From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:07:24 GMT

In article <BzMG6D.Crw@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Dec21.160031.4743@Firewall.Nielsen.Com>, by jkapson@ad-29.Na
itc.Com (John Kapson):

>> In article <BzJ5A3.FFD@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> [snip]
>>>As I mentioned previously, I've read Hitler's book and Speer's
>>>memoirs;  I've read several of the major textbooks dealing with the
>>>nazi era;  and I've also read several dozen papers written by
>>>professional students of history dealing with nazi political
>>>ideology.  None of them lend credence to the claim that the nazi's
>>>were animal rights advocates in any meaningful sense.
>>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Please explain what you mean by "in any meaningful sense."
>> Seems rather vague, doesn't it?
>
>Please define the concept of "animal rights" that was allegedly
>advocated by the nazis.
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ



I'm not sure if the following will prove to help define nazi
animal rights advocacy in any meaningful sense but here goes:


REPOST
****************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Summary:
Expires:
2Dec11.162940.16341@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Sender:

In article <1992Dec11.162940.16341@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg
 Popken) writes:
>In article <Bz2BtD.ByC@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>From article <mhulsey-101292134012@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs
.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>>
>>mh> Perhaps then we can put an end to Russell's unjustified
>>mh> complaints about the veracity of my references, and he can then
>>mh> proceed with his inevitable evasions of this damaging revelation.
>>
>>Unjustified complaints???  This sounds strange, given the fact
>>that you've already admitted your inability to analyze the scanty
>>evidence at your disposal.
>>
>>When you can round up some solid facts and rational arguments to
>>prove your case, please let us know.  For starters:
>>
>>1) You stated previously that Hitler endorsed the philosophy of
>>   animal rights.  Can you point to some specific papers or speeches
>>   that support such a claim?
>>
>>2) You stated previously that the Third Reich was the only "modern
>>   civilization" [sic] to "officially embrace" a philosophy of
>>   animal rights.  Would you mind defining the term "philosophy
>>   of animal rights" in this context?   Can you point to any
>>   specific pieces of legislation under the Third Reich that you
>>   consider representative of the animal rights concept?  And
>>   please explain how/why such legislation was unique to nazi
>>   germany.
>
>*********************************************************************
>From Hospital Practice Nov. 15, 1989
>***********************************************************************
>
>An an article translated from the german publication called Die Wiesse
>Fahne, volume 14, 1933, attributes the following quote to Dr. Goebbels:
>" Adolf Hitler does not drink alcohol or smoke, and moreover, is a
>vegitarian.
>
>Brother Nationalist Socialist did you know
>
>         ...that your Fuhrer--- out of persuation and out of love for for
>         the world of animals--- is a vegitarian.
>
>         ...that your Furher is the strongest opponent to any form of animal
>         torment; especially vivisection, which is the "scientific"
>         torture of animals, and a hienous product of the Jewish
>         materialistic school of medicine, about which he states: "In the
>         Nationalist Socialist state, this situation will end very soon"?
>
>          ...that your Fuhrer plans to prohibit all kinds of animal torture,
>          especially vivisection, and by implimenting this plan will save
>          animals from their endless and nameless tortures and suffering?
>
>A subsequent article in the same journal notes:
>
>  The Reich Press Agency of NSDAP announces:
>    "The Prussian Prime Minister, Goring, issued a decree which prohibits
>vivisection of all animals in the entire Prussian Territory begining Aug.
>16, 1933.  The Prime Minister has ordered the appropriate ministries to
>immediately draft a law which will impose high penalties on vivisection.
>Until this law comes into effect, all individuals who ignore this
>prohibition, perform or otherwise participate in vivisection of any animal
>will be sent to concentration camps."
>*****************************************************************************
>
>
>JAMA 9/30/1933
>pp1087
>
>     Aug. 17, Goring, chairman of the Prussian ministerial cabinet, issued
>     and order to go into effect immediately that " vivisection of animals of
>     what so ever species is prohibited in all parts of Prussian territory.
>     The chairman of the cabinet has intructed the ministries to present to
>     him, without delay, the text of a law......"
>
>
>Get the point Russell?  Later provisions relaxed these standards to permit
>vivisection under stringent controls.  Regardless, it is clear from these
>and other quotes that you choose to ignore, that the Nazi Party supported
>animal rights ( maybe if you close your eyes you can make it go away)
>
>
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> The truth of the matter is that you're demeaning your own case by
>rl> falling back on this "nazi" crap.  Keep it up, Greg.
>
>>From article <1992Dec10.203445.24930@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.e
du (Greg Popken):
>gp> I'm not demeaning anything nor am I falling back on the nazis.  I
>gp> was only making an observation that the nazis supported animal rights.
>gp> Nothing more.
>
>
>gp> Question:  Do you agree that the Nationalist Socialist Party in Germany
>gp> in the 1930's supported animal rights?
>
>rl>Of course not.  To the contrary, I think you'd be hardpressed to find
>rl>a single nazi thinker whose ideas are even remotely comparable to the
>rl>arguments set forth by folks like Gandhi or Singer or Regan.
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Please reread the parts about "love for animals and the torture of
>vivisection".
>
>Question: Do you still refuse to admit that the Nazi Party in Germany in
>the 1930's supported nimal rights?
>
>
>
>--
>The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever!
>Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the
>And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
>are mine.                                *******************************
*************************************************************************
End REPOST
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals