View Full Version : Nature and Ecology in National Socialist Germany

Sunday, March 20th, 2005, 08:14 AM

The Spiritual Struggle of National-Socialism

The Battle against Vivisection

Courtesy of the National Journal


Hermann Göring - [1893-1946]

The Struggle against Vivisection

[Hermann Göring on a Radio broadcast of 28. August 1933]

»It is simply not in accordance with the German character, much less is it in accordance with the National-Socialist ideals on human spirituality, to equate animals with lifeless objects and permit their owners absolute jurisdiction over them«

"Volksgenossen!" [Fellow Germans] Since the day I announced my edict against the torture of animals regarding vivisection, a flood of letters and telegrams has come to my office, agreeing enthusiastically, expressing their gratitude over my decision that, finally, stringent steps were taken to end the torture of animals. My edict may have come as a surprise like lightening out of a blue sky. For years the struggle against vivisection has been going on. Much was said about it in scientific and unscientific discussions, but nothing was done about it. The National-Socialist Government was aware from the first day, that severe measures had to be inaugurated, yet, it took month until such a law, with all its ramifications, could be passed.

In order to prevent the spreading of torture to animals before such law could be passed, I issued this decree, making use of a right that is accorded to me, to put violators, who still think they can treat animals as a lifeless commodity, into protective custody or a concentration-camp.

The German people have always shown great compassion for animals and issues concerning animal-rights. They always saw in animals, especially those which became their compatriots in house, homes and battles for thousands of years, yes, we can say; in many ways their co-workers and – one need only to think about the horses – even comrades in arms, creatures of God.

For the German people, animals are not just living things in an organic sense, but creatures who have their own unique feelings, who feel pain, joy, and show loyalty and affection. Never would the German people's love for animals permit them to treat animals as objects without feelings or souls, to be used only as tools, or to be exploited, to be discarded, whether for reasons of usefulness or not, or to be tortured or destroyed for the same reasons.

The fairy-tales and sagas of the Aryan peoples, especially the German people, tell of the spiritual harmony that exists between the Aryan people and the animal.

(Courtesy of: www.abbc.com/berlin/goering.htm (http://www.abbc.com/berlin/goering.htm))

In anti-Nazi systems of our democratic world not only animals are treated as objects with the greatest cruelty by animal-experimentation and the general primitive behaviour of our politically correct masses. Even the divine fruit of human creation is disposed of with a cold contempt for both, the child and the mother. As it is fashionable for women who wish to indulge with their freedom of sexual pleasure to remove the unwanted life simply by issuing a cheque to white-coated murderer, usually named as a doctor. Abortion has become a multi-billion industry.

Why did the women under Fascism not want to abort their cherished creations? Because mothers in Italy and Germany were respected, supported and honoured by the state - they were granted the highest status in society. A status that is not encouraged today in our liberal, disposable, self-serving, contemporary democracies.

In our cherished time of freedom and democracy there is horror for the innocent - the animals and the unborn.


Sunday, March 20th, 2005, 08:16 AM
A personal favorite of mine.....

Racial Preservation is Green: A View from Malta

Opinion; Posted on: 2003-10-26 09:47:04

by Norman Lowell (pictured)

The Greens! - One has to admire their idealism. You will find them campaigning for the preservation of the shark, the whale, a snake or spider in deepest Amazon, or some little known lizard in New Caledonia. Yet, when it comes to the preservation of the White race, Greens are virulently anti-racialists, screaming abuse and chastising anyone who dares defend its preservation and its progeny: that White race which has given humanity everything; from the wheel to space ships and computers.

Greens are on the forefront of every anti-racist demonstration, always alongside the "down-trodden Blacks" - no matter what -- often, not even having the decency to check into the ever-growing complaints of alleged "discrimination" - by Whites against Africans of course. A blindness, a self-hate seems to afflict the Greens. They have become today's leading ethno-masochists.

Greens do not mind the mixing of that most civilised and advanced race, the White race - with that most primitive of all races; the Negroid. In fact, Greens remain unconcerned on the burning issue of unlimited immigration. Whenever they can, Greens actually promote and encourage racial miscegenation. And it is always the same; Black males with White women.

Vienna's mayoral election of March 25th, 2001 was a typical case. It was a concentrated and concerted campaign against the Freedom Party (FPO), organised and orchestrated by the usual tribe, led by Ariel Muzicant. Haider's Liberal allies slyly participated in this political lynching while the Austrian Greens, showing the whole world how clever they are, fielded an African! Naturally, the ones that gained from all this were the Socialists.

Most of the Greens, as I said, are idealists. They go about in their wilful destruction of their own race out of ignorance. They are what Lenin used to call "useful idiots"! However, a few, in leading positions within the party, know exactly what they are doing. They are the conscious tools of the international manipulators - our hidden, most implacable enemies, always scheming behind the scenes for the destruction of the White race.

National Socialists

Many Greens do not know the origin of their party. It may come as a bit of a surprise to them that the founder of the present-day Green party is non-other than August Haussleiter: a National Socialist of the old school, a veteran who stood by Hitler's side during the beer-hall putsch in Munich, at the start of Hitler's political career.

Haussleiter formed the Green party in 1974, organised it, was the first chairman, imbued it with the principles it now embraces - and was then booted out for his troubles due to his "Nazi past"! He was replaced by left-wing extremists and ex-Communists of the Joschka Fischer type.

National Socialists were indeed the ultimate Greens. Their animal legislation, protecting animal rights, was the most advanced in the world. Hitler was a vegetarian since he could not bear the thought of slaughtered hens and cows. All those who knew him intimately or worked closely with him testify to this truth. He was a non-smoker and a teetotaller. A fanatic for the preservation of the countryside, a mere cottage spoiling a skyline or a valley would upset him.

Rosenberg, the party ideologue, was undoubtedly the world’s first “Green,” writing about the long-term effects on the race of increasing mechanisation and even skyscrapers! He advocated the de-industrialisation of Germany by concentrating industry in clearly defined and limited areas. He was first to tackle the problems of pollution and its effect on future generations – this in the early 1920s!

In 1944-45 Germany stood alone against the whole world. Bombed mercilessly by thousands of allied planes, its industry and economy crumbling, National Socialists still doggedly refused to send German women to work in factories - as the Americans and the British did. Germans had a noble, mystical view of womanhood; that of bearers of the race. They would not envisage German women performing a simple, mechanical operation for thousands of times a day. National Socialism was indeed the ultimate Green party.


Today's Western environmental movement didn't begin in the '60s; it actually took root in the late 19th century among individuals in Germany, who today would be targeted by watchdog groups dedicated to monitoring the "extreme right." Whatever their political orientation, these hopeful romantics were no less dedicated than their modern-day standard-bearers.

Perhaps the most influential of these pioneers was scientist Ernst Haeckel. Considered by many to be the father of modern environmentalism, this fierce German nationalist and avowed social Darwinist is credited with introducing the term "ecology" into public discourse. In 1866, he defined this new field of study as "the science of relations between organisms and their environment."

Haeckel published a number of books articulating his Darwinist view that humans were intrinsically tied to the soil. His ideas resonated beyond his borders and years; the celebrated British author D. H. Lawrence would consider Haeckel an early influence on his thematic development and naturalistic prose style.

Haeckel was highly critical of Christianity for exalting people above wildlife. He reverently believed that the magnificent forests of his beloved Germany provided an ethereal bridge to a higher state of awareness. Yet his contribution to environmental consciousness cannot be dismissed. In her remarkable work Ecology in the 20th Century, Dr. Anna Bramwell declares that the well-known naturalist "enabled ecology to become a viable political creed."

The First World War

Haeckel's earth-centred weltanschauung took on greater importance following the horrors of the First World War, which sent millions of soldiers to the graveyard or horrible permanent disability. It also left massive chunks of sublime countryside barren, pockmarked, and infertile from artillery barrages. Thus did the "war to end all wars" realise the worst fears of the environmentally-minded.

For many, technology was the villain in this Greek tragedy of international proportions. The horrifying combat debut of large-scale artillery fire, machine guns, hand grenades, land mines, poison gas and other manufactured instruments of death provoked a widespread distrust of both humankind and industry.

By the 1918 armistice, many veterans, shell-shocked and reeling from the ghastly images of war, sought redemption the only way they knew how -- by turning back the clock to the agrarian life of their grandparents.

This reaction to the war was manifested in Britain by the growth of many back-to-the-land movements, such as John Hargrave's crypto-fascist "Green Shirt" movement of the '20s and '30s. But after unsuccessfully attempting to gain support via the electoral process, the Green Shirts and other like-minded organizations were quickly doomed to obscurity.

This wasn't the case in Germany, where support for ecological views became widespread as salvation was sought in the anti-cosmopolitan, anti-technological "peasant movement."

Blood and Soil

Amidst the resentment and disillusionment that marked the inter-war Weimar Republic, a newly aroused Green awareness took hold. This loose amalgamation of new ecologists comprised a cross-pollination of Haeckel admirers, popular German youth movements, and adherents of Rudolph Steiner.

This new "peasant movement" took as its slogan a simple phrase: "Blut und Boden!" or "blood and soil," celebrating the virtues of heritage and the nobility of the pre-industrial agrarian way.

Steiner, an influential lecturer, firmly opposed artificial farming methods and served up eloquent encomiums celebrating the peasant's role in Germany's glorious future. His writings would greatly influence SS Chief Heinrich Himmler, Hitler confidante Rudolf Hess, and the man Bramwell considers the "Father of the Greens": German environmentalist Ricardo Walther Darré.


