did hitler bother taking away their guns beforehand? Its because the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is deterance. Yes, odds a civilian armed resistance loses to an invading army are very high, but no army in the world wants to march through and go door to door to arrest or kill people fighting for their homes and their lives. My country has the most advanced military in the World and we still lost so many men doing that during desert storm. Bens arguement holds and you're going to have to do a lot better than some German talking about their opinions when they haven't got a clue about our principles
@@thellord9360 Did you know that Weimar had one of the most liberal constitutions in the world for the time and even now? Principles and constitutions are only meaningful if we believe them so. They are not in the hypothetical election of a tyrannical government.
@@thellord9360 To believe that local resistance was the primary reason for lives lost is like saying that last bullet os what killed someone after being shot 40 times. They lost lives because the goal was not to stop the population it was to force them out of Kuwait which they succeeded in.
I am so grateful for your work!
Seriously felt chills going down my spine when you described the chronological order of events... How can people talk so lightly about this is crazy to me!
Trying to silence you just made you stronger! I'm glad I found your channel.
the hydra effect
"George Soros Phantom Accounts" 😂
You do know George Soros is one of Donald Trump's biggest creditors and his former wealth fund manager is now Secretary of the Treasury.
19:00 (responding to a quoted text from Shapiro) the Israel vs. Palestine issue is a bit more complicated than Israel good, Palestine bad..
we see rockets and cool rocket umbrella defense stuff, but our media don't often mention Israeli government evicting owners from their own houses, or demolishing houses with bulldozers sometimes with people in those houses.
I never understood the pro-gun argument dealing with the US government going full-on fascist or whatever. How does the scenario play out? I assume the government has the backing of the military and the police or it could not be tyrannical. In that case, what could an armed population do? Especially when knowing the reality of people, not every citizen will be willing to fight against the system and will instead turn on the rebels.
"Not everyone will fight a tyrannical government so we should just let it happen."
Well, you also have to consider that atleast SOME of people in active duty would defect aswell, simply because they're seeing their government go tyrannical. Remember, We have about one million people serving in the military; i can assure you that atleast half of them would defect and join the resistance, which would be a big help since they know more about combat and strategy.
An Ar-15s will do jack shit against a tank and drone bombings.
@@habe1717 nice party trick :)
@@lolcatjunior tell that to the Afghans
I am a fan of Ben Shapiro, but I am now reviewing my enthusiasm.
Lee Gillaspie
Being extremely smart like Ben Shapiro does not mean being right all the time..
Europeans are bias torward being anti gun. They do not understand it nor want too because it is demonized starting from a young age. Meanwhile gun free cites like London are just as ripe with crime as any u.s city
The homicide rate in London is still a lot lower than the homicide rate of the U.S.. When it comes to crime the U.S. is probably one, if not the most violent country in the western world.
Yeah thats because the USA has 322 million people over all
James Avery the rate shouldn’t change just because you have more people. The US is much more violent than countries with gun control.
I've also heard them use the argument that Stalin disarmed the population before his red terror and that No One opposed him because they were defenseless.
Which conveniently ignores the fact that the Russian civil war had been fought by various armed factions in clear opposition to Bolshevist rule, with 5 million dead.
They was plenty of guns available to them but the Soviets had the main industrial centers to support their efforts. And guns without ammo along with armies
without artillery don't last very long. Yet these people really think that their AR-15's will hold off a military equipped with tanks, jets and laser guided bombs.
1.5 million soldiers died, but 8 million civilians died from it and the disease and famine that followed. I’m sure guns could have grown them food though.
I always have assumed the militia types believe at least a portion of the military would side with them.
Because the "Kristallnacht" would have been way less bad if the German people had been armed with guns... Yeah... About that...
A) Love your stuff! B) As an American and an Alaskan who has lobbied and met Don Young on many occasions (mostly to no effect) I can tell you this. He's "old guard" when it comes to politics. Very conservative and traditional. He's the kinda guy who I'd love to have a beer with but not the kinda guy I want in office. He's not far right, just old and dumb these days.
I second Wade, GET THE FUCK OUT! I moved from Commiefornia so I could live in a red state, please, trade places and see how you like it paying INSANE taxes and upwards of $700 annual registration for your automobile. The centralization of government power there is great too if you’re a lefty! You’ll just love the cops harassing you as a means to meet their quota. No decent citizen can carry a gun, but you’ll still hear gun shots like crazy! Everyone in school is so conditioned and brainwashed to the leftist narrative that it has rendered them entirely incapable of questioning anything that’s contrary to what they’ve been taught, thus rendering their ability to critically think for themselves inert. You’ll be demonized if you even deviate from one policy that is thought there. Stop cucking Alaska you dipshits. Real red blooded Americans are getting VERY sick of it.
Californa is one of the best and safest places in America, better than the right wing cities were racism and ignorance is still rampant. No one needs guns as a civilian, they are for pussies anyway.
Mama Rora good comment.
Wow the other comments are freaking nuts. American hating American. Must be trump fans. They literally want everyone in America deported except for themselves. Their loyalty will not be rewarded.
Somehow Commiefornia, has the most revenue out of all the states, the gdp of the state alone is higher than many countries and its GDP alone is 1/8 of the US gdp, ya know it almost sounds like they are better capitalists that most red states but what do I know
Great video as always and I feel that there is always something new to learn about the WW1 to WW2 time.
And it was great to see a lot of different form of left leaning people coming to your aid.
Rational Revenant
Left is best
Blockbird yes they are!
oh strange to see you here?
who?
The Mexican Pepe
Lmao
It's kind of ridiculous watching this as a German. I knew that there was quite a intensive debate around guns but have never heard of an argument for guns this stupid.
Increasing the amount of guns the people have would rather lead to extremist groups, like those in Germany's '20s, having street fights or ironically trying to overthrow a democratic government.
It funnily seems that if you take Germany's history as an example why you need guns in your country, you'll get the right opposite of what your intent is.
America is brimming with guns, yet no "extremist groups" have taken over the government in 250 years. Your argument is stupid.
Sometimes the USA has weird assumptions when they talk about how revolts and militias work. Like there is always going to be a single rebel side fighting a single government side, and the rebel side will always have widespread popular support against the government side.
Even if we take this very unserious argument seriously, it's important to examine what people who make this argument mean when they say "tyrrany". What does "tyranny" look like to Bens Shapiro and Carson? From what we've seen them say, "tyranny" means not discriminating against vulnerable populations and enacting common-sense and popular reforms that would improve the lives of all Americans.
That's a very good point. I mean, gun control has been used before to keep weapons away from black people. I'm not hearing Tucker or Shapiro mentioning that.
I'm actually a supporter of guns. It could do a lot to keep a government in control, theoretically. However, many countries in history (including the US) prove that the proper mix of dependence and ignorance can be a more powerful weapon than any sword or rifle.
@Euan Cormack More guns don't equal more deaths
@@fluffypancakes5571 Wow. A couple of cherry-picked examples and a minor statistical difference PROVES that Australia's gun laws don't work, whilst the gun laws of the US are perfect. Also, murders can be committed by means other than guns. Also, all guns aren't banned in Australia
The need for self preservation is innate. The right to self defense isn't bestowed upon you by your overlords. Its more pure than governments or philosophies.
yes... you're basically saying the 2nd is important, but the 1st is more :)
It assumes that there will only ever be two sides, the government and the rebels. And that the rebel side will always have a majority popular support. There will be no outside forces, no competing rebel groups or no government fragmentation.
This is such a great video! I haven't actually realized the mixed messaging between the "You shouldn't use violence to suppress opinion" and "Armed citizens would've stopped the nazis from happening." I love your channel, I've learned so much.
Ellotus13 Politics is infested with mixed messages.
Of course, that's obvious. That does not preclude me being dumb on this one certain issue though
Stepping back and watching some of your old content, I am not regretting the recent sub. I look forward to viewing your other content. This is the second video, the first being you covering Rammstein's most recent video.
Thanks for setting this straight. Unfortunately it will be falling onto deaf ears for those with an agenda. Subscribed.
The first video of yours that I watched was on Dresden. I thought it complete and informative. This now, the video on guns in Nazi Germany, is also informative.
At this point I would like to complement you for having the most careful and tightly argued assertions I've found on the internet. Good!
More, you high light that some of my personal beliefs are shibboleths. An uncomfortable experience but always needed. Good!
Lastly, and quite singularly, I am unable to identify where you are on the political spectrum. Perhaps, a classic liberal as myself??? And this I find is the best of all.
Very, very well done!
Why does it matter? He shows that he is capable of arguing correctly without ANY regard of ANY political views. Just as it should be. From my experience the US always politicices everything. No matter of right or left. They just argue to uproot their respective political opponent. We don't have that in Germany. That is why he is able to argue this well
When I tried to send the video to someone they said they wouldnt watch it because he is a communist. I dont know if that is true but he isnt a classic liberal.
He sees himself as a leftist though.
@@suides4810 I can't the understand the mentality of the person you mentioned - constantly living in an echo chamber.
2:05 For future reference, in english, the g in the word register is pronounced with a j sound. Like rejister. Good content.
Goobernational ; thanks! I'm Dutch and I called it reGister to.
Careful, J is pronounced like a Y in German. What a topsy-turvy world this is.
People can revolt, but the Govt can starve you out, whether you have a gun or not.
@Solstice of Snow the british didnt have drones planes tanks cars or automatic weapons
@Solstice of Snow if the government is on the brink they'll take us down with them
All of your videos are so well done. I only started watching your videos because I thought I’d have had a glance at your Rammstein video... I haven’t stopped since.
Congratulations Three Arrows, and great video.
We need channels like yours, keep up the good work.
Where was the militia protecting the civil Rights for japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor?
a toaster easy putting them in internment camps. So America didn't have to worry about enemy enemy spys.
The Eternal Chronicler that was the reason the gov did that yes, but that wasn't the question, it was why didn't they create a militia to protect their civil rights when a government came to opress them, take their property, businesses, and civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution? That sounds like the opression the gun fanatics are so concerned about.
a toaster Because wartime mentality changes everything. Plus back in the 50's the American people had a better trust in the government and didn't see them as a potential enemy. For their time they were treated ok and got cash settlements during the Regan administration. In retrospect yeah that was a fucked up thing to due but at a time when National identity the American government couldn't chance the option of unknown loyalties. The government made the tactical decision that they thought benefited the rest of the nation.
If the American people needed to rise up against a tyrannical government, the only way it could succeed is if a large part of the military joined the rebels. This isn't 1776, and even then the rebels were far away from the home country. Oh, and it seems weird that the same people who say that we need armed civilians to overthrow a tyrannical government have no problem dumping half the federal budget on the force that would crush that rebellion.
paradox abounds. folks in the army are also highly likely to advocate for the 2a.
@Solstice of Snow I specifically said that in the begining of my comment.
Shapiro doesn't know about commas or full stops. He's never made a persuasive argument but simply doesn't give anyone else the opportunity to reply to his express train of words.
Great video, congrats on the recent subs.
Great video but I don't think any rational person would say that without gun control at the time that the holocaust would have been 100% prevented. Just that sinilar to the warsaw ghetto uprising it shows that a few number of people with VERY limited arms can hold of an entire army and save lives even if they were few in number. We know that Jews did have their arms confiscated and specific laws were passed disarming the Jews and they knew who had the guns from the registration system that was setup during the weimar republic i believe.
Point is more lives would have been saved had more Jews been armed. And I was glad to see you didn't totally discount this point
likely not. as the germans could exterminate entire families and villages for every German soldier killed. if for every man you kill we will kill your one family, you lose encouragement o fight.
Nuance Bro after Warsaw ghetto uprising there were about 100.000 polish people killed in retaliation form the germans, so ...
Udocard qaywsx so they shouldn't fight back and just comply? They did that uprising with like 4 guns.... imagine what they could do if even 2% of the Jews were armed before they were put into ghettos and camps
That didn't work with the Soviets. If anything, it encouraged them to keep on fighting the Germans and avenge their families. Look at what they did once the tide had turned. There is a reason why "Sieg oder Sibirien" was commonly used by the Wehrmacht soldiers.
2% would not matter. as you are using civilian untrained trash to fight trained professional military personal, it would be a worse slaughter than it was
Using the Shapiro clip to counter Ben's own argument is just *chef's kiss*
Love the video. I also love how you pronounce all g's as hard g's. It's a very interesting look into mimicking a German accent.
i visited the Musée de la Résistance, Anderlecht, Brussels a few years back and had the honour with a guided tour around by a man who was 16 when he was member of a resistence group, during the second world war. After the war, the resistance gathered in Brussels for a big parade. Before the beginning of this parade, they had all been disarmed by the rijkswacht, which until a few months before that had aided the gestapo to maintian their law and order.
I saw a very old man who was sorry. He said he would NEVER make that mistake again.
for your info.
and another thing, at least one deportation was sabotaged, next to a massive amount of ammo transports. The men who stopped the deprotation train near Leuven were jewish students, they were armed and eventually betrayed to the moffs.
There was a deportation stopped in the Westhoek in Flanders, by the villagers who threw vegetables from the market to the moffs. Only a few shots were fired, the train never left the station.
But here's the thing, many of the French resistances small arms were given to them by outside groups, not their own personally owned weapons.
when you defend your home and destroy the structures of oppression, wouldn't you agree that they have actually EARNED their own bloody weapon?! It's more than a i-owe-you, imho.
There was a time when every boy becoming a man was offered his own weapon, so he could defend his own. Now we give our weapons to a government we can not trust but question anyone who refuses to rely on the state instead.
Make no mistake, i am aware there was a large part of them getting their weapons and orders from sources that still fear the light and many a resistance man and woman have been betrayed by their 'fellows', for personal and political reasons.
7:22 // The point of the gun would be to increase survival time, not armed insurrection. It would be used for populations to escape, defend themselves, et al. I don't know anyone who thinks having a Glock will be a defense against the US government, or any other government. The point is that being armed is a better position in the force continuum than now being armed. With the added tool, there are more options. It's unreasonable to argue that a decentralized force (people with guns, civilians) would storm the government and fail, and so guns shouldn't be had in the general population. It's entirely reasonable that many people would be able to escape an insane government if armed. All? No. Many? Yes.
One video and I'm already in love with this channel.
Not only were your arguments superb, but using clips of Ben Shapiro's own words against his arguments really drove it home. You truly proved his hippocracy.
Nah, it's one cherry picked example after the next. Easy when you're just talking with no one providing counterfacts and counterarguments. Same for Ben's diatribe.
I just went and watched that other video. Dont know how they got so offended by it. Your tone wasn't even aggressive, just flat out facts. Guess they are the snowflakes after all.
That's kind of the open secret, right-wingers are constantly projecting.
16:01 That pretty much sums Shapiro up. He's the embodiment of "it's ok when we do it".
i think i would like this video even if i wasn't a jew, but my family history makes me like it much more, for sure. THANK YOU for debunking the lies
Shraga also germans are very grateful, that their history is not longer abused to push an even stupider propaganda...
I agree it's silly to use WWII as an excuse for fighting gun safety laws. But it's not silly to think a person has a right to self defense. There's a balance here.
Thanks for this video, I think I will need to use it to validate my arguments soon.
Four years later and the intro is still applicable. Tracks
You technically correct. THE BEST KIND OF CORRECT
The Treaty of Versailles article referenced is incorrect (should be 169); didn’t the disarmament specified in that treaty only apply to the military?
You are absolutely correct, it did apply only to the military.
It is in the context of the German Army being stretched very thin due to the restrictions on its armaments and barely holding back the numerous putsch and coups happening during the years post WWI.
Three Arrows (too bad I don't know your real name; you deserve the honor), I really enjoy watching your videos; I've been a fan for about two years. You take the time to logically peel apart arguments, set the factual record straight, and show yourself as a light in the political and social darkness that humanity has shown itself to be (of late). I've never seen the "Debunking the Alt-Right" video, but will now watch. I should say that I am a university professor at a military college in the United States, and would love to occasionally use small portions of your videos to make logical points, when teaching logical arguments and how some media associations frame particular arguments. Anyway, I'm blustering on. Thank you, kindly, for what you do. I will be proud to support you channel in future.
Wow man I never thought about it like this. Thank you.