![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This article began as a "dispute" section in List of vegetarians. Given the controversy surrounding this topic, please provide a citation for any significant edits with new content, thanks. Wyss 22:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, dumb joke. Seriously: where's the controversy? The vast majority of the article seems to be devoted to sources supporting the viewpoint that Hitler was a vegetarian. I was unaware that this required 100% perfect adherence to never eating meat. Is there some sort of Vegetarian High Council with the power to kick you out if you weaken occasionally? The later in Hitler's life this article goes, the more thoroughly vegetarian he is portrayed as.
If the contention that Hitler was a vegetarian is still "disputed", then where's the dispute? If it's not disputed, then it's time for it to be moved out of the "disputed" section on the list. Seriously, the lengths people will go to, to try to deny that they might have something in common with someone they loathe... - Kasreyn 12:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The controversy is that calling Hitler a vegetarian does two bad things. 1) It gives people who want to harass vegetarians a very silly arguement and 2) is not FACTUAL, unless we disregard his mother and other sources saying he occasionally ate meat. Otherwise everyone on Earth is a vegetarian between hamburgers and someone can be a virgin between sexual encounters. Even if he never ate beef in his life but occasionally had some fish, he was NOT a vegetarian. - UA
I am archiving this discussion for easier access, and because the talk edit thingy is telling me the page is large. That said, aside from this, I really have nothing more to contribute. I find this fact really, really funny though. Ecopirate 10:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I've followed this link and read the article in question, and it starts out with a reasonable tone, purporting to explain the "real Hitler" behind history's misperceptions, but then proceeds to grant an ever-more rosy picture until the thing reads like the worst sort of Neo-Nazi apologism. By the end of the piece, the author has completely abandoned any lip-service mention of Hitler's crimes, and the conclusion is fit only for a paean. Should we really be using this source at Wikipedia? - Kasreyn 10:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
this article is crap, because it does not disprove the myth of hitler being a vegetarian but instead adopt the nazi-propaganda during hitlers regime. read this for more information: " http://www.vegsource.com/berry/hitler.html". sorry for being rude! -- 84.168.188.227 08:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Vegetarians just don't want to be compared with him.
I completely fail to see the point ans the encyclopedic interest. In what is it any important to know whether hitler was veggie or not? Why not an article about what kind of underwear he wore? -- Raminagrobis fr ( talk) 18:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Greetings friends,
I would like to know the source for the statement in the first paragraph: "Wagner argued...that humanity had become contaminated through racial mixing...." Where was Wagner supposed to have written this? Hitler's misunderstanding of Wagner must not be confused with what Wagner actually believed. Wagner must not be blamed for Hitler's acts. I am not all together sure this introduction is fair to Wagner. If it can not be conclusively that this is Wagner's actual view (as opposed to Hitler's self-serving interpretation of Wagner), I believe this sentence needs to be rewritten. Thanks.
Gunnermanz 07:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks, gentlemen.
--
Gunnermanz
08:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey. It says above that this used to be a featured article candidate. Anyone who has been here longer than I am that has any idea why they changed their mind on that? As far as I can see; the article is as neutral as it can get, all the sources are cited, and there seems to be no further addition to be made, unless someone either figures out a way to alter history or comes up with a new discovery on the subject. JaneDOA
Hi everyone. I think the article is well-researched and well-cited, but its flow and POV was a little confusing. At one point of the article was the stark statement "Hitler was not a vegetarian", but the opposite statement was made just a few paragraphs later. The POV confusion probably comes from the ongoing controversy over Hitler's vegetarism, and POV-biased sentances seem to have crept in from both sides. I can see two good solutions to this problem: one would be to rewrite each POV-biased sentance to be NPOV, another might be to keep the original POV statements and reorganize the article to show the POV from both sides.
Following wikipedia's mandate to be bold, I chose the second approach and reorganized the article. Formally, it had a section on his early years, a section on his later years, another section on his later years, and a section of misc. facts. I reorganized the article into a section on his early years, a section with arguments for his vegetarianism in his later years, a section with arguments against his vegetarianism in his later years, a section on Hitler's self-perception, and a section of misc. facts. This way, I could keep all the language of the original article (with the exception noted below), minus a few grammar edits.
The only sentance I cut was this uncited statement: "many remarkable human beings have been vegetarian, including Mahatma Gandhi, Leonardo da Vinci, Pythagoras, Platon, George Bernard Shaw, Leo Tolstoy, Jesus Christus, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Edison, Tesla, Kafka, Wolter, Twain etc".
I considered leaving it in the "arguments against Hitler's vegetarianism" section, but it doesn't seem to have a lot to do with Hitler. It's also very difficult to prove and cite (I can see arguments over Jesus' vegetarianism getting particularly contentious).
Thanks everyone, JKB
- wasn't he a veggie too? -- MacRusgail 17:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed ", a highly reputed biographer of Hitler," from a sentence on Robert Payne (diff) . Reputed is both vague and disputable, depending on its definition. In my opinion, it' better to show his reputation in the wikilinked article - he shouldn't need that qualification here. --- Sluzzelin talk 05:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Surely the lack of proper food would have led to all the trembling fingers and craziness towards the end of the war. Alexsanderson83 ( talk) 06:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Schwalker objected to the inclusion of this content with the edit summary, "removed sentence which did not contribute to the article's topic; neither savitridevi.org nor S. Devi herself are a reliable source". [1] While I don't agree with his reasoning, the content is a hazy interpretation of a primary source and lacks secondary source support, and for that reason I am removing it below: — Viriditas | Talk 08:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable source#Extremist sources says that these kind of sources should only be used: " in articles about themselves, and even then with caution." That is why I believed that texts by Ms Devi should not be used as a source for this article. Greetings, -- Schwalker ( talk) 11:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There are very serious POV problems with this article. Already its title lets one guess the agendas of those who started it but I'll try, at least, to make the case for some changes of phrasing of the most glaring POV's: 1. "scholars agree that Adolf Hitler practiced some form of vegetarianism" is a specific statement that has to be documented. I agree it's hard to show that all (or even the majority of scholars) believe H. "that Adolf Hitler practiced some form of vegetarianism". That's why I proposed "some scholars..." which is documented by the references in the article. I would also be happy with "many scholars...." 2. The sentence "Wagner's anti-Semitic historical theories which connected the future of Germany with vegetarianism" is entirely unacceptable. First of all, alluding to a conceptual connection of antisemitism with vegetarianism (incidentally, not Arluke's claim) is not only absurd but also deeply offensive to the hundreds of thousands vegetarian Jews. Wagner's "historical" theories may have referred to vegetarianism, but seeing anti-semitism in that point just because of the antisemitism of his other writings is simply sloppy logic. I'd also object to the use of strong characterizations/judgments such as "anti-semitic historical theories" in Wikipedia. Anti-semitism is not a legitimate ideology. Calling something an "anti-semitic historical theory" is akin to calling it "abhorrent historical theory", which certainly is, but it isn't appropriate language for an encyclopedia. 3. The sentence "As a result, many vegetarians dispute the claim that Hitler was a vegetarian" is also not properly supported. Why "many" and why is it impossible that non-vegetarians too would dispute that H. was vegetarian? 4. Concerning the sentence "Most of Adolf Hitler's biographers assert that he was a vegetarian from 1931 until his death in 1945." Same comment as in point 1. 5. The deletion of the beginning of the first paragraph of "Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism" (including a reference!!) is incomprehensible and, I'm afraid, it can only be explained by committed opposition to vegetarianism: The first sentence ("Hitler' vegetarianism has been questioned on several grounds.") was nothing more than an introduction to the section. The second and third ("For instance, although he usually elevated the beliefs on health and ...") summarize a point made in a scholarly source. I don't see the problem with these sentences and reference!
As mentioned in the beginning of the talk page, it's a controversial topic. So we must be extra careful to avoid being carried away by emotions and personal beliefs, and to minimize the inclusion of undocumented assumptions even if they seem obvious.
Rerom1 ( talk) 02:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I should say that I didn't appreciate Viriditas' e-mail warning me not to undo edits. By the same token, it's Viriditas who should be refraining from doing that and MPerel (who doesn't even explain on her/his changes!!!) >1. "Scholars agree that Adolf Hitler practiced some form of vegetarianism" is supported by the >sources in the article. Can you show that it is not? All you need to do is find one scholar of >history that disagrees. This applies to you too. Arluke etc. not only are not historians but the references you quote are written specifically to oppose vegetarianism, not as Hitler's biographies.
>2. The sentence "Wagner's anti-Semitic historical theories which connected the future of >Germany with vegetarianism" is entirely supported by Proctor and other sources. Can you show >that it is not? I showed it doesn't even make sense: First of all, alluding to a conceptual connection of antisemitism with vegetarianism (incidentally, not Arluke's claim) is not only absurd but also deeply offensive to the hundreds of thousands vegetarian Jews. Wagner's "historical" theories may have referred to vegetarianism, but seeing anti-semitism in that point just because of the antisemitism of his other writings is simply sloppy logic. I'd also object to the use of strong characterizations/judgments such as "anti-semitic historical theories" in Wikipedia. Anti-semitism is not a legitimate ideology. Calling something an "anti-semitic historical theory" is akin to calling it "abhorrent historical theory", which certainly is, but it isn't appropriate language for an encyclopedia.
I want to stress this point because it's so offensive. I'm willing to take it up with Wikipedia moderators because I doubt it complies with Wiki's ethics standards.
>3. "Many vegetarians dispute the claim that Hitler was a vegetarian" is supported by >Rudacille. Can you show that it is not?
Please read more carefully. How did you (or Rudacille for that matter) measure "many"? Did R. do a statistical survey? Also, what do personal choices have to do with disputing that claim? How do you know that it's ONLY people practicing vegetarianism that dispute the claim that Hitler was a vegetarian? Or, that it's ONLY non-vegetarians that agree with it? It isn't a partisan issue but one of serious and objective representation of facts: I have my concerns with parts of the article but I am NOT a vegetarian.
>4. "Most of Adolf Hitler's biographers assert that he was a vegetarian from 1931 until his >death in 1945" is supported by the sources in the article and has been discussed extensively >in the talk archives. I suggest you read them.
The statement has a specific, quantified content (it says that more than 50% of H.'s biographers make this assertion) and nothing in the archives confirms that.
>5. "The deletion of the beginning of the first paragraph of "Questioning Hitler's >vegetarianism" (including a reference!!) is incomprehensible and, I'm afraid, it can only be >explained by committed opposition to vegetarianism" is ridiculous. This is the only part of >the article I'm willing to compromise with you on, because I agree that elements of this >section should be restored, but the fact is, these are minority POV that have very little >evidence. Can you break this down by point and substantiate it below? We have discussed Colin >Spencer's points in the archives, and they were found to be lacking, but I'm willing to >revisit this again.
It's up to any reasonable person's quick glance at the article and these responses (without my comments spelling it out) to see if claims of bias are "ridiculous". Your very same paragraph goes on to say that, after discussion in the archives, you pontificated that Spencer's views are no good and that's why you want them to be air-brushed from the article! NPOV means to include "minority POV that have very little evidence" ("very little evidence" according to you, always).
>Colin Spencer is a "food critic" and playwright, not a historian. Nowhere in the previous version was claimed he was a historian. (Neither is Arluke by the way).
>The material attributed to Spencer claims (or seems to claim) that the author is questioning Hitler's vegetarianism.
Wrong! It only refers to Spencer's statement that H. suppressed vegetarian societies.
>"Although he usually elevated the beliefs on health and lifestyle to which he seriously >adhered to state policy (e.g. his anti-smoking campaign), Hitler never went so far as to >promote any state vegetarianism campaign." I don't see where Spencer says this.
Page 286
>"The contrary took place, as during Hitler’s emerging regime vegetarian societies were >pronounced unlawful and their members suffered government sanctioned incursions upon their >residence". Spencer discusses some of this, but what sources does he use? I have proposed >adding this to the article in the past, but other editors have disagreed in the archives.
If you don't think Spencer's statement is sound, add a proviso to that effect, but, of course, you'll have to allow Wikip. contributors to dispute claims made in other references as well!
>Also, according to the references above" - that's a self-reference. We don't write like that. "You don't like that" or is it against Wikip. conventions? Anyway, I accept this point.
Rerom1 ( talk) 11:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I've partially reverted Rerom1's version, as the first four points enumerated here demonstrate that the sources support the original wording. -- MPerel 08:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the paragraph in question: There is some anecdotal evidence that Hitler continued to eat meat after his experiment with a vegetarian diet. Dione Lucas's 1964 Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook included a recipe for squab (four week-old fledgling pigeon) with a short anecdote: "I do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr Hitler, who dined at the hotel often. Let us not hold that against a fine recipe though."
The trouble is, Wikipedia is not the place for anecdotal musings. I don't believe that Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook is an RS because it does not assert any reliability on the subject matter of Adolf Hitler. Does anyone agree? ← Spidern → 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Since the issue with Hitler's Plat Préféré on Flemish TV this information on Wikipedia was not at all anecdotal. That issue went around the world press twice. So it is a reference very usefull to keep as many people will be looking for this information Savasorda ( talk) 23:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
See Rynn Berry's writings on this point.
Note that the response to Professor Berry's scholarship are pre-dated writings from Janet Barchas (1975), which relied on secondary and tertiary sources for her notes, and those sources themselves were uncritical of Nazi propaganda writings that Hitler was vegetarian (albeit for reasons of personal health, which in themselves provide the primary motivation for MOST self-described 'vegetarians' - according to Sonia Partridge and Paul Amato's germinal work on 'The New Vegetarians' - admittedly an exploratory book that needs not some but MUCH follow-up of a much more serious and systematic sort).
Any discussion of Hitler's PRESUMED 'vegetarianism' (or even PREFERENCE for 'a plant-based diet' much or most of the time) should address the argument that health vegetarianism is the desirable TYPE of vegetarianism, subject as it is to any current preponderance of evidence that blows one way or the other in the general public and/or expert outlook on diet).
The social arguments FOR vegetarianism are several, as any vegetarian ORGANIZATION both admits and publishes: health, ethical, ecological, economic, religious/philosophical, traditional, etc. Now, that most protovegetarians DO, as a matter of fact, entertain one (or two at most) arguments at the onset can be a matter of observed fact. Another matter of observed fact is that MOST (though not all) vegetarians of long standing adopt MORE than one rationale for continuing to be vegetarian. This is a matter of ongoing social science research AMONG vegetarians (not among nonvegetarians, nor among 'anti-vegetarians'- whatever THEIR raison d'etre).
Whether any social winds of opinion within or beyond Hitler's sphere(s) of influence could condition his judgment (isn't that likely?) could be explored further. How those 'winds of opinion' are socially constructed could ALSO be further explored.
Might I suggest that the article be re-worked every so slightly to achieve the following: (1) identify areas of key disagreement among serious researchers/scholars, point by point; these areas are: conceptual issues involved in the expert AND public discussion of the topic (2) suggest promising areas or methods of inquiry through which these key areas of disagreement can be further illuminated and disagreements about historical fact be resolved. (3) suggest promising ways to unfold or unpack the values and assumptions around the various kinds of personal and social 'investment' in this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The whole controversy is missing the point. Hitler like most vegetarian at that time abstained from meat for health reason. If I tell my doctor that I smoke a cigarette once a year, he would still classify me as a non smoker. If I kill a person every once in a while, I wouldn't be classified as a pacifist. Vapour ( talk) 19:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
See: /info/en/?search=North_Korean_cult_of_personality What did Nazi Germany and North Korea have in common? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.84.247 ( talk) 12:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view I hear arguments of 'because x eats vegetables and NOT flesh, x must be excluded from this article' However, this argument works both ways. 'because x eats flesh, and NOT vegetables, x has an unnatural pov'.
Both vegans, vegetarians and flesh eaters have some form or another of 'vested interest' in this article. The point is, DID Hitler eat flesh as a self proclaimed vegetarian? LOOKING OBJECTIVELY The answer is yes Therefore Hitler was NOT a vegetarian.
Regardless of this 'fact' (or consensus), it is also evident that genocides are NOT in line with vegetarian beliefs. As a vegetarian/vegan myself, it is easy for me to identify 'true vegetarians', because A) they do not eat meat and B) are generally pacifist. My EXPERIENCE, not my point of view, tells me that Hitler was likely merely 'PORTRAYED' as a vegetarian, without actually being a vegetarian.
Was there proof of Hitler NOT eating meat and being a COMMITTED vegetarian, then I would NOT be making these claims. Instead, I would be looking at 'Hitler apologeticism' to find a reasoning for why, as a pacifist vegetarian, Hitler would 'gas the jews'. This is not the case however, and it is clear cut that Hitlers alleged vegetarianism was merely 'all for the show'.
And you all fell for it, 50 years after it happened. Pitiful.
Hitler was clearly not a vegetarian, and it is highly disputed that it is only Goebbels propaganda that we have to thank for this misinformation. I agree with user below, this article is very false and damaging for our global community. As a vegetarian/vegan myself, this is one of the biggest 'guilt by association' fallacies and it is well over 50 years' old now!. Ridiculous. It even states in the articles, in the biographies, in the new York times, that Hitler regularly consumed flesh even after becoming a SELF PROCLAIMED 'vegetarian'.
