Talk:Blondi

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)

SS Dr. Haase is correct. Kierzek (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2011 (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)

I found it jarring to see 'German Shepherd' without explanation. Clearly it would not be what someone from Deutschland would call it. Should someone maybe put ('Deutscher Schäferhund') in there somewhere? DeepNorth (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2021 (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)

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 stupid to have a dog? He may have been a murderous dictator who was responsible for the deaths of 5 million people, but I don't agree with your assertion that it was stupid of him to have a dog. 172.129.164.101 15:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is worse? A couple misspellings or being rude to a volunteer? I deleted your rudeness and I'll do it again if you restore your insults.

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)

People, Hitler was a person, and though he was brutal to non-aryan races, he treated aryans quite well. And why is it stupid to have a dog? Witnesses claim Blondi was in fact Hitlers "best friend", he even allowed the dog to sleep with him, something denied to even his wife! As well, The invasion of the Soviet Union was not at all a stupid move, it could have been a huge success, but its execution by the generals was a failure, with absolutely no preparation of the brutal Soviet winter (which i believe came early that year). 72.137.139.166 (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2008 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As shown by various sourcesm Blondi was dealt with not as a "private" occupation of the dictator but a major treat of the early propaganda of the regime till Himmlers Posen speech. To keep that aspect in the article does add to its value, not diminish it.

• If somebody doesnt like the connection - since the political correctness of animal rights are more important than research and historical facts, so be it.
• I am btw not the author of main article providing some anglosaxon scholars work about the important role animal rights in nazidom. --Polentario (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please get the facts straight

You will find absolutely NO credible proof anywhere that Hitler killed Blondi to test poison on her. By all accounts his affection for the dog was nearly boundless. His concern was that he did not want her falling to Russian hands (this was such a great concern that he was taking his own life to prevent it from happening - naturally he would not leave the dog he loved behind and alone to face the Russians). Alternatively if he let her out of the bunker he was concerned that she would be killed and eaten (people were desperately hungry in war torn Berlin at the time to the point that household pets and even horses were being killed for food. Please report accurately on this page and stop reporting unfounded information. It ruins the credibility of the site and it also distorts history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.118.8 (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We've had first-hand accounts from people like Armin D. Lehmann that his goal was to test out the cyanide ("That afternoon Hitler summoned Professor Werner Haase from the emergency hospital to the bunker to stage a dress rehearsal of his own suicide. Hitler no longer trusted the SS and he wanted an assurance that the poison capsules he had been provided with by the SS doctor Ludwig Stumpfegger actually worked. The guinea pig chosen for this experiment was his beloved Alsatian Blondi."). All you have is speculation.

And nowhere in the article does it state that he didn't love her. --DrBat

(talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You are WRONG WRONG WRONG DrBat. Armin Lehmann is NOT a first-hand account. He was NOT present in the bunker when Blondi was put down, he was across the street. Moreover he only met Hitler once outside the bunker on April 20, 1945, and he saw Hitler once in the bunker thereafter. And on that occasion he did not speak to him. He is NOT a first hand account. What he reports in his book is not that "the goal" of posioning Blondi was to test the poison. He states that the poison was tested on Blondi. But this was NOT the goal. The goal was to to put Blondi down for the reasons I have discussed and which you are not able to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.118.8 (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we cant really make assumptions here, as there are many viewpoints to this matter, I suggest that it both viewpoints be written, but wih a note that it is unknown as to which is the reality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.139.166 (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Find a legitimate source. --DrBat (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following comment from the article, placed there by 24.46.118.8:

The above passage does not tell the full story, and therefore it implies something which is inaccurate. Blondi was not a mere guinea pig to Hitler. It is true he tested the poison on her, but that alone is only part of the story. By every account he loved the dog (please stop asking for citations - this is well known). Here was his concern: (1) The Russians were hours away from the bunker and he knew they would take it. When they did, he knew everything in it would become their possessions (please stop asking for citations to this as it is common sense and not speculation). He did not want Blondi (or himself) to fall into Russian hands. His other consideration was that if he opted to let her out of the bunker, she would be eaten for food (this is common sense - please stop asking for a citation on common sense considerations). Berlin was sorounded and cut off. It's population was starving and people were eating dogs, cats, horses (you can find photos online of people cutting meat off horses in the streets). It was so bad the Goebbels told people to eat frogs out of the river. Food was scarce. Please stop asking for citations on common sense information. Given considerations 1&2 outlined above, Hitler decided to put Blondi down.

Yes, he did want to test the poison and he did use Blondi. But additionally, it was the most humane and expedient way to put her down at the time and he knew that was something he had to do. He was not merely taking a dog he loved and turning her into a guinea pig for the hell of it. If he merely wanted a guinea pig he could have had the Gestapo bring him a POW - he liked the dog much more than he liked most people. Please stop misleading readers about Blondi by telling just the "testing" part, without telling the back story. And please stop asking for citations to common sense items:

It's common sense and not speculation that Hitler knew the Russians were going to storm the Chancellory. It's common sense and not speculation that he knew Berlin's population was in starvation mode. It's common sense and not speculation that the sky is blue - you don't need a citation.

comment moved here by Abd (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, IP editor. Makes sense. However, we do need a source to say that "the sky is blue," if anyone challenges it. By the way, "makes sense" doesn't mean "true." And, in any case, our standard here isn't "truth," it's verifiability. If everyone accepts a thing, that's enough verification. But a sensible explanation isn't necessarily a true one, sometimes the truth is strange. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of essays where we write about what seems obvious to us.... I think that if you look at the text we have, you might find ways to improve it, consistent with sources, and you are welcome to try. But don't keep putting in what you should know isn't to be accepted by other editors, it might be considered vandalism, and you could be blocked. --Abd (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

IP editor commented here, but interspersed, making it difficult to read in sequence. IP editor, add comments at the end of a section, or indented under another editors full comment, do not intersperse as you did, it makes it difficult to read. In particular, I'd responded to you. You ignored the response with your interspersal. --Abd (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you are so hot on "cite your sources", what is Armin's source? He was not there when Blondi was put down. I know because I have done extensive research on the war for 3 years, and been in touch with him (as well as several others - right down to Mengle's grandson) for two years. What Armin wrote I personally am not disputing because it is correct in explaining half the story. But since you yourself keep deleting my posting about Hitler's reasoning (which is the other half of the story and which can be found in sources - though it is common sense to anyone with an IQ over 50 so I'm not sure what the point of the citation is), then by your own standards you have to delete the update from Armin's book as well as 50% of the rest of this page - cause it's all unverified. The truth is that anyone who could directly cite what happened there, is dead. Period. Everything beyond that is heresay, conjecture or common sense extrapolations. What Armin writes is technically heresay as he was not personally there for this event - ask him if you don't believe me. He has no citation other than "I wasn't there, but this is what I heard". (Mind you the citation for my update is "I wasn't there, but this is what I have heard, and additionally it is 100% consistent with history, 100% consistent with Hitler's documented persona, and it is consistent with common sense")

I suggest that you abide by your own standards and start deleting most of your page on Blondi. Either that or leave my updates alone. You have no business distorting history by not allowing the full story to be told, and by asking for citations when you don't like an update, but allowing no citations for updates that you do like. Please take a moment and read my update in full. I don't mind if you want to edit it or scale it down. But to ignore it is to create a massive inaccuracy. The back story is important and needs to be told:

Hitler knew these common sense things. He was not an idiot or a lunatic cut adrift from society. To buy into that nonsense is to severely and dangerously underestimate him. A madman cut adrift could scarcely have come from nowhere to take over nearly all of Europe while battling 4 world powers. He was very intelligent and aware. He knew exactly what was going on with the Russians approaching. He knew exactly what the food situation in Berlin. He made a rational decision (a) given those facts and (b) given that he loved the dog. He knew any other option would have been a crueler fate for the dog. Really stop and think about it - can you think of a better option were you in his shoes?

No, you can't. Neither can I. Neither could he.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9XfcJFeOM

Ok, I am in the discussion page here, where you told me to go. So why are my edits being removed from the article? Please tell me what is needed in order for a common sense posting to be added to an already conjectural article? In fact looking at it objectively, my posting is more consistant with the historical record and common sense, than your postings which remove my edit. You will find one source after another citing Hitler's sense of loyalty and integrity to his positions. He was not a guy that vascilated easily or changed his positions on things (which partially explains why he was an incompetent General in the end - but that is another topic). By all accounts he fawned over Blondi for years, loved her, traveled with her, etc. (please look at the youtube clip I reference above and read up on the topic further) It makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE as your article implies to readers, that he suddenly decided to betrey her without cause in the end - particularly when he EASILY could have had the SS bring him a Russian POW (whom he loathed) to test the poison on if that were his only objective.

With that in mind, and hopefully now with an open mind on your part, please explain your difficulty with my edit. Please deliver me a response that justifies your truncation of Blondi's story by entirely ignoring the common sense reasoning behind his decision. You could not be painting a more inaccurate, ignorant, and dull two dimentional picture of the Blondi story with your insistance on ignoring the compelling dynamics of the situation. nptmike70@aol.com. Comment by 66.108.116.90

IP editor, slow down. One point at a time. First of all, you were discussing the article in the article itself. That's going to get reverted, period. It's obviously going to take some education before you'll understand the rest of it. I'll try, later, to answer the substance, but for now, first of all, read what I wrote above in response to you before. Then, realize that we are not limited to formal rules, if you can convince the other participating editors that something which is "common sense" can be inserted without sourcing, or if they simply allow it, it can happen. But you won't accomplish that, probably, with long and tendentious argument, you will just irritate everyone. Start by trying to find some reliable source for what you want to insert. If you think that unsourced speculation is in the article now, you can try removing it, or, probably better and more polite, put a tag immediately after it. To do that, add the exact text, with the curly braces, {{cn}} after it. Also, sign your Talk contributions with ~~~~ -- four tildes -- which will insert a user name ((or the IP address) and a date stamp. I recommend you register an account. You might get a little more respect. Or not. Depends.--Abd (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Abt, and the other editors here. I am not interested in "getting respect". That goal is frivelous and of unending irrelevance to me. I need no one's respect here. What I do ask however, is that if you, Dr.Bat, and the other editors want to manage an objective and competent encyclopedia, that you bring logic into the discussions and keep egos out of it. Your very response to me above (ie "get a little more respect", "polite" etc) is evidence that this is argument we're having is more about "the poltics of wikipedia" than it is about the truth or rational argument. For the reasons I have already outlined to you and Dr.Bat (if you've bothered to read them), you can see that I am correct. And I say that not out of any personal need to "be right". Rather, I say that out of simple logic. That said, I delivered myself from this argument several months ago because it is irrational on the part of the eitors. You are posting misinformation and there is nothing you can say here to justify that. For a group of people who tend toward acadmics, you are an amazingly irrational lot. PS - Armin Lehman's quote is heresay and by your own rules, it does not belong here. It is not citable. Kindly abide by the same rules you impose on me (ie "I was not there, therefore my logic does not count) and remove that part of the article. In fact in accordance with your rules, remove most of the article as it is mostly heresay. If you need assistance, please let me know and I'll point out exactly where the heresay is. In accordance with the rules you impose on me, this article should be about 1 short paragraph of sheer citable fact. All else should be excluded.

IP, you've successfully condensed the wonder of wonders and vanity of vanities that is the Wikiworld. Brava! (Do not pass Go, Do not collect $200) the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sixth dog?

Just a question about the photos of Blondi´s puppies (they are charming, as all young dogs are, by the way): at the picture in the middle (where all five puppies are shown) one can see a sixth dog crossing just in front of the leading puppy. Any idea, "who" that could have been? Is it one of Eva Brauns/Hitlers dogs?

Have a nice day, --80.135.82.138 (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"All" young dogs are charming only if you like dogs. Some people don't.139.48.25.61 (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

yes, that is eva's dog. if you go here and advance to :40 you will see the dog on video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9GymQr5_ZI&NR=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.116.90 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Blonda Litter Registration

This is the litter registration for Blonda's litter with Muckl. You can find the original in the SV Zuchbuch bandXXVIII (Eintragungsjahr 1930) page 132. (Link below)

[[IMG]http://i658.photobucket.com/albums/uu309/littoralperson/zuchbuchentry.jpg[/IMG]]

Littoralperson (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Littoralperson

Can anyone verify the date of Blonda's birth. 1934, strikes me as unusual and would have made her 10 or 11 years old at the time of her death. Typically a German Shepherd Dog lives to be around 10 years old. It doesn't seem likely that she would be successfully bred at that age. Anyone with any information or dog breeding expertise out there? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I have owned two CKC registered German Sheppard bitches (Mitzi and Sal, if anyone cares). Both lived long and happy lives (twelve and nineteen years) and both have birthed litters in their tenth year (Sal also birthed a litter in her twelfth and fifteenth years) with no ill effects to them or the puppies. Each was my companion, pet, and friend, so they were well cared for (as opposed to an animal mistreated, worked, or kept for the sole purpose of breeding) This may not be the "norm" for German Sheppards but is proof enough that it is possible that "Blondi" could have been 10-11 years old and birthed a litter of pups. 24.235.198.91 (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nurse's Statement

Included in this article is a statement by E. Flegel, a nurse in the bunker, that people were more effected by Blondi's death than Eva Braun's death. This seems like her opinion - does that really belong in this article? She made a lot of other very negative statements about Eva Braun that to me really only show that she didn't like Eva Braun, rather than the fact that people were more upset about a dogs death than a Eva Braun's death. 165.189.169.156 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

Blondi's date of death and recent edits

The date of Blondi's death per poison was actually April 29, 1945, per: Sir Ian Kershaw, Hitler: A Biography, W.W. Norton & Co. p. 252; Henrik Eberle and Matthias Uhl, ed., The Hitler Book: The Secret Dossier Prepared for Stalin, New York: PublicAffairs, p. 266 and Anton Joachimsthaler, The Last Days of Hitler: The Legends, The Evidence, The Truth. Brockhampton Press, p. 134. They also all agree on the reason Hitler ordered it done by Dr. Hasse (I see there was some prior discussion about that in sections above). Further, a few sentences were misquoted, in part, from the book, The Hitler Book: The Secret Dossier Prepared for Stalin which I fixed and I added the page cite that had been missing. Lastly, I took out some redundancy and re-wrote some poorly written sentences. Kierzek (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blondi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091114074358/http://timelines.ws:80/countries/GERM1939_1944.HTML to http://timelines.ws/countries/GERM1939_1944.HTML

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Need sources for Blondi's killer

There's apparently differing accounts of who killed Blondi and when. We are going to need to add sources with quotes. The two main theories appear to be that A) Dr. Ludwig Stumpfegger was ordered to give her poison, and B) Dr. Werner Haase and Fritz Tornow gave her poison together (it's on Tornow's wiki article) Jason Quinn (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the lede with RS cites (even though said cites should not be needed for the article lede itself). What is stated and cited in the body text was correct. Thanks for catching that, as it was inconsistent and I have not been over to this article in a while. Kierzek (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

New title

Since he had many dogs, and I posted two info boxes with photos about two of them but they were deleted as it is a Blondi page, would it be better to change the name of the page to Hitler's Dogs which could then cover all of them, rather than have to make many different pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy von Tempest (talk • contribs) 05:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not inclined to agree, as Blondi is notable enough for her own separate stand alone page. The others can and are briefly mentioned under "Other dogs". Kierzek (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F051673-0059, Adolf Hitler und Blondi auf dem Berghof (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hitler and Fuchsl.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)