What if the myth that Hitler was a vegetarian were true?

A simple comment by Fr Joe Borg in his blog post on world poverty, where he wrote that "Some blame corrupt governments in Third World Countries, others blame climate change, still others say that higher standards of living lead more people to eat meat and put more pressure on food production; others say that the poor have too many children", has elicited the latest gem from hunter fanatic Alfred E. Zammit.

Mr Zammit, naively believing the myth that Hitler was a vegetarian (as if this made any difference to any moral claim on behalf of veganism), among other off-topic irrelevancies, wrote:

"I should like to add something that is not so well known. The first country to enact 'animal rights' legislation was Nazi Germany. Hitler himself was a vegetarian and a fanatical animal lover who disliked hunting and 'poachers' (meaning hunters). He felt depressed whenever his dog (an Alsatian named Blondi) was ill, but he did not bat an eyelid when signing the death warrant of some German officer on the front. We should ask why an animal lover could bring himself to plan and sanction the killing of so many millions of fellow humans. The answer is that some animal lovers are so extremely sensitive to the cruelty that humans continuously inflict on animals that they develop an extreme hatred towards humans. The Jewish practice of 'kosher' slaughter was declared illegal in Nazi Germany in 1934, and in order to justify his persecution of the Jews, Hitler used graphic films of how Jews slaughtered lambs. Hitler was also convinced that the future world would be vegetarian, which is perhaps one good reason why Fr Borg says that he does not augur that we all become vegetarians".

First, to dispel the myth that Hitler was a vegetarian, a claim that Mr Zammit does not support with any references or evidence, and somehow relies on hearsay from those who, failing rational arguments, would wish to discredit animal rights by associating it with one of the world's most infamous murderers.

As Michael Bluejay points out, "many meat-eaters are threatened by vegetarianism because it implies that they're doing something wrong. But armed with the (mistaken) idea that the most infamous butcher ever to live was a veggie, that allows them to easily dismiss the whole concept of vegetarianism in one fell swoop. How convenient. That's why they require no proof when they hear that Hitler was a vegetarian. That idea comforts them, so they're all too happy to latch onto it".

As Michael Bluejay further explains in his website, "Hitler's 'vegetarianism' was that doctors tried to put him on a vegetarian diet for health reasons, but he didn't really stick with it".

In his book called "Food Revolution", John Robbins writes:

"Robert Payne is widely considered to be Hitler's definitive biographer. In his book, Hitler: The Life and Death of Adolph Hitler, Payne says that Hitler's 'vegetarianism' was a 'legend' and a 'fiction' invented by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda.

According to Payne, 'Hitler's asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend, he neither smoked nor drank, nor did he eat meat or have anything to do with women. Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages and kept a mistress, Eva Braun. His asceticism was fiction invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self-control, the distance that separated him from other men. By this outward show of asceticism, he could claim that he was dedicated to the service of his people. In fact he was remarkably self-indulgent and possessed none of the instincts of the ascetic".

So much for the myth, more about which one may read at http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html

But what if Hitler really was a vegetarian, what would it matter?

Hitler opposed smoking. Is smoking to be encouraged just because Hitler opposed it?

Regarding the supposedly Nazi animal rights laws, any animal laws in Nazi Germany were not animal rights laws at all. They were animal "welfare" laws that only gave limited protection to a small minority of animals. Non-human animals were still eaten in Nazi Germany. Non-human animals were still forced to work for humans in Nazi Germany. Non-humans were bombed along with humans by Nazi planes.

And since humans are animals too (despite protestations from those who still insist - against all scientific evidence - that humans are not animals), Nazis tortured and murdered millions of human animals. How about that for an animal rights policy!

Mr Zammit says that "some animal lovers are so extremely sensitive to the cruelty that humans continuously inflict on animals that they develop an extreme hatred towards humans". Mr Zammit should perhaps note that this type of "animal lovers" are usually animal exploiters themselves, who have no idea on what animal rights really means.

Mr Zammit's confusion in this regard is evident when he bizarrely believes that Hitler could, in someone's wildest dreams or imagination, be considered as an "animal rights" person.

Mr Zammit says that Nazi atrocities and hypocritical propaganda is the reason why Fr Borg would say that he does not augur that we all become vegetarians. I am sure that Fr Borg is above such silly reasoning, though perhaps, he should explain what he meant by his claim that he does not augur that we all become vegetarians, as if this would bring about harm to anyone, instead of the actual opposite. Veganism, after all, rests on the principle of non-harm.

And may I remind Mr Zammit (or perhaps surprise him with the fact) that Saint Martin De Porres was a vegetarian? Would Mr Zammit say that Saint Martin De Porres was a Nazi? (It would also be interesting to read Fr Borg's thoughts on this. After all, his unthinking statement seems to imply that he would equally say that he, a Catholic priest, would not augur that we all become like Saint Martin De Porres).

Going back to Hitler, it should also be said that the fact that Hitler felt some affection towards a dog, in the same way that millions of humans, feel affection towards their dogs, while they disregard millions of other equally sentient non-human animals exploited and killed just for pleasure and convenience, Hitler felt nothing for millions of Jews tortured and murdered in his death camps. This only goes to show how mentally unstable and hypocritical he was. It says nothing about vegetarianism or veganism, even if he really was a vegetarian, which he was not.

Stalin was a meat eater. So was Charles Manson and Pol Pot. Does this say anything about other meat-eaters and their treatment of other humans? Of course not. Only fools make illogical connections where there are none.

Mr Zammit ends his comment by saying:

"Fr Joe, should pay a little bit more attention to the insidiousness of all the new-fangled ideas creeping into this fair isle of ours".

In view of the above, Mr Zammit's warning amounts to nothing but hot air, which is something I have gotten accustomed to read from people who insist on defending the indefensible, such as the completely unnecessary killing of non-human animals for food, clothing, and entertainment.