Author of The Peasantry as Life Force (1928), and the seminal New Nobility from Blood and Soil (1929), the little-known figure quickly rose to prominence as leader of the post-war volkisch revolution. While he is now considered suspect at best for his pan-German racialism and links to groups supporting eugenics, Darré's environmental program is progressive even by today's standards. The World War I veteran wanted to see his world transformed into a planned society based on environmental ethics.

Charismatic and possessing a rare gift for organizational ability, Darré's radical influence among rural Germans quickly gained the attention of deputies of the National Socialist German Worker's Party (NSDAP) by the early '30s.

Asked to promote National Socialism in the countryside, where Hitler then lacked popularity, Darré completed this task with alacrity; his efforts easily gathered peasant support for the NSDAP in North and East Germany. His successes were rewarded in 1933, when he was named Minister of Agriculture and Reich peasant leader.

Darré set up a peasant capital in the town of Goslar with progressive measures that empowered the farmer while preserving the soil. By 1940 Darré accepted Steiner's belief in biodynamic farming, and funded several such experimental farms. Darré continued to espouse the benefits of organic vegetation and soil conservation, but he was soon muzzled.

In 1942, completely out of favour with Hitler's cadre of handpicked advisors, he lost his cherished position as Minister of Agriculture. Nevertheless, up until the end of the war, he continued to criticize German agricultural methods and spoke passionately of creating his envisioned peasant state.

Darré was subsequently tried at Nuremberg for his demands that his countrymen be allowed to occupy the newly-conquered Polish countryside. He was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment by the tribunal, but he continued to urge the merits of organic farming up until his death in 1953.

His advocacy was not in vain; our ongoing concern with the detrimental effects of pesticides and artificial fertilizers apparently proves that not only was Darré correct, he was ahead of the curve, espousing these beliefs some four decades before the issue became in vogue.

As is to be expected, today's liberal-minded Greens show very little admiration for Darré, although they continue to promote his collectivist beliefs and other elements of his agenda. The mere mention of his name provokes a combination of anger and resentment. However, even left-leaning environmentalists must grudgingly pay lip service to his contributions.

"It was largely Darre's influence in the Nazi apparatus which yielded, in practice, a level of government support for ecologically sound farming methods and land use planning unmatched by any state before or since," notes Peter Staudenmaier in his cautionary Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience.

In a 1984 History Today article that Staudenmaier describes as "repugnant," Dr. Anna Bramwell goes further, noting that without Darré, "The ecological movement would have perished in his time and place."

The Future of our Mother Earth

"There's no way to preserve a species that's programmed to kill the planet," explains the manifesto of today's extreme Greens, represented by the Finn Pentti Linkola. He advocates involuntary sterilisation, and likened the planet's population to a sinking ship clumsily attempting to seat 100 passengers on a lifeboat built for 10. "Those who hate life try to pull more people on board and drown everybody. Those who love and respect life use axes to chop off the extra hands hanging on the gunwale," he ruthlessly advises.

To wield the axes, the onetime pacifist envisions the rise of a ruthless "Green Police" patrolling the wilderness, undeterred by what he derisively termed the "syrup of ethics." The fierce opponent of both Amnesty International and the Vatican advocates an end to economic aid for starving Third World nations and an immediate reversal of open-door immigration policies -- specifically so that millions might perish.

Of course, this would constitute a mountain of human corpses unseen since World War II Europe, Mao's People's Republic of China, or Stalin's Soviet Union. But to Linkola, a few million deaths are of little importance when the entire planet is at stake. "We still have a chance to be cruel, but if we are not cruel today, all is lost," he admonishes.

Linkola outlines the central tenets of his credo: an unyielding scepticism of egalitarian democracy and an unwavering belief that unchecked overpopulation will kill our once-bountiful planet.

The latter contention is not without merit. Recent estimates by the United Nations Population Division project a growth of over 3 billion people within the next 50 years. If the acceleration of births continues at its current pace, by the year 2150 an additional 6 billion inhabitants will threaten our imperiled ecosystem and obviously limited resources. Therefore, Linkola would shed few tears if several billion of us were to meet a quick demise. In the name of conservation, he consigns democracy, conventional humanism, and the principle of non-violence to the waste bin.

Child limit would be enforced on all households. A fierce anti-capitalist, Linkola insists fishing and organic farming constitute the two primary occupations. Manufacturing would be overseen by the state, which would openly discourage technological research, and ozone-killing automobiles would be confiscated so that roads could be cleared for additional forest growth.

Consequently, bicycles and limited public transportation would return as the most popular modes of locomotion. Products would be created to last several lifetimes, with no exports allowed. As he has often stated, individual rights would give way to the rights of the earth, with his "Green Police" punishing miscreants who violate his beloved Gaia.

Like the National Socialists, Linkola would strive for "A return, from unthinking consumption to a pre-industrial agrarian society." For most of today's Greens this is too violent a change to envisage.

Today, Linkola stands alone but determined. A one-man force of will who remains undaunted in his quest to end the desolation of the earth. Although branded an "eco-fascist" by detractors and openly despised by the more image-conscious activists, he is actually more of a traditional ecologist than his critics would care to admit.

From an historical perspective, Linkola's books and articles resurrect a legacy of environmental consciousness that began over a century ago in the dark forests of Germany, where the first systemic environmental philosophy was formulated.


In 1980, Rudolf Bahro, the East German dissident and later a leading exponent of Green views, discovered the positive side to National Socialism and launched his idea that Europe needs an eco-dictatorship, an eco-Fascism - a Green Adolf!

A Green party that would stand for the preservation of every species -- including, and most of all, the racial preservation of the White race.

For one cannot be Green and not be a racialist. Unless that is, one is either incoherent or intellectually dishonest -- or both.

Racial preservation is Green!

Keep Healthy,

Norman Lowell


Sunday, March 20th, 2005, 08:18 AM
Anti-Vivisection and Reich Animal Protection Law

Vivisection Forbidden in Prussia!

The New Germany leads all civilized nations in the area of animal protection!

The famous national socialist Graf E. Reventkow published in the Reichswart, the official publication of the "union of patriotic Europeans", the lead article "Protection and Rights {Recht} for the Animal". National Socialism, he writes, has for the first time in Germany begun to show Germans the importance of the individual's {italics} duty toward the animal {end italics}. Most Germans have been raised with the attitude that animals are created by God for the use and benefit of man. The church gets this idea from the Jewish tradition. We have met with not a few clerics who defend this position with utmost steadfastness and vigor, yes one could say almost brutally. Usually they defend their position with the unstated intent of deepening and widening the chasm between man who has soul and soulless (how do they know that?) animals...

The friend of animals knows to what inexpressible extent the mutual understanding between man and animal and feelings of togetherness can be developed, and there are many friends of animals in Germany, and also many who cannot accept animal torture out of simple humanitarian reasons. In general however, we still find ourselves in a desert of unfeeling and brutality as well as sadism. There is much to be done and we would first like to address vivisection, for which the words "cultural shame" do not even come close; in fact it must be viewed as a criminal activity.

Graf Reventkow presents a number of examples of beastial vivisection crimes and affirms at the end, with mention of Adolph Hitler's sharp anti-vivisectionist positions, our demand that once and for all an end has to be brought to this animal exploitation.

We German friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists have placed our hopes upon the Chancellor of the Reich and his comrades in arms who are, as we know, friends of animals. Our trust has not been betrayed! The New Germany brings proof that it is not only the hearth but bringer of a new, higher, more refined, culture:

Vivisection, a cultural shame in the whole civilized world, against which the Best in all states have fought in vain for decades, will be banned in the New Germany!

A Reich Animal Protection Law which includes a ban on vivisection is imminent and just now comes the news, elating all friends of animals, that the greatest German state, Prussia, has outlawed vivisection with no exceptions!

The National Socialist German Workers' Party { NSDAP } press release states:

"The Prussian minister-president Goering has released a statement stating that starting 16 August 1933 vivisection of animals of all kinds is forbidden in Prussia. He has requested that the concerned ministries draft a law after which vivisection will be punished with a high penalty *). Until the law goes into effect, persons who, despite this prohibition, order, participate or perform vivisections on animals of any kind will be deported to concentration camps."

Among all civilized nations, Germany is thus the first to put an end to the cultural shame of vivisection! The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly defenseless animals their rights { Recht }. Animal friends and anti-vivisectionists of all states will joyfully welcome this action of the National Socialist government of the New Germany!

What Reichschancellor Adolph Hitler and Minister-president Goering have done and will do for the protection of animals should set the course for the leaders of all civilized nations! It is a deed which will bring the New Germany innumerable new elated friends in all nations. Millions of friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists of all civilized nations thank these two leaders from their hearts for this exemplary civil deed!

Buddha, the Great loving spirit of the East, says: "He who is kind-hearted to animals, heaven will protect!" May this blessing fulfill the leaders of the New Germany, who have done great things for animals, until the end. May the blessing hand of fate protect these bringers of a New Spirit, until their godgiven earthly mission is fulfilled!


*) As we in the meantime have learned, a similar ban has been proclaimed in Bavaria. The formal laws are imminent - thanks to the energetic initiative of our Peoples' chancellor Adolph Hitler, for whom all friends of animals of the world will maintain forever their gratitude, their love, and their loyalty.

From: Die Weisse Fahne {The White Flag} 14 (1933) : 710-711.

Sunday, March 20th, 2005, 08:20 AM

The term "ecology" was invented in Germany in the nineteenth Century by the pioneering zoologist Ernst Haeckel. Via his widely influential writings and lectures, Haeckel elaborated a holistic view of man's symbiotic relationship with the natural world. To Haeckel, and those who followed his philosophy of "Monism", natural laws governed the workings of the natural world and human civilization alike. Haeckel and others of his philosophical school taught respect for nature and preached conservation.

