Adolf Hitler loved his German shepherd Blondie very well known, and animals in general. Therefore, he was also a vegetarian. His particular passion was for dogs. On November 24, 1933 (still in the years of power transmission), the first German animal protection law was passed. Hermann Göring adopted in 1933 a decree against vivisection on animals.
Adolf Hitler and his dog Blondie
“For the German people, the animals are not only living beings in the organic sense, but creatures who run their own emotional life that feel pain, joy, loyalty and devotion.”
Göring wrote. He argued against, to expose animals alive the heart, the skull to carve up or limbs cut off,
“To observe how the organs work and what consequences occur after the loss of the same.”
“Animal welfare in National-Socialist Germany – Moral idealism as opposed to “inhuman tyranny”?
This contrast is maintained in most of the few publications on this topic. In his book, is the first time the issue of animal welfare in the Third Reich comprehensively, objectively presented and on a scientific basis. It has been shown that the link between animal welfare and National-Socialist worldview was profound and logical in itself. Beyond the book this topic of the polarisation between high ethics of animal welfare on the one hand, and one currently in the sense of political correctness as perceived in condemnable epoch of German history on the other hand, thereby objectively enqueues it into the policy and everyday politics of National-Socialist Germany.
Dr. Krochmalnik, lecturer at the Jewish University in Heidelberg, said on animal welfare in the Third Reich:
“The National-Socialists introduced just a model animal protection laws after the takeover.”
The National-Socialists put animal and nature protection into law. Adolf Hitler was vegetarian, opponent of animal testing, animal lover and conservationist.
Lina Hähnle assured that Adolf Hitler
“his protective hand over the hedge” held and entered for “enhanced protection of birds”.
Heinrich Himmler praised in a speech the ancient Germans, that
“from the divine order of whole plants and animals all over the world were convinced”.
He spoke about the rights of mice and rats and warned not to laugh at such considerations.
“It would be better”, he said, “we impious people would tend our main before the depth and size of this world view.”
Heinrich Himmler was very sensitive to the preservation of other life, he said:
“I was extremely interested in the other day to hear that today the Buddhist monks, if they go through the forest at night, wearing a Bell, to get dodging the animals of the forest, which could crush them, so that no damage is dealt to them. But with us will every snail trampled, each worm will crush.”
The Reichsführer of the SS is counted by some historians to the “green wing” of the NSDAP leadership, as well as Darré, Rudolf Hess, Fritz Todt and Alwin Seifert. They swarmed for renewable energies, alternative medicine and organic farming. Some of them sympathized with Steiner’s teachings at times. Himmler had the SS operate biodynamic experimental farms, among others in the concentration camps Dachau. Hermann Göring made sure that a new animal protection law was enacted after the seizure of power in 1933 as the first, and two years later a conservation law. Both were largely taken over by the German Federal Republic and long considered to be exemplary.
Adolf Hitler even passed a law against keeping fish in a fishbowl. In the first German Animal Protection Law of 24 November 1933, ie in paragraph 1 under Section 1:
“It is prohibited to torture an animal unnecessary or raw mistreat. An animal torments him who prolonged or repetitive causes significant pain or suffering; is unnecessarily torturing, insofar as it serves no reasonable, legitimate purpose.”
Following this principle, “Ownership, accommodation and transportation” are fixed in the other law; There are detailed provisions also to breeding and in particular animal testing.
Adolf Hitler maintains a deer
The nature protection associations agreed to this policy. The Reichsbund birds, forerunner of the present-day NABU, was in a monopoly position rewarded (joined other bird protection associations), which increased the revenues of the Association by 45,000 Reichsmarks (1932) at 85 000 Reichsmarks (1941-42). Also the Federal 1933 noticed nature reserve in Bavaria (the core organization, from which later the B.U.N.D. was created):
“No time was for our work as cheap as this one under the Hakenkreuz banner of National government.”
Adolf Hitler with “Wolf”
“Who tortures animals is inanimate, because it lacks God’s good spirit.”
– Johann Wolfgang Goethe
“The world is not a piece of work, and the animals are not manufactured for our use. Not mercy, but justice is seen the animals guilty. “
– Arthur Schopenhauer
“The vehement lawlessness of animals, […] that there are no duties to animals, is almost an outrageous brutality and barbarism of the West, whose source lies in Judaism.”
– Arthur Schopenhauer
1933 LAW ON ANIMAL PROTECTION
(Signed into law, 11/24/1933)
The government has resolved on the following law, which is hereby made known:
Section ICruelty to Animals
(1) It is forbidden to unnecessarily torment or roughly mishandle an animal.
(2) One torments an animal when one repeatedly or continuously causes appreciable pain or suffering; the torment is unnecessary in so far as it does not serve any rational, justifiable purpose. One mishandles an animal when one causes it appreciable pain; mishandling is rough when it corresponds to an unfeeling state of mind.
Measures for the Protection of Animals
It is forbidden:
1. to so neglect an animal in one’s ownership, care or accommodation that it thereby experiences appreciable pain or appreciable damage;
2. to use an animal unnecessarily for what clearly exceeds its powers or causes it appreciable pain, or which it-in consequence of its condition-is obviously not capable of;
3. to use and animal for demonstrations, film-making, spectacles, or other public events to the extent that these events cause the animal appreciable pain or appreciable damage to health;
4. to use a fragile, ill, overworked or old animal for which further life is a torment for any other purpose than to cause or procure a rapid, painless death;
5. to put out one’s domestic animal for the purpose of getting rid of it;
6. to set or test the power of dogs on cats, foxes, and other animals;
7. to shorten the ears or the tail of a dog over two weeks old. This is allowed if it is done with anesthesia;
8. to shorten the tail of a horse. This is allowed if it is to remedy a defect or illness of the tail and is done by a veterinarian and under anesthesia;
9. to perform a painful operation on an animal in an unprofessional manner or without anesthesia, or if anesthesia in a particular case is impossible according to veterinary standards;
10. to kill an animal on a farm for fur otherwise than with anesthesia or in a way that is, in any case, painless;
11. to force-feed fowl;
12. to tear out or separate the thighs of living frogs.
The importation of horses with shortened tails is forbidden. The minister of the Interior can make exceptions if special circumstances warrant it.
The temporary use of hoofed animals as carriers in the mines is only permitted with the permission of the responsible authorities.
Experiments on Living Animals
It is forbidden to operate on or handle living animals in ways that may cause appreciable pain or damage for the purpose of experiments, to the extent the provisions of #6 through #8 do not mandate otherwise.
(1) The minister of the Interior can at the proposal of the responsible government or local authorities confer permission on certain scientifically led institutes or laboratories to undertake scientific experiments on living animals, when the director of the experiment has sufficient professional education and reliability, sufficient facilities for the undertaking of animal experiments are available, and guarantee for the care and maintenance of the animals for experiment has been made.
(2) The minister of the Interior can delegate the granting of permission to others among the highest officials of the government.
(3) Permission may be withdrawn without compensation at any time.
In carrying out experiments on animals (#5), the following provisions are to be observed:
1. The experiments may only be carried out under the complete authority of the scientific director or of a representative that has been specifically appointed by the scientific director.
2. The experiments may only be carried out by someone who has previously received scientific education or under the direction of such a person, and when every pain is avoided in so far as that is compatible with the goal of the experiment.
3. Experiments for research may only be undertaken when a specific result is expected that has not been previously confirmed by science or if the experiments help to answer previously unsolved problems.
4. The experiments are only to be undertaken under anesthesia, provided the judgment of the scientific director does not categorically exclude this or if the pain connected with the operation is outweighed by the damage to the condition of the experimental animals as a result of anesthesia.
Nothing more severe than a difficult operation or painful but unbloody experiment may be carried out on such an unanesthetized animal.
Animals that suffer appreciable pain after the completion of such a difficult experiment, especially involving an operation, are, in so far as this is, in the judgment of the scientific director, compatible with the goal of the experiment, immediately to be put to death.
6. No more animals may be used than are necessary to-resolve the associated question.
7. Animal experiments for pedagogical purposes are only permitted when other educational tools such as pictures, models, taxonomy, and film are not sufficient.
8. Records are to be kept of the sort of animal used, the purpose, the procedure, and the result of the experiment.
Experiments on animals for judicial purposes as well as inoculations and taking of blood from living animals for the purpose of diagnosing illness of people or animals, or for obtainment of serums or inoculations according to procedures that have already been tried or are recognized by the state, are not subject to provisions #5 through #7. These animals, however, are also to be killed painlessly if they suffer appreciable pain and if it is compatible with the goals of the experiment.
Provisions for Punishment
(1) Whoever unnecessarily torments or roughly mishandles an animal will be punished by up to two years in prison, with a fine, or with both these penalties.
(2) Whoever, apart from the case in (1), undertakes an experiment on living animals (# S) without the required permission will be punished by imprisonment of up to six months, with a fine, or with both of these penalties.
(3) A fine of up to five hundred thousand marks or imprisonment will, apart from the punishment mandated in (1) and (2), be the punishment for whomever intentionally or through negligence.
1. violates prohibition #2 though #4;
2. acts against regulation #7;
3.violates guidelines enacted by the Ministry of the Interior or by a provincial government according to #14;
4. neglects to prevent children or other persons that are under his/her supervision or belong to his/her household from violating the provisions of this law.
(1) In addition to the punishments in #9 for an intentional violation of the law, an animal belonging to the condemned may be confiscated or killed. Instead of confiscation it may be ordered that the animal be sheltered and fed for up to nine months at the cost of the guilty party.
(2) If no specific person can be identified or condemned, the confiscation or killing of an animal may be undertaken in any case when the other prerequisites are present.
(1) If someone is repeatedly guilty of intentionally violating the provisions that are punishable according to #9 the local authorities that are responsible can prohibit that person from keeping certain animals or from business involving them either for a specified period or permanently.
(2) After a year has passed since the imposition of the punishment the responsible local authorities may rescind their decision.
(3) An animal subject to appreciable negligence in provision, care, or shelter may be taken away from the owner by the responsible local authority and accommodated elsewhere until there is a guarantee that the animal will be cared for in a manner above reproach. The cost of this accommodation shall be paid by the guilty party.
If in a judicial process it appears doubtful whether an act violates a prohibition of #1, (1) or (2), a veterinarian shall be summoned as early in the process as possible and, in so far as it concerns a farm, an agricultural official of the government shall be heard.
Anesthesia as it is understood in this law means all procedures that lead to general painlessness or eliminate localized pain.
The Minister of the Interior can issue judicial and administrative decrees for the completion and enforcement of this law. In so far as the Minister of the Interior does not make use of this power, local governments can make the necessary decree for implementation.
This law becomes binding on February 1, 1934 with the exception of #2, (8) and #3, (11), for which the Minister of the Interior must see the time of implementation in consultation with the Minister of Food and Agriculture.
The laws #1456 and #360, (13) of the law of May 30, 1908 remain unchanged.
Berlin, November 24, 1933
Needless to say…
The contrary contrast: livestock in modern democratic times of globalization: