My late grandfather, was in the Waffen SS. He necver had a puppy, was not given a puppy and did not have to kill any puppies.
If this is so horrible and shocking a thing to say about the Nazis – people we love to think about and love to say horrible and shocking things about – how come I’ve never heard of it in decades of reading about Nazis, Germany, World War II, the SS…and dogs and animal welfare?
It’s not like society as a whole covers up what the Nazis did. On the contrary, we talk about their crimes almost obsessively, and no serious historian tries to whitewash them or make the SS look good. I’m not an “expert,” per se, but I do know all sorts of details about the period that most people don’t*, and I’ve never encountered this until this thread. If it happened I’m sure we would have been talking about it quite a lot.
Coupled with the fact that it sounds like, and is structured like, an urban legend, I’d say it’s all but certain it’s not true.
*for example, I know what Hitler’s telephone extension was in the Rastenburg bunker from which he directed most of the Eastern Front fighting.
It was 1, of course. (citation: Armageddon, by Max Hastings)
Yeah, that was the first I’ve ever heard of it. If the SS had routinely done this, I’m sure we’d all have heard of it by now.
I just remembered this exact scenario happens in Bioshock - “Break that puppy’s neck…would you kindly?”
Anyone who can make that comparison has clearly never raised puppy. It’s a little different from keeping a turtle or a cockroach in a box and tossing a bit of food in every now and then.
Yes, and this psychology shows how ordering your men to massacre civilians could make them more loyal to the cause. Killing your buddies? Not so much.
Every military organization in the world at least TRIES to instill esprit de corps. It doesn’t try to brainwash recruits to where they’d kill their buddies and their families for the cause. There just isn’t much military need to have soldiers willing to execute their squadmates at a moment’s notice. And this is one reason dictatorships love to have parallel military forces. If a regular army unit is misbehaving, you send in the SS or the Republican Guards to kick their ass, and vice versa. And you encourage inter-service rivalry, so the political troops think the regulars are unreliable wimps, and the regulars think the political troops are pampered snobs.
In reality, if you were in the Waffen SS, your unit would be ordered to carry out enough real life atrocities that there wasn’t much need to create a manufactured atrocity to “test” the recruit. Why make the recruits kill a puppy when there are plenty of Jews and Gypsies that needed to be killed?
I agree that this sounds like an urban legend and I’ve never seen an authoritative cite for it. But it’s not some recent story that was just made up. I heard this same story decades ago when I was a schoolboy so, true or not, it’s been floating around a long time.
A dog isn’t a squadmate. So it’s not a case of the SS telling you to kill another member of the SS. It’s a case of the SS telling you to destroy something from outside the SS that you’re attached to. To show that your loyalty to the SS rises above your loyalty to things outside the SS. And to show that your devotion to the SS rises above your devotion the normal standards of society.
Isn’t that the very hallmark of an urban legend? You heard it as a schoolboy, but it’s not in mainstream history books?
Yes, but if you’re handed the dog by the recruiter on your first day, and all through your basic training you’re encouraged to bond with the dog, then yes the dog is part of the SS.
It’s contradictory. It doesn’t encourage devotion to the SS, it weakens devotion to the SS, because the dog is SS.
And of course, it never happened, so we’re discussing a fictional scenario. And there’s a reason it’s fictional, because it would be counterproductive. If you think it would make an effective training technique, show me an organization that actually did such a thing, and we’ll see how it worked out for them. Except it goes against every principle of group psychology, because the dog has to be part of the group for the exercise to make sense. If the dog is just some random dog brought in from the pound and labeled “enemy dog”, then it’s a completely different experience.
Yes and, as I said, I think it’s an urban legend. I’m just saying it’s not a new one.
I think you’re making a huge leap here. Just because an SS recruit raises a dog that doesn’t make the dog an SS recruit.
Here.
The original quote is sourced as" Drew Pearson, “Eichmann Fiendishly Clever in Mass Murder of Jews,” Chillicothe Constitution-Tribune 17 Jun. 1960: 9
So, I am not convinced this an Urban Legend. It may be based on fact.
The Nazis were uniquely and irrationally evil, so the various rationalizations given in this thread about why they would not do such a thing may not apply.
Does anyone know how to access the Drew Pearson article cited above?
(ETA: I recognize this cite limits the practice to those SS personnel working in death camps and not to all SS members. Still, that hardly weakens the point.)
Not literally, but psychologically it sure does. The dog becomes an important part of the recruit’s new life in the SS, and then they’re asked to kill that part of their new life.
And I sure disagree that the Nazis were uniquely and irrationally evil. No they weren’t. They weren’t inhuman monsters. They were ordinary human beings, who did evil things, like lots of other ordinary human beings.
This exact thing was a key element in a secret origin tale of the DC Comics villain Granny Goodness. She was told to raise a dog, and in her final exam, her drill sergeant ordered her to kill it.
She killed the drill sergeant instead.
In the end, Darkseid order the dog to attack her, and she had to kill it in self-defense. And since she had done such a good job making the dog obey Darkseid’s orders, Darkseid put her in charge of raising children to serve him.
And Eichmann was a perfect paragon of Nazi evil. I’m still leaning on the side of “urban legend,” but this is just the kind of twisted perversity Eichmann might have come up with, even if he didn’t implement it.
I have raised multiple dogs from puppies. If fact one of those dogs would not stop chasing the neighbors horses, after the third time me and the dog went for a walk in the woods, the dog didn’t come back. Yeah it was a little sad but it wasn’t the end of the world, and I grew up in a time that reveres pets as gods compared to the 1930’s.
What would it take to provide a puppy for every soldier? Massive kennels and breeding programs, dog food alone would require at least a factory. The space needed at every training facility for not only the soldier to sleep and eat and shit but now you have to provide for an equal number of dogs.
When exactly does the soldier spend time with the dog, was boot camp 3 years long? If a soldier spends 90% of his day working his ass off training and then has to spend the valuable 10% of his off time walking a dog he would probably kill the dog in the first week just to avoid the work.
This whole idea is absurd
Did you see what was in post #53, i.e. the practice may have been confined to the relatively small SS population being selected for work at the death camps, and only for a relatively brief period prior to their possible transfer there. Logistic difficulties . . . poof.
Anything can happen on a really small scale. Small scale acts are probably where most of our urban legends about Nazis come from.
And small scale only overcomes the logistical difficulties of a large amount of dogs. It does not overcome the time it takes for the owner and the dog to form a bond. Time that could be spent training in other ways. As long as they are committing the time and resources why not just let the guards raise the animals to be guard dogs?
Right. And then when the time comes to order the SS recruit to perform an atrocity to cement his new identity in the group, you order him to kill a bunch of Jews rather than the valuable guard dog. You don’t need a big test to see if the recruit is willing to kill Jews, the test of whether they’re willing to kill Jews is to order them to kill Jews and see whether they do it.