Hitler and Goebbels lied about things. If we are to accept their lies as truths then we might as well stop defining anything and everything in life because what does it even mean to be vegetarian when an asshole dictator who is responsible for genocide is also a vegetarian because he also ate some potatoes and fruit with his organs (liver dumplings) and slices of flesh (ham).
I request that the article either be completely overhauled or removed entirely. At the MOST, Hitler could have possibly been, would be semi-vegetarian (which is not even a thing, as all 'omnivores' are semi-vegetarian) i.e, Hitler was no more vegetarian than the average flesh eater. People should learn that propaganda involves lies deceit and misdirection. We have been mislead into thinking Hitler was a vegetarian 50 years ago, and 50 years after his 'reign', we still believe he was vegetarian? Even after he killed all the jews? You probably have your head screwed on backwards if you actually believe that crap.
May I suggest the reference be removed along with it all statements from it? The author clearly doesn't read German on a level that would make the text a reliable source, as indicated by the title of the text. Couldawouldashoulda hearsay through translations or unqualified attempts at one's own translation don't make a reliable source. -- OliverH ( talk) 09:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, this article has been highjacked long ago by people with an agenda, reffing any old talking head, regardless of expertise.
Bree wilson for a start is completely unsuitable, and Robert Payne is heavily criticised for his broad assumptions and complete lack of any credibility as an authority on Hitler. Just google him and see. I half expect to see a quote from 'some drunk guy I met once'.
Also, the MASSIVE refs at the bottom of the page are entirely inappropriate for wikipedia. Refs are supposed to be REFS, that is, a reference that people can go check to read more. NOT a gigantic extension of the article.
The whole article has become a systematic collection of any duffer who backs up the notion that 'Hitler wasn't reallllllllly a veggie', for an obvious and yet very silly, agenda.
Someone sort this out, I have tried but the revert monkeys are in town. 87.114.2.169 ( talk) 13:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
BUT where has Bee Wilson gotten her opinion on Hitlers vegetarianism from?
This statement of hers; "For a start, his distaste for meat knew no pity of animals."
Flies quite blatantly in the face of the actual facts of Hitler's concern for Animal welfare.
Germany's Animal welfare laws were the strictest laws in the world at that time and were a direct result of Hitler's distaste for the use of animals for testing, kosher slaughtering and general abuse of animals. This is of obvious importance when considering Hitler's beliefs and directly gives a possible insight into his vegetarian diet.
I added a small section on this (Animal welfare in Nazi Germany), to be improved later, so why has this section been removed by you?
Bee wilson is simply attributing what she thinks Hitler must have been like (bad, evil, madman etc.) rather than actually talking from any scholarly insight into his character. She is a poor source. Hugh Trevor-Roper Alan Bullock or Ian Kershaw are proper historian sources.
And yes the refs should be shortened to the basics, then anyone who wants can look them up. 87.114.2.169 ( talk) 15:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Obviously the legitimacy of the references are a POV in themselves, but generally if the references come from published works (books/journal articles) then they are acceptable. It's up to the readers to decide their veracity. However I agree that the referencing is being abused. Some of them are miniature essays that are irrelevant to the subject. Notes are supposed to clarify information in the article, not to extend it. For instance the reference which includes a min-essay on Wagner's anti-Semitic theories are irrelevant to Hitler's vegetarianism. They only warrant mention to the extent that some of Hitler's views are linked to them. As for the section on animal welfare, I don't see why that can't be brought into the article, but it should be restricted to legislation and policies that were brought in under Hitler to illuminate his compassion for animals, and it should be brief. After all like an editor pointed out the article isn't about animal welfare in Nazi Germnay, but Hitler's involvement in animal welfare in Germany is relevant to a possible vegetarian lifestyle. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
// New user: I think it is a big slap in the face for you all to reason that 'because animal welfare fits with vegetarian beliefs, this is evidence that Hitler may had been a vegetarian (despite the evidence that he ate flesh foods), because, genocides, concentration camps, etc, are NOT components of a vegetarian lifestyle nor its' beliefs. (unless it is the last resort but as a dictator, Hitler had the power to change the laws i.e the genocides had NOTHING to do with vegetarianism). Also, Hitlers interest in vegetarianism became existent during the second world war, and extremely illogical time to take such a stance, unless it is just another tidbit of Goebbels' propaganda. The extent of Goebbels even goes so far as to have us believe that Hitler was not a Christian. The power of suggestion my friends. // — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.84.247 ( talk) 11:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe, as do many folks who study German history around the times of the Nazis, that a section ANIMALS is appropriate. I don't think that it should be termed 'animal rights' (since Hitler was at best an 'animal welfarist' who acknowledged their personhood and sentience and thought, therefore, that using animals should be done while minimizing pain). Whether this relates to his (and other Nazis') beliefs about extermination (gas chambers, etc., in the context of eugenics) could be researcher and more scholarship could be sought. The topic 'Nazi views on animals' can be found discussed in publications from then into the present, with varying degrees of credibility. I personally do not believe that Hitler was a consistent vegetarian, and that, even if he were vegetarian with only minor exceptions, it seems to have been correlated with urgings for him to care for his health. However, more evidence than testimony from a former food taster would be necessary. The possibility of 'false memories' in only one individual is something which must be countered by searching for comparable testimony, which seems to be lacking. MaynardClark ( talk)
I don't see why this person's opinion should feature so prominently (in a special paragraph, no less), especially considering s/he clearly misinterpreted H.'s words (whether wittingly or not, I don't know). It is not clear (and it should be, considering this is a supposedly encylopedic site) where this person got the impression that H. "knew no pity for animals", but what is certain - to those who have taken care to actually read extensive texts about this topic, including entire dinner-table conversations - is that he did not "boast" about visiting slaughterhouses. He usually closed his graphic descriptions of animal slaughtering - aimed at his blissfully oblivious meat-eating guests - by commenting on their (the guests') "hypocrisy".
Not good table manners, I agree.
But it's not the same as "boasting".
And it certainly doesn't equal "no pity for animals".
EVERYBODY deserves a fair and intellectually honest treatment.
Lies and misinterpretations never amount to any good. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
95.176.156.41 (
talk)
16:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah he loved animals so much he tested the poison on his own dog before he finally he offed himself. Hitler was also a known drug user, and was enabled by his doctors. Not exactly a clean living person. He has an affair with his underage niece who kills herself to get away from him, and well you know the rest, I hope. Think I would believe anything the propaganda minister said? Neither should you. Piewackett ( talk) 23:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
//Smart lad, Piewackett. Smart lad. It is very obvious that it is rather impossible for Hitler to have been a committed vegetarian, given the varying testimonies of his fondness for organ flesh. I think to believe that Hitler was literally a vegetarian is foolishness in the umpteenth degree! This entire article is damning. (to our societal mental health, believing that genocidal dictators are the frontline man for compassionate lifestyle choices... insanity!)//
The intro starts off by saying; 'Hitler is said to have practised some form of vegetarianism' Countless of the reliabe sources support that he was a vegetarian, so I think it could be said with certainity that he was indeed a vegetarian, instead of this uncertain and 'guessing' opening to the article, a second thing we need to change is the postfix, the 'some form of vegetarianism', again its a vague, imprecise formulation. I believe the intro of the article should, as according to all the sources, settle straightaway that hitler was a vegetarian. Which form of vegetarianism he practiced seems a bit to pedantic and unimportant for the intro. I think we should elaborate later on in the article, which 'form' of vegetarianism he practiced. So to include these 2 changes, I vote we change the beforementioned sentence from the opening to: "Hiter was a vegetarian" -its simple straight to the point and very accurate. Anyone in favour? Averagejoedev ( talk) 14:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Rynn Berry teaches in history at The New School (for Social Research) in NYC. He has written a number of historical books. He is a practicing vegan. He is an interesting and wry speaker.
"It's unquestionable he practised vegetarianism, the question is to what extent." Vegetarians dont eat meat. Not a little meat or every once in a while but no meat at all, hence the term. Hitler ate meat. Whether he ate it rarely or not is irrelevant. He was an omnivore (ate meat and non meat to various extent). This is a little like saying Hitler practiced sexual abstinence but had sex every once in a while. The only people being pedantic here are those writing that hitler was a vegetarian. The intro should be reverted from stating an absolute to at the very least stating that there is dispute on the matter. august 2011
//It's been 6-7 years since you wrote this, but I literally saw the article, and in a heartbeat wrote in the intro that the matter IS disputed heavily. I am not a very good editor, so it may look sloppy, but I thought it was necessary to add that indeed the matter is in dispute. I also feel the title of this article should be changed to 'Adolf Hitler and semi-vegetarianism' as it is certainly more accurate on an objective account. Or, Adolf Hitler and 'flexitarianism' even. The title 'Adolf hitler and vegetarianism' is misleading in my opinion.//
^ //Vegetarians do not eat animal flesh. This is why we have phrases such as flexitarian (not the other way around). Flexitarians sometimes eat animal flesh. Flexitarians are NOT vegetarians. Therefore, Hitler was NOT a vegetarian (by his own admission, from credible sources, New York times, etc, etc, etc). However, Hitler could possibly very well have been a 'flexitarian'. We have these words not so we can name everything anything we want, but because we know what the words define. A flexitarian defines one who occasionally abstains from flesh consumption. A vegetarian is one who completely abstains from flesh consumption.