What many people do not know about Haeckel, however, is his connection to national socialism. Haeckel placed his views about nature conservation into a world view similar to that of Social Darwinism Here, only the strong (both individually and on a national scale) and those willing to fight, survived the constant upward struggle that characterized national evolutionary development. Nations, cultures, and peoples could therefore be categorized "scientifically" into those that were superior and those that were inferior, with the latter being considered expendable and even worthy of destruction. Haeckel also had racial views similar to Hitler.

This brief collection of quotes illustrates the decisive role that a radical ecological understanding of the world played within National Socialism. Needless to say, ecology as a science and natural philosophy as a whole have not always assumed the same radical ideological shape throughout history. Since World War II, the Green movements that have sprung up all over the world are largely democratic in nature and are as concerned about the well being of humanity as they are about the health of the planet as a whole.

However, the deteriorating world environmental situation in our time could create incentives for even harsher regimes than those of Nazi Germany. Thus, it is useful to study this subject.


"By ecology we understand the total science of the connections of the organism to the surrounding external world." -- Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Haeckel quoted in Raymond H. Dominick III, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971 (Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1992), p. 38.


"Man is not distinguished from [the animals] by a special kind of soul, or by any peculiar and exclusive psychic function, but only by a higher degree of psychic activity, a superior stage of development." -- Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Ernst Haeckel, The Riddle of the Universe (New York: Harper, 1900), p. 201.


"As our mother earth is a mere speck in the sunbeam in the illimitable universe, so man himself is but a tiny grain of protoplasm in the perishable framework of organic nature. [This] clearly indicates the true place of man in nature, but it dissipates the prevalent illusion of man's supreme importance and the arrogance with which he sets himself apart from the illimitable universe and exalts himself to the position of its most valuable element." -- Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Ernst Haeckel, The Riddle of the Universe (New York: Harper, 1900), pp. 14-15.

"Man is not above nature, but in nature." -- Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Ernst Haeckel, The Evolution of Man. 2 vols. (New York: Appleton, 1903), vol. II, p. 456.

"Man must not fall into the error of thinking that he was ever meant to become lord and master of Nature. A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed. Man must also submit to the eternal principles of this supreme wisdom. He may try to understand them but he can never free himself from their sway." -- Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 10.


"Civilization and the life of nations are governed by the same laws as prevail throughout nature and organic life." -- Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation. 2 vols. (New York: D. Appleton, 1876), vol. I, p. 11.

"The whole of organic nature on our planet exists only by a relentless war of all against all. ... The raging war of interests in human society is only a feeble picture of an unceasing and terrible war of existence which reigns throughout the whole of the living world." -- Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Ernst Haeckel, Monism: The Confession of Faith of a Man of Science. Tr. J. Gilchrist (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1895), pp. 73-74.

" useful to know the laws of nature - for that enables us to obey them. To act otherwise would be to rise in revolt against heaven." -- Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations, 1941-1945 (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953), p. 116.

"As in everything, nature is the best instructor." -- Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations, 1941-1945 (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953), p. 321.

"Christianity [is] a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature." -- Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations, 1941-1945 (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953), p. 43.

"Deep and understanding feeling for nature is the foundation of every culture." -- Hermann Goering

Source: Goering quoted in Blätter für Naturschutz 18, 2 (1935).

"National Socialism is politically applied biology." -- Hans Schemm, Founder and Head of the National Socialist Teachers Association

Source: Schemm quoted in Die Biologe 5 (1926), p. 281.

"If ... the garden (i.e., society) is to remain the breeding ground for the plants, if, in other words, it is to lift itself above the harsh rule of natural forces, then the forming wheel of a gardener is necessary, of a gardener who, by providing suitable conditions for growing, or by keeping harmful influences away, or by both together, carefully tends what needs tending, and ruthlessly eliminates the weeds which would deprive the better plants of nutrition, the air, light, sun." -- R. Walther Darré

Source: Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust (New York: NYU Press, 1992), pp 113f.


"We are compelled by reflection to recognize that God is not to be placed against the material world [as in Christianity], but must be placed as a 'divine power' or 'moving spirit' within the cosmos itself ... All the wonderful phenomena of nature around us, organic as well as inorganic, are only various products of one and the same original force." -- Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Ernst Haeckel, Monism: The Confession of Faith of a Man of Science. Tr. J. Gilchrist (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1895), p. 15.

"Man has discovered in nature the wonderful notion of that all-mighty being whose law he worships. Fundamentally in everyone there is the feeling for this all-mighty, which we call god (that is to say, the dominion of natural laws throughout the whole universe)." -- Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations, 1941-1945 (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953), p. 5.

"The man who contemplates the universe with his eyes wide open is the man with the greatest amount of natural piety; not in the religious sense, but in the sense of an intimate harmony with things." -- Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations, 1941-1945 (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953), p. 5.

"When we National Socialists speak of a belief in God, we do not mean what naive Christians and their clerical exploiters have in mind. ...The power of nature's law is what we call the omnipotent force or God. ...We National Socialists demand of ourselves that we live as naturally as possible, that is to say in accord with the laws of life. The more precisely we understand and observe the laws of nature and of life and the more we keep to them, the more we correspond to the will of this omnipotent force." -- Martin Bormann, NSDAP Party Secretary

Source: Boria Sax, Animals in the Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats, and the Holocaust (New York: Continuum, 2000), p. 106.


"Every healthy Völk sees the right to expansion of its living space as something natural." -- Adolf Hitler

Source: Hitler Speech, Völkischer Beobachter, 11 November 1931


"Nations whose feeling for nature dissipates because they destroy their homeland, carry the seeds of death in them; they only continue as a nation artificially. Nations with a strongly defined feeling for nature, like the Germans and the Slavs, overcome even the hardest blows and have an unlimited capacity for regeneration. Therefore a government that seeks to maintain the feeling for nature of its people is smart, and to that end no sacrifice is too large, no means too small, and everyone who helps with that serves his Völk." -- Hermann Löns, Popular Writer in Second Empire Germany

Source: Zeitschrift für Vogelschutz und andere Gebiete des Naturschutzes 1, 1 (1920), p. 44.

"The German countryside must be preserved under all circumstances, for it is and has forever been the source of strength and greatness of our people." -- Adolf Hitler

Source: Hitler quoted in Raymond H. Dominick III, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971 (Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1992), p. 81.

"Man should organize his existence meaningfully in the natural sphere of his living space, should make everything that nature offers him useful for himself while being conscious of his responsibility, should be the master of nature but at the same time its protector and conserver." --Julius Wagner, German educator

Source: Julius Wagner, Die Biologie im Dienste heimatlicher Landschaftskunde (1934).


Lands protected included:

"Remaining portions of landscape in free nature whose preservation on account of rarity, beauty, distinctiveness or on account of scientific, ethnic, forest, or hunting significance lies in the general interest."

Source: Raymond H. Dominick III, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971 (Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1992), p. 108. (Introduction to law can be read here (http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Naturelaw.pdf) (PDF File).


"The morality and customs of Germans are derived entirely from the organizational unity of blood and soil." -- R. Walther Darré, 1931

Source: R. Walther Darré, Um Blut und Boden: Reden und Aufsätze (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, Franz Eher Nachführung, 1942), p. 57.


"The leadership of our National Socialist state and our conception of a people [[i]Volk] is penetrated and inspired by foundations in biology. Legal provisions are derived from the laws of life. Their worth proceeds from the degree to which they are thought through in biological terms and on biological foundations." -- Walter Greit, Chief of Reichsbund für Biologie

Source: Klaus Fischer, Nazi Germany: A New History (New York, Continuum, 1995), p. 233.


"The domestication (the culture) of man does not go deep--where it does go deep it at once becomes degeneration (type: the Christian). The 'savage' (or, in moral terms, the evil man) is a return to nature--and in a certain sense his recovery, his cure from 'culture'." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Source: Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, Fragment 684

"Even in those days I already saw that there was a two-fold method by which alone it would be possible to bring about an amelioration of these [social] conditions. This method is: first, to create better fundamental conditions of social development by establishing a profound feeling for social responsibilities among the public; second, to combine this feeling for social responsibilities with a ruthless determination to prune away all excrescences which are incapable of being improved.

Just as Nature concentrates its greatest attention, not to the maintenance of what already exists but on the selective breeding of offspring in order to carry on the species, so in human life also it is less a matter of artificially improving the existing generation – which, owing to human characteristics, is impossible in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred – and more a matter of securing from the very start a better road for future development." -- Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 2.

"I desire a violent, domineering, fearless, and ferocious upcoming generation. It must be able to bear pain. It must show no signs whatsoever of weakness or tenderness. The free and magnificent predator must once again glint from their eyes." -- Adolf Hitler

Source Hitler quoted in Hermann Rauschning, Gespräche mit Hitler (New York, 1940), p. 237.

"At the end of the last century the progress of science and technique led liberalism astray into proclaiming man's mastery of nature, and announcing he would soon have dominion over space ... In any case, we shall learn to become familiar with the laws by which life is governed, and acquaintance with the laws of nature will guide us on the path of progress." -- Adolf Hitler, 11 July 1941

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944. tr. N. Cameron & R.H. Stevens (New York: Enigma Books, 2000), pp. 5-6.


"The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the majority rejects the authority of the individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so it contradicts the aristocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of nature." -- Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 3.


"Among the Spartans all newly born children were subject to a careful examination or selection. All those that were weak, sickly, or affected with any bodily infirmity, were killed. Only the perfectly healthy and strong children were allowed to live, and they alone afterwards propagated the race." -- Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation. 2 vols. (New York: D. Appleton, 1876), vol. I, p. 170.

"Sparta must be regarded as the first völkisch state. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more human than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject." -- Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Secret Book (New York: Grove Press, 1961, p. 18.

