Talk:Blondi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on April 22, 2007. The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn.
WikiProject Dogs
Dogs Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Blondi was created or significantly enhanced by WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration, a project to leverage research efforts on the Reference Desks into a more lasting contribution to the encyclopedia. If you would like to help, please consider joining us.

Contents

[edit] Death of Blondi?

In this article it says that the dog was killed "in order to prevent any harm to her by the invading Soviets." But on the The death of Adolf Hitler's Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Adolf_Hitler) it says she was killed in order to test the cyanide caplets Hitler would later use on himself. do either of these suggestions have any evidence to support them?

Also, a few pages (including this one) list Ludwig Stumpfegger as the Doctor who killed her, and others list it as Werner Haase. Which is correct?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.251.52 (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


What happened to the puppies? some one must know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


"German Shepherd Dog" is correct. "German Shepherd" is not. The German is deutscheschaferhund.

As a matter of fact, the German name is spelled "Deutscher Schäferhund" correctly. --Elwood j blues 18:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed grammar "and" not "or" perhaps. ----Steve Latinner 02:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

According to german writing rules and my search results Blondie should be the dogs real name. Dickbauch 16:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subject, but: this site specifically discusses Blondi and says only that Blonda is an alternative name; I found Blondi in all of the following: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
A count by google shows half the number of sites for Blondi as for Blondie, but I'm not entirely convinced--names aren't always translated: what was it in german? Elf | Talk 20:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, in the german Wikipedia we agreed on de:Blondie (Hund). The deletion-request is for other reasons ("Adolfs doggie isn´t important") and won´t be executed because most people think that it is important. There are some dogs called "Blondi" in Germany, but most sources (especially historicans) call the dog "Blondie" and Blondie is much more common. Blondie means as much as "blond haired (small) person". It is used for dogs with a lighter fur-color. It´s "Blondie", trust me I´m german... ca. 16.500 against 5.500 search results in Google. (try www.google.de with "Seiten auf Deutsch" instead of www.google.com!) Dickbauch 14:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for the clarification. I already fixed all the text and other links to use the Blondie spelling. Elf | Talk 05:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Youre welcome, and sorry for my horrible English. I only created the account on the en: to prevent some people from destroying things using my german nick. I found this article about Adolfs doggie by accident. A nice colleague gave me the hint that your photo was much better than mine. So I "stole" it from here. ;o)
Oder verstehst Du zufällig Deutsch und ich hätte mir keinen abbrechen müssen?!? Dickbauch 13:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Ich habe es in schule gelernt...but only a little and as you can see, very badly. I can also say "Ich habe ein auto in der hand" :-) but that's about it. Elf | Talk 15:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

How do we know that Hitler killed Blondie because he believed the Russians would torture her? I've heard other accounts suggesting he wanted to make sure the cyanide would work. Can someone give a source?
Hmm, article used to say that but someone changed it. I don't have a source; don't know how anyone would know since didn't everyone there die? But I readded it as alternate theory. Elf | Talk 05:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • NOTE: As of Sept 2, 2005, the german article appears to have been renamed to Blondi (hund). I don't read german so I can't decipher how that whole thing went down; I'll just move this page back to where it was originally. Elf | Talk 22:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe the only reason why Blondi was killed, was because Hitler wanted to test the cyanide. I dunno the source though. Andries 20:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

That's not true. The dog was killed on his order the day Hitler committed suicide. --Elwood j blues 18:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the word dog should be added to the end of the opening sentence? As for name I've only ever known it as "Blondi" rather than "Blondie", rather than rely on what internet searches say are there no contemporary sources? -additional comment; Traudl Junge in her autobiograhy refers to "Blondi" and being Hitler's secretary she's likely to have known the correct spelling , plus at http://www.majorplm.com/catalogue/Cat-G-Personalities/Troost%20Gerdy-AH-Harras%20&%20Blondi-19nov03/Troost%20Gerdy-AH-Harras%20&%20Blondi.html

about half way down is a picture of a letter from Bormann's office which uses the same spelling. PhilipPage 20:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I neither don't think that he wanted to test the poison but rather take her with him, apparently even in that situation he cared for that - would it be caring to leave the dog in the bunker? Or as by Hitler's word "captured and killed by jewish pigs" when they'd reach the bunker?
A man who prefers dogs to pigs is a dangerous man indeed. If he'd been the sort who owned a pig and referred to his enemies as "dogs" then history would have been so much different. Multivitamin 08:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler was verey stupid to have a dog

He was verey stupid to have a dog. I wondered who killed his dog. HITLER HIMSELF? I do not verey know much but ys I agree!!!!!!

Why was he "verey stupid" (sic) to have a dog? He may have been a murderous dictator who was responsible for the deaths of approximately 50 million people, but I don't agree with your assertion that it was stupid of him to have a dog. I do, however, agree with you when you say that you "do not verey know much" (sic). By the way, before you post anything on Wikipedia, please run it through a spell check first. 172.129.164.101 15:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with the first editor. After all, presumably the reason Blondi is considered notable enough to have an entry on Wikipedia is that Hitler's ownership of this beast sheds light upon Hitler himself. In particular, owning a large dog is entirely consistent with Hitler's decision to attack the Soviet Union, surely one of the stupidest decisions ever made. --Q4 11:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I used to own a large dog and I never invaded the Soviet Union — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
At least- Not yet, right? --72.43.251.52 21:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this might be of interest; Hitler owned many dogs, during the second world war herr Hitler owned many dogs. They were kept for his protection. He only ever allowed himself be photographed with one at a time so as not to have this known. Try looking for pictures of him with his dog and you will find that very clearly there are many dogs. And he named them all blondie. henrybrenroy@gmail.com

An IP Address sent me some pictures from the "Hitler Home Movies" here here, and Here Should I replace the dog with these? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WngLdr34 (talk • contribs).

Don't; images without information on their copyright status and source should not be uploaded or used on Wikipedia. -- Schneelocke 12:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Harries

Regarding the following paragraph added by User:86.137.250.32 on 2007-05-13:

Blondi is mentioned in the book Zeegpaw by Tony Harries. This is an allegorical story that supposes that one of Blondi's puppies escaped from The Bunker, and it follows the adventures of the eponymous hero. There are six books at the moment with plans to release a further three. The second adventure, Zeegpaw and The Cat Cult will be released in December 2007.

Is this actually worth being mentioned? The book seems to exist ([6]), but apparently was published by Lulu.com (quoting amazon.com: "Publisher: Lulu Enterprises, UK Ltd (April 17, 2007)"), a self-publishing service, so it seems to me that this might be a bit of advertising by the author. I assume it was added in good faith, but I think it's not relevant to the article at hand, so I'm going to delete the paragraph. -- Schneelocke 12:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Hitler´s dog is knowledge of vital importance and must not be missing in any encyclopedia which prides itself on that label —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.127.191.232 (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I believed this was an unobjective page

As I think many (hopefully all) of us will agree, WWII was a horrific moment in history. I show no love , acceptance, nor tolerance for such blatant atrocities against humanity. At the same time, I felt that this page was not presenting an objective viewpoint. Referring to Hitler's relationship with his dog as 'pathetic' does not allow a reader to make up their own mind pertaining to Hitler as a person. 'Love to animals and disdain for variuos kinds of human beings went hand in hand' is completely subjective as well as having typos. I understand people have strong feelings about this. I also understand, however, that Wiki is not the place for people to express their feelings on a page that is supposed to present an informational and unbiased article. For these reasons, I have altered a section of the article to present a more objective article. Flame me if you must, but please do not edit the page to include opinionated, unverifiable, or subjective (yes that was a redundant statement) information again. Thanks. Lcommadot (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is actually a fair one, namely that there was an ideological relationship between the respect for non-humans and the disdain for some humans, as several academics have written, although the issue of animal respect is significantly exaggerated — the Nazis used animals just as much as any other society did. However, I agree that it was not well expressed, and it was unsourced. SlimVirgin talk|edits 16:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if the editor meant pathetic as in "capacity to show compassionate pity" rather than the more typical useage as a value judgment. Either way, the article as it stands is a definite improvement. Rockpocket 17:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
First my use of english and my orthography in general is to be improved, I keep trying
    • My use of pathetic is in line with Rockpockets assumptions.
  • Lcommadot: 'Love to animals and disdain for variuos kinds of human beings went hand in hand' being POV
    • The Nazis used animals NOT as any other scientist did but after a short lived ban, significant red tape and legal restrictions have been imposed and stayed in place, basically till 1972 either in eastern and western germany. Before 1933 animal testing in germany had much more leeway, much to the complains of animal protection organizations. Let me elaborate on this in the main article please
    • Points are to be found in the spiegel article - e.g. that in early stages of Nazi access to power 1933, Animal Protection Laws was among the first lawmaking projects in 1933, threating animal testers with concentration camp was one of the first use of the KZ against others than high level political enemies and Animal feelings and the committment of the variuos animal protection organisations have played a CENTRAL role in the law making process 1933.
    • It was for the people and by the péople - the Nazis really wanted to be good to animals.
    • This together with the disdain about 100 of thusands of humans is as well mentioned in Himmlers Posen Speech
    • My wording was to explain shortly and in an appropriate way the basic concept of the Tierschutzgesetz - which is pathocentric, gave animals feelings a right of their own - and not longer anthropocentric (just punishing cruelty when human bystanders took offence) as it had been before. This is about feelings - which went into a law making process and it is abourt the legal assessment of animal feelings by the Nazi Animal protection law.

--Polentario (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Three problems with your edits here and elsewhere.
First, the writing is problematic, so it has to be removed or fixed. Fixing it is quite a bit of work because it's not always clear what you mean or who your source is. Secondly, when you do use sources, they tend to be non-English, which creates more work. As this is the English WP, editors are asked to use English-language sources wherever possible, unless a source in another language provides something not available in the English language, or not available in a similar quality. But there are lots of English-language sources available on this topic, so that shouldn't be a problem. Third, you have a tendency to add your own opinion without a source. For example, I've asked elsewhere for a source showing where Hitler, or any of the other senior Nazis, talked about the rights (or whatever word they used) of animals in and for themselves, rather than for human benefit, and we do need one, because that would be highly significant. It would also be unlikely, given that the meat industry continued, Hitler continued eating meat, animals continued to be used in vivisection etc. SlimVirgin talk|edits 14:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, first what u mention here (Hitler keeping on meat eating, animal testing etc ...) is based on quaternary or quinternatry english copy and paste and lost in translation research.
  • There is nothing lost in translation. Hitler called himself a vegetarian, but continued eating liver dumplings because he liked them, and continued wearing leather boots etc. These are not the actions of someone who believes animals should be protected for their own sake (in the "rights" sense). His preference was to ban vivisection entirely, but he was persuaded a ban would be harmful to German research, so he imposed restrictions instead, restrictions that, as I understand them, went no further than the British legislation of the time. SlimVirgin talk|edits 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Your sources about anuimal testing or your way to interpret them seem not to understand the basic difference between a ban, regulations and an administrative process being imposed and neither do understand the basic setup of german research facilitioes, Thats the reason I use sources which are closer to the topic. Mostly being german.
      • I have not seen any sources close to the topic, and I'm sorry if I missed them. Can you give an example? SlimVirgin talk|edits 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • A propaganda statement of Hitler etc is NOT very significant. Why not check the whole Manhattan Project like invest in ecology and close to nature research and behavior program, with and animal protection was on the forefront? I had mentioed Götz Aly and Wolfgang Schivelbusch as source.
    • I see it as being much more important to provide a genuine overview abiout the law making process (being urged very fast in 1933, involving animl friendly NGOs, imposing significant red tape on research etc). Thats waht I am willing to deliver.
      • That would be good. All we need are some good English-language sources (or German ones if there really are no English ones that make the same point), and it would help us a lot if you could make your edits on the talk page, so we can ask you questions if we need to before adding them to the page. SlimVirgin talk|edits 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wether he eat meat or not - why do you care so much? I understood he was a fanatic antismoker and vegetarian. A very famous example wehre this played a role has been the meeting with Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim#Visit by Adolf Hitler.

I think we could have even more fun with an article about Hitlers fight against tobacco and parallels to the US today. I go for a smoke. --Polentario (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Polentario, my suggestion is that you make your edits here on the talk page, together with an English-language source, and then someone can add it to the article, or they can ask questions here if it's not clear. That would avoid the reverting back and forth, or the need to fix something instantly because it's actually on the page. SlimVirgin talk|edits 15:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have given detailed points in the discussion and I am pissed of with the tendency just to erase instead of improve--Polentario (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said, improving is a lot of work, especially when there is no source, or the source content is unclear. SlimVirgin talk|edits 15:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Slim Virgin, you beliong to the High brass of wikipedia, youre an experienced person, but one of your statements above is is completely and ridicilously off topic. I copy it and give some answers
    • "There is nothing lost in translation. Hitler called himself a vegetarian, but continued eating liver dumplings because he liked them, and continued wearing leather boots etc. These are not the actions of someone who believes animals should be protected for their own sake (in the "rights" sense). His preference was to ban vivisection entirely, but he was persuaded a ban would be harmful to German research, so he imposed restrictions instead, restrictions that, as I understand them, went no further than the British legislation of the time. SlimVirgin talk|edits 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)"
    • The animal testing regulation in Germany before 1933 had beeen MUCH much less strict compared to GB. INsofar the Nazi law was a progress
    • There is a wide variety of lifestyles whih can be called vegetarian and some were leather boots (and do goose stepping or mention the war) and some do not. Hitlers obsession about vegetarian food was mentioned several times in Goebbles diaries and in the Tischgespräche (there is a track record of Hitklers lunch and dinnertable conversation) - I'd say an ascetic lifestyle was claimed as part of propaganda (and is partially true) wether he lived in line with it or not is completely irrelevant.
    • Please take into consideration than even being on the way into a dictatorship, germany (and its different states) worked still as a lawly and orderly ruled state with an excellent administrative process.
    • Hitlers governement urged a strict GERMAN law to be done on animal protection. The law making process was started as early as April 1933 by ministry of interior Frick and finalized end of 1933
      • It included a very close cooperation with the animal welfare NGOs
      • But It didnt result in a banning of meat eating or what so ever
      • The NGOs succeed into a regulation, which made it necessary to 1. greenlight animal testing per institute, 2. to prove the need for the tests, to prefer lower animals (rats instead apes) and to avoid pain.
    • The animal testing ban of august 1933 you mention was announced broadly (but btw not made law) and restricted to PRUSSIA state. A lawmaking process for this ban was announced by Goering, then governor of Prussia but not being finished completely
    • the major issue was to stop jews from shechita and to win the support of the animal protection NGOs.
    • after the lawmaking process, the animal protecion NGOs have been centralized (gleichschaltung) and very much lost the access to government / administratiove processes they had in 1933
      • I have not seen any sources close to the topic, and I'm sorry if I missed them. Can you give an example? SlimVirgin talk|edits 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Any is not true. I have been doing changes - including sources - on animals in the third reich which had been reverted

My focal source so far have been variuos newspaper articles as http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/260/tierliebe_menschenfeinde.html http://miami.uni-muenster.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-608/juette.pdf Similar background, one was published in FAZ based on the Juette dossier, the other one in Spiegel refers e.g. as well to Borian Sax. If i would be interested in further reseacrh i would have a look on the original text of the law first and have a look on

  • K. P. Schweiger, "Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen": Der Streit um den wissenschaftlichen Tierversuch in Deutschland 1900-1935. Diss Götingen 1993(The struggle in Germany around scientific animal testing 1900-1933)
  • W. Seidelmann (1986): Animal Experimentation in Nazi Germany. Lancet, H. 1, 1214
  • W. Eberstein (1999): Das Tierschutzrecht in Deutschland bis zum Erlaß des Reichs- Tierschutzgesetzes vom 24. November 1933. Unter Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung in England. Frankfurt a. M. (Animal Protectuion Law in germany till Reichstierschutzgesetz 1933, considering the british developement)
  • and Borian Sax, Animals in the Third Reich
    • A propaganda statement of Hitler etc is NOT very significant. Why not check the whole Manhattan Project like invest in ecology and close to nature research and behavior program, with and animal protection was on the forefront? I had mentioed Götz Aly and Wolfgang Schivelbusch as source.
    • I see it as being much more important to provide a genuine overview abiout the law making process (being urged very fast in 1933, involving animl friendly NGOs, imposing significant red tape on research etc). Thats waht I am willing to deliver.
      • That would be good. All we need are some good English-language sources (or German ones if there really are no English ones that make the same point), and it would help us a lot if you could make your edits on the talk page, so we can ask you questions if we need to before adding them to the page. SlimVirgin talk|edits 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wether he eat meat or not - why do you care so much? I understood he was a fanatic antismoker and vegetarian. A very famous example wehre this played a role has been the meeting with Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim#Visit by Adolf Hitler. I think we could have even more fun with an article about Hitlers fight against tobacco and parallels to the US today. I go for a smoke. --Polentario (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic edits

What happened here? References were lost and a somewhat odd sentence introduced. Furthermore, this page receives a lot of vandalism (I just fixed a bit that was missed), so I wonder if it could be semi-protected? Finally I'd like to say that I think this is a decent article on the topic. Any chance of submitting it for "Good Article" status at some point? 79.68.216.39 (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind having it semi-protected.
That being said, you should probably register an account. I don't think anonymous users can edit protected articles. --DrBat (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, this is the point. I have no particular desire to edit the article so I won't be registering an account; I just fixed a bit of undetected vandalism as an anonymous reader. If it was semi-protected I wouldn't have needed to. I still think Polentario's edit needs looking at, and judging by this talk page and other contributions we have a real problem here with a user who has an axe to grind about a spurious association between Nazism and animal rights. This is what puts me off Wikipedia: allowing anyone to edit is, of course, what's created this amazing piece of work in the first place, but it has the seriously offputting effect of bogging down people who want to write sensible articles in having to deal with determined ignorance at every turn. You ought to be a little less tolerant of people who mess the place up like this. 79.76.251.46 (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Blondi --DrBat (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)