![]() |
Jewish girl with her dog,
prewar France -USHMM |
As long as the deportation had been announced a few days prior, finding a solution for domestic animals was the responsibility of the owners. But in an event of sudden mass-deportation or sealing of a Jewish neighborhood as a ghetto no time was given for such actions, and the problem thus became very much that of the authorities. In Eastern Europe, for example, Jews sometimes naively brought their pets along to the roundups prior to Einsatzgruppe executions, believing they were being resettled.
![]() |
| Jewish man with his dog, France -Yad Vashem |
![]() |
| Jewish couple with their dog, Lodz ghetto -Yad Vashem |
![]() |
| Lithuanian Jews, prewar -Yad Vashem |
It was only after the Final Solution was set into motion that the Nazis presented a clear policy for Jewish owned pets in Germany and the annexed countries. The decree banning Jewish ownership of pets was published on May 15, 1942. According to the new act, all citizens and foreigners obligated to wear the yellow badge, as well as their cohabitants, were to deliver their domestic animals by May 20 at special collection points for euthanizing. Alternatively, they could present a veterinary certificate confirming that their pets had been put to death. According to the announcement made in the Jewish newspapers, failure to comply would result in measures by the Gestapo. Handing over the animals to third parties or foster care was strictly forbidden.
![]() |
| Jewish baby with kitten, prewar Poland - Yad Vashem |
The euthanizing of the collected pets was carried out by veterinarians of the German Animal Protection Association (Tierschutzverein). A questionnaire addressing domestic animals in each household had already been filled in major cities prior to the implementation of the decree. In smaller towns, Jews were ordered to file a report with the local Jewish authority regarding the domestic animals in their possession.
Unlike earlier decrees, this ordinance did not address only Jewish citizens by racial definition, but also their "Aryan" partners in intermarried households, regardless of the registered owner of the pet. In Berlin, the publishing of the decree lead to a stream of pleas from Jewish and non-Jewish pet owners alike. At the Jewish hospital on Iranischestrasse 4, where pets were collected for euthanizing, columns of intermarried Germans reportedly protested against the act. Some owners sent photographs of themselves with their cats and dogs, others spent days at various city and state offices in search of exemption, which only a few received. Diarist Victor Klemperer and his gentile wife Eva chose to euthanize Eva's beloved cat Muschel on May 19 rather than hand him over to an "even crueler fate at the hands of the Gestapo." In Prague, survivor Helen Lewis witnessed a collection point for pets, describing a heartbreaking scene where both owners and their caged dogs and cats were greatly distraught and crying. Her Jewish friend, of mixed marriage, was allowed to keep her husband’s poodle provided she wasn’t seen with it in public.
There were some who chose to ignore the order. In 1943 the widow of a German Jew from Berlin reported to Rabbi Martin Riesenburger during the funeral ceremony of her husband: “We had a parakeet. When we received the decree stating that Jews were forbidden to have house pets, my husband just couldn't part with the animal… Perhaps someone denounced him, for one day my husband received a subpoena to appear before the Gestapo… After many fearful weeks I received a postcard from the police, stating that upon payment of a fee of three Reichsmarks I could pick up the urn containing my husband.” Rabbi Riesenburger was himself forced to have his thirteen year old Spitz euthanized.
The pet decree was undoubtedly a strong hint of things to come. As was evident until its introduction, the question of Jewish owned pets could easily be solved by allowing the animals to be put into foster homes. The inclusion of intermarried households in the decree also strongly suggests that this was an intentional act of agonizing Jews and those associated with them. Many survivors, children most often, remembered this decree as one of the cruelest. Very few pets were recovered after the war. Cats in particular lingered around their former homes, even ruins, perhaps because of their less dependent nature. In Denmark, many neighbors tended Jewish pets after the mass escape to Sweden.
![]() |
| Czech Jewish girl with her cat, prewar -Yad Vashem |
![]() |
| Young Jew playing with a dog, prewar Germany -Yad Vashem |
The pet decree was undoubtedly a strong hint of things to come. As was evident until its introduction, the question of Jewish owned pets could easily be solved by allowing the animals to be put into foster homes. The inclusion of intermarried households in the decree also strongly suggests that this was an intentional act of agonizing Jews and those associated with them. Many survivors, children most often, remembered this decree as one of the cruelest. Very few pets were recovered after the war. Cats in particular lingered around their former homes, even ruins, perhaps because of their less dependent nature. In Denmark, many neighbors tended Jewish pets after the mass escape to Sweden.














