"
Increasingly concerned this article misrepresents bondeson's book
Whatever Bondeson's credentials, i think the central claim of this article (that upon ""Hitler's orders"" superdog members of the SS were being sought), founded solely on a book by Bondeson that none of us has read, is probably false. In this BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13568270 Bondeson complains ""A rise in schools of animal psychology in the 1930s was encouraged by the Nazis, and Hitler in particular, and their potential military use examined. But that's a million miles away from the press claims - which get taller by the day - that the Nazis had a legion of talking, machine-gun-toting hounds, on the point of being unleashed on the allies."" At any rate, I'm not sure any of this article should be taken seriously until someone actually reads the book (the only source for the material) rather than second hand, apparent misreadings (according to Bondeson in the BBC article) by the likes of The Sun. Do wikipedia articles about books get routinely written without the book having been read?  "