One COULD make the argument, that Hitler may had still been a vegetarian despite having been fed flesh without his own knowledge (being deceived to eat flesh) as that would not be of his OWN VOLITION. However, Hitler also ate liver organ dumplings and sliced pig flesh, which ultimately discludes him from the vegetarian moniker entirely and the article should be modified entirely.//
The user 'Betty Logan' intermittently speaks up for the idea that Hitler was vegetarian, but then, clicking on her name repeatedly shows that the user is no longer very active in Wikipedia, even though she has only minute before the identity check, made a reversion or a rewrite. I think that the article about Hitler's vegetarianism should exist but should be renamed to Hitler's presumed vegetarianism. //Flexitarianism is more apt!!!// (in fact, I will change it, and leave the cleaning up of the rest of this abomination for 'y'all' to deal with.)// Further, the article is about Hitler and vegetarianism, which should discuss not merely Hitler's dietary practices, but Hitler's relation to the practice and then-prevailing theories about vegetarianism and diet in the lands under his party's jurisdiction. I think that the Léon Degrelle citation is unreliable (for the reasons stated above, and for other reasons. According to the International Vegetarian Union, diets that aren't exclusively plant matter (or plant matter with eggs and/or dairy), are not vegetarian diets (by 'the international definition'). My position is that Hitler tried different diets; he may have made occasional comments about the ethical reasons for being vegetarian, as 'social actors' are wont to do, but they don't disclose the inner self in real, long-term, genuine or authentic, and dependable ways. MaynardClark ( talk)
//Also judging by the lack of animal welfare speeches, how little media there is (if ANY) of Hitler actually advocating animal welfare to the public, it is apparent that Hitlers alleged vegetarianism was likely a ploy to support World War 2. I could be mistaken, but I am sure ANY footage containing ANY speech of Hitlers', promoting vegetarianism from a POSITION OF AUTHORITY, would literally end up on this very page. How many years has this page existed? Why is there only breadcrumbs on this subject when anything else (Nuremburg trials, domino day, etc etc etc) related to the second world war is extrapolated upon beyond extension on the wiki?
But Hitlers' supposed, interjected vegetarianism, remains such a goddamn mystery.... I'm not buying it. Vegetarian dictators do not commit genocides when they have the power/support to change the policies for the entire country. In fact, bondskanselier Merkel only recently forbade flesh from being served at any governmental type meeting/gathering. So, why didn't Hitler do it.
Hitler had so much power and support, so where was the speech where he banned flesh from Germany? Why did he take inspiration from slaughterhouses in constructing the (factory farm inspired) concentration camps? If... he was so disgusted by the concept.
So, are we going to delve into this further, and assume he was a vegetarian with 'such good principles', but that somehow the man was censored? Then we must also assume, that Hitler did not order the blitzkrieg or the extermination of the jews, no, it couldn't have been vegetarian Hitler, so, therefore, the only logical conclusion left available is that someone was ruling over Hitler. Either that, or, Hitler simply was NOT vegetarian and in fact far from it!//
This version of the Downfall viral(-ly mutating) parodies clip is somewhat tangentially related to Hitler's vegetarianism (but more directly related for H's love of his dog).-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 13:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Copied from user talk pages:
Hi, I noticed your (
nirvana2013) alterations to this article. One of the problems of putting
Robert Payne's views front-and-center is that Payne's book is universally regarded by historians as complete garbage. A problem with this article is that it gives the view the Hitler was not a vegetarian far too much weight. //But Hitler was not a vegetarian....// All actual specialist historians agree that he was.//Then ALL actual specialist historians fail at simple English, for the definition of vegetarianism does NOT include the consumption of flesh foods, which Hitler did even throughout the period in which he claimed to be a vegetarian. Remember kids, there's a difference between saying you are a vegetarian and actually being a vegetarian. I can call myself African, and call Africa a 'feeling' but that doesn't literally make me an African.// The "evidence" that he wasn't is an accummulation of gossip articles in cookery magazines and the like which have no real evidentiary value at all, since they are not based any first hand testimony or experience. One of them actually mistakes a joke for a fact (ie that Hitler was a vegetarian but he made an exception for ham - to prove he wasn't Jewish).//Vegetarians usually do not joke about vegetarianism, as it is a very serious subject.//
Paul B (
talk)
19:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The inset of Neugeist/Die Weisse Fahne (German magazine of the New Thought movement), a popular magazine of the time and therefore no more credible as a bearer of real fact than Vogue or Teen i the US today, is evidence that NPOV is not maintained in this article. //Credibility is unverificable, however, it remains as evidence that weighs more than our simple conjecture and speculation on events that predated most of our births. On this ground, the evidence should not be merely discarded// MaynardClark ( talk)
There seems to NOT be a 'universal view of specialists on the subject' (only the repeated assertion that there is universal view of specialists on the subject' (particularly by those who want to assert their respective opinions (or 'convictions') on this matter. To me, it seems that even those who believe that Hitler was intentionally vegetarian would want to acknowledge in the initial sentence that 'it is widely believed' (and there is also controversy, which the article discusses) or 'a majority of historians and commentators think' but substantial doubts have been raised, etc. (which the article would outline). Instead, the 'battle' seems to be about which POV would prevail (who yells the loudest). To be sure, few (if any) of us who are discussing this topic knew Hitler personally (so nearly all of it is second and third-hand comment, or maybe even fourth-hand or worst). For instance, a newspaper reporter interviews an elderly woman before her death; the woman claims to have been one of Hitler's several food tasters (did she do this? did she taste ALL his food at the time?). She says she never saw meat come through to be tasted. MaynardClark ( talk)
Rynn Berry Nirvana2013 ( talk) 19:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to "Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism". The suggested target is not gaining consensus and the previous title had substantive opposition. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism → Adolf Hitler's diet – It is disputed that Hitler was vegetarian (see Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism). The current title does not adhere to NPOV, unlike other neutrally titled articles such as the Sexuality of Adolf Hitler and Religious views of Adolf Hitler. Nirvana2013 ( talk) 19:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Hitler's vegetarianism was remarked on prior even to 1933, however, when the Führer-to-be's personal asceticism was held up as the model Nazi lifestyle. Foreigners eventually took note, recording also some apparent backsliding. Otto D. Tolischus in 1937 in the New York Times pointed out that the Führer was a vegetarian who "does not drink or smoke" but who also "occassionally relishes a slice of ham" along with delicacies such as caviar and chocolates. Postwar observers have often—and understandably—used this to question whether Hitler was in fact a vegetarian. [4]
[...]
Hitler was indeed, for the most part, a vegetarian—though he did occassionally allow himself a dish of meat. Gestapo chief Rudolf Diels after the war wrote that HItler would sometimes eat Bavarian liver dumplings (Leberknödel), but only when they were prepared by his photographer friend, Heinrich Hoffmann. The New York Times mentioned ham and caviar, but HItler was also said to have enjoyed squab [5]...Hitler is said to have been unable to tolerate the idea of animals' being killed for human consumption, but at least one author has countered that this was an image deliberately crafted to popularize the German leader as kind and gentle. Animal-rights historians Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax have noted that both claims may be true. [6]
As I said above, you respond by simply producing Walls of Text filled with misdirection that function to bludgeon editors into silence. Your comments systematically misrepresent sources and also misrepresent what other editors have said to create fake "answers". I find this approach to dealing with any topic morally and intellectually repugnant, as it stops proper debate and proper evaluation of sources. Even your first sentence has no relevance to anything ("I am not aware of any source that says Hitler took "sundry remedies" for flatulence brought on by his vegetarianism") Yes, he took remedies for flatulence. Whether it was specifically brought on by his vegetarianism is arguable, but wholly irrelevant. This is Agument by misdirection.
