Talk:Animal welfare in Nazi Germany

Do you have any other sources for this claim? Jammy Simpson | Talk | 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you can see there are source in the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

For the record, you added those after my request, but thank you. Jammy Simpson | Talk | 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article has serious issues with respect to reliable sources and WP:NPOV. Please explain how [1] , cited as a reference for many of the claims, is a reliable source. Edison (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why Kaltio is not RS? It is used as source in the article Nazi Germany also. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't find a problem with Kaltio's reliability in this aspect. If you feel there is a problem with a particular citation, please point it out. Herunar (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

This whole paragraph is hogwash. Principally, the whole bundle of laws for animal and nature protection was never abolished after WW2, at least in west Germany. The three laws (Reichsnaturschutzgesetz, Tierschutzgesetz, Reichsjagdgesetz) were taken over by the federal republic with only minor changes, like making it easier to claim compensation for environmental measures. Same goes for the cruelty to animals paragraph in the criminal code (StGB). In fact, laws made between 1933 and 45 were generally only changed as far as they contained nazi ideology. The fact that the Wolf is extinct in Germany is because the areas were wolves live were no longer german territory. In the present day borders of Germany, the Wolf has been extinct at least 150 years, even though occasional packs move in from Poland in cold winters and some might have taken up permanent residence recently.JCRitter (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not the whole paragraph. Only the following:

Per the above argument, the following sentences can be removed:

• "After the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II, most of the animal protection laws enacted by the Nazis were dissolved in Germany"
• "The wolf became extinct"
• "Until the beginning of the 1970s, everything related to nature preservation were wiped out in Germany"

I am removing these sentences per above argument. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

"In the United Kingdom, few neo-Nazi groups who read Nazi Germany's effort for protection of animal rights, tried to join the animal liberation movement.[3]"

Should this actually say "a few" rather than "few" - the addition of "a" more-or-less reverses the sense of the sentence! 87.113.49.73 (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK. Done. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

What was the purpose of removing the photo of Adolf Hitler with his dog? The comment associated with that edit suggests to me that the editor felt that this was may have been painting Hitler in too positive a light, but is it not also true that Hitler was indeed an animal lover and this should not be concealed? The photo was appropriate and illustrative of this and seemed like an excellent companion to the article. Just my opinion, it made the article better and was a service by breaking the assumption that Hitler or Nazis were unmitigated evil (not to say they were acceptable or defensible, only that they were human). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.103.63 (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am against the removal of the photo. The photo of Adolf Hitler with his dog Blondi is appropriate in the article. Hitler loved his pet Blondi too much and even when he spent days in the Bunker before committing suicide, he took Blondi for a walk outside his bunker. The photo is appropriate to the subject. I will add it back. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

On a second thought, the image has copyright problems. And the image shows Hitler with his dog, but it is not directly associated with animal rights. When the image was included, there was no good image in the article, so at that time the image was appropriate. But now there is another image showing lab animals saluting Göring for his order to ban vivisection. I think that one image is enough to illustrate the subject. Especially the Blondi image has copyright problems. So I have removed the image for the copyright issue. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was very surprised to find such a quite ite detailed article / own lemma about the topic of Nazi animal rights / welfare here. I had just recently introduced these points into aome articles in the german wikipedia. PLease allow me to update some elemts of the english lemma based on a dedicated study about the Reichstierschutzgesetz and its role in Nazi campaigns and propaganda. --Polentario (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

You have added several unsourced information in the article. The section "New Deal Corollar" has heavy unsourced information.

Only the above paragraph was sourced. Foloowing was unsourced addition.

You changed the section "Difference from animal liberation movement" and added unsourced information. Please follow WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Besides many of your language is not WP:NPOV. Like this:"The Nazis used this popular concern to push their own especially anti jewish agenda. The pathetic and it has to be said honest attempt to improve animal welfare was not at all in contradiction to cruelties to human beings." Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also you have added German quote in the article mainspace

The translation is needed in the article mainspace, in English wikipedia, you have to write in English. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I assume we have a different style in providing source. While you prefer en detail sourcing, resulting in barbed wire footmarking (which is OK, but not always done or needed), I tend more to give a generic abstract about the sources and to tell freely. My changes are based, as I have pointed out when i started editing, Schivelbusch and Daniel Jütte. Further points and detiled issues have been pointed out in text.

The quotation you mentioned quotation is the abstract of my most valuable source. As there is no existing valided translation, I give the original text and in brackets my personal translation. [2] Daniel Jütte, Tierschutz und Nationalsozialismus, Die Entstehung und die Auswirkungen des nationalsozialistischen Reichstierschutzgesetzes von 1933 (Animal Protection and Nationalsocialism, Rise and effect of the national socialist Animal Protection Law of 1933)IDB Münster • Ber. Inst. Didaktik Biologie Suppl.2 (2002) --Polentario (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

the two quotations of Himmler and of Jütte give the basic outline. The differences to animal liberation movement are given by comparision of Himmler and the Furoyn murderer, as well about the Euthanasia program and PETAs.

Daniel Jütte has described en detail the continuity and the differences - the abstract gives the generalkonzept, the rest is details along tha basic outline. --Polentario (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK. I will readd the quote. But the rest of the addition were haphazard and has source problems. But I will readd the quote. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

"The differences to animal liberation movement are given by comparision of Himmler and the Furoyn murderer" no this is not. This is what the "Controversy" is for. The previous addition had several WP:SYN. I have changed it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your addition "The book of German Paläoconservatives as Günter Rohrmoser about an an alleged crisis of natural science and ethical questions of animal husbandry is often cited by as well green or leftist animal activists" was unsourced. You used the author's book itself as a source, but that did not clarify that the particular book "is often cited by as well green or leftist animal activists". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK- thats personal resaerch - the Rohrmoser bullshit is to be found on the german wikipedia as a seríuos link, Rohrmoser is a sort of German Neocon with extrem righht allegations

Your renaming of the section to "Parallels and Difference from animal liberation movement" has several problems. It do not specify the Nazi view on animal protection, but indiscriminate collection of several facts. It need to mention how Nazi attempt on animal protection was different from modern animal liberation movement. I have made the relevant changes. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

2 important Points about this:

• I assume you ahve a american legal training. At least u quote like a case by case anglo legal guy, which results in barbed wire footnoting. German law is quite different in the aspect that the written legal rulings give a basic abstract setup and the rest is deduced and continually developed by the courts. I have taken a similar approach.

• the last paragraph si the most important one. German animal protection law is very close to what kaplan and singer urge for - to make animals more similar to human beings. As pointed out several times, the legal framweork and the mentioned underlying philosphy of the 3rd reich animal protection law are are still valid and in use in Germany. TO PROTECT ANIMALS and btw to provede the exemptions (which had been foreseen, Germany tried and found allies in the muslim world) to allow koscher / halal meat produced by german jews and muslims. Germany is NOT longer the nazi empire. But in so far, there are not only differences between nowadays animal protection movement philosophy and the nazi approach. THERE ARE PARALLELS. However ist doesnt make impossible to build up a democracy with such a law.

An to explain the parallels and to make those distinctions, I foudn the shivelbusch comparision very valuable - therefore the corollar. And if you should happen to read the point about the (english source) about the vegan Jihadist - there is a parallelity of his approach to value animals more than human beings which is again in line with the Nazi thinking pointed out very clealry by Jütte. Graaf is not Himmler and Ingrid Kirk is not a Euthansia nazi. But similarity in the abstract approach are visible and can be pointed out.

Final Hint: I assume in reality you have not used original reasearch at all but those cato guys have been inspired by Jütte and his sources. Jütte was not even a student when he worte the 100 page essay for a competition of the German President. He won the first prize and the essay has been downsized to articles in Sueddeutsche Zeitung and FAZ, NYT class newspapers in this country. As said I see this source as an valuable improvement of your lemma, not an attack. But its up to wikipedia to decide. --Polentario (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Anyhow "Van der Graaf was a freak and trouble maker attempting to stop Pim Fortuyn, an outspoken hedonist and openly gay politician from mocking popular believes and religios puritans and enjoying luxury (including mink furs) and succeeding in a free and open democratic society. Himmler committed suicide bevore he could have been brought to justice and most probably to the gallows. Van der Graaf was committed to only twelve years in jail - family members of Pim Fortuyn wearing fur coats during the legal proceedings to show their remembrance, committment and disgust" this is isolated case. Has nothing to do in a comparison with animal liberation movement. The rest of the information which are relevant is present in the "Controversy" section. The main point here is that Nazi view on animal protection had a concept of hierarchy and rejection of humanity, while animal liberation movement is based on the concept of equal rights for animals and human. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

1. Animal rights movement has disdain for humaity comepared to animals. Peter Singer and Kaplan do not respect disabled people compared to a Chimpanzee 2. Furtuyn is a single case. OK, murder might be more popular in the US and besides Theo van Gogh it was the first case of political murder in non occupied holland for centuries. It was a show case - and it was about animal rights versus freedom of fur, besides muslim hypocrisy. Sources have been given. --Polentario (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you please tell something more about this source [3]? Who is Daniel Jütte? His designation? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK Daniel Jütte is a German Jew and historian. He was born 1984 in Israel and went 1989 to Germany. A a pupil in Stuttgar, he researched and wrote an 100 page essay for the Bundespräsidents historical competition. It won a 2001 a first prize. THe pdf I have quoted is a shortened version - after the prize Jütte got several professional tutors - based on an article in [[[FAZ]] which was published at the WWU Münster University department Didaktik der Biologie papers. Jütte has presented the results e.g. in Alte Synagoge. He started historical studies with the highest ranking scholarschip in germany, Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes and 2004 he was doing foreign studies about musical history in with a scholaarschip of Deutsches Studienzentrum in Venice. The FAZ quoted the éssay Anima Protection and National Socialism - a fatal connection, Sueddeutsche had done a longer essay within their historical features. Jütte points are en detail quoted in a left wing online newspaper http://www.trend.infopartisan.net/trd0407/t150407.html.

I saw a lot of bullshit questions in this discussion entry, as "I never heard of this and it cannot be". You personally have received a Tireless barnstar, for providing fringe topics. This is not a fringe topic, including the very high importance of the Hitler and Blondi homestories within NS propaganda, Himmlers animal protection quote - which u have erased as well for whatever reasons. My personal experience with english speaking scholars is a bllody arrogant attiditue, what has not been published in english doesnt exist. Does it apply to Wikipedia as well? I mean the topic of research and the legal heritage was and is German. Accept and Use sources from this country. What u quote is mostly based on translations, not on original reasearch.

--Polentario (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

We can't use a student as a source, unless he was published somewhere extremely reliable, but even then it would be difficult. We can use the sources he used, of course, if they are reliable. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

• This is not a students work any longer. The thesis has been published in scientific papers and VERY serious newspaper articles. Thats a reliable source. If necessary look up Jüttes mentor, Eberhard Wolff, a lecturer with Robert BoschFoundation in scientifical history
• The underlying essay got a high ranking prize, and and it made its way into the scientific pages of FAZ and Sueddeutsche. Compare an 18year old that gets half a page of the Guardian and a big handshake by a member of the royal family for a scientific paper. Most of the scholars never got that far during their life. The paper has been published in Berichte des Institutes für Didaktik der Biologie, thats "teaching biology". http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb19/biologiedidaktik/IDB/IDB5/Inhalt_IDB5.htm. Its not Science but a reasonable and reliable source.

--Polentario (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I still don't think we can use him because he is a student, and anyway, there's no need to use him. We can use whichever sources he used for any particular point. What material do you want his paper to be a source for? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have some concerns about the main source being used here. First, I have never heard of Hitler supporting animal rights, as opposed to protection/welfare, so we would need to see a good, specialist source for this claim. Secondly, the law was called animal protection, not animal rights.

Do we have a mainstream source that shows the term "animal rights" was ever used (or implied)? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 11:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you have never heard about this - its probably due to the fact that youre not very close to Germany. Animal protection was a focal point of Hitlers propaganda and politics. An infamous proof is to be found in the Posen speech of heinrich Himmler. I have given variuos German sources on that. --Polentario (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know he was interested in animal welfare/protection. But I have never heard of him supporting animal rights, which is a different thing entirely. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have changed the title to "Animal welfare in Nazi Germany". It is appropriate title. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also I have made the relevant changes. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, that's better.

I have a query about this sentence: "The Nazi view on animal protection rejected anthropocentric perspective — animals were not to be protected for human interests, but for themselves."

If this is true, it is quite significant, but I have never heard it before. Can you say what your source (Boria Sax) says exactly? Also, I was wondering about the Finnish website that seems to be used a lot as a source. Do you know what kind of website it is? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 12:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Below is the quote from Boria Sax:

The Nazi strictures on animal protection were very explicit in their rejection of anthropocentric perspective -- animals were not to be protected for the sake of human interests but for themselves.

Animals in the Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats, and the Holocaust by Boria Sax Page 42. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does he say why he believes this? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 15:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

He did not explain it. The full paragraph is:

The Nazi strictures on animal protection were very explicit in their rejection of anthropocentric perspective -- animals were not to be protected for the sake of human interests but for themselves (i.e. Giese and Kahler, p. 13). An intensified hierarchy, however, replaced humanism as an organized principle.

• Boria Sax referenced from other's work. So I think if the fact is mentioned, it should be mentioned as "According to Boria Sax...". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, though it's so significant that it would be good to know why he is saying it. My understanding is that German legislation did not go any further than animal protection legislation in, say, the UK. It's also not true that the Germans banned vivisection. They simply placed restrictions on it to reduce pain and unnecessary experiments, which were already in place elsewhere.

Also, the AR myths site can't be used as a source. It's just someone's personal website. I think the Finnish source is also not good. The article seems to have been written by a Finnish woman with an MA in history. No indication that she's a specialist.

By all means use these websites in order to find further sources, but they can't be used directly in the article. Having said that, thank you for writing this. It's very interesting, and it makes a change to see these things being written about intelligently. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Some points I miss and have concerns and some points I'like to introduce or improve

• THe Article entry is neither a real definition nor a good read. It consists of a staggering row of various diffenretn theses. I suggest instead to introduce Animal welfare as a part of a broad nazi strategy which included conservation, national parks, ecology, healthy / organic food. soil science and acriculture and nature friendly infra planning (Wolfgang Schivelbusch, three new Deals thesis) based on an interaction with a broad popular movement which had been neglegted (especially in case of Animal Welfare) for a long time. Important founding of Jütte. See previous versions of the article
• I dont accept at all a statement that says " We have to look for differences, not for parallesl"
  • Paralles between Nazi Movement and 1968 ecology and peace Movement are given in detail by Götz Aly in his book Unser Kampf (published two weeks ago in germany). Think this would be an excelent addition for the intro. His previous study about 'Hitlers Welfare State' rsp. the feel-good -factor of the Nazi state is already mentioned on the english wikipedia and available in english and french. English article about the latter on http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,347726,00.html
  • I had mentioned and compared the IMHO exemplary Killing of famous fur lover Pim Fortuyn by a Jihad Veganist, See previous versions of the article
  • Committing crimes against human beings while loving animals or even in the sake of animal welfare - Jütte has thoroghly explained how this was possible within the Nazi regime and the legal framework. See previous versions of the article
  • The underlying philosphy of the Recihstierschutzgesetz is to give animals their own rights and to move them closer to their level - this is an important parallel to the animal rights movement. I lack an entry that compares this to Singer and Kaplan.
  • The Animal Welfare strategy was implemented 1933 with the people and for the people, even and especially under the auspices of a dictaturship. They really meant it to be good. It has been so successful that it is valid today and was as well adapted by eastern germany. Important founding of Jütte. See previous versions of the article
• Görings August 1933 ban on animal testing, Shechita and his threat to send animal mistreateers to the KZ was one of the first public announcements of the concentration camps. Important finding of Juette. See previous versions of the article
• Blondi is not a side aspect but was one of the most famous animals in germany and an icon of animal love in the third reich. See previous versions of the article
• As well the Himmler quote is not casual - he ment what he said about nazi germans special relationship to animals. Its already to be found in Posen speech See previous versions of the article

• Animal and human testing
  • The statements now in the article are based on translations of secondary or tertiary research and lack any real touch and grip on the topic.
  • Jütte instead did original research on WWII university papers of Heidelberg and Tübingen university about animal testing and the related red tape (due to the animal testing restrictions) during the war. He e.g. found out some scientists harvested the hay for the animals themselves since the regulation and war time restrictions didnt allow to buy animal food in time.
  • Animal testing was not to be succeeded generally by human testing. HUman testings in the KZs caused victims but didnt provide results. There is obviously a sort of copy and past/ translation error by the american sources. There is no direct way animal to human. point is that the approach to deny variuos human groups the right to exist (and to give animals a better position) gave carte blanche for the euthanasia program and for the pseudoscientific tests in the KZs. See previous versions of the article.
  • The background of the nazi embracing of the Animal welfare movement lays in the comparably low success of those organizations in the Kaiserreich. Jütte has thoroghly researched the steps and the different legal measurements provided reluctantly and the increasing power, antisemtic stance, celebrity involvement etc of the tierschutzmovement. See previous versions of the article
• I neither acccept that Jüttes quote is not sourced in an adequate way as it is now.--Polentario (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really following what you mean here. For example, you wrote above: "Görings August 1933 ban on animal testing, Shechita and his threat to send animal mistreateers to the KZ was one of the first public announcements of the concentration camps. Important finding of Juette." Which part of this are you saying was a finding of Juette's?

First The Dachau concentration camp the first one started its operations in June 1933. It was mainly used to detain high level political enemies of the nazis, the opening was not at all formally announced in public. Juette mentions the fact that Goering in August did one of the first public announcement of the existence of those camps especially about animal protection. It - according Juiette - clearly shows the importance of animnal protection for the nazis.

OK Lets do some secondary research. Juettes text attached, I do some remarks where i found the points

Es gehört zu den kaum erforschten Ereignissen in der Zeit kurz nach Hitlers Machtergreifung im Januar 1933, dass bereits am 1. April 1933 der Beschluss der neuen nationalsozialistischen Regierung fiel, ein Reichstierschutzgesetz zu erlassen.

• The decision to make a Reichstierschutzgesetz, as early as 1.4. has nearly not been taken under scrutiny by historical science

Reichsinnenminister Wilhelm Frick erhielt den Auftrag, ein solches Gesetz auszuarbeiten, und begann umgehend mit den Arbeiten. Da ein derartiges Gesetz ein Novum in der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte darstellte und die Abfassung daher unerwartete Probleme mit sich brachte, wurde erst die vierte Fassung des Gesetzentwurfs vom 4. November 1933 vom Kabinett am 14.11.33 als beschlussfähig angesehen, nachdem bereits drei durchaus verschiedene Fassungen vorausgegangen waren. Immer wieder hatten Tierschutzverbände Gesetzesvorschläge und -entwürfe beim Reichsinnenminister eingereicht und auf die Klärung von Detailfragen gedrungen.

• There was a big delay of the law making process since Animal Protection organizations had been closley involved and regulalry came up with changes

Die Weichen für das Grundanliegen des Gesetzes waren freilich schon lange vorher gestellt worden: Am 16. August 1933, über drei Monate vor Erlass des Reichstierschutzgesetzes, hatte Hermann Göring in seiner Funktion als preußischer Ministerpräsident die „Vivisektion an Tieren aller Art für das gesamte preußische Staatsgebiet“ per Erlass als verboten erklärt. Eilfertig kommentierte die Reichspressestelle der NSDAP am nächsten Tag: „Der Ministerpräsident hat die zuständigen Ministerien beauftragt, ihm unverzüglich ein Gesetz vorzulegen, nach dem die Vivisektion mit hohen Strafen belegt wird. Bis zum Erlaß dieses Gesetzes werden Personen, die trotz des Verbotes die Vivisektion veranlassen, durchführen oder sich daran beteiligen, ins Konzentrationslager abgeführt.“ (zit. nach EBERSTEIN, 1999, 210)

• Earlier than the reich lawmaking process was the introduction of the animal testing ban by Goering, as President of of Prussia. According a Nazi pressrelease: Goering wants to introduce a law interdicting vivisection with high punishments. Tiill it will be finalized, anybody doeing vivisection, will be prosecuted into concentration camp.

Obwohl die deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft diese Quelle mitsamt ihrer bemerkenswert frühen Verwendung des Wortes „Konzentrationslager“ bislang völlig übersehen hat, kann der Text auf eindrückliche Weise verdeutlichen, wie ernst die Nationalsozialisten ihre Bemühungen um den Tierschutz meinten. Dass ausgerechnet Vivisektoren strafrechtlich mit den erklärten Feinden des Regimes (KPD, SPD etc.) auf eine Stufe gestellt wurden, verdeutlicht, dass der Tierschutz prominenten Nationalsozialisten, wie beispielsweise Göring, besonders am Herzen lag. Es ist anzunehmen, dass Görings Drohung die in Preußen tätigen Wissenschaftler eingeschüchtert und den Protest der Ärzteschaft unterdrückt hat.

• "The german historical science has so far completely overseen this source with a remarkeable ealry use of the word 'Konzentrationslager', however (Goerings) quote makes very clear how sincere the nazis were about animal protection. To put animal testers (vivisectros) on the same level with declared enemies of the regime (communists, social democrats etc) shows the importance of animal welfare to the hearts of prominent National socialists. It can be assumed that Goerings threat has suppressed scientific / medical protests in prussia. "

BR --Polentario (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

We really can't include material from a student, or any editor's OR. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am not talking about my OR, but I know about sources which are obvioiusly not available in the states. I need half an hour to have a look on dachau exhibition and documentation center. How far away are you? Its a German topic, isn't it?

) BR --Polentario (talk) 23

37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Juette mentions the fact that Goering in August did one of the first public announcement of the existence of those camps especially about animal protection." In what way was this a "finding" of Juette's? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, again. June 1933 the Dachau camp was opened as detainment for high level political enemies - about 5000 people in the whole Reich. It started very small. The decision had been taken by a certain Mr. Himmler, when he became police commander in Munich in March 1933. To include here animal testers is a major news and step - and this, according JUette , had not been researched at all before. Why? Scientists have studied soccer association, Ford / IBM / Coca cola germany, chemistry, medicin, lawyers, soldiers, policemen, rocket scientists etc but not before nazi animal welfare and Tierschutz. The whole issue Juette being important - and even sensational some years ago in germany - is that nearly nobody so far had discussed the role of animal welfare in the third reich. It was and is a taboo. Lets say Tierschutz associations are something like the NRA. Dont mess with it, ok? Animal Love is so nice and so very german- it cant have to do anything with Hitler. OK, and here comes a student and does it and starts a probably very far reaching scientifuic carrier, first paper in 2002. 6 Years late this wikipidia article is being quoted in did you know somedays after start- its very important and interesting for the english audience as well here as well. Therefore and for quality sake its important to check and control sources and I dont mid to use and check Juettes sources at all. I have started already since i dont want to waste the work I have already done. OK? BR --Polentario (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, I'm not following you, because you don't seem to be answering my question. The question is this, and only this: what makes you believe that Juette is responsible for discovering this? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

as mentioned above, the connection between animal protection and the eraly phase of the nazi regime has not been pointed out like this before. Focus is either on the holocaust or lawwise 1900 -1933. What you need? What is your problem? I am annoyed.

• OK calmyl Why is JUette a first respectively why has the topic been neglected. Quiuestion of timeline and focus of the standard research:

• Internal
  • the statement is one of the central and repeated points in the article (which is a condensed / tutored / papered / reviewed version of the original essay and an FAZ science article IS checked more properly than minor papers or abstracts.

• External
  • The announcement of Himmler in March 1933 (about dachau being build up) was about political enemies, about 5000 people
  • The KZ literature I am aware, as well dachau exhibition does not mention at all Animal testers as victims of the third reich. It starts with a small but significant group of political detainees 1933, soon jews as well and goes quickly into the war years with all the mass atrocities.
  • Same for Animal protection and the holocaust: It focuses on the holocaust (thats 1941-1945). [ARLUKE, A. & B. SAX (1992): Understanding Nazi Animal Protection and the Holocaust. Anthrozoös, H. 5, 6-31]
  • The literature about animal law goes till 1933 [EBERSTEIN, W. (1999): Das Tierschutzrecht in Deutschland bis zum Erlaß des Reichs-Tierschutzgesetzes vom 24. November 1933. Unter Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung in England.(Animal protection law in germany till the Animal Protection law of 1933, the developements in england taken into consideration )]
  • The work most close to a possible idea giver is SCHWEIGER, K. –P. (1993): "Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen": Der Streit um den wissenschaftlichen Tierversuch in Deutschland 1900-1935. Inaugural-Dissertation, Göttingen (old wine in new skins, the struggle around scientific animal testing 1900-1935). Thats a dissertation - not a "real" paper.

I assume the interesting fact about JUettes paper that it finds and highlights this very interesting connection between animal protection and KZs and very first 100 days of the regime. It connects elemts and timelines which have been overseen so far. --Polentario (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

First, my apologies for adding the bold to my question above. I was getting frustrated, but that's no excuse.

I don't know when Juette wrote his essay, but you say above that he won the prize in 2001. I have a book here on my desk that talks about the concentration camp threat to animal researchers that was published in 2000. I'm also pretty sure I could find much earlier sources than that. That's why I'm asking what makes you think Juette uncovered this. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here's a source from 1996. [4] SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

From 1993. [5] SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

And Hilberg talks about the existence of one of the early camps (citing a memo from October 1933 about a camp near Dachau) in the third volume of The Destruction of the European Jews, which was published in 1961. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Slim Virgin, The further sources do not have to do anything with the statements you claim. Its not 'a camp besides Dachau'. If youre not aware that Dachau was the first KZ at all, you better stop editing anything about the NS regime. You just keep on erasing edits without acknowledging facts you seem to have a special agenda or claim an approach of language purity. --Polentario (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The fact here is that we cannot use Daniel Jütte as RS because he is a student. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's also no need. Everything he has been used for has been stated by other specialist sources before him, so I've left most of the material but replaced the sources. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 16:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

As said, there are basic differences between valid regulations and bans and announcements, between state only and federal levels which are still wrong in the article. The difference between the previous animal testing friendly regulation and the ones introduced by the Reichstierschutzgesetz have not been mentioned but are essential to grasp why Tierschutz was among the most important topics. --Polentario (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The title of this section seems a bit out of place. Why single out animal liberation movements for comparison, rather than more closely parallel animal welfare laws in other countries? As the section now stands, the main focus is on the historical and ideological basis for the animal welfare program, which is an important topic for the article, but doesn't really fit the heading. Perhaps it could be reworked into a background or ideology section. --Reuben (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The reason behind the section is that Animal liberation movement is a global movement. The section is needed so that readers don't get confused between Nazi animal welfare measures and modern animal liberation or animal rights movement. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, thanks, that last clarification does help. To me at least, animal liberation meant one specific movement, rather more extreme than animal rights in general; but from looking over the articles here, it seems that the terminology is hard to pin down. Thanks for all your work on the article, it's very interesting. --Reuben (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The domains worldfuturefund.org and hitler.org are no reliable sources or weblinks for wikipedia. Both don't have an impressum, editorial board or at least a real name given as an author. worldfuturefund.org ist just a postbox and an e-mail adress. Hitler.org seems to be a page for fans of the person H. (and his artwork) and fails to mention H.'s role and responsibiliy as a leader of a regime of mass-murderers. The external-link page of hitler.org is mainly directing to neo-nazi pages. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

User:John Z has found a page with a kind of editorial board for wwf.org which I did not know before. Thus I will readd the link to this site again. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I missed it. I agree here that hitler.org is not RS. But worldfuturefund.org is certainly RS. It describes the law in detail and very useful. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

What does "not acknowledged by the industrial elite" mean in this sentence in the lead? "The Nazis used a widespread combination of antisemitic thinking and a back to nature movement not acknowledged by the industrial elite which had started in the 19th century (Völkisch movement)." Also, note that the way it's written means that it was the industrial elite that had started in the 19th century. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. The sentence is removed. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

This wikipedia article is using as a sources the article Animal Rights in the Third Reich by Aslak Aikio, published in Finnish in KALTIO 2/2003, which appears to be a main Finnish magazine for culture. I think this is a reasonable text for most of its parts, but problematic to use as a source for wikipedia, since it does not reveal all its own sources. Thus the single claims should be treated with caution. For example see the sentence:

"Strict laws prohibiting animal testing were moderated because except a few like Josef Mengele, most researchers showed unwillingness in replacing test animals with humans."

Does "moderated" here refer to the law itself, or rather to how the law was applied in practice? Also, according to the Klueting article, and other books used for the wikipedia article, not just the researchers were against the prohibiton of animal testing, but also the industry and government, but these other sources all do not seem to connect the name of Josef Mengele with animal protection policy. I think the Kaltio article also fails to mention the point that Mengele and other Nazi researchers were testing on the inhabitants of concentration camps without their consensus, and without care for their health and life. --Schwalker (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

"The government was against the prohibition of animal testing" - it is wrong. Not the government, actually part of the government people. Hermann Göring never wanted that animals should be killed in the laboratories, but he had to moderate his orders restricting animal testing due to pressure from researchers and government officials, and from the industry, as they told it was impossible to achieve improvement in the field of science without animal testing. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

And regarding the sentence, the Nazi concept on animal protection was completely different from any other concept of animal protection. The Nazis rejected humanity as a concept, and they viewed the Jew as sub-human. The Nazis justified Jewish persecution with animal protection. Hence human testing, i.e. testing on Jews, were justified by the Nazi leadership as alternative to animals, but not all researchers accepted it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, not all of the government. However, the Kaltio article seems to be the only source so far which makes the claim that the alleged unwillingless of researchers to replace animal testing by human testing was a reason for the moderation of the laws. This is why I think that this claim is not reliable.

I agree that the Nazis rejected humanity as a concept, and reagarded Jews as sub-humans. Nevertheless, their animal protection policy was not completely different from other concepts, which can be seen from the fact that the Tierschutzgesetz would remain legal after the end of the Nazi regime. Nazis justified the ban of kosher butchering with animal welfare. This law was directed against Jews and Jewish butchers and cattle-dealers, and part of the economic persecution. Also animal testing was regarded as "Jewish" science, and Jews were prohibited to keep pets. However, animal protection was only a part of the anti-Jewish ideology, but no sufficient explanation for the persecution and attempted extermination of the European Jews.

I disagree with, and don't know of a source for your claim that for reasons of animal protection, "human testing, i.e. testing on Jews, were justified by the Nazi leadership as alternative to animals". As far as I know, the concentration camp inhabitants who were forced to participate in human testing were not only Jews but for example also Gypsies. Reasons for human testing may have been scientific interest, or sadism of the researchers under circumstances, where people were denied any human rights, but animal protection did not play a (main) role as far as I know.

Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, since you have pointed out that this fact is not supported by any other source, I have removed it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks you, I think this improves the article --Schwalker (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've given a rating of B for this page as part of Wikiproject Germany, the only thing I would like to see is more supporting materials (pictures, diagrams, etc). However, exactly what type of other materials I suggest escapes me...maybe when I'm less tired. I really liked the one picture included and would like to see more. Tobyc75 (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are not much pictures available to be used in this article, certainly not "diagrams". The Göring image is the only image available. We need image in an article to address the subject of the article. This article documents animal welfare measures taken by the Nazis. Hence the image should be directly associated with this. Thus the Göring image is the only image can be used in this article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This should be noted in the article.--Molobo (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article is about animal welfare in Nazi Germany, not about the treatment of humans in Nazi Germany. I'm not denying the truth of what you suggest, just that it probably isn't appropriate in this article. However, if there are official references from that period which equate minority groups with animals (not just examples of how this was true) which led to equal treatment of the two groups, that might fit in the context of this article, I think. Bob98133 (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jews were seen as the primary reason for Germany's and the worlds problems. As sick as it might seem they were absolutely not below Animals even if hitler is quoted saying "dogs are loyal companions compared to the Jewish vermine". The reason to the horrible illtreatment of the jews was that it was truly belived that they needed to be exterminated to help the world. The Nazi's saw the Jewish bankers and thought them to be representative of the jewish faith and race while we today can clearly see that it is just a small portion of jews just like christians and others who run are involved in anything that could even be considered a conspiracy among the bankers. More importantly animals are and were treated as property in many cases which can be sold and traded while poles and other "Inferior" races were not. Lets not go over the top here, by lying to ourselves and trying to make out the nazi's to be bigger monster than they are we forget the fact that they indeed were gruesome monsters.

This whole article is basicly compromised of 3 sources that in turn site each other as sources.

Secondly I don't think that the nazi's or anyone ellse would like to be associated with the so called "animal rights movements" like PETA, so no need to defend yourselves there. One of the few positive aspects of the nazi ideology was indeed the treatment of animals but not to the extent of that animals should be considered our equals and have the same rights. It is simply not possible. The Nazi's put forth the foundation for modern animal welfare laws and that is what the article should be about. I'll give this some weeks for discussion, hope someone can reply.213.100.108.205 (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations on your rant which has three fewer references than you claim the article has. Instead of unsubstantiated personal opinions, perhaps you could supply references? Bob98133 (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Which part of the things I wrote are in dispute by you 213.100.108.117 (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC) mentioning the wrongdoings of Nazi Germany in this article would be off topic. Nazi Germany was bad, yes, but they did some correct things like this one. Hitler WAS pro-ecology and pro-animal rights. This doesn't make PETA "nazi" or something, but we also can't change history because it is awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.124.117 (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can anybody clarify this question?--MathFacts (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

IS THIS A JOKE?

Which neo-Nazi party wrote this article? Goering an animal lover? It was a very well-known fact during the period that the "great" hunter was a horrible animal abuser and took much joy from seeing them suffer. So much so, it was the talk of Party gossip.

