Hitler and Animals
         Like many of his fellow human beings, Adolf Hitler used animal epithets to vilify other people. He often called his opponents "swine" and "dirty dogs." The Bolsheviks were "animals," and the Russians a "bestial people" and Slavic "rabbit-family" whom Stalin had molded into a totalitarian state. After Hitler conquered Russia, he wanted "the ridiculous hundred million Slavs" to live in "pig-pens." He called British diplomats "little worms," and, as for the "half-Judaized, half-Negrified" people of America, they "have the brains of a hen." Hitler had contempt for his own people, referring to them as "the great stupid mutton-herd of our sheep-like people," and when the defeats mounted late in the war, he blamed them for not having risen to the challenge. Hitler called his own sisters "stupid geese."

         Whatever deficiencies members of the Germanic Volk might possess, however, Hitler believed the Aryan/Nordic race was infinitely superior to the surrounding sea of sub-human "monstrosities between man and ape," as he made clear in a speech in Munich in 1927: "We see before us the Aryan race which is manifestly the bearer of all culture, the true representative of all humanity... Our entire industrial science is without exception the work of Nordics. All great composers from Beethoven to Richard Wagner are Aryans... Man owes everything that is of any importance to the principle of struggle and to one race which has carried itself forward successfully. Take away the Nordic Germans and nothing remains but the dance of apes."

         Hitler was fond of dogs, especially German shepherds (he considered boxers "degenerate"), whom he liked to control and dominate. At the front during World War I, he befriended a white terrier, Fuchsl (Foxl), who had strayed across enemy lines. Later, when his unit had to move on and Fuchsl could not be found, Hitler became distraught. "I liked him so much," he recalled. "He only obeyed me." Hitler often carried a dog-whip and sometimes used it to beat his dog the same way he had seen his father beat his own dog. In the Fuhrer headquarters during World War II, Hitler's German shepherd, Blondi, offered him the closest thing he had to friendship. "But with his dogs, as with every human being he came into contact with," writes his biographer Ian Kershaw, "any relationship was based upon subordination to his mastery."

         The reputed fondness of Hitler and other top Nazis for animals, especially their dogs, has been put into perspective by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. For certain authoritarian personalities, they write, their "love of animals" is part of the way they intimidate others. When industrial magnates and Fascist leaders want to have pets around them, Horkheimer and Adorno maintain, their choice falls on intimidating animals such as Great Danes and lion cubs, which are intended to add to their power through the terror they inspire. "The murderous Fascist colossus stands so blindly before nature that he sees animals only as a means of humiliating men," they write. "The Fascist's passionate interest in animals, nature, and children is rooted in the lust to persecute." While with their hand they might negligently stroke a child's head, or an animal's back, that same hand could just as easily destroy them. "The petting demonstrates that all are equal in the presence of power, that none is a being in its own right. A creature is merely material for the master's bloody purposes."

         "It is alleged that the Nazis revered or admired animals. Hitler's nickname, "Wolf" is adduced as evidence for this. The Nazi interest in animals was part of their adaptation of social Darwinism to racial policies: they were fond of powerful animals, not animals they perceived as weak. Hitler's nickname, "Wolf" is a good example. He didn't call himself "rabbit," or "deer." As Kenneth Clarke points out in The History of Animals in Art, human behavior towards animals is extremely paradoxical. Human beings can be fond of animals and cruel towards them. Admiration for animals often accompanies cruelty towards them. A hunter loves his hunting dog. Lion hunters admire the lion. Some Medieval barons had bears inscribed on their escutcheons, yet hunted them and tortured them, sometimes blinding them for entertainment and bear fights."

         According to Micheal Krater, author of Doctors Under Hitler: "...The often-encountered theory that Nazis spurned human life in preference for that of animals, in particular house pets, is without basis in fact--non suspect societies love pets also."^[1] The medical paradigm that relies almost exclusively highly toxic, animal tested drugs, comes largely from the Nazi era; though such men controlled large drug and chemical companies well before and after Hitler. Auschwitz was the largest mass extermination factory in human history. However, few people are aware that Auschwitz was a 100% subsidiary of IG Farben (Bayer).

[1] (David Rothman 'Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After', Strangers At The Bedside, 1991)

Hitler and Vivisection
         On April 24, 1989, Drs. Daniel Johnson and Frederick Goodwin from the National Institutes of Health, argued on the McNeil-Lehrer television program that "The only people in modern society that have not used animals for research were the Nazis." They further contended that because the Nazis passed an anti-vivisection bill in 1933, they were led to experiment on human beings, and that there is therefore a relationship between animal rights and a loss of human rights. None of this is true. The "anti-vivisection law," which the Nazis purported to pass, like Hitler's "vegetarianism", is filled with contradictions.

         Although the Nazis claimed to pass an anti-vivisection bill, they did not. In fact, they were required by law to perform experiments on animals before carrying them out on humans. In their efforts to discredit animal rights activists, supporters of animal research periodically proclaim to the media that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian and that the Nazis did not engage in animal research. The implication is that these 'revelations' suggest a sinister similarity between Nazis and animal rights 'zealots' and serve as a warning that animal advocates have an anti-human agenda. But the real story about Hitler and the Nazis is miles from the myth.

         Experiments on humans did not replace animal experiments; on the contrary, animal experiments made them possible. In The Dark Face of Science, John Vyvyan summed it up correctly, "The experiments made on prisoners were many and diverse, but they had one thing in common: All were in continuation of, or complementary to experiments on animals. In every instance, this antecedent scientific literature is mentioned in the evidence; and at Buchenwald and Auschwitz concentration camps, human and animal experiments were carried out simultaneously as parts of a single programme."

         A study of the law the Nazis passed shows that this law had enough loopholes in it to assure the continuation of animal research; consequently, an enormous amount of animal experimentation continued to be carried out by Nazi doctors. The Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal, reviewed the Nazis law and warned anti-vivisectionists not to celebrate because the Nazis law was no different, in effect, from the British law that had been passed in 1875, which restricted some animal research, but hardly eliminated it. Furthermore, a law passed by the Weimar government in 1931 required that all experiments on human beings be first conducted on animals. Such a requirement exists in the United States as in many countries that practice animal research. In other words, animal research is often a legal justification for experimentation on humans, as it functioned in Nazi Germany.

         The 1931 law in Germany was never abrogated. Nazis doctors dutifully submitted written statements when they requested "human material" for experiments which carried the legal notification that such experiments had been first conducted on animals. The first request for "test persons" was made by Dr. Sigmund Rascher to Himmler on May 15, 1941, "for two or three professional criminals" for "High-Altitude Research." It states that human beings were needed "because these experiments cannot be conducted with monkeys, as has been tried..."

         Robert Proctor's book, The Nazi War on Cancer (Princeton University Press, 1999), records Nazi animal experimentation, which should leave no one in doubt about where Nazi doctors and scientists stood on this issue. These animal experiments were often embedded in the continuum of animal research that had been ongoing for decades.

         By the 1920s the Germans had developed strains of mice that were "more or less receptive to the uptake of cancer tissue transplants... SS chief Heinrich Himmler was apparently intrigued by the prospect of breeding a race of cancer-prone rats; in a 1939 meeting with Sigmund Rascher, the notorious Dachau hypothermia experimenter, the SS Reichsführer proposed breeding such a race of rodents...(p. 63) "By the end of the 1920s, there was a sizable scientific literature on radiation carcinogensis, including a large body of work based on animal experiments.(p. 83) By the mid 1930s the Nazis had formidable laboratory evidence of some the causes of cancer based on animal experiments: "Experiments were...performed that finally produced--for the first time anywhere--lung cancers in animals raised in the mines." By 1938, Nazi scientists could produce lung cancer in 25% of the mice raised in mine shafts. "This was the first conclusive animal experimental evidence that breathing air in the mines could cause lung cancer."(p.99) The Nazis conducted their "war on cancer" with animals as their weapon of choice. Indeed, in 1943, at the height of a world war, the Nazi government developed plans for a "'tumor farm' to raise animals for use in experiments."(p. 261) As Proctor states, animal experiments were vital to the ideological stance of Nazisim: "Animal experimental evidence was extrapolated to humans, bolstered by the ideological push to see all aspects of human behavior--including purported racial differences--as rooted in "blood," race, or genes."(p. 63)