Payne is unreliable in this matter beause he is a potboiler biographer, not an expert, but also because this - and other books of his - are known to contain egregious errors. That is one of the ways we determine reliability. Payne is simply talking crap when he says that Hitler's vegetarianism was a fiction invented by Goebbels. If Hitler tucked into Steak and Kidney pies every night, he might have an argument, but the fact that his diet was vegetarian is a reality commented upon by numerous witnesses, so it obviously is not made up by Goebbels is it? You know that to be true. It is also true that he lived a frugal lifestyle; did not smoke; did not drink, except the odd glass rarely. He seemingly didn't much care for sex either, by all the evidence we have of his relationship to Eva. So, yes, he was frugal. Lots of mass killers have been puritanical in their lives. There's nothing inherently "good" about not enjoying life. Indeed one can argue there is a short step between puritanism and fanaticism, but that's another topic. Incidentally, it's not a "fallacy" that a rotten apple spoils others. It's a fact. However, it's true that one mistake does not invalidate a source. Even highly reliable sources contain slip ups. The point is that Payne is generally sloppy about facts, preferring a good story. And, of course, not a single other biographer agrees with him. You can find others saying that Hitler was not veggie all the time at various periods, but not a single one says anything so wild as Payne: that the whole thing was a fairy tale made up by Goebbels (or by Hitler himself, or by anyone). WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG put Payne way way "out there", by any reasonable standard.
As for the liver dumplings, squab etc, it has already been pointed out repeatedly that this information comes either from unreliable original sources (gossip articles), or refers to a transitional period when Hitler generally avoided meat, but was not rigid in doing so. It is clear that he became more "fixated" on vegetarianism as he got older. It is also clear he promoted it and that he asserted that it was the future for the western diet. That was about as accurate as most of his other insights into the future, but it is an undisputed fact, however you or anyone wriggles. Paul B ( talk) 20:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I think this article needs to be restructured. The way it is split "Hitler as a vegetarian/Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism" introduces POV and original research. It seems to me some sources are being taken out of context to make a case that they don't really back up. Case in point: Letter writer Carol Jochnowitz wrote: "On page 89 of The Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook (1964), Dione Lucas, recalling her pre-World War II stint as a hotel chef in Hamburg, Germany, states: 'I do not mean to spoil your appetites for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined at the hotel often. Let us not hold that against a fine recipe though.'". Two problems here—we shouldn't be sourcing letter writers to newspapers, and secondly, it refers to a period of Hitler's life before he was actively self-identifying as a vegetarian. It doesn't really prove anything, since it doesn't pertain to the period of his life when he was supposedly vegetarian. Given the RS issues I would prefer to this quote and source pulled.
Secondly, the section depends on quotes by his physician, dietician and cook and presents their comments/actions as proof of Hitler's non-vegatarianism. Again, this is drawing unfounded conclusions: if they are slipping him animal by-products you can argue that Hitler isn't vegetarian on a technicality, but at the same time these are quotes from the people who would be the most informed about his diet and they strongly suggest that he had chosen to omit meat from his diet, otherwise there is no logic to their actions. They simply don't belong in a section called "Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism", they just provide a factual basis to the claims for and against.
I suggest scrapping the current structure, and replacing it with a chronological structure: start with his diet in the pre-vegetarian period of his life, move on to the factual stuff and the contemporary claims of his vegetarian period, and then move on to the modern day analysis of those claims. As it stands, we have a huge section that just isn't neutral, because it misrepresents sources and twists facts, and these shouldn't have any spin put on them. The facts can speak for themselves. Betty Logan ( talk) 11:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: You have my support. The letter/cookbook material is not reliably sourced by any stretch of the imagination and con be omited entirely. The opinions of his physician, dietician and cook do not carry any weight UNLESS they have been seriously mentioned by more serious reliable sources. They certainly don't trump or "balance" his own self-identification, the recollections of people who knew him better, or the conclusions drawn by more serious and qualified sources. And yes, evidence that others adulterated his food is no grounds for claiming that he was not a vegetarian. The chronological presentention you propose would be a vast improvement on the article. Great job! Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 11:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Heinz Linge, Hitler's personal valet:
"Two vegetarian courses, (both including the obligatory apple) were provided for him to choose from. Hitler had long eschewed meat, but if strangers came to lunch, his food was carefully arranged in such a way that the absence of meat was not obvious at first glance.
Because Hitler was such a late riser, it might be that the midday meal, usually attended by a dozen guests, would not be served until 2.30pm, by which time many of those invited would have satisfied their appetites by eating elsewhere. Hitler's meals were prepared lukewarm after an operation on his vocal cords - following a gas attack during World War I - left his voice sensitive.
His diet consisted principally of potatoes and vegetables, a stew without meat, and fruit. Hitler would occasionally have beer with his meal, and wine on official occasions when a toast was to be made. He was strict about his vegetarianism and non-smoking, but was not opposed to alcohol.
However, he found drunkenness repulsive and gave up beer in 1943 when he began to put on fat around the hips. He believed the German people would not want to see a corpulent Chancellor. Dinner was a much smaller affair, with only a few guests present, beginning at around eight.
Again, of course, it was vegetarian, with Hitler believing the 'most disastrous stage in human development was the day when man first ate cooked meat'. He was convinced that it was this 'unnatural' way of living that 'cut short' human life span to 60 or 70 years.
By Hitler's calculations, all animals whose nutrition was natural lived eight to ten times as long as their period of development to full maturity.
He was convinced we would all live to be 150-180 if we became vegetarian. Such a view exasperated his physicians, who constantly tried to persuade him to change his diet, keep regular hours, sleep normally and take exercise."
Margot Woelk, Hitler's food taster:
"It was all vegetarian, the most delicious fresh things, from asparagus to peppers and peas, served with rice and salads. It was all arranged on one plate, just as it was served to him. There was no meat and I do not remember any fish." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.91.82 ( talk) 15:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Who is this guy and why is he so important for an inclusion in this article? He seems to have zero credibility when it comes to historic work about Adolf Hitler (or historic work at all). So why is his opinion added here? Especially since he seems to ignore the pile of evidence that he Hitler was indeed a vegetarian. StoneProphet ( talk) 21:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Google search for Rynn Berry (in response to "Who is this guy and why is he so important...?" MaynardClark ( talk)
When does an obscure British food writer that was born in 1974 become a source for or against Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism? I think it should be removed, it is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.232.38 ( talk) 17:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor has twice altered the structure of the article without discussing the changes here first. The structure of the article was discussed above in Talk:Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism/Archive 4#Restructuring this article and an agreement was reached. This currently represents a consensus, so if any editors wish to propose a new organization for the article, then by all means raise the issue, but please don't make unilateral alterations without reaching an agreement with other editors first. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
"Towards the end of his life Adolf Hitler followed a vegetarian diet. It is not clear when he adopted it."
So towards the end of his life he adopted a certain diet, but, we're not clear when he adopted it. That does not even make sense. We need more sources Orasis ( talk) 07:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This article began as a "dispute" section in List of vegetarians. Given the controversy surrounding this topic, please provide a citation for any significant edits with new content, thanks. Wyss 22:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, dumb joke. Seriously: where's the controversy? The vast majority of the article seems to be devoted to sources supporting the viewpoint that Hitler was a vegetarian. I was unaware that this required 100% perfect adherence to never eating meat. Is there some sort of Vegetarian High Council with the power to kick you out if you weaken occasionally? The later in Hitler's life this article goes, the more thoroughly vegetarian he is portrayed as.
If the contention that Hitler was a vegetarian is still "disputed", then where's the dispute? If it's not disputed, then it's time for it to be moved out of the "disputed" section on the list. Seriously, the lengths people will go to, to try to deny that they might have something in common with someone they loathe... - Kasreyn 12:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The controversy is that calling Hitler a vegetarian does two bad things. 1) It gives people who want to harass vegetarians a very silly arguement and 2) is not FACTUAL, unless we disregard his mother and other sources saying he occasionally ate meat. Otherwise everyone on Earth is a vegetarian between hamburgers and someone can be a virgin between sexual encounters. Even if he never ate beef in his life but occasionally had some fish, he was NOT a vegetarian. - UA
I am archiving this discussion for easier access, and because the talk edit thingy is telling me the page is large. That said, aside from this, I really have nothing more to contribute. I find this fact really, really funny though. Ecopirate 10:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I've followed this link and read the article in question, and it starts out with a reasonable tone, purporting to explain the "real Hitler" behind history's misperceptions, but then proceeds to grant an ever-more rosy picture until the thing reads like the worst sort of Neo-Nazi apologism. By the end of the piece, the author has completely abandoned any lip-service mention of Hitler's crimes, and the conclusion is fit only for a paean. Should we really be using this source at Wikipedia? - Kasreyn 10:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
this article is crap, because it does not disprove the myth of hitler being a vegetarian but instead adopt the nazi-propaganda during hitlers regime. read this for more information: " http://www.vegsource.com/berry/hitler.html". sorry for being rude! -- 84.168.188.227 08:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Vegetarians just don't want to be compared with him.
I completely fail to see the point ans the encyclopedic interest. In what is it any important to know whether hitler was veggie or not? Why not an article about what kind of underwear he wore? -- Raminagrobis fr ( talk) 18:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Greetings friends,
I would like to know the source for the statement in the first paragraph: "Wagner argued...that humanity had become contaminated through racial mixing...." Where was Wagner supposed to have written this? Hitler's misunderstanding of Wagner must not be confused with what Wagner actually believed. Wagner must not be blamed for Hitler's acts. I am not all together sure this introduction is fair to Wagner. If it can not be conclusively that this is Wagner's actual view (as opposed to Hitler's self-serving interpretation of Wagner), I believe this sentence needs to be rewritten. Thanks.
Gunnermanz 07:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks, gentlemen.
--
Gunnermanz
08:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey. It says above that this used to be a featured article candidate. Anyone who has been here longer than I am that has any idea why they changed their mind on that? As far as I can see; the article is as neutral as it can get, all the sources are cited, and there seems to be no further addition to be made, unless someone either figures out a way to alter history or comes up with a new discovery on the subject. JaneDOA
Hi everyone. I think the article is well-researched and well-cited, but its flow and POV was a little confusing. At one point of the article was the stark statement "Hitler was not a vegetarian", but the opposite statement was made just a few paragraphs later. The POV confusion probably comes from the ongoing controversy over Hitler's vegetarism, and POV-biased sentances seem to have crept in from both sides. I can see two good solutions to this problem: one would be to rewrite each POV-biased sentance to be NPOV, another might be to keep the original POV statements and reorganize the article to show the POV from both sides.
Following wikipedia's mandate to be bold, I chose the second approach and reorganized the article. Formally, it had a section on his early years, a section on his later years, another section on his later years, and a section of misc. facts. I reorganized the article into a section on his early years, a section with arguments for his vegetarianism in his later years, a section with arguments against his vegetarianism in his later years, a section on Hitler's self-perception, and a section of misc. facts. This way, I could keep all the language of the original article (with the exception noted below), minus a few grammar edits.
The only sentance I cut was this uncited statement: "many remarkable human beings have been vegetarian, including Mahatma Gandhi, Leonardo da Vinci, Pythagoras, Platon, George Bernard Shaw, Leo Tolstoy, Jesus Christus, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Edison, Tesla, Kafka, Wolter, Twain etc".
I considered leaving it in the "arguments against Hitler's vegetarianism" section, but it doesn't seem to have a lot to do with Hitler. It's also very difficult to prove and cite (I can see arguments over Jesus' vegetarianism getting particularly contentious).
Thanks everyone, JKB
- wasn't he a veggie too? -- MacRusgail 17:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed ", a highly reputed biographer of Hitler," from a sentence on Robert Payne (diff) . Reputed is both vague and disputable, depending on its definition. In my opinion, it' better to show his reputation in the wikilinked article - he shouldn't need that qualification here. --- Sluzzelin talk 05:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Surely the lack of proper food would have led to all the trembling fingers and craziness towards the end of the war. Alexsanderson83 ( talk) 06:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Schwalker objected to the inclusion of this content with the edit summary, "removed sentence which did not contribute to the article's topic; neither savitridevi.org nor S. Devi herself are a reliable source". [1] While I don't agree with his reasoning, the content is a hazy interpretation of a primary source and lacks secondary source support, and for that reason I am removing it below: — Viriditas | Talk 08:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable source#Extremist sources says that these kind of sources should only be used: " in articles about themselves, and even then with caution." That is why I believed that texts by Ms Devi should not be used as a source for this article. Greetings, -- Schwalker ( talk) 11:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There are very serious POV problems with this article. Already its title lets one guess the agendas of those who started it but I'll try, at least, to make the case for some changes of phrasing of the most glaring POV's: 1. "scholars agree that Adolf Hitler practiced some form of vegetarianism" is a specific statement that has to be documented. I agree it's hard to show that all (or even the majority of scholars) believe H. "that Adolf Hitler practiced some form of vegetarianism". That's why I proposed "some scholars..." which is documented by the references in the article. I would also be happy with "many scholars...." 2. The sentence "Wagner's anti-Semitic historical theories which connected the future of Germany with vegetarianism" is entirely unacceptable. First of all, alluding to a conceptual connection of antisemitism with vegetarianism (incidentally, not Arluke's claim) is not only absurd but also deeply offensive to the hundreds of thousands vegetarian Jews. Wagner's "historical" theories may have referred to vegetarianism, but seeing anti-semitism in that point just because of the antisemitism of his other writings is simply sloppy logic. I'd also object to the use of strong characterizations/judgments such as "anti-semitic historical theories" in Wikipedia. Anti-semitism is not a legitimate ideology. Calling something an "anti-semitic historical theory" is akin to calling it "abhorrent historical theory", which certainly is, but it isn't appropriate language for an encyclopedia. 3. The sentence "As a result, many vegetarians dispute the claim that Hitler was a vegetarian" is also not properly supported. Why "many" and why is it impossible that non-vegetarians too would dispute that H. was vegetarian? 4. Concerning the sentence "Most of Adolf Hitler's biographers assert that he was a vegetarian from 1931 until his death in 1945." Same comment as in point 1. 5. The deletion of the beginning of the first paragraph of "Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism" (including a reference!!) is incomprehensible and, I'm afraid, it can only be explained by committed opposition to vegetarianism: The first sentence ("Hitler' vegetarianism has been questioned on several grounds.") was nothing more than an introduction to the section. The second and third ("For instance, although he usually elevated the beliefs on health and ...") summarize a point made in a scholarly source. I don't see the problem with these sentences and reference!
As mentioned in the beginning of the talk page, it's a controversial topic. So we must be extra careful to avoid being carried away by emotions and personal beliefs, and to minimize the inclusion of undocumented assumptions even if they seem obvious.
Rerom1 ( talk) 02:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I should say that I didn't appreciate Viriditas' e-mail warning me not to undo edits. By the same token, it's Viriditas who should be refraining from doing that and MPerel (who doesn't even explain on her/his changes!!!) >1. "Scholars agree that Adolf Hitler practiced some form of vegetarianism" is supported by the >sources in the article. Can you show that it is not? All you need to do is find one scholar of >history that disagrees. This applies to you too. Arluke etc. not only are not historians but the references you quote are written specifically to oppose vegetarianism, not as Hitler's biographies.
>2. The sentence "Wagner's anti-Semitic historical theories which connected the future of >Germany with vegetarianism" is entirely supported by Proctor and other sources. Can you show >that it is not? I showed it doesn't even make sense: First of all, alluding to a conceptual connection of antisemitism with vegetarianism (incidentally, not Arluke's claim) is not only absurd but also deeply offensive to the hundreds of thousands vegetarian Jews. Wagner's "historical" theories may have referred to vegetarianism, but seeing anti-semitism in that point just because of the antisemitism of his other writings is simply sloppy logic. I'd also object to the use of strong characterizations/judgments such as "anti-semitic historical theories" in Wikipedia. Anti-semitism is not a legitimate ideology. Calling something an "anti-semitic historical theory" is akin to calling it "abhorrent historical theory", which certainly is, but it isn't appropriate language for an encyclopedia.
I want to stress this point because it's so offensive. I'm willing to take it up with Wikipedia moderators because I doubt it complies with Wiki's ethics standards.
>3. "Many vegetarians dispute the claim that Hitler was a vegetarian" is supported by >Rudacille. Can you show that it is not?
Please read more carefully. How did you (or Rudacille for that matter) measure "many"? Did R. do a statistical survey? Also, what do personal choices have to do with disputing that claim? How do you know that it's ONLY people practicing vegetarianism that dispute the claim that Hitler was a vegetarian? Or, that it's ONLY non-vegetarians that agree with it? It isn't a partisan issue but one of serious and objective representation of facts: I have my concerns with parts of the article but I am NOT a vegetarian.
>4. "Most of Adolf Hitler's biographers assert that he was a vegetarian from 1931 until his >death in 1945" is supported by the sources in the article and has been discussed extensively >in the talk archives. I suggest you read them.
The statement has a specific, quantified content (it says that more than 50% of H.'s biographers make this assertion) and nothing in the archives confirms that.
>5. "The deletion of the beginning of the first paragraph of "Questioning Hitler's >vegetarianism" (including a reference!!) is incomprehensible and, I'm afraid, it can only be >explained by committed opposition to vegetarianism" is ridiculous. This is the only part of >the article I'm willing to compromise with you on, because I agree that elements of this >section should be restored, but the fact is, these are minority POV that have very little >evidence. Can you break this down by point and substantiate it below? We have discussed Colin >Spencer's points in the archives, and they were found to be lacking, but I'm willing to >revisit this again.