But hey: everyone knows about the "scholarly" reputation of Wikipedia. Thanks for confirming it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.45.68 (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

And mentions the deep antisemitic and racist nature of animal laws in Nazi Germany as well as their connection to treatment of those classified as untermenschen. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid I don't read German, but if there is content there that ought to be translated and made use of here, I'd be very interested. I'm quite interested in correcting any POV issues, so long as the corrections can be reliably sourced. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Following the disruption at Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism by Tatlock123 has started inserting wholly inappropriate content at this article, which has absolutely nothing to do with animal welfare in Nazi Germany. I reverted the edits yesterday but they have been promptly restored, so I will lay out my reasons more thoroughly here:

“The movement to ban vivisection found strong supporters in the rising number of right-wing extremists in Germany, who believed this new type of science to be predominantly Jewish. ^[1]

• The source is not accessible. The link takes the reader to a simple "Site is under maintenance" page.

“They received support from the Lebensreformer, who were part of a social movement propagating a back-to-nature life style away from modern “Jewish” science and back to traditional, nature-based medicine...The Nazis used the popularity of the movement for their own ends and made the issue an integral part of their early propaganda. Following their rise to power in 1933 they were quick to pass animal rights legislation. On November 24th 1933 the Reichstierschutzgesetz was passed, which stated any intentional cruelty towards animals would be punished. It also banned the shechita, the ritual slaughter of mammals and birds for food according to Jewish dietary laws.” ^[2]

• animalrightsextremism.info does not strike me as WP:Reliable source. Animal right activism groups are neither neutral enough or qualified enough to commentate on Nazi animal welfare reform.

“The evidence of Nazi experiments on animals is overwhelming. In "The Dark Face of Science," author John Vyvyan summed it up correctly: "The experiments made on prisoners were many and diverse, but they had one thing in common: all were in continuation of or complementary to, experiments on animals. In every instance, this antecedent scientific literature is mentioned in the evidence, and at Buchenwald and Auschwitz concentration camps, human and animal experiments were carried out simultaneously as parts of a single programme." ^[3]

• More AR propaganda. The Animals Agenda is a magazine published by the "Animal Rights Network". If it does not come from peer reviewed authors we are not interested. Thankyou.

“SS chief Heinrich Himmler was apparently intrigued by the prospect of breeding a race of cancer-prone rats; in a 1939 meeting with Sigmund Rascher, the notorious Dachau hypothermia experimenter, the SS Reichsführer proposed breeding such a race of rodents...” ^[4]

“By the mid-1930s, the Nazis had formidable laboratory evidence of some the causes of cancer based on animal experiments: Experiments were...performed that finally produced--for the first time anywhere--lung cancers in animals raised in the mines. By 1938, Nazi scientists could produce lung cancer in 25% of the mice raised in mine shafts. This was the first conclusive animal experimental evidence that breathing air in the mines could cause lung cancer." ^[5].

The Nazis conducted their "war on cancer" with animals as their weapon of choice. Indeed, in 1943, at the height of a world war, the Nazi government developed plans for a “‘tumour farm' to raise animals for use in experiments." ^[6]

• This is all very interesting but it is not connected to the subject matter of the article in any meaningful way. Most countries utilise animal testing, but the subject of the article is animal welfare i.e. what impact did the Nazi animal welfare reforms have on animal testing? The article is not actually about vivisection, and animal testing only needs to be described within the context of procedures and reform inititiaed by the Nazis.

The purpose of the Nazi Reichstierschutzgesetz of 1933 was complimented by official measures against Jewish doctors, which also began in early 1933: “…prohibition — at first with exceptions, which were gradually eliminated — of Jewish doctors from joining (and eventually from continuing earlier association with) the important national health insurance panels; step-by-step limitations on Jewish medical practice — early prohibition of all Jewish medical practice would have decimated German medical care — until, on 3 August 1939, as a “fourth amendment” to the Nuremberg Laws, the medical licenses of all Jewish doctors were nullified. There were characteristically legalistic definitions of who was a “non-Aryan” or Jew; and prohibitions, during periods when Jewish doctors were allowed to practice or to see non-Jewish patients, and parallel discouragement and subsequent prohibition of Aryan doctors from seeing Jewish patients. Eventually, Jewish doctors were not permitted to be referred to as physicians but only as “treaters of the sick,” and Jewish surgeons as “specialized treaters in surgery.” Before being forced to leave, or being incarcerated or killed, Jews had to be divested of their membership in the anointed fraternity of physician-healers. In addition, German doctors were discouraged from making reference in their scientific papers to work by Jewish doctors. When necessary to refer to such work, they were required to prepare a separate reference list for Jewish sources — as if to “keep the races separate” and thereby protect Aryan medicine from the Jewish taint in this ultimate form of scientific-literary segregation. In all these ways, given the German shortage of doctors over much of this period, pragmatic need was overruled by ideological requirement. Indeed, Nazi medical leaders conveyed the sense that only after this purification of their profession could they begin to call upon that profession for the realization of the biomedical vision.” ^[7]

“As Bavarian professors were told by their new minister of culture: “From now on, it will not be your job to determine whether something is true, but whether it is in the spirit of National Socialist revolution.” Universities were to become (in the words of one historian) “intellectual frontier fortresses” and “bodies of troops”; professors were to develop “troop like cooperation.”

"Dr. Dina Poraty, head of the Project for the Study of Antisemitism at Tel Aviv University, added, 'The German medical association was quite fanatic, and eagerly expelled its Jewish doctors. They took part willingly in the Nazification of their own profession. They were not forced.' Dr. Poraty also presented the statistic that 45% of the doctors in Germany joined the Nazi party (many of those even before Hitler's rise to power)compared to 7% of the teachers in Germany. ^[8]

Again, with their combination of visionary idealism and terror, the Nazis attracted considerable support from leading German professors: for example, 960 prominent German educators signed a public vow to support Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime, which was published in the fall of 1933. Among the notable figures in that list were the philosopher Martin Heidegger and the world-famous Berlin University-Charité Hospital surgeon Ferdinand Sauerbruch.” ^[9]

Often, doctors would carry out human vivisection simply because they didn’t have animals available: “The depth of these experimental victims’ sense of violation and mutilation was evident during interviews I had with some of them thirty-five years later. A Greek-Jewish woman described her terror as she saw in a reflection “the blood pouring out as they opened my belly”; and then, after the two operations, “pus — like a pit from an infected wound, and a high temperature … pneumonia. My body swelled up, and there were marks when I pressed my arm [oedema]. They gave me medicine. I was paralyzed …. I couldn't move. My whole body was swollen up…We knew we were like a tree without fruit …. The experiment was that they were destroying our organs …. We would cry together about this…They took us because they didn't have rabbits.” ^[10]

An illustration of the way human and animal subjects were subjected to an array of horrifically painful medical procedures was the work done by Dr. Carl Clauberg, in cooperation with Heinrich Himmler in the infamous Block 10 at Auschwitz. “Looking for a “cheap and efficient” method to sterilize women, he injected acid liquids to their uterus without anaesthetics.” ^[11]

On 30 May 1942, Clauberg wrote a letter to Himmler, saying “…the one person in Germany today who would be particularly interested in these matters and who would be able to help me would be you, most honourable Reichsführer…having demonstrated the possibility of sterilization without operation on the basis of animal experiments...now we must proceed to the first experiments on human beings.” ^[12]

“After a … visit with the Reichsführer himself, Clauberg’s plan for Auschwitz work was approved in a letter in which Himmler … indicated that he would be “interested to learn … how long it would take to sterilize a thousand Jewesses.” …Himmler’s enthusiasm for Clauberg’s project had been independently nurtured by another physician correspondent, Dr. Adolf Pokorny, a Czech ethnic German who had retired with a high rank from a career in military medicine. In October 1941 Pokorny wrote a letter to Himmler … impelled to notify Himmler of recent work on “medicinal sterilization” in which the sap of a particular plant (containing Caladium seguinum) produced “permanent sterility” in both male and female animals; and advocated “immediate research on human beings (criminals!)”^[13]

It was these beginnings which led to Himmler’s interest in X-Ray and Surgical Castration. “By June 1942, at the height of the German military penetration into Russia…[Nazis]… spoke of the necessity of carrying through ‘the whole Jewish action [the Final Solution]’ but estimated that two million to three million of the ten million Jews in Europe were fit enough to work and therefore should be “preserved” but at the same time “rendered incapable of propagating.” ^[14]

Thus came SS-Sturmbannführer Dr. Horst Schumann to Block 30 in Birkenau. Schumann did not have Clauberg’s extraordinary standing in Auschwitz, but his experiments were, if anything, even more sinister ... Dr. Marie L. [said]… Schumann’s “manner of proceeding revealed a total absence of knowledge of gynaecological anatomy” … a prisoner secretary added that he was “cold” and “revealed no human feelings in regard to the prisoners” … Dr. Wanda J. was ordered to comfort the young Greek women being operated upon (“Greek children, because they were between sixteen and eighteen, … [already] like skeletons”) one after the other: the girls screaming and crying (“They called me Mother, [and] they thought I would save them but I couldn’t”) through the crude spinal tap and rough ten-minute surgery; the pathetic, childlike victim being carried out on a stretcher as the next one was brought in for the spinal tap. Dr. J. pointed out that Dering neglected to take the ordinarily obligatory step of applying a portion of the peritoneum (the membrane lining the abdominal cavity) as a flap to cover and protect the “stump” of the tube from which the ovary had been removed, and thereby contributed to later complications of bleeding and severe infection: “... I was doing the dressing all the time — and the smell, I can’t tell you. They were in a big room — only … eight of them, because two died” … ^[15]

Schumann’s experiments with men had a parallel course … as described … in a written report: First, the rumour that “Jews were being sterilized with X-rays” … then a visit by Schumann to a male medical ward during which he ordered them to prepare for forty inmates on whom they were to keep records of medical observations; the arrival of the experimental victims with burn erythema’s [red areas] around the scrotum (“From their description, we recognized the X-ray machine”; the victims’ later accounts of their sperm being collected, their prostates brutally massaged with pieces of wood inserted into the rectum) their exposure to an operation removing one or two testicles and in some cases a second operation removing the remaining testicle (conducted with noticeable brutality and limited anaesthesia, patients screams were frightening to hear ) disastrous post-operative developments including haemorrhages, septicaemia, absence of muscle tone from wounds, so that “many … would die rapidly, weakened morally and physically” and others would be sent to work “which would finish them.” But “their deaths mattered little since these guinea pigs have already served the function expected of them.” ^[16]

In the book, ‘Doctors of Infamy’ [the authors] record many experiments on animals as part of the normal procedure of experiments on human beings. For example, Inspector of Air Force Medical Service, Hippke, wrote on March 6, 1943: "I instantly assented to these experiments because our own preliminary tests on large animals had been concluded and required supplementation.” ^[17]

And, "Today I again face a problem calling for the ‘final solution’, following numerous animal experiments and also tests on human volunteers." ^[18]

“Much of the "antecedent literature" [described by John Vyvyan in ‘The Dark Face of Science’] is recorded in a book by Eugene Kogon, ‘The Theory and Practice of Hell: The German Concentration Camps and the System behind Them’, in the chapter, "Scientific Experiments." Kogon had been a political prisoner in Buchenwald where he served as a medical clerk in a laboratory where human experiments were conducted. His reports contain lists that include serum preparation made from rabbit lungs, mouse and rabbit livers, and typhus strains injected into guinea pigs. The notorious sterilization program carried out on concentration camp inmates was first developed on animals.” ^[19]

• What??

With the sole exception of the use of rats in cancer research, all of this is either poorly sourced or has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. After going through all of this at Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism I am tired of this garbage being added to Hitler/Nazi articles and will not be engaging with it again on this article. If it is restored I will be requesting administrator intervention. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Betty that these edits are highly problematic. We don't need to detail every instance of animal experimentation in the Nazi era. Suffice it to say that the Nazis did not ban experiments on animals. Neither, of course, did most other countries. Going into great detail about specific experiments in rats, say, gives a very misleading impression, as it implies that the Nazis were especially cruel in this area and that this supposed cruelty somehow explains or is linked to their cruelty to humans. It's a non sequitur (since they were markedly less cruel to animals than many other nations at the time) and it is WP:SYN. Of course all the material about experiments on humans is wholly outside the scope of this aricle, since the term "animals" is clearly defined to mean non-humans. The fact that sterilisation methods were tested on animals before being used on humans simply means that standard testing procedures were followed - just as they are today. There's nothing even wrong with sterilisation. Many people choose to be sterilised. The issue here is that the Nazis didn't give any choice. In other words the content is utterly confused because it mixes up the relevant issues. If this disruption continues we will have to seek outside intervention. Paul B (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've just reverted and warned the user at another page, over addition of material that violates WP:COPYVIO, and I think that might also be an issue with the edits here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

To be frank with you Betty and Paul, I feel that the pages about animal rights and the Holocaust are being presided over by a small but determined coterie of rather ignorant people. Betty says "animalrightsextremism.info does not strike me as WP:Reliable source. Animal right activism groups are neither neutral enough or qualified enough to commentate on Nazi animal welfare reform."

You clearly didn't even bother to look at the source, as it is a global information service about animal rights extremism, founded in order to give information, support and advice to research laboratories that may be suffering as targets of animal rights extremism. Far from advocating extremism, it is a leading organisation against it and is a leader in trying to outlaw such extremism, and to protect biomedical research facilities.

The article from which I quoted was published by 'Understanding Animal Research, Charles Darwin House', not by the Animal Liberation Front.

The articles on Wiki are biased, it's as simple as that. If you think that the fact that under the heading 'Animal protection as an instrument of Jewish persecution', that four lines related to Jews being prohibited from owning pets is more significant than that almost 50% of German doctors were members of the Nazi party, and that animal protection laws were used as a legal pretext to fire Jewish doctors from their jobs, strip them of their professional status, send and send them to concentration camps, then I pity you.

If you think the fact that the Nazi's did not protect animals, but quite the contrary, used them in extensive cruel experiments involving surgical castration, prior to carrying out the same experiments on human beings, then I pity you. This is just a re-run of the Hitler and Vegetarianism section. Once again, Hitler was not a vegetarian. From 1941 to 1944, there is detailed information, heavily documented, by his personal doctor, stating that Hitler received scores of injections of Euflat: pancreas extract, Glyconorm: a cocktail of extracts of the cardiac muscle, suprarenal gland, liver and pancreas, Homoseran: made from placenta, Omnadin: bovine bile extract, Orchikrin: a combination of all the hormones of males. Potency was increased by the addition of extracts of testis, seminal vesicles of young bulls. Prostakrinum:a hormone product- extract of seminal vesicles and prostata. The list could continue to include the dozens of shots received by Hitler of Liver extract. He was fully aware of what he was taking most of the time too. In evidence, he was quoted by Dr Erwin Giesing as saying, “Morell wants to give me another iodine shot today, as well as a heart-, a liver-, and a Vitamultin-Calcium injection …These things have to be shot straight into your veins.”

Of course, Dr Morell was very close to Adolf Hitler from 1941 onward. Morell had dreams of creating an enormous business processing animal glands for their secretions and hormones. A Hamma subsidiary was set up at Vinnitsa to enable Morell to exploit the immense Ukrainian slaughterhouses, and the Endocrinological Institute at Kharkov was taken over by Morell during 1943. Most of Hitler's close associates distrusted and despised Morell, but Hitler wanted him. It was Hitler's choice alone to continue with his virtual intravenous drip feed of animal glands and liver extract throughout the war.

But none of this suits your agenda, despite how well sourced and documented any of it is. Reality doesn't impinge. You have said that the sources for my edits yesterday were weak, with the exception of the rats experimentation. What is weak about Eugene Kogon, a political prisoner in Buchenwald where he served as a medical clerk in a laboratory where human experiments were conducted? His reports contain lists that include serum preparation made from rabbit lungs, mouse and rabbit livers, and typhus strains injected into guinea pigs. The notorious sterilization program carried out on concentration camp inmates was first developed on animals.

You want to make it seem as if as bad as they were, the Nazis were progressive on animal welfare. I say that is absolute rubbish. They chose a set of laws which had already been hated by animal welfare activists for 60 years. Hitler may not have put much animal produce in his mouth, but he sure made up for it with what was injected into his arm. And far from being anti vivisection, the Nazi's presided over some of the worst and cruellest ever carried out by scientists anywhere, ever.

So good luck with your little misinformation campaign, but believe me whern I tell you, this WILL go further. Tatlock123 (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

You are right that "http://www.animalrightsextremism.info/about-us" is not an animal rights group. It's also not a good source for history. For that we tend to use historians. Your claim that Hitler was not a vegetarian because he received medical treatments that included animal extracts is ridiculous. It shows a complete inability to understand the historical context of what "vegetarian" meant. The problem is that you do not know what reliable sources are. You are not interested in conveying what they say, but only what you want them to say. If you believe that some coterie of biased editors is holding these articles to ransom, you can seek outside opinions by asking for outside opinions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment or leaving a message at the Neutral point of view noticeboard, where independent editors will comment on whether or not article content is balanced and fair. By the way, if you check the edit history, you will see that none of the editors who have criticised your contributions have been among the content-contributors to this article (Tryptofish has done some minor maintenance but not added content). So if it is somehow biassed, in your view, you will have to add many more names to this supposed clique engaged in some sort of "misinformation campaign". Paul B (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nazi's were NOT animal lovers and vivisection was NOT abolished buy the Nazi's: Bayer & Heochst companies didnt want it abolished!

Bayer AND Hoecht companies (yes, where u get yr aspirins from) PAYED Mengele to do experiments on HUMANS & ANIMALS! Thanks to these VIVISECTORS (not animal friends), these experiments on the jews were done!

Joseph Mengele was a vivisector with animals bedfore, during AND after WW2! Vivisectors, who are STILL experimenting on the public, dementing elderly and such are the nazi's. Vivisectors probably WROTE this article if I look at stuff written here like 'animal rights extremists' -extremist is when you want to END suffering?

Animal friends are civilians who express their opinion, and hey - expressing yr opinion is one of the pilars of democracy! something the Nazis were against - and guess what? Vivisectors are also against animal friends to express their opinion. People who take hedonistic pleasure in inflicting pain to whomever and then say it is 'science' are EVIL, and they are the extremists!

These articles should be forbidden - like the stories that Hitler woulda been as vegetarian .. pffh! then why was his last meal with meat in there!? And if they were such animal lovers, why did Hitler poison his dog?

Why can't I find any ref's in here towards RynnBerry's "Hitler, Neither Vegetarian Nor AnimaL lover" by Pythagorean Publishers .. or C. Patterson's 'Eternal Treblinka' by Lantern Books!?

Lies should not be published - not here and not anywhere! I vote this article should be deleted - or balance it out by adding info of Isaac Bashevis Singer who WAS an animal lover AND holocaust survivor, and who was not the only one!

Two years ago my best friend died: www.MarionBienes.com at age 88 a class mate of Anne's sister Margot Frank, she lost her family in the camps, but was an animal lover and AR activist .. she would have damned the writers of this article to Hell if she had been alive to read this!

This wikipage is the so-maniest DISGRACE on the web! 83.232.236.174 (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

http://neveragain.org.il/en/ read that and feel disgusted over yrself if you wrote in this page! 83.232.236.174 (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

another one: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4655781,00.html himself a survivor of the Nazis! 83.232.236.174 (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you bothered to the read the article fully you would see that the Nazis did indeed ban vivisection before the act was modified to permit it in certain circumstances. This is an incontrovertible historical fact. Also, the reason Rynn Berry is not cited in this article is because he is not a qualified historian, and thus not recognized as an authority on this subject. He is an activist and publishes literature which pushes a vegetarian agenda. Unfortunately this inevitably boils down to claiming revered people as vegetarians (such as Einstein, who wasn't) and denouncing the infamous (such as Hitler, who was) so his work is not a credible source for this subject. Just because the Nazis were a nefarious and genocidal group of people does not mean they were incapable of undertaking progressive reform, which they undeniably did within the context of animal welfare. Wikipedia is beholden to policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiable and WP:Reliable source so is not permitted to indulge the luxury of unfounded rhetoric. Betty Logan (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Whaat?

Wait, if one has knowledge in a field they can NOT edit here? That sounds very intelligent! So ONLY historians can edit because historians have no opinion of themselves that they put in their writings? Or all historians even agree on everything? That is absurd and not even true! So why are vivisectors allowed to edit in the pages on vivisection then? These pseudo-scientists that claim that other species can be a scientific 'model' for humans should be in jail for all the damage they inflict onto the public health (go read about it or shut up about is, as you state)! And I can know coz i'm a trained nurse - for humans .. not animals!

This ^'policy' of wiki is excactly why wiki is NOT a -pedia (and it is not what Jimmy Wales meant with 'POV'). It is a project where even toddlers can edit - so why can some people NOT contribute!? Because not all 'animals' are equal in your eyes? I know wiki polici says that if there is debate about truth on a matter it should NOT BE IN THE article AT ALL - so why does this bl**dy article even exist? (Let me tell you, it is written here by people to make animal-friends look bad; not to make nazi's look good!)

And HOW do you know that Einstein was NOT a vegetarian? Were you there? Nonsens! Why are there quotes of him citing that he was (but sadly not always succeeded in it while he tried to be)!? And Adolf Hitler was NOT a vegetarian - thinking that HE was is rhetoric! You will probably not even be interested why because you are a historian or because I am not? But vegetarians usually do NOT have meat as their last-meal on earth, which he did! A vegetarian does not WANT meat, yet he DID! That makes Hitler NOT a vegetarian. Or do you not understand what makes a vegetarian a vegetarian?

Rynn Berry, by the way, was specialized in the history of vegetarianism - that makes him INDEED an expert on the subject instead of what you called him - namely a liar .. And you are such a good historian that you do not even know that he IS not any more - he's died, you know.

So let me draw a conclusion right here: Since Bayer, Hoechst and other vivisection companies payed (!) the nazi's to experiment on humans as well as on animals, vivisecors are all nazi's, and they enabled nazism - made it possible - were ABOVE the Reich's Fuhrer if they had such powers to re-legalize vivisection! Animal experiments dont predict about humans, or otherwise I dare all vivisectonists (who are all pro-vivisection activists & who thus shouldn't edit on vivisection or ANY pages @ wikipedia about health because they are POV and their work is NOT verifiable or even reliable at all regarding humans) to take a spoon full of arsenic (coz sheep can eat kilo's of it) mixed with the same amount of strychnine (entirely safe in guinea pigs, chickens and monkeys)! Just a few examples ...

Simply because someone is active (where the word activist comes from; opposite of being passive about something) pro- or against something does not automatically make them liars, you know - or even inadequate about the subject they seek change in. You are probably one of those POV-people who also say Jezus of Nazareth ate meat? Well I am not a historian but lemme tell you that the Essenian jews NEVER ate meat, so Jezus was a vegetarian .. Someone who is active for a cause is a civilian who uses/practices their lawful & constitutional rights to voice their opinion + their right to protest: these are the 2 pilars where our democracy rests on(!) If you do not agree on that, then you yourself are POV, as well as unreliable and should not be on any wiki-project at all. But please move to a country where there is no democracy if you do not believe in it. Ridiculous!

Actually, stating that people who are active in a field (are liars and) cannot express themselves (edit) on that subject makes you quite .. ehhm fascist .. ? Maybe you should take the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-scale_%28personality_test%29 that was developed by vegetarian (woops!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno ... 83.232.236.174 (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

So, no reply on what I answered - because what you wrote is absolute nonsense .. But let me add the following:

I notice that, while some content here is unwanted because someone was active for a cause while he was alive his knowledge is not to be used here becvause he wasn't a historian (as if historians know everything) and because he pushed a vegetarian agenda (!?); meanwhile in this article there are statements that come from a very NPOV an unreliable source: Kathleen Marquardt .. of all fascists she is really something: she is not only against animals, she is also against animal protection, against animal rights AND against animal rights 'activism' (people who use their democratic right in their spare time go out of their way to help the helpless from the same system of the nazis but then 100 x more evil)! This person founded Putting People First, which is an anti-animal organisation whose ONLY agenda is to make animal friends look bad! Was this Fascistoid Kathleen herself present at the time when this fisherman was sent to a concentration camp? Most likely NOT! -unreliable; yet included in this article!

If material gathered by Rynn Berry cannot be used, most certainly Kathleen Marquardt's information cannot be seen as neutral, verifiable or neutral. This is why I am putting the wiki-POV template(s) on this article. It cannot be so that one's information here IS wanted while another's is not - resulting in an article that is not NPOV and not neutral. If you want to include Reichpropaganda in here all made up by Goebbels that this is a make-believe page. The so-maniest in wikipedia, next to the vivisection-pages edited by vivisectionists who push an animal-testing agenda. This is NOT what wikipedia was meant for.

And ohh, I still cannot find your information here on how the big vivisector companies had so much power over the nazis that they were able to re-legalize vivisection and how they PAID the nazis for their human and animal vivisection, as Dr. Mengele sent his invoices to them. The same vivisectionists that still make animal AND human victims by their toxic pills (DES, Softenon, Halcion, Thalidomide and so on). Maybe that information should be included on the animal testing articles as well; or are too many not-NPOV vivisectors editing those pages in their non-neutral way? 83.232.236.174 (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

No-one is going to respond to your diatribe because it largely has no bearing on the content on the article. I have explained why Rynn Berry is not a suitable source: he is an animal rights activist, not a historian or an expert on law. The content in this article is sourced appropriately and it is a point of unequivocal fact that the Nazis introduced many animal rights laws. If you wish to challenge the article for neutrality or poor sourcing then do so, but please be specific in your criticisms. Betty Logan (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Like I said before:

If material gathered by Rynn Berry cannot be used, most certainly Kathleen Marquardt's information cannot be seen as neutral, verifiable or neutral. It cannot be so that one's information here IS wanted while another's is not - resulting in an article that is not NPOV and not neutral. If you want to include Reichpropaganda in here all made up by Goebbels that this is a make-believe page. The so-maniest in wikipedia, next to the vivisection-pages edited by vivisectionists who push an animal-testing agenda. You seem to be a NPOV-pusher. == Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==

Hello, Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kathleen Marquardt's is anti-animal activist & anti-animalrights activist. She founded an activist organisation AGAINST animal friends, named 'Putting People First'. According to what you wrote she cannot be included for the same reasons Rynn Berry's information is, according to you, unwanted. But apparently you are the only one who can make decisions here? You are not Jimmy Wales though. 83.232.236.174 (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know enough about Marquardt's background to make that judgment. Having a beef with AR activists does not necessarily make her unsuitable; if she is not a professional historian or lawyer then I would agree that casts doubt over attributions to her book. Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well I do know and I've now said it several times + it is very g00gleable .. so when is this non-neutral unverifiable information going tio be taken out of this article? Plus, I would say yes - ANYone who writes coloured information because they are against others ('have beef with' as you call it) is unsuitable according to your own before-written arguementing .. so what goes for one, goes for all - right? Or are indeed some less equal than others? Quite Orwellian, this wikipedia ..

Furthermore, when will all other wikipedians that are not historians and lawyers be deleted as 'users', as well as all others who put coloured information into wikipedia..? 83.232.236.174 (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Betty Logan is a respected Wikipedian and with some knowledge of her editing I think she has shown herself to be fair and an editor who attempts to always follow Wikipedian guidelines for NPOV and other key pillars for contributing to this encyclopedia. I wish those who are responding here would register on Wikipedia and become fellow 'known' editors. Editors do respond to the arguments and information in talk pages. I have just checked on google about Kathleen Marquardt. She seems to be a self serving polemicist who started an organisation to counter animal rights arguments and campaigns. I could not find anything which says she has any academic qualifications but she is vice president of a conservative 'think tank' (and by the way her book Animal Scam was published by an conservative agenda lead publisher). I have been unable to view the book Animal Scam that is used as a source for this article. I would like to say the citations should be removed that use this book. However the information in the book that she might cite may be relevant. It may not. But if the anonymous editor can source a copy of this book and show why it should not be included I would be very pleased as I share their animal sentiments. But if the information she might cite comes from a reliable, verifiable source then it should remain. Editing this encyclopedia is all about finding and using the correct sources not pursuing any specific political, moral or social agenda no matter how much we disagree with it.Robynthehode (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of whether she is qualified to speak on the subject we can still look at finding alternative sources for what is attributed to her. Someone like Rynn Berry is excluded as a source not because he was an activist but because he wasn't professionally qualified to speak on historical fact or the law. If we excluded everyone who had a bone to pick with AR activists and the Nazis then that would leave us with a very small pool of sources to draw on. However, if she is controversial it is better to go with someone who is not. Some of the stuff looks relevant though (such as Goring's radio broadcast) but it should be relatively straightfroward to find another source it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know whether your (Betty Logan ) comments above were directed at my comment or whether they were directed more generally. However your argument has a level of contradiction. Neither Rynn Berry (although I haven't checked his academic credentials myself but am assuming your statements are true) NOR Kathleen Marquardt seem qualified to directly comment on the subject matter they have written about in regard to animal welfare and the Nazis. Therefore unless it can be shown that she has quoted or used a reliable resource to support her assertions then her book should be removed as a source. This would be a parity with the reason for excluding Rynn Berry. Of course the status of academic qualification of either Kathleen Marquardt or Rynn Berry for that matter is not a reason to stop searching for better or more reliable sources. Does anyone have the Kathleen Marquardt book? If I could find a cheap enough copy I will take it on myself to resolve this but if someone already has the book and can definitively show that her statements should be included or removed then that would be great. Robynthehode (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is no contradiction. Perhaps I am failing to articulate my views clearly. First of all I don't care about Marquardt any more than any other source in the article. I have no vested interest in retaining her. I literally know nothing about her. If we can replace her I have no objection to that. However, my point is that it doesn't necessarily follow that Marquardt should be removed from the article simply because we bar Rynn Berry from the article: being an activist of some kind does not automatically discredit you (if the opinions are WP:FRINGE then that's a different kettle of fish) but not being qualified does. Rynn Berry is barred from being a source because he is not a professional historian nor regarded as an expert on the law, not because he is a vegetarian advocate. After all, we wouldn't bar a highly respected historian simply because he is Jewish. There are many sources used in the article and how much do we know about any of them? Hopefully all are qualified experts in their respective fields but it is possible some are not. If it comes to light that somebody who is not qualified to write about what they are being used to source then obviously they should be removed, and that includes Marquardt. Betty Logan (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think we are agreeing with each other but neither managing to initially clarify our stance enough for the other to understand. So to further this article it would be great if we can check Marquardt (or her book's sources) as a source. I would think that she is not a reliable source but she may have used sources which are (or once checked are not). And on a separate point a note to the original editor who titled this section - someone who lies is engaging in an intentional falsehood, someone who just gets something wrong or in good faith passes on a falsehood is not a liar. Let's work together to make this article better and more accurate with good sources. Robynthehode (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wish to reply to ^above but wiki does not accept my reply. Meanwhile incorrect and bias information is still in this article. I'd like to know why my reply is not accepted 15:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.232.236.174 (talk)

yes, i DID sign with the 4 tildes and there are NO wrong words or phrases in my text that it should not be accepted for. This just shows again that I should not waste my time on a 'project' like this ... 83.232.236.174 (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Could we have at least one paragraph explaining what the motivation was here. How did animal welfare connect to Nazi ideology in general? LastDodo (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Three years later and still no answer. Come on, someone must know this. Here is the type of thing it *could* be: Nazi ideology rejected the Judeo-Christian bright line between animals and humans, and thus justified treating animals as well as humans, or humans as badly as animals, on a case-by-case basis. This is purely speculation though. Does anyone know the real answer? There is a reason people are so surprised about this historical fact, so an explanation would be very helpful. LastDodo (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

dude, i get you're anglo, but there was nothing bipartisan about the Reichstag in 1933. [6]. --88.73.89.194 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

As a Hebrew speaker, who is able to read the Hebrew version of this entry, imagine my surprise when I discovered that not only is it way more informative - but the information is almost completely opposite to the one in the English entry. The sources (120 of them) state that most of the "positive" things we know about the Nazis are rooted in Nazi propaganda, and that they in fact abused slaughtered and burned alive millions of dogs, cats, horses and rabbits.

For instance, the following:

כאשר הצבא הגרמני קיבל הוראה לנטוש את חצי האי קרים ב-8 במאי 1944, היטלר הורה לטבוח ב-30,000 הסוסים של הצבא הגרמני בטרם נטישת הכוחות כדי שלא יפלו כשלל בידי הרוסים. הגרמנים העמידו את הסוסים בשורות וירו בהם. היה זה, ככל הנראה, טבח הסוסים הגדול ביותר בהיסטוריה

"When the German army recieved orders to abandon Crimea on May 8th 1944, Hitler ordered the slaughter of the 30 thousand horses of the German army before they leave, so they aren't taken by the Russians. The Germans lined up the horses and shot them. It was, apparently, the largest horse slaughter in history".

Sources: - Responce to Arluke and Sax. Helmut Meyer, Institüt für Tierernährung, Tierärtzliche Hochschule Hannover, D-3000 Hannover, Germany in Arluke, Arnold, and Boria Sax. "Understanding Nazi animal protection and the Holocaust." Anthrozoös 5.1 (1992): 6-31.

- Part 2: The Symbolism of Animals in Nazi Germany. Sax, Boria. Animals in the Third Reich: Pets, scapegoats, and the Holocaust. A&C Black, 2000.

This is the full entry: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%95%D7%97%D7%AA_%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%9C%D7%99_%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%91%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%AA#cite_note-%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94%D7%94-4

I suggest some deeper and more thorough fact checking. 212.199.101.60 (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply