0

From Aish:

In modern times, the radicalized extension of Cain's philosophy came afore during the 1930s, when the Nazis passed a number of laws protecting animals, e.g. restricting the use of live animals in biomedical experiments ("vivisection").

This claim is additionally brought down in the bestselling book The Garden of Emuna.

Is this true?

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
TheAsh
  • 3,006
  • 5
  • 19
  • 41
  • [Quite true](https://verschwiegenegeschichtedrittesreich.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/die-tierwelt-grc3bcc39ft-hermann-gc3b6hring-e28094-karikatur-aus-dem-kladderadatsch-3-september-1933.jpg) Have you researched this? For notability I guess finding a group that 'does not believe this' might be the better approach? – LangLаngС Jan 22 '20 at 21:05
  • 3
    This claim is very loose - all it requires is more than one law protecting animals for it to be true. It might be useful to have a read of the Wikipedia page [Animal welfare in Nazi Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany) and see if there is a more specific claim in there that you doubt and we can get our teeth into. – Oddthinking Jan 22 '20 at 23:11
  • from what I've read in several sources the Nazis (and 1920s/30s Germans in general) were about the first modern radical environmentalists, adopting many of the ideas that are typical of current radical greens. This went so far as trying to resurrect extinct species and setting apart large areas for them in protected habitats (this failed). A lot of their earlier propaganda was all about healthy living out in the countryside and things like that. Having laws to protect certain "typically German" species would fit right into that. – jwenting Jan 23 '20 at 05:13
  • 1
    @jwenting it seems like a thinly veiled attempt to associate animal rights activists with Nazis, but I may just be being cynical. – PC Luddite Jan 23 '20 at 14:24
  • @Oddthinking I clearly stated in my original question that they had stricter laws than other contemporaneous societies, ie, America during that period of time. One law would not prove anything. The way you edited the question removed it of its specific claim. – TheAsh Jan 23 '20 at 18:13
  • 3
    Why would this even be strange? Must everything that the nazis did have been 100% pure evil by today's moral standards? – pipe Jan 23 '20 at 18:22
  • The first version of Q was problematic, indeed, in its vague broadness. This version is admittedly even more vague and almost meaningless. Now, I do not have a good alternative on offer, but the current version is imo just not notable at all. Do you see any possibility to make this a better fit for the rules of this site? The Odd-comment is better than the edit: a more specific claim that relates to your original version? – LangLаngС Jan 23 '20 at 18:41
  • If you want to ask "Did the Nazis develop stricter animal cruelty laws than other contemporaneous societies?" please find a notability source that shows that many people believe that Nazis developed stricter animal cruelty laws than other contemporaneous societies. Note that such a claim is built on a false assumption: that a systems of laws can be ranked on a scale of strictness. See, for example, local Australian council laws about circuses that differ in the allowed treatment of "exotic" animals (like tigers) and other introduced animals (like horses). How do you rank that? – Oddthinking Jan 23 '20 at 23:51
  • @PCLuddite nope, the Nazis had projects to breed back extinct "aryan" species of animals, mostly very large and fierce prehistoric mammals. They also had extensive natural habitats set aside for them for when those projects were to come to fruition (which they never did), and really did glorify simple living off the land, working farms with hand tools, etc. etc. Getting "closer to their roots" was important to them. – jwenting Jan 24 '20 at 06:01
  • @pipe indeed. They invented the paid vacation time concept, the freeway, things like that. While it was in part implemented because they were ramping up for a wartime economy, propaganda purposes, and to gain control over sectors of society, not everything they did was a bad idea or thought up because of "evil plans". They fully realised for example that giving your employees a few weeks off each year to relax and have fun with the family makes them happy and loyal employees, and is good for their health. – jwenting Jan 24 '20 at 06:04
  • 1
    This reads like a classic attempt to discredit the idea of animal welfare by saying "the Nazis did it so it must be bad". – DJClayworth Jan 24 '20 at 16:20
  • @jwenting not really sure what the "nope" is a response to. I'm not questioning the idea that they might have had animal protection laws in place. I'm only concerned that someone would take a "yes" answer and use it to argue that "environmentalism is bad because of Nazis". Nazis had such an impact on western civilization I dare someone try to find a subject good or bad that can't be traced to "Nazis", either as a whole or an individual. – PC Luddite Jan 25 '20 at 04:15
  • @PCLuddite I had issues with someone once because of a similar argument. They were claiming that beer was German and thus a Nazi drink and because of that beer was anti-Semitic. – T. Sar Jan 28 '20 at 09:52
  • @T.Sar-ReinstateMonica well, that's just crazy. beer ought to be what brings us together, not what drives us apart. – PC Luddite Jan 29 '20 at 16:15

1 Answers1

4

They did, though the purpose was as much propaganda and antisemitism as it was about protecting animals.

In 1933, the Nazis passed the Reichstierschutzgesetz (animal protection law of the Reich), which punished those that 'tortured animals or caused them long or repeated, substantial pain or suffering'.

According to historian Mieke Roscher, the goal was to exclude Jews and Roma from German society. Previous laws already criminalized shechita, and the Reichstierschutzgesetz was specifically used to remove Jews from sciences which performed animal testing. It was also used to target Roma circuses. Other circuses as well as animal testing for war purposes or by some non-Jewish scientists on the other hand were not persecuted. Not all animals were treated equally, wild and pure-raced animals were protected, while pets and vermin were not.

The preamble of the law already shows that the law is based on a German-völkisch ideology, when it references the German Volk and its moral obligations.

tim
  • 51,356
  • 19
  • 207
  • 177
  • 1
    You really need to bring in the continuity, with dates like 1879, Gossler 1930 etc. And stress the antisemitic *part* with the absurdity: to make kosher meat eating impossible, but later making explicit exception for halal eating Muslim SS soldiers. Then that these laws did come about, early, but were much less than promised to animal lovers. Perhaps [srcs](http://alex.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno-plus?apm=0&aid=dra&datum=19330004&zoom=2&seite=00000203&x=15&y=9) – LangLаngС Jan 23 '20 at 10:54
  • @LаngLаngС I'm not sure if the continuity matters much. Many laws like the Reichsjagdgesetz were more or less copies of previous laws (which would matter for context if they are mentioned, but I just left them out because they don't matter much), but as I understand it, the Reichstierschutzgesetz was indeed something new, so it's a good example to show that the claim is true. I already pointed out some of the double standards of the law, Halal food would just be another example showing the same antisemitic double standards. – tim Jan 23 '20 at 11:52
  • The fact that some laws were passed early, but weaker enforced with time, and that no new laws were passed later does seem relevant, but I couldn't find good sources on the absence of laws passed in the later years, so I omitted that fact. I think the question as asked is still answered, but if you have additional sources, please feel free to add them to my answer, or to post a more in-depth answer. – tim Jan 23 '20 at 11:52
  • Continuity is useful to emphasise (claim context) that NS did not 'invent' animal welfare. The promised scope and propagandistic image was unprecedented (NS from 20s forward, but general animal welfare proponents even earlier, and not all of them nazis, despite a gigantic overlap). Anti-vivisectionists, vegetarians, life-reformers, spiritual 'outliers'… The antisemitic goals in it were not the sole purpose, but technically a 'side-effect', & that as even a desired main driver (meaning some didn't care for any animals, but supported that as 'against those Jews'. Antisemitism thru backdoor). – LangLаngС Jan 23 '20 at 12:13