It's up to any reasonable person's quick glance at the article and these responses (without my comments spelling it out) to see if claims of bias are "ridiculous". Your very same paragraph goes on to say that, after discussion in the archives, you pontificated that Spencer's views are no good and that's why you want them to be air-brushed from the article! NPOV means to include "minority POV that have very little evidence" ("very little evidence" according to you, always).
>Colin Spencer is a "food critic" and playwright, not a historian. Nowhere in the previous version was claimed he was a historian. (Neither is Arluke by the way).
>The material attributed to Spencer claims (or seems to claim) that the author is questioning Hitler's vegetarianism.
Wrong! It only refers to Spencer's statement that H. suppressed vegetarian societies.
>"Although he usually elevated the beliefs on health and lifestyle to which he seriously >adhered to state policy (e.g. his anti-smoking campaign), Hitler never went so far as to >promote any state vegetarianism campaign." I don't see where Spencer says this.
Page 286
>"The contrary took place, as during Hitler’s emerging regime vegetarian societies were >pronounced unlawful and their members suffered government sanctioned incursions upon their >residence". Spencer discusses some of this, but what sources does he use? I have proposed >adding this to the article in the past, but other editors have disagreed in the archives.
If you don't think Spencer's statement is sound, add a proviso to that effect, but, of course, you'll have to allow Wikip. contributors to dispute claims made in other references as well!
>Also, according to the references above" - that's a self-reference. We don't write like that. "You don't like that" or is it against Wikip. conventions? Anyway, I accept this point.
Rerom1 ( talk) 11:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I've partially reverted Rerom1's version, as the first four points enumerated here demonstrate that the sources support the original wording. -- MPerel 08:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the paragraph in question: There is some anecdotal evidence that Hitler continued to eat meat after his experiment with a vegetarian diet. Dione Lucas's 1964 Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook included a recipe for squab (four week-old fledgling pigeon) with a short anecdote: "I do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr Hitler, who dined at the hotel often. Let us not hold that against a fine recipe though."
The trouble is, Wikipedia is not the place for anecdotal musings. I don't believe that Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook is an RS because it does not assert any reliability on the subject matter of Adolf Hitler. Does anyone agree? ← Spidern → 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Since the issue with Hitler's Plat Préféré on Flemish TV this information on Wikipedia was not at all anecdotal. That issue went around the world press twice. So it is a reference very usefull to keep as many people will be looking for this information Savasorda ( talk) 23:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
See Rynn Berry's writings on this point.
Note that the response to Professor Berry's scholarship are pre-dated writings from Janet Barchas (1975), which relied on secondary and tertiary sources for her notes, and those sources themselves were uncritical of Nazi propaganda writings that Hitler was vegetarian (albeit for reasons of personal health, which in themselves provide the primary motivation for MOST self-described 'vegetarians' - according to Sonia Partridge and Paul Amato's germinal work on 'The New Vegetarians' - admittedly an exploratory book that needs not some but MUCH follow-up of a much more serious and systematic sort).
Any discussion of Hitler's PRESUMED 'vegetarianism' (or even PREFERENCE for 'a plant-based diet' much or most of the time) should address the argument that health vegetarianism is the desirable TYPE of vegetarianism, subject as it is to any current preponderance of evidence that blows one way or the other in the general public and/or expert outlook on diet).
The social arguments FOR vegetarianism are several, as any vegetarian ORGANIZATION both admits and publishes: health, ethical, ecological, economic, religious/philosophical, traditional, etc. Now, that most protovegetarians DO, as a matter of fact, entertain one (or two at most) arguments at the onset can be a matter of observed fact. Another matter of observed fact is that MOST (though not all) vegetarians of long standing adopt MORE than one rationale for continuing to be vegetarian. This is a matter of ongoing social science research AMONG vegetarians (not among nonvegetarians, nor among 'anti-vegetarians'- whatever THEIR raison d'etre).
Whether any social winds of opinion within or beyond Hitler's sphere(s) of influence could condition his judgment (isn't that likely?) could be explored further. How those 'winds of opinion' are socially constructed could ALSO be further explored.
Might I suggest that the article be re-worked every so slightly to achieve the following: (1) identify areas of key disagreement among serious researchers/scholars, point by point; these areas are: conceptual issues involved in the expert AND public discussion of the topic (2) suggest promising areas or methods of inquiry through which these key areas of disagreement can be further illuminated and disagreements about historical fact be resolved. (3) suggest promising ways to unfold or unpack the values and assumptions around the various kinds of personal and social 'investment' in this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The whole controversy is missing the point. Hitler like most vegetarian at that time abstained from meat for health reason. If I tell my doctor that I smoke a cigarette once a year, he would still classify me as a non smoker. If I kill a person every once in a while, I wouldn't be classified as a pacifist. Vapour ( talk) 19:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
See: /info/en/?search=North_Korean_cult_of_personality What did Nazi Germany and North Korea have in common? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.84.247 ( talk) 12:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view I hear arguments of 'because x eats vegetables and NOT flesh, x must be excluded from this article' However, this argument works both ways. 'because x eats flesh, and NOT vegetables, x has an unnatural pov'.
Both vegans, vegetarians and flesh eaters have some form or another of 'vested interest' in this article. The point is, DID Hitler eat flesh as a self proclaimed vegetarian? LOOKING OBJECTIVELY The answer is yes Therefore Hitler was NOT a vegetarian.
Regardless of this 'fact' (or consensus), it is also evident that genocides are NOT in line with vegetarian beliefs. As a vegetarian/vegan myself, it is easy for me to identify 'true vegetarians', because A) they do not eat meat and B) are generally pacifist. My EXPERIENCE, not my point of view, tells me that Hitler was likely merely 'PORTRAYED' as a vegetarian, without actually being a vegetarian.
Was there proof of Hitler NOT eating meat and being a COMMITTED vegetarian, then I would NOT be making these claims. Instead, I would be looking at 'Hitler apologeticism' to find a reasoning for why, as a pacifist vegetarian, Hitler would 'gas the jews'. This is not the case however, and it is clear cut that Hitlers alleged vegetarianism was merely 'all for the show'.
And you all fell for it, 50 years after it happened. Pitiful.
Hitler was clearly not a vegetarian, and it is highly disputed that it is only Goebbels propaganda that we have to thank for this misinformation. I agree with user below, this article is very false and damaging for our global community. As a vegetarian/vegan myself, this is one of the biggest 'guilt by association' fallacies and it is well over 50 years' old now!. Ridiculous. It even states in the articles, in the biographies, in the new York times, that Hitler regularly consumed flesh even after becoming a SELF PROCLAIMED 'vegetarian'.
Hitler and Goebbels lied about things. If we are to accept their lies as truths then we might as well stop defining anything and everything in life because what does it even mean to be vegetarian when an asshole dictator who is responsible for genocide is also a vegetarian because he also ate some potatoes and fruit with his organs (liver dumplings) and slices of flesh (ham).
I request that the article either be completely overhauled or removed entirely. At the MOST, Hitler could have possibly been, would be semi-vegetarian (which is not even a thing, as all 'omnivores' are semi-vegetarian) i.e, Hitler was no more vegetarian than the average flesh eater. People should learn that propaganda involves lies deceit and misdirection. We have been mislead into thinking Hitler was a vegetarian 50 years ago, and 50 years after his 'reign', we still believe he was vegetarian? Even after he killed all the jews? You probably have your head screwed on backwards if you actually believe that crap.
May I suggest the reference be removed along with it all statements from it? The author clearly doesn't read German on a level that would make the text a reliable source, as indicated by the title of the text. Couldawouldashoulda hearsay through translations or unqualified attempts at one's own translation don't make a reliable source. -- OliverH ( talk) 09:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, this article has been highjacked long ago by people with an agenda, reffing any old talking head, regardless of expertise.
Bree wilson for a start is completely unsuitable, and Robert Payne is heavily criticised for his broad assumptions and complete lack of any credibility as an authority on Hitler. Just google him and see. I half expect to see a quote from 'some drunk guy I met once'.
Also, the MASSIVE refs at the bottom of the page are entirely inappropriate for wikipedia. Refs are supposed to be REFS, that is, a reference that people can go check to read more. NOT a gigantic extension of the article.
The whole article has become a systematic collection of any duffer who backs up the notion that 'Hitler wasn't reallllllllly a veggie', for an obvious and yet very silly, agenda.
Someone sort this out, I have tried but the revert monkeys are in town. 87.114.2.169 ( talk) 13:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
BUT where has Bee Wilson gotten her opinion on Hitlers vegetarianism from?
This statement of hers; "For a start, his distaste for meat knew no pity of animals."
Flies quite blatantly in the face of the actual facts of Hitler's concern for Animal welfare.
Germany's Animal welfare laws were the strictest laws in the world at that time and were a direct result of Hitler's distaste for the use of animals for testing, kosher slaughtering and general abuse of animals. This is of obvious importance when considering Hitler's beliefs and directly gives a possible insight into his vegetarian diet.
I added a small section on this (Animal welfare in Nazi Germany), to be improved later, so why has this section been removed by you?
Bee wilson is simply attributing what she thinks Hitler must have been like (bad, evil, madman etc.) rather than actually talking from any scholarly insight into his character. She is a poor source. Hugh Trevor-Roper Alan Bullock or Ian Kershaw are proper historian sources.
And yes the refs should be shortened to the basics, then anyone who wants can look them up. 87.114.2.169 ( talk) 15:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Obviously the legitimacy of the references are a POV in themselves, but generally if the references come from published works (books/journal articles) then they are acceptable. It's up to the readers to decide their veracity. However I agree that the referencing is being abused. Some of them are miniature essays that are irrelevant to the subject. Notes are supposed to clarify information in the article, not to extend it. For instance the reference which includes a min-essay on Wagner's anti-Semitic theories are irrelevant to Hitler's vegetarianism. They only warrant mention to the extent that some of Hitler's views are linked to them. As for the section on animal welfare, I don't see why that can't be brought into the article, but it should be restricted to legislation and policies that were brought in under Hitler to illuminate his compassion for animals, and it should be brief. After all like an editor pointed out the article isn't about animal welfare in Nazi Germnay, but Hitler's involvement in animal welfare in Germany is relevant to a possible vegetarian lifestyle. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
// New user: I think it is a big slap in the face for you all to reason that 'because animal welfare fits with vegetarian beliefs, this is evidence that Hitler may had been a vegetarian (despite the evidence that he ate flesh foods), because, genocides, concentration camps, etc, are NOT components of a vegetarian lifestyle nor its' beliefs. (unless it is the last resort but as a dictator, Hitler had the power to change the laws i.e the genocides had NOTHING to do with vegetarianism). Also, Hitlers interest in vegetarianism became existent during the second world war, and extremely illogical time to take such a stance, unless it is just another tidbit of Goebbels' propaganda. The extent of Goebbels even goes so far as to have us believe that Hitler was not a Christian. The power of suggestion my friends. // — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.84.247 ( talk) 11:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe, as do many folks who study German history around the times of the Nazis, that a section ANIMALS is appropriate. I don't think that it should be termed 'animal rights' (since Hitler was at best an 'animal welfarist' who acknowledged their personhood and sentience and thought, therefore, that using animals should be done while minimizing pain). Whether this relates to his (and other Nazis') beliefs about extermination (gas chambers, etc., in the context of eugenics) could be researcher and more scholarship could be sought. The topic 'Nazi views on animals' can be found discussed in publications from then into the present, with varying degrees of credibility. I personally do not believe that Hitler was a consistent vegetarian, and that, even if he were vegetarian with only minor exceptions, it seems to have been correlated with urgings for him to care for his health. However, more evidence than testimony from a former food taster would be necessary. The possibility of 'false memories' in only one individual is something which must be countered by searching for comparable testimony, which seems to be lacking. MaynardClark ( talk)
I don't see why this person's opinion should feature so prominently (in a special paragraph, no less), especially considering s/he clearly misinterpreted H.'s words (whether wittingly or not, I don't know). It is not clear (and it should be, considering this is a supposedly encylopedic site) where this person got the impression that H. "knew no pity for animals", but what is certain - to those who have taken care to actually read extensive texts about this topic, including entire dinner-table conversations - is that he did not "boast" about visiting slaughterhouses. He usually closed his graphic descriptions of animal slaughtering - aimed at his blissfully oblivious meat-eating guests - by commenting on their (the guests') "hypocrisy".
Not good table manners, I agree.
But it's not the same as "boasting".
And it certainly doesn't equal "no pity for animals".
EVERYBODY deserves a fair and intellectually honest treatment.
Lies and misinterpretations never amount to any good. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
95.176.156.41 (
talk)
16:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah he loved animals so much he tested the poison on his own dog before he finally he offed himself. Hitler was also a known drug user, and was enabled by his doctors. Not exactly a clean living person. He has an affair with his underage niece who kills herself to get away from him, and well you know the rest, I hope. Think I would believe anything the propaganda minister said? Neither should you. Piewackett ( talk) 23:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
//Smart lad, Piewackett. Smart lad. It is very obvious that it is rather impossible for Hitler to have been a committed vegetarian, given the varying testimonies of his fondness for organ flesh. I think to believe that Hitler was literally a vegetarian is foolishness in the umpteenth degree! This entire article is damning. (to our societal mental health, believing that genocidal dictators are the frontline man for compassionate lifestyle choices... insanity!)//
The intro starts off by saying; 'Hitler is said to have practised some form of vegetarianism' Countless of the reliabe sources support that he was a vegetarian, so I think it could be said with certainity that he was indeed a vegetarian, instead of this uncertain and 'guessing' opening to the article, a second thing we need to change is the postfix, the 'some form of vegetarianism', again its a vague, imprecise formulation. I believe the intro of the article should, as according to all the sources, settle straightaway that hitler was a vegetarian. Which form of vegetarianism he practiced seems a bit to pedantic and unimportant for the intro. I think we should elaborate later on in the article, which 'form' of vegetarianism he practiced. So to include these 2 changes, I vote we change the beforementioned sentence from the opening to: "Hiter was a vegetarian" -its simple straight to the point and very accurate. Anyone in favour? Averagejoedev ( talk) 14:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Rynn Berry teaches in history at The New School (for Social Research) in NYC. He has written a number of historical books. He is a practicing vegan. He is an interesting and wry speaker.
"It's unquestionable he practised vegetarianism, the question is to what extent." Vegetarians dont eat meat. Not a little meat or every once in a while but no meat at all, hence the term. Hitler ate meat. Whether he ate it rarely or not is irrelevant. He was an omnivore (ate meat and non meat to various extent). This is a little like saying Hitler practiced sexual abstinence but had sex every once in a while. The only people being pedantic here are those writing that hitler was a vegetarian. The intro should be reverted from stating an absolute to at the very least stating that there is dispute on the matter. august 2011
//It's been 6-7 years since you wrote this, but I literally saw the article, and in a heartbeat wrote in the intro that the matter IS disputed heavily. I am not a very good editor, so it may look sloppy, but I thought it was necessary to add that indeed the matter is in dispute. I also feel the title of this article should be changed to 'Adolf Hitler and semi-vegetarianism' as it is certainly more accurate on an objective account. Or, Adolf Hitler and 'flexitarianism' even. The title 'Adolf hitler and vegetarianism' is misleading in my opinion.//
^ //Vegetarians do not eat animal flesh. This is why we have phrases such as flexitarian (not the other way around). Flexitarians sometimes eat animal flesh. Flexitarians are NOT vegetarians. Therefore, Hitler was NOT a vegetarian (by his own admission, from credible sources, New York times, etc, etc, etc). However, Hitler could possibly very well have been a 'flexitarian'. We have these words not so we can name everything anything we want, but because we know what the words define. A flexitarian defines one who occasionally abstains from flesh consumption. A vegetarian is one who completely abstains from flesh consumption.
One COULD make the argument, that Hitler may had still been a vegetarian despite having been fed flesh without his own knowledge (being deceived to eat flesh) as that would not be of his OWN VOLITION. However, Hitler also ate liver organ dumplings and sliced pig flesh, which ultimately discludes him from the vegetarian moniker entirely and the article should be modified entirely.//
The user 'Betty Logan' intermittently speaks up for the idea that Hitler was vegetarian, but then, clicking on her name repeatedly shows that the user is no longer very active in Wikipedia, even though she has only minute before the identity check, made a reversion or a rewrite. I think that the article about Hitler's vegetarianism should exist but should be renamed to Hitler's presumed vegetarianism. //Flexitarianism is more apt!!!// (in fact, I will change it, and leave the cleaning up of the rest of this abomination for 'y'all' to deal with.)// Further, the article is about Hitler and vegetarianism, which should discuss not merely Hitler's dietary practices, but Hitler's relation to the practice and then-prevailing theories about vegetarianism and diet in the lands under his party's jurisdiction. I think that the Léon Degrelle citation is unreliable (for the reasons stated above, and for other reasons. According to the International Vegetarian Union, diets that aren't exclusively plant matter (or plant matter with eggs and/or dairy), are not vegetarian diