(09-08-2015 05:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This is the problem with the social sciences. There is too much of an attempt to emulate the physical sciences and prove things that don't admit to proof.

What we know is that Germany was essentially disarmed when Hitler came to power, and Hitler did in fact come to power. While it is not possible to prove the extent to which an unarmed populace did or did not contribute to Hitler's rise, it is certainly reasonable and logical to describe valid reasons how such an unarmed populace could and likely did contribute to the takeover.

The arguments I hear made are that an unarmed populace were responsible for his ability to carry out the Holocaust and other horrific policies, not his rise to power, specifically that legislation he passed helped him do those things by unarming the populace; which is patently false. He was elected as chancellor, legally, and from that point started strong-arming the German Parliament. I don't think his 'rise to power' was really on the back of strict gun legislation, it was far more-so on the back of egregious post-war demands.

I'll put it this way, I think a far more compelling argument could be made that the limitations of the military and police sizes post WWI allowed his organization the ability to exert itself physically in ways that would not have occurred had the German Military not be limited to such a ludicrously small size. When you have a party of thugs 2 million strong, it's hard for a government to not bend to their will more than perhaps they'd like, especially when your military is limited to a fraction of that and your police force size isn't allowed to increase.