         The Nazis often did important scientific research, much of which has found its way into our own research. They developed the most extensive anti smoking legislation of any western countries; they did important research on the effects of industrial pollution on the environment, much of which found its way into Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring--which is not an indictment of Rachel Carson. When World War II first ended and news of the horrendous research on human beings was made public, Western scientists wanted to denounce Nazi science as "pseudo science" for fear of being tarnished by the public's loathing of Nazi science, but Nazi science finds its way into our science all the time, including findings gained from their experiments on human beings.

         But what if, contrary to fact, the Nazis did advocate the abolition of all animal exploitation? What would that say about the idea of animal rights? The answer is absolutely clear: it would say nothing about whether the animal rights position is right or wrong. That question can be settled only by whether the moral arguments in favor of animal rights are valid or not. The Nazis strongly favored marriage. Does that mean marriage is an inherently immoral institution? The Nazis also believed that sports were essential to the development of strong character. Does this mean that competitive sports are inherently immoral? Jesus Christ preached a gospel of sharing resources on an equitable basis. Gandhi promoted a similar message, as did Stalin. But Stalin also devalued human beings. Can we conclude that the idea of more equitable resource distribution has some inherent moral flaw that taints Jesus or Gandhi? No, of course not. We no more devalue human life if we accord moral significance to animal interests than we devalue the lives of "normal" humans when we accord value to certain humans, such as the severely retarded, and prohibit their use in experiments.


Hitler and Vegetarianism
         It is important to look at where the argument that he was comes from, because it's an argument that's rarely made honestly. People who insist that Hitler was a vegetarian usually just "heard it" somewhere, and immediately assumed it was true. And yet, if you tell them that Hitler wasn't actually a vegetarian, these same people who instantly believed in Hitler's vegetarianism without question, suddenly demand all manner of proof that he was not.

         Why do they require such a high standard of evidence that Hitler was not a vegetarian, when they require no evidence at all that he was? Many people want to believe that Hitler was a vegetarian. Perhaps they're threatened by vegetarianism because it implies that they're doing something wrong. But armed with the (mistaken) idea that the infamous Hitler himself was a veggie, that allows them to easily dismiss the whole concept of vegetarianism in one fell swoop. "Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism itself must be flawed!" Of course, that's a patently ludicrous argument. But the point is, many people are eager to believe it, which is why they require no proof at all when they hear that Hitler was a veggie, and then suddenly demand reams of supporting evidence when someone suggests he wasn't.

         This is not an exaggeration about the importance that anti-veggies place on the idea that Hitler was a vegetarian, look at this letter that someone wrote to award-winning author John Robbins, who has written several books promoting a meatless way of eating: "You people who say that we would all be more peaceful if we ate a vegetarian diet always seem to forget that Adolph Hitler was a vegetarian. That pretty well destroys your belief system, doesn't it?" (FoodRevolution.org)

         It "pretty well destroys your belief system", That's how important Hitler's alleged vegetarianism is to many non-veggies. Their belief is that if Hitler were a vegetarian, then vegetarianism itself is completely invalidated. Is it possible to be any more ridiculous than this? Thinking people will realize that it wouldn't matter even if Hitler had been a vegetarian. That is, it would not "pretty well destroy [our] belief system". Bad people occasionally make good choices. This shouldn't be so difficult to understand. Had Hitler actually chosen to be a vegetarian, that would simply have been one of the better choices he made.

         IF Hitler were a vegetarian, it would say nothing more than that some evil people may also be vegetarians. The attack/question itself is based on an invalid syllogism: Hitler was a vegetarian; Hitler was evil; therefore vegetarians are evil. Stalin ate meat and was himself no angel. He was responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people. What does that say about meat eaters? Just as we cannot conclude that all meat eaters have anything in common with Stalin beyond meat eating, we could not conclude that all vegetarians would have anything in common with Hitler beyond vegetarianism.]

         If Hitler were fond of chess, that wouldn't invalidate chess. In fact, one of the best players in the history of the game, Bobby Fischer, was a raving anti-Semite, but nobody stops playing chess because of that.
So what if Hitler had been fond of chess? Would non-chess players taunt those who do play the game about that? No, because people who don't play chess generally don't give a flying flip about whether other people play it or not. They don't feel threatened by someone being a chess-player. But once the issue is vegetarianism, it's a different story. This should lay bare the motivations of those who champion the idea that Hitler didn't eat meat.

         Hitler’s own personal chef, Willy Kanneneberg, testified that his favourite dish was Bavarian sausages and caviar. In light of this revelation, desperate industry propagandists assert that this was for his mistress Eva Braun [and numerous other women] - again there is no evidence supporting this equally erroneous claim; however, Hitler gave Eva an ultimatum: "Either give up smoking or me", yet offered no similar challenge on her undisputed meat addiction.

         Hitler also failed to urge a meatless diet as a way of coping with Germany’s WWII food shortage, yet was staunchly and outspokenly against smoking. Moreover, Hitler never promoted vegetarianism as a public policy for either health or moral reasons. His lack of policies and public support for vegetarianism is significant in a leader who rigorously enforced other health policies, such as anti-smoking and anti-pollution legislation, and pregnancy and birthing measures for women. Also cited by Robert Payne, Albert Speer, and other well-known Hitler biographers was his great fondness for ‘ham’ [pig], liver, and ’game’ as well as a bevy of sweets and milk.

         Another chef and eye-witness, Dione Lucas, who worked at a hotel in Hamburg that he frequented, stated Hitler’s favourite dish during his stays was ‘squab’ [pigeon], stated in her Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook (1964); “I don’t mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favourite of Mr. Hitler, who dined at the hotel often. Let us not hold that against a fine recipe though.”

         Occasionally eating only cabbage, as supposedly prescribed by his physician to cure Hitler’s bouts of meat consumption-induced sweatiness and flatulence, is not representative of and does NOT constitute a vegetarian diet; neither does a binge on pop and chips, nor an all out fast. Hitler's reputation for being a vegetarian seems to consist solely of his not having eaten "red" meat. The effort to describe Hitler's eating habits as vegetarian requires changing the definition of "vegetarian" to exclude liver, ham, and sausages from the list of meats, and changing the definition of "animal" to exclude pigs[and birds].

         Vegetarians and the vegetarian movement in Nazi Germany were persecuted. Vegetarian societies were either restrained or outright banned in Germany and the occupied countries, subject to raids, and "books that contained vegetarian recipes were confiscated by the Gestapo." Janet Barkas has a good account of this period in German history in her book, The Vegetable Passion. German vegetarian societies were forced to leave the International Vegetarian Union; they were prohibited from organizing and from publishing material, but individuals were not molested and "could exchange their credit notes for meat for dairy products. About 83,000 vegetarians participated in this program."

         On the other side of the spectrum; because of general food shortages during WW2, the British were encouraged to 'Dig For Victory' and grow their own fruit and vegetables. A near vegetarian diet sustained the population and the nation's health improved vastly during the war years.

BONUS FACTS

many also claim that Hitler did not drink alcohol, this is also untrue; Hitler drank beer as well as watered-down wines.

Hitler tested his physicians recommended 'most efficient, expedient and painless way to die', a cyanide capsule followed by a point-blank gun shot to the head, on his own canine companion, Blondi.

being a habitual cheater, the only reason why he didn‘t have an extramarital affair on Eva Braun was because they committed suicide less than 24 hours after bring married - he didn't get the chance to.

Paula Hitler's diary [discovered in an undisclosed location in Germany] reveals that Adolf was violent toward animals in his youth. Enjoyed beating his sibblings and shooting them with BB guns. FBI profilers agree that those who harm others in their youth have a much greater rate of becoming violent criminals later in life.

Hitler was a sexual deviant who committed incest.

he suffered from the STD known as syphilis [Treponema pallidum] which affects numerous body organs and parts, including the genitals, skin, nervous tissue and the brain - resulting in insanity and eventual death.

those who carried out Hitlers' orders were also NOT vegetarians - the biggest and purposely over-looked fact of this subject.