"For as soon as the procreative faculty is thwarted and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to ‘save’ feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost. And thus the seeds are sown for a human progeny which will become more and more miserable from one generation to another, as long as Nature’s will is scorned." -- Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 4.


"The völkisch concept of the world recognizes that the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance for mankind. In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind. Therefore on the völkisch principle we cannot admit that one race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the völkisch concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality. On the basis of this recognition it feels bound in conformity with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior and weaker. And so it pays homage to the truth that the principle underlying all Nature’s operations is the aristocratic principle and it believes that this law holds good even down to the last individual organism." -- Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 13.


"Mental differences between the lowest men and the animals are less than those between the lowest and the highest man." -- Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation, vol. 2, p. 366.

"Difference which exists between the lowest, so-called men, and the other higher races is greater than between the lowest men and the highest apes." -- Adolf Hitler

Source: Hitler quoted in Heinz Bruecher, Ernst Haeckels Bluts- und Geisteserbe (München: Lehmann, 1936), p. 91.


"The German people have always shown their great love of animals and the question of animal protection was always near their hearts. For thousands of years the German people have always looked upon their household and farmyard animals as their companions, in the case of horses as their fighting companions, and as God's creatures. To the German, animals are not merely creatures in the organic sense, but creatures who lead their own lives and who are endowed with perceptive facilities, who feel pain and experience joy and prove to be faithful and attached. ...Under the influence of foreign conceptions of justice and a strange comprehension of law, through the unhappy fact that the exercise of justice was in the hands of people alien to the nation (i.e., Jews) -- because of all these conditions, until now, the animal was considered a dead thing under the law." -- Hermann Goering, August 1933

Source: Hermann Goering, The Political Testament of Hermann Goering. Tr. H.W. Blood Hermann (London: John Lang, 1939), pp. 70f.


"The external appearance of any construction projects that are created during the time of the National Socialist Reich must take on the sensibility of our time. Factories are the workplaces of our National Socialist racial comrades. Streets and highways carry the name of the Führer. Settlements today are not isolated communities, but rather parts of greater city-construction plans. Every work site must be properly located within its neighborhood and surrounding setting (i.e., the natural world)." -- Fritz Todt

Source: Deutsche Technik, May 1938, p. 209.

"We do not build speedways, but roads which correspond to the character of the German landscape." -- Fritz Todt

Source: Fritz Todt, "Vortrag in der Leipzig-Hochschule am 6.2.1934" in Die Autobahn, 4/1934, p. 125.

"For decades engineers have stood accused that their buildings do not have any cultural value. We have attempted to liberate engineering of this accusation. As National Socialists we are dedicated to working with boldness, but also with love of the [i]Volk and our landscape in mind. These roads do not serve transportation alone, they also bind our Fatherland. In these highways our engineering will reflect the National Socialist movement." -- Fritz Todt

Source: Deutsche Technik, June 1935, p. 270.

"The German landscape is something unique that we cannot disturb and have no right to destroy. The more densely populated our 'living space' becomes with settlements, the greater our hunger will grow for unspoilt nature. The ever increasing spiritual damage caused by life within the big city will make this hunger practically uncontrollable ... when we build here on this the landscape of our homeland we must be clear that we will protect its beauty; and in places where this beauty has already disappeared, we will reconstruct it." -- Fritz Todt

Source: Franz W. Seidler, Fritz Todt: Baumeister des Dritten Reiches (München: F.A. Herbig, 1986), p. 113.


"War has returned to its primitive form ... Today war is nothing but a struggle for the riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these riches belong to he who conquers them." -- Adolf Hitler, 10 October 1941

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944. tr. N. Cameron & R.H. Stevens (New York: Enigma Books, 2000), p. 51.

"Despite all its efforts, the side [in war] that hasn't got the natural riches must end by going under. The world's wealth is boundless, and only a quarter of the surface of the globe is at present at humanity's disposal. It is for this quarter that everyone is fighting. And its all in the natural order or things -- for it makes for the survival of the fittest." -- Adolf Hitler, 13 October 1941

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944. tr. N. Cameron & R.H. Stevens (New York: Enigma Books, 2000), pp. 53f.

"From now on, one may consider that there is no gap between the organic and inorganic worlds." -- Adolf Hitler, 24 October 1941

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944. tr. N. Cameron & R.H. Stevens (New York: Enigma Books, 2000), p. 84f.

Sunday, March 20th, 2005, 08:23 AM
Various Quotes I Compiled on National Socialist Germany’s Animal Rights and Environmental Laws :D

"Around the end of the nineteenth century, kosher butchering and vivisection were the foremost concerns of the animal protection movement in Germany. These interests continued during the Third Reich and became formalized as laws. Before taking power, the Nazis had begun to prepare laws to address these issues. In 1927, a Nazi representative to the Reichstag called for measures against cruelty to animals and against kosher butchering. In 1932 a ban on vivisection was proposed by the Nazi party, and at the start of 1933, the Nazi representatives to the Prussian parliament met to enact this ban. On April 23, 1933, almost immediately after the Nazis came to power, they passed a set of laws regulating the slaughter of animals. In August 1933, Hermann Goring announced an end to the 'unbearable torture and suffering in animal experiments' and threatened to 'commit to concentration camps those who still think they can continue to treat animals as inanimate property.' . . . The Nazi animal protection laws of November 1933 permitted experiments on animals in some circumstances but subject to a set of eight conditions and only with the explicit permission of the minister of the interior, supported by the recommendation of local authorities. The conditions were designed to eliminate pain and prevent unnecessary experiments. Horses, dogs, cats, and apes were singled out for special protection."

"In addition to the laws against vivisection and kosher slaughter, other legal documents regulating the treatment of animals were enacted from 1933 through 1943, probably several times the number in the previous half century. These documents covered in excruciating detail a vast array of concerns, from the shoeing of horses to the use of anesthesia. One law passed in 1936 showed 'particular solicitude' about the suffering of lobsters and crabs, stipulating that restaurants were to kill crabs, lobsters, and other crustaceans by throwing them one at a time into rapidly boiling water. Several 'high officials' had debated the question of the most humane death for lobsters before this regulation was passed, and two officials in the Interior Ministry had prepared a scholarly treatise on the subject.”

-Reinventing Biology, Lynda Birkeand Ruth Hubbard

“The Nazis also sought to protect wildlife. In 1934 and 1935, the focus of Nazi legislation on animals shifted from farm animals and pets to creatures of the wild. The preface to the hunting laws of March 27, 1935, announced a eugenic purpose behind the legislation, stating, 'The duty of a true hunter is not only to hunt but also to nurture and protect wild animals, in order that a more varied, stronger and healthier breed shall emerge and be preserved.' Nazi veterinary journals often featured reports on endangered species. Goring in particular was concerned about the near extinction in Germany of the bear, bison, and wild horse and sought to establish conservation and breeding programs for dwindling species and to pass new and more uniform hunting laws and taxes. His game laws are still operative today."

--Arthur Arluke and Boria Sax, The Nazi Treatment of Animals and People.

"What we today call 'environmentalism' is ... based on a fear of change. It's based upon a fear of the outcome of human action. And therefore it's not surprising that when you look at the more xenophobic right-wing movements in Europe in the 19th century, including German fascism, it quite often had a very strong environmentalist dynamic to it. The most notorious environmentalists in history were the German Nazis. The Nazis ordered soldiers to plant more trees. They were the first Europeans to establish nature reserves and order the protection of hedgerows and other wildlife habitats. And they were horrified at the idea of hydroelectric dams on the Rhine. Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis were vegetarian and they passed numerous laws on animal rights."

-Frank Furedi, British channel 4 documentary "Against Nature"

Justice, Nature & the Geography of Difference by David Harvey
'While it is very difficult to make the case that American Indian activists have actually ever joined skinheads or other fascist gangs, Luc Ferry does point out that the Nazis were enthusiastic about American Indian rights in "The New Ecological Order." Ferry's book, which Harvey cites uncritically, is a general assault on the environmental movement, which tries to draw out every reactionary tendency and place it in the foreground. An affinity between Nazis and the American Indian would be a very serious business indeed. Ferry states:

We have to be ignorant or prejudiced not to see it: Nazism contains within it, for reasons that are in no way accidental, the beginnings of an authentic concern for preserving "natural," which is to say, here again, "original" peoples. In the chapter devoted to this subject in his book, Walther Schoenichen cannot find words harsh enough to condemn the attitude of "the white man, the great destroyer of creation": in the paradise he himself is responsible for losing, he has paved only a path of "epidemics, thievery, fires, blood and tears!" "Indeed, the enslavement of primitive peoples in the 'cultural' history of the white race constitutes one of its most shameful chapters, which is not only streaked with rivers of blood, but of cruelty and torture of the worst kind. And its final pages were not written in the distant past, but at the beginning of the twentieth century." Schoenichen proceeds to trace, with great precision, the list of the various genocides that have occurred throughout the history of colonialization, from the massacre of the South American Indians to that of the Sioux--who "were pushed back in unthinkable conditions of cruelty and infamy"--and the South African bushmen (Ferry 1995: 103-105).

It is unfortunate that Harvey place any credence in Ferry's treatment of the problem, since it stresses speech at the expense of activity. After warning us that anti-ecological activity by the mammoth-destroying American Indians counted for more than Luther Standing Bear's greenish words, should not the same considerations apply to Nazi verbal professions of "ecology" or "concern" for the indigenous peoples? Consider that Walter Schoenichen was an aide to Heman Goering, who in his capacity as Minister of the German Forests supervised the "Germanization" of forests in conquered territories. In 1941, the Nazis took control of the Bialowieza forest in Lithuania and they resolved to turn it into a hunting reserve for top officers (Schama 1995: 71-72). Open season was declared on the Jews.'

Fascist Ecology: The "Green Wing" of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents by Peter Staudenmaier
The National Socialist "religion of nature," as one historian has described it, was a volatile admixture of primeval teutonic nature mysticism, pseudo-scientific ecology, irrationalist anti-humanism, and a mythology of racial salvation through a return to the land. Its predominant themes were 'natural order,' organicist holism and denigration of humanity: "Throughout the writings, not only of Hitler, but of most Nazi ideologues, one can discern a fundamental deprecation of humans vis-à-vis nature, and, as a logical corollary to this, an attack upon human efforts to master nature."25 Quoting a Nazi educator, the same source continues: "anthropocentric views in general had to be rejected. They would be valid only 'if it is assumed that nature has been created only for man. We decisively reject this attitude. According to our conception of nature, man is a link in the living chain of nature just as any other organism'." 26

Such arguments have a chilling currency within contemporary ecological discourse: the key to social-ecological harmony is ascertaining "the eternal laws of nature's processes" (Hitler) and organizing society to correspond to them. The Führer was particularly fond of stressing the "helplessness of humankind in the face of nature's everlasting law."27 Echoing Haeckel and the Monists, Mein Kampf announces: "When people attempt to rebel against the iron logic of nature, they come into conflict with the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human beings. Their actions against nature must lead to their own downfall."28

The authoritarian implications of this view of humanity and nature become even clearer in the context of the Nazis' emphasis on holism and organicism. In 1934 the director of the Reich Agency for Nature Protection, Walter Schoenichen, established the following objectives for biology curricula: "Very early, the youth must develop an understanding of the civic importance of the 'organism', i.e. the co-ordination of all parts and organs for the benefit of the one and superior task of life."29 This (by now familiar) unmediated adaptation of biological concepts to social phenomena served to justify not only the totalitarian social order of the Third Reich but also the expansionist politics of Lebensraum (the plan of conquering 'living space' in Eastern Europe for the German people). It also provided the link between environmental purity and racial purity:

Two central themes of biology education follow [according to the Nazis] from the holistic perspective: nature protection and eugenics. If one views nature as a unified whole, students will automatically develop a sense for ecology and environmental conservation. At the same time, the nature protection concept will direct attention to the urbanized and 'overcivilized' modern human race.30 In many varieties of the National Socialist world view ecological themes were linked with traditional agrarian romanticism and hostility to urban civilization, all revolving around the idea of rootedness in nature. This conceptual constellation, especially the search for a lost connection to nature, was most pronounced among the neo-pagan elements in the Nazi leadership, above all Heinrich Himmler, Alfred Rosenberg, and Walther Darré. Rosenberg wrote in his colossal The Myth of the 20th Century: "Today we see the steady stream from the countryside to the city, deadly for the Volk. The cities swell ever larger, unnerving the Volk and destroying the threads which bind humanity to nature; they attract adventurers and profiteers of all colors, thereby fostering racial chaos."

The New Ecological Order by Luc Ferry
To color his claim, by analogy, Ferry devotes an entire chapter to "Nazi Ecology." "In the New Reich cruelty toward animals should no longer exist," Hitler proclaimed. Thus followed "The German Law for the Protection of Animals," a law limiting hunting, and, "a landmark of modern ecology, the law for the protection of nature." While Ferry concedes that "guilt by association, here as elsewhere, is inappropriate," he insists that "these important legislation nonetheless lead us to reflect on the fact that an interest in nature, while it may not imply a hatred of men ipso facto, does not exclude one either...[W]e must examine the disturbing nature of this alliance between an utterly sincere zoophilia...and the most ruthless hatred of men history has ever known."

If humankind, by dint of reason, is transcendent -- by nature, anti­p;natural -- distinguished by its capacity for separation, autonomy, individuation, in short, radical freedom -- "t is not surprising that the Nazi draws his gun to shoot the stateless person, the person who is not rooted in a community, when he hears the word culture. It is not surprising either that he would do so while preserving intact the love of the cat or dog who shares his life." Racial cleansing, thus viewed, was an attempt to cure the excesses of freedom and choice, and return Germany to an original state of natural and unitary grace. The rejection of differentiation, one human being from another, all human beings from nature, inevitably leads to extinction and extermination, not only in fact but by first principles. If following Descartes, "I think, therefore, I am," and if such thinking is precluded, then being is likewise eclipsed.

Understanding Nazi Animal Protection and the Holocaust by Dr. Arnold Arluke
In "Understanding Nazi Animal Protection and the Holocaust" (published in a 1992 issue of Anthrozoos), Dr. Arnold Arluke, Professor of Sociology at Northeastern University, and Boria Sax, Ph.D., coauthor of Animals in the Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats, and the Holocaust (Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc., 2000), stated that the Nazis "exalted synthesis against analysis . . . and Volk legend against scientific truth. . . . Life . . . had an organic unity . . . . the invisible force that makes the whole more than the sum of its parts."
Nazism was very complex and is not reducible to a single group of beliefs, particularly in terms of the aforementioned theories. But within the Nazi movement of the early 20th century were influential figures who publicly subscribed to tenets remarkably similar to the prevalent antiscience claims of today's advocates of postmodernism, deconstructionism, and/or ecofeminism. Indeed, some of the antiscience canons of postmodernism were enunciated by key members of the Nazi regime. This alone casts doubt on the assertion of a causal relationship between science and Nazism and/or the Holocaust. Furthermore, except for Germany, no crisis in any of those countries that during the 20th century were capitalistic and highly industrialized has resulted in anything of a sort even approaching that of the Holocaust.

Why We Are Not Nietzscheans by Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut (Editors)
Despite his oft-repeated self-description as an "untimely" figure, Nietzsche's point of departure was a particular late nineteenth-century worldview antagonistic towards liberalism, democracy, rationalism and Jews. That he broke with the standard reactionary thought of his time in some important ways is undeniable, notably in his ambiguous stance towards rationality and Jews. With respect to the latter, however, the standard means of deflecting the charge of anti-Semitism -- by citing passages that demonstrate his contempt for anti-Semites -- is simply is insufficient. Sponville notes that it is possible to detest anti-Semites and Jews at the same time and points to Nietzsche's "unmasking" of Judaism's contribution to "slave morality" to indicate that the case for his anti-Semitism cannot be dismissed outright. While avoiding the silly charge that Nietzsche "caused" Nazism, Sponville points out that one could "hardly imagine the Nazis laying claim to Kant or Husserl in the same way..."

The Nazi War on Cancer by Robert N. Proctor
While The Nazi War on Cancer has merit, its core propositions have serious flaws. Proctor's aim was to show the flip side of fascism. He evidently found that, although fascism is "disturbing," it was the setting for "work that we, today, might regard as 'progressive' or even socially responsible . . . some of [which] was a direct outgrowth of Nazi ideology." This "progressive" work included environmentalism and conservationism; animal-rights advocacy; vegetarianism; a clampdown on "quack medicine" (e.g., occult medicine, including dowsing, and the treatment of cancer by chiropractors); and objections to petrochemicals in favor of the "natural," to excessive use of asbestos and x-rays, and to overmedication. The Nazis of Hitler's Germany objected especially to tobacco use and pioneered epidemiological work that related tobacco use to the development of cancer. Overall, these predilections and disapprovals—plus an acceptance of homeopathy [See " Homeopathy and Its Founder"], of magnetotherapy, and of what we might call "holistic healing"—make the Nazis look somewhat like New Agers.

2) If the forest is a symbol of German nation, then forest die-back is a threat to national identity. This association played a key role in sparking the contemporary German green movement but it also posed considerable difficulty for that movement because it reveals how contemporary ecological sensibilities have their roots in traditions that also prompted the Nazis to be the first radical environmentalists in charge of a state.

— David Harvey, Justice, Nature & the Geography of Difference, p. 171

Although this widespread overlap between animal liberation politics and the xenophobic and authoritarian right may seem incongruous, it has played a prominent role in the history of fascism since the early twentieth century. Many fascist theoreticians prided themselves on their movement’s steadfast rejection of anthropocentrism, and the German variant of fascism in particular frequently tended toward an animal rights position. Nazi biology textbooks insisted that “there exist no physical or psychological characteristics which would justify a differentiation of mankind from the animal world.”18 (http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20040611140817458#sdfo otnote18symsdfootnote18sym) Hitler himself was zealously committed to animal welfare causes, and was a vegetarian and opponent of vivisection. His lieutenant Goebbels declared: “The Fuhrer is a convinced vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on any serious basis. They are totally unanswerable.”19 (http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20040611140817458#sdfo otnote19symsdfootnote19sym) Other leading Nazis, like Rudolf Hess, were even stricter in their vegetarianism, and the party promoted raw fruits and nuts as the ideal diet, much like the most scrupulous vegans today. Himmler excoriated hunting and required the top ranks of the SS to follow a vegetarian regimen, while Goering banned animal experimentation.

The list of pro-animal predilections on the part of top Nazis is long, but more important are the animal rights policies implemented by the Nazi state and the underlying ideology that justified them. Within a few months of taking power, the Nazis passed animal rights laws that were unprecedented in scale and that explicitly affirmed the moral status of animals independent of any human interest. These decrees stressed the duty to avoid causing pain to animals and established extremely detailed and concrete guidelines for interactions with animals. According to a leading scholar of Nazi animal legislation, “the Animal Protection Law of 1933 was probably the strictest in the world”.20 (http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20040611140817458#sdfo otnote20symsdfootnote20sym)

A 1939 compendium of Nazi animal protection statutes proclaimed that “the German people have always had a great love for animals and have always been conscious of our strong ethical obligations toward them.” The Nazi laws insisted on “the right which animals inherently possess to be protected in and of themselves.” 21 (http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20040611140817458#sdfo otnote21symsdfootnote21sym) These were not mere philosophical postulates; the ordinances closely regulated the permissible treatment of domestic and wild animals and designated a variety of protected species while restricting commercial and scientific use of animals. The official reasoning behind these decrees was remarkably similar to latter-day animal rights arguments. “To the German, animals are not merely creatures in the organic sense, but creatures who lead their own lives and who are endowed with perceptive facilities, who feel pain and experience joy,” observed Goering in 1933 while announcing a new anti-vivisection law. 22 (http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20040611140817458#sdfo otnote22symsdfootnote22sym)

18 (http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20040611140817458#sdfo otnote18ancsdfootnote18anc) Quoted in Louis Snyder, Encyclopedia of the Third Reich (New York 1976) p. 79. This stance had a long history within right-wing circles in Germany in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a period when vegetarianism and animal welfare sentiment often went hand in hand with racial mythology and authoritarian political and cultural beliefs.

19 (http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20040611140817458#sdfo otnote19ancsdfootnote19anc) Joseph Goebbels quoted in Robert Proctor, The Nazi War on Cancer (Princeton 1999) p. 136. It is important to recognize that Hitler’s vegetarianism was a matter of conviction, not merely the eccentric whim of a crazed dictator. I emphasize this not to embarrass contemporary vegetarians, much less to endorse the misguided search for the ‘good’ features of Nazism, but to point out the intellectual parallels at work here. Chapter 5 of Proctor’s book, “The Nazi Diet”, offers an informed assessment of Nazism’s food politics.

20 (http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20040611140817458#sdfo otnote20ancsdfootnote20anc) Boria Sax, Animals in the Third Reich (New York 2000), p. 112. Sax’s book is an invaluable source on Nazi attitudes toward animals.

21 (http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20040611140817458#sdfo otnote21ancsdfootnote21anc) Quoted in Luc Ferry, The New Ecological Order (Paris 1992; Chicago 1995), pp. 99-100. Sax gives a compact exposition of the same passage on pp. 121-2 of Animals in the Third Reich.

22 (http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20040611140817458#sdfo otnote22ancsdfootnote22anc) Hermann Goering quoted in Sax, p. 111. For readers familiar with the philosophical literature on animal liberation, it is impossible to miss this passage’s resonance with Regan’s conception of sentient animals as “subjects of a life” and Singer’s emphasis on their capacity for experiencing pain. The legacy of Nazi animal rights measures ought to be reason enough (if any more were needed) for animal liberation proponents to abandon their egregiously ill-considered comparisons between factory farms and the death camps.

-- Article: Ambiguities of Animal Rights, Peter Staudenmaier (Institute for Social Ecology)

“History of State Nature Conservation

The beginning of conservation legislation in Germany was marked by the establishment of the "State Office for Natural Monument Care" in Danzig (Gdansk), in 1906. This first state conservation facility was transfered to Berlin in 1911. In 1935, the Reich Conservation Law came into effect as the legal basis for conservation and landscape care. On this basis, the "State Office for Nature Monument Care" was transformed in 1936 to the "Reich Office for Conservation".

The essential goals of the Reich Conservation Law consisted in the preservation of plants and non-game animals, of natural monuments and their surroundings, as well as of nature protection areas and other landscape elements in free nature which were to be protected because of their rarity, beauty, uniqueness and their scientific, regional-cultural, forestry or hunting significance.

Immediately after the end of World War II, conservation played only a very subordinate role. Only after the elementary needs of life were ensured and everyday life was normalized could conservation activities develop again. Due to the division of Germany, different social systems emerged, which was also reflected in conservation legislation.”

n Nature Protection Areas and Landscape Protection Areas (Edition 2003)

"anthropocentric views in general had to be rejected. They would be valid only 'if it is assumed that nature has been created only for man. We decisively reject this attitude. According to our conception of nature, man is a link in the living chain of nature just as any other organism'."

--Robert Pois, National Socialism and the Religion of Nature, London, 1985,pp. 42-43. The internal quote is taken from George Mosse, [i]Nazi Culture, New York, 1965, p. 87

When people attempt to rebel against the iron logic of nature, they come into conflict with the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human beings. Their actions against nature must lead to their own downfall."

--Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler

“Such musings, it must be stressed, were not mere rhetoric; they reflected firmly held beliefs and, indeed, practices at the very top of the Nazi hierarchy which are today conventionally associated with ecological attitudes. Hitler and Himmler were both strict vegetarians and animal lovers, attracted to nature mysticism and homeopathic cures, and staunchly opposed to vivisection and cruelty to animals. Himmler even established experimental organic farms to grow herbs for SS medicinal purposes. And Hitler, at times, could sound like a veritable Green utopian, discussing authoritatively and in detail various renewable energy sources (including environmentally appropriate hydropower and producing natural gas from sludge) as alternatives to coal, and declaring "water, winds and tides" as the energy path of the future.”

--Fascist Ecology, Peter Staudenmaier; 32. Picker, Hitlers Tischgespräche, pp. 139-140

“The peasant of our racial stock has always carefully endeavored to increase the natural powers of the soil, plants, and animals, and to preserve the balance of the whole of nature. For him, respect for divine creation is the measure of all culture. If, therefore, the new Lebensräume (living spaces) are to become a homeland for our settlers, the planned arrangement of the landscape to keep it close to nature is a decisive prerequisite. It is one of the bases for fortifying the German Volk.”

--Quoted in Heinz Haushofer, Ideengeschichte der Agrarwirtschaft und Agrarpolitik im deutschen Sprachgebiet, Band II, München, 1958, p. 266

“Such motifs were anything but personal idiosyncracies on the part of Hitler, Himmler, or Rosenberg; even Göring -- who was, along with Goebbels, the member of the Nazi inner circle least hospitable to ecological ideas -- appeared at times to be a committed conservationist.”

-- See Dominick, The Environmental Movement in Germany, p. 107

“These sympathies were also hardly restricted to the upper echelons of the party. A study of the membership rolls of several mainstream Weimar era Naturschutz (nature protection) organizations revealed that by 1939, fully 60 percent of these conservationists had joined the NSDAP (compared to about 10 percent of adult men and 25 percent of teachers and lawyers).”

-- Dominick, The Environmental Movement in Germany, p.113

“In reality, the majority of the leading National Socialist ideologists were without any doubt more or less inclined to agrarian romanticism and anti-urbanism and convinced of the need for a relative re-agrarianization.”

n Bergmann, Agrarromantik und Großstadtfeindschaft, p. 334. Ernst Nolte makes a similar argument in Three Faces of Fascism, New York, 1966, pp. 407-408, though the point gets lost somewhat in the translation. See also Norbert Frei, National Socialist Rule in Germany, Oxford, 1993, p. 56: "The change in direction towards the 'soil' had not been an electoral tactic. It was one of the basic ideological elements of National Socialism . . . "

“Aside from providing green camouflage for the colonization of Eastern Europe, Darré worked to install environmentally sensitive principles as the very basis of the Third Reich's agricultural policy. Even in its most productivist phases, these precepts remained emblematic of Nazi doctrine. When the "Battle for Production" (a scheme to boost the productivity of the agricultural sector) was proclaimed at the second Reich Farmers Congress in 1934, the very first point in the program read "Keep the soil healthy !" But Darré's most important innovation was the introduction on a large scale of organic farming methods, significantly labeled "lebensgesetzliche Landbauweise," or farming according to the laws of life. The term points up yet again the natural order ideology which underlies so much reactionary ecological thought. The impetus for these unprecedented measures came from Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophy and its techniques of biodynamic cultivation.”

-- Fascist Ecology: The "Green Wing" of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents, Peter Staudenmaier

; internal quote taken from Haushofer, Ideengeschichte der Agrarwirtschaft, pp. 269-271, and Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century, pp. 200-206, for the formative influence of Steinerite ideas on Darré.

“The campaign to institutionalize organic farming encompassed tens of thousands of smallholdings and estates across Germany. It met with considerable resistance from other members of the Nazi hierarchy, above all Backe and Göring. But Darré, with the help of Hess and others, was able to sustain the policy until his forced resignation in 1942 (an event which had little to do with his environmentalist leanings). And these efforts in no sense represented merely Darré's personal predilections; as the standard history of German agricultural policy points out, Hitler and Himmler "were in complete sympathy with these ideas."

--Haushofer, Ideengeschichte der Agrarwirtschaft, p. 271.

“Still, it was largely Darré's influence in the Nazi apparatus which yielded, in practice, a level of government support for ecologically sound farming methods and land use planning unmatched by any state before or since.”

-- Fascist Ecology: The "Green Wing" of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents, Peter Staudenmaier

"Todt demanded of the completed work of technology a harmony with nature and with the landscape, thereby fulfilling modern ecological principles of engineering as well as the 'organological' principles of his own era along with their roots in völkisch ideology."

--Karl-Heinz Ludwig, Technik und Ingenieure im Dritten Reich, Düsseldorf, 1974, p. 337 , on Reichsminister Fritz Todt

"The fulfillment of mere transportation purposes is not the final aim of German highway construction. The German highway must be an expression of its surrounding landscape and an expression of the German essence."

-- Reichsminister Fritz Todt , Quoted in Rolf Peter Sieferle, Fortschrittsfeinde? Opposition gegen Technik und Industrie von der Romantik bis zur Gegenwart, München, 1984, p. 220

“With the Third Reich's technological policy entrusted to figures such as these, even the Nazis' massive industrial build-up took on a distinctively green hue. The prominence of nature in the party's philosophical background helped ensure that more radical initiatives often received a sympathetic hearing in the highest offices of the Nazi state. In the mid-thirties Todt and Seifert vigorously pushed for an all-encompassing Reich Law for the Protection of Mother Earth "in order to stem the steady loss of this irreplaceable basis of all life."

-- Fascist Ecology: The "Green Wing" of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents, Peter Staudenmaier

; internal quote taken from Seifert, Ein Leben für die Landschaft, p. 90

“With Hess's enthusiastic backing, the "green wing" was able to achieve its most notable successes. As early as March 1933, a wide array of environmentalist legislation was approved and implemented at national, regional and local levels. These measures, which included reforestation programs, bills protecting animal and plant species, and preservationist decrees blocking industrial development, undoubtedly "ranked among the most progressive in the world at that time."

-- Fascist Ecology: The "Green Wing" of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents, Peter Staudenmaier

; internal quote taken from Raymond Dominick, "The Nazis and the Nature Conservationists", The Historian vol. XLIX no. 4 (August 1987), p. 534

“Planning ordinances were designed for the protection of wildlife habitat and at the same time demanded respect for the sacred German forest. The Nazi state also created the first nature preserves in Europe.

Along with Darré's efforts toward re-agrarianization and support for organic agriculture, as well as Todt and Seifert's attempts to institutionalize an environmentally sensitive land use planning and industrial policy, the major accomplishment of the Nazi ecologists was the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz of 1935. This completely unprecedented "nature protection law" not only established guidelines for safeguarding flora, fauna, and "natural monuments" across the Reich; it also restricted commercial access to remaining tracts of wilderness. In addition, the comprehensive ordinance "required all national, state and local officials to consult with Naturschutz authorities in a timely manner before undertaking any measures that would produce fundamental alterations in the countryside."

-- Fascist Ecology: The "Green Wing" of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents, Peter Staudenmaier

; internal quote taken from Raymond Dominick, "The Nazis and the Nature Conservationists", The Historian vol. XLIX no. 4 (August 1987), p. 536

"Volksgenossen!" [Fellow Germans] Since the day I announced my edict against the torture of animals regarding vivisection, a flood of letters and telegrams has come to my office, agreeing enthusiastically, expressing their gratitude over my decision that, finally, stringent steps were taken to end the torture of animals. My edict may have come as a surprise like lightening out of a blue sky. For years the struggle against vivisection has been going on. Much was said about it in scientific and unscientific discussions, but nothing was done about it. The National-Socialist Government was aware from the first day, that severe measures had to be inaugurated, yet, it took month until such a law, with all its ramifications, could be passed.

In order to prevent the spreading of torture to animals before such law could be passed, I issued this decree, making use of a right that is accorded to me, to put violators, who still think they can treat animals as a lifeless commodity, into protective custody or a concentration-camp.

The German people have always shown great compassion for animals and issues concerning animal-rights. They always saw in animals, especially those which became their compatriots in house, homes and battles for thousands of years, yes, we can say; in many ways their co-workers and – one need only to think about the horses – even comrades in arms, creatures of God.

--Hermann Göring on a Radio broadcast of 28. August 1933

"We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought."

--Ernst Lehmann, Biologischer Wille. Wege und Ziele biologischer Arbeit im neuen Reich, München, 1934, pp. 10-11

Sunday, March 20th, 2005, 08:56 AM
Thanks to Hitler, hunting with hounds is still verboten
(Filed: 22/09/2002)

The Fuhrer, a vegetarian, was the pioneer of hunting bans. His draconian laws were announced in Germany on July 3, 1934, on the grounds that hunting with hounds was 'unsporting'. His odd legacy lives on, report David Harrison and Tony Paterson

If Labour MPs ban hunting with hounds, they will follow the pioneering efforts of a leader of a very different political persuasion: Adolf Hitler. The dictator who sent millions of Jews to the gas chambers banned foxhunting in Nazi Germany because he considered the use of hounds to kill other animals "unsporting".

Hitler's cabinet was told about the new animal protection laws at a meeting on July 3, 1934 - the same day that the Fuhrer reported on the ruthless killing of Stormtrooper "conspirators" in the "Night of the Long Knives", according to an official Nazi biography published four years later.

Hitler was a vegetarian with a soft spot for animals, particularly his last dog, Blondi, which was with him in the Berlin bunker when he committed suicide in April 1945.

The laws were introduced by Hermann Goering, Hitler's infamous Air Marshall and a passionate hunter who appointed himself Hunting Master of the Reich (Reichsjaegermeister) soon after the Nazis gained power in 1933. Goering kept bison and stag at his Carinhall ranch - named after his wife - 50 miles north of Berlin.

The Nazi laws gave animals more protection than any other country in the world. Ian Kershaw, a professor of modern history at Sheffield University and the author of a biography of Hitler, said: "It does seem rather strange that they should be so concerned about foxes and other animals when you consider how they were treating humans."

Professor Kershaw said that there was "a curiously ethical side" to the Nazis reforms. "The Nazis wanted a clean kill and felt that it was wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to the animal being hunted," he said.

"So the new laws banned all field sports that involved training and using animals to kill game and vermin. There was a belief that if you put an animal through unnecessary torture you were somehow injuring the feelings of the German nation."

The official Nazi biography, which was written by Erich Gritzbach, says: "Goering is a fanatical friend of animals. He says: 'Whoever tortures animals violates the instincts of the German people.'

The same love of animals which he demonstrates in all he has to do with the animal world also imbues the Reich hunting law of 1934. Indeed it gives this law its deep ethical meaning. In Germany hunting on horseback, chasing animals with a pack of hounds, is banned."

The ban provoked howls of anger from the aristocracy which for centuries had hunted foxes, wild boar, hares and deer on horseback. Kaiser Wilhelm II (1859-1941), the grandson of Queen Victoria, was a keen huntsman who enjoyed hunting boar with a pack of hounds.

The upper classes were powerless to stop the changes. Bernd Ergert, the director of Germany's Munich-based hunting museum, said: "The artistocrats were understandably furious, but they could do nothing about the ban given the totalitarian nature of the regime." The laws were passed and remain in force to this day.

The hunting ban was part of a much grander plan to give every German hunter his own reserve or "shoot" if - the Nazis believed it was a question of when - Hitler's army achieved its ambition of conquering Europe and Russia. Only part of the dream was realised: in 1939 the ban was extended to cover Austria after Hitler's annexation of the country.

Some pro-hunting groups claim that Mr Blair's proposal to ban foxhunting in Britain would be every bit as tyrannical as the Nazi decree.

A spokesman for the Countryside Alliance said: "Hitler banned fox hunting partly because he wanted to attack the aristocracy's way of life and further his own ambitions. It would appear that Tony Blair's reasons for banning foxhunting are not dissimilar - a curious mixture of class envy, spite and a curious understanding of animal welfare."

Before the Nazis came to power Germany's hunting laws varied from state to state. Goering decided that more order was needed and introduced sweeping legislative changes which were enforced throughout the Reich. Until Goering's Reich Hunting Law (Reichsjagdgesetz) of 1934, German hunters pursued deer, wild boar, hares and foxes on horseback.

The foxes and hares were savaged to death by the hounds, while boar and deer were pursued by specially-trained dogs until they were exhausted and surrounded. They were then finished off with long-bladed knives driven into the animal's heart.

Goering adopted a moral code governing hunting called Sporting Justice (Waidgerechtigkeit) that had long been established in Germany. The code stipulates that it is unsporting to use animals such as dogs to kill game and vermin.

Karl-Heinz Lehmann, the former vice-president of Germany's 220,000-member association for the protection of hunting, said: "Goering gave Sporting Justice an almost religious importance and the laws still form the basis of today's hunting rules in reunified Germany."

Since 1934, foxhunting in Germany has been carried out with shotguns, although terriers and dachshunds are used to drive out foxes when they go to ground. It is forbidden to hunt vixen when they are cubbing and the poisoning of foxes is also prohibited, even though foxes are one of the main carriers of rabies.

Hunting deer and wild boar is done using beaters and dogs or the animals are shot from "hunting stands" set up all over farmland where game gathers. Bloodhounds are used to track down wounded game but not to kill.

Goering's law still exerts a profound influence on other aspects of hunting in Germany today. No one is allowed to hunt without a licence, for example, and obtaining a licence is not easy: it involves attending more than 100 hours of lectures and practical tests and sitting a difficult three-hour written exam.

Goering's country fashion sense has also stood the test of time. Many of Germany's 330,000 registered hunters still follow his style by sporting the green loden hunting garb and feathered hat that he wore as Reich Hunting Master. Novice hunters are encouraged to wear such clothes before attending their tests in order to impress the examiners.

Much of Goering's law was also adopted in former Communist East Germany. The country's ousted leader, Erich Honecker, was a fanatical hunter who loved entertaining Eastern Bloc leaders by taking them on lengthy hunting excursions.

However, the most controversial aspect of the Reichsjagdgesetz was an attempt to win over Germany's hunting fraternity to the Nazi drive for territorial expansion or Lebensraum. Goering instigated laws that were designed to afford them a privileged position in the new Reich.

The idea was to give every hunter his own personal shoot after the Third Reich's glorious victory over Europe, according to Jurgen Muller-Hirschmann, the president of Germany's 1,100-member association of hunters which is campaigning against the law.

He claims that Goering's laws have turned hunting into a pastime controlled by a privileged elite of hunters who hold the leases of the country's 80,000-plus shoots. "Ordinary landowners don't get a look in. Everyone has to subscribe to the wishes of the hunt leaseholder. We think it is time to get rid of Goering's law."

Mr Muller-Hirchmann's demands have so far been dismissed by the country's much larger Association for the Protection of Hunting, a spokesman for which said last week: "We tend to ignore this kind of thing."


Sunday, March 20th, 2005, 09:09 AM
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 I

Cruelty 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.

Section II

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.

Section III

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.
5. Experiments on horses, dogs, cats, and apes can only be carried out when the intended goal may not be achieved through experiments on other animals.
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.

Section IV

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.

Section V



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

Adolf Hitler


Sunday, March 20th, 2005, 06:34 PM
Thanks for posting the law in its entirety, I've only seen it paraphrased.

Monday, March 21st, 2005, 09:49 AM
Nature Protection in Germany - Persistance and Change in a Turbulant Century by William T. Markham

*The article has typical bias and slander that you would expect, but hes basically forced to admit the facts in one way or another when it comes to their position on ecology. Some of his claims are absolutely absurd, not to mention irrational, with no validity or backing whatsoever (although regarding everything else the numerous references are impressive). Regardless of his extremely negative and falsified opinion, he supports and hints at the following truths: A. that the vast majority of conservationists voluntarily supported them, and B. the laws and legislation passed were much of the first in their kind, and the most progressive of any nation concerning animal welfare and the environment. I am unable to provide a link but I will attach the word doc. It is quite long (49 pages) so I'll excerpt the relevant section.

Nature Protection, the Nazis, and the War

By the mid-1920s, organizations with nature protection goals had reached substantial membership and a degree of stability (Dominick, 1987). This arrangement was disrupted by the rise of National Socialism, a powerful social movement with an ideology that contained elements relevant to nature protection.

Nazi ideology was cobbled together from assorted, and sometimes contradictory, elements: nationalism and resentment of Germany’s post-World War I humiliation, anti-modernism, confidence in technology, racism, territorial expansionism, and mystical ideas about the primacy of homeland and the Volk (Speitkamp, 1988; Hermand, 1991; Riordan, 1997; Rohkrämer, 2002). Its appeal for more politically conservative nature protection advocates (Speitkamp, 1988) was exemplified by the phrase “blood and soil,” a favorite slogan of National Socialist theorist Walther Darrè (Dominick, 1987; Jeffries, 1997). The phrase suggested idealization of the small farmer, love of nature, and the rootedness of the German Volk in the land (Hermand, 1991; Dominick, 1987, 1992). The Nazi image of a strong state was also attractive to nature protection groups because they had sought close cooperation with the government but had been unable to get the legislation they advocated passed and enforced (Hermand, 1991; Dominick, 1987, 1992; Rat von Sachverständigen für Umweltfrage, 1996). Some officials from state offices charged with nature protection were also willing recruits to the Nazi cause (Dominick, 1987; Gröning, 1996; Riordan, 1997).

Nature protection was never a top priority for Hitler, but it did receive attention in the Nazi press, often in association with racist, nationalist themes (Dominick, 1987), and the Nazi regime that seized power in 1933 could point to significant nature protection achievements. The new government broke a bureaucratic logjam and published implementing regulations for a plant and animal protection bill passed in the 1920s and passed a progressive hunting law and a homeland protection law. Municipal parks were built and upgraded, and thousands of new nature protection areas were designated. In 1935, Göring pushed through a long delayed nature protection law, which protected animals, plants, and areas of special beauty, rarity, distinctiveness, or scientific significance. The government had to consult with nature protection officials before undertaking intrusions into such areas. The new law also continued the tradition of close cooperation between the authorities and nature protection organizations (Wey, 1982; Dominick, 1987, 1992; Riordan, 1997; May, 1999).

Despite these gains, the Nazis were less than perfect allies. The nature protection law included exemptions for the army, public transport right of way, and vital economic concerns, and the longstanding fragmentation of responsibility for nature protection was exacerbated by jockeying for power in the new government (Wey, 1982; Dominick, 1987, 1992; Riordan, 1997; May, 1999). Many of Hitler’s lieutenants had little use for sentimental nature protection, and autobahn construction, river channelization, wetlands drainage, rationalization of agriculture, and building Germany’s industrial and military might proved hard to square with nature protection. As the war effort intensified, environmental protection was first subordinated, and then all but ignored (Dominick, 1987, 1992; Gröning, 1996; Riordan, 1997; Rohkrämer, 2002).

The nature protection associations also had to deal with the Nazi policy of gleichschaltung, which placed them under direct government control and the forced the alignment of their programs, internal organization, and goals with those of the state. Organizations that did not cooperate faced dissolution (Dominick, 1987, 1992; Rat von Sachverständigen für Umweltfrage, 1996; Reutter, 2001). However, Gleichschaltung was no means a uniform process that impacted all groups equally. Nature protection groups were often shifted from the oversight of one government office to another, providing them with leverage in their efforts to maintain independence. Some smaller groups seem to have survived untouched; larger, more visible groups were subject to closer scrutiny (Dominick, 1987, 1992; Geden, 1999).

Nature Protection Associations in the Nazi Era

The League for Homeland Protection embraced National Socialism relatively enthusiastically. By the 1920s, some of its leaders, including its first President, Paul Schultze-Naumburg, had begun to link homeland protection to Nazi ideology and join the party (Dominick, 1987; Speitkamp, 1988; Jeffries, 1997; Riordan, 1997). And even those who harbored doubts were attracted by an ideology that seemed to take their concerns seriously and promise them a greater voice in policy making (Dominick, 1992).

Nevertheless, gleichschaltung was unsettling, especially for local groups accustomed to great autonomy (Speitkamp, 1988). The League was placed under the control of a new bureau for preservation of the homeland and folk traditions, and its top posts were divided among its former leaders and party functionaries. Later its President was able to negotiate a quasi-independent status. Until the war swept other concerns aside, the League was generously supported in pursuing its goals, but, in the midst of the war, it was again placed under direct government oversight (Speitkamp, 1988; Hermand, 1991; Fischer, 1994).

The Friends of Nature suffered a different fate. As a suspected ally of the left, it was dissolved, its assets were seized, and leading members were imprisoned or executed. Some local groups continued to meet informally--including some that functioned as part of the resistance. Others reconstituted themselves as politically acceptable hiking clubs, but most dissolved (George, 1955; Erdmann, 1991; Dulk and Zimmer, 1984; Dominick, 1987, 1992).

The League for Bird Protection remained nonpartisan up to 1933, but after the Nazi takeover, it immediately expressed enthusiasm for the new regime. The declarations of fealty may have been born of necessity, but it too found Nazi rhetoric about nature protection seductive, and its leaders were overjoyed with the 1935 nature protection law (Cornelsen, 1991; Dominick, 1987, 1992; Bergstedt, 1998). The organization was placed under government control immediately and, over the next dozen years, it was shifted from bureau to bureau. Eventually it was given quasi-official status and renamed the Reichs League for Bird Protection. It was allowed to elect its own President--subject to government approval--until 1938, when a Party member assumed the office; however, day to day control remained with its former leaders (Hanemann and Simon, 1987; May, 1999). It continued to pursue its traditional objectives, but its annual reports (e.g. Reichsbund für Vogelschutz, 1936, 1944; see also Dominick, 1987, 1992; May, 1999) are full of praise for Hitler’s triumphs. The organization profited from its support of the new government. Smaller birding clubs were forced to join it, and it was given control over the ornithological society’s magazine and authorized to establish chapters in Austria, Sudentenland, and Poland. By 1939, it had surpassed 50,000 members (Hanemann and Simon, 1987; Dominick, 1992; May, 1999).

The experiences of the Bavarian League for Nature Protection were similar (Lense, 1973; Dominick, 1992). Even before 1933, scattered passages in its journal had linked nature protection to ultra-nationalism and the preserving the German Volk, and after 1933, its publications (e.g. Reuß, 1933; see also Hoplitschek, 1984; Dominick, 1987, 1992; Wolf, 1996) parroted the Nazi line. Its bylaws were rewritten to Nazi specifications, and its leader designated Führer. After election by the member assembly and Party, he could ignore the Board of Directors and rule by decree (Hoplitschek, 1984; Wolf, 1996). The Bavarian League also prospered under government control, more than doubling its membership during the 1930s, and its close cooperation with the Bavarian authorities continued. It enthusiastically welcomed the government’s nature protection legislation (Dominick, 1992; Wolf, 1996), although as the reality of construction and wetlands draining projects became apparent, its journal sometimes expressed mild disapproval (Hoplitschek, 1984).

Tuesday, March 22nd, 2005, 05:59 AM

Vivisection Outlawed

The very first law passed by the Nazi controlled parliament of the territory of East Prussia in 1933, under the premiership of Herman Goering, was the abolition of vivisection, or experimentation on animals.

This law also included a ban on the Jewish ritual whereby meat is made kosher: the ritual includes the slitting of an animal's throat and letting it bleed to death while a rabbi prays over the dying animal: this was rejected by the Nazis as a barbaric way of slaughtering animals which inflicted unnecessary pain. Eventually the anti-vivisection law was extended throughout Germany.

Nazi Germany also forbid the use of the pesticide DDT on the grounds that it was a health hazard (it would be decades before this policy was adopted by other countries) and instead used a German produced version known as Cyclone-B.

*NOTE* The 1933 Law on Animal Protection was responsible for banning kosher ritual slaughter and vivisection experimentation. Goering followed this up with an even more progressive law for animal welfare and nature protection in 1935, which I am still trying to find an exact copy of.

Tuesday, March 22nd, 2005, 06:33 AM
I think this is the Introduction to the 1935 Nature Law. Unfortunately I can't read German (yet). I need to find the document in its entirety, but this is a start, even if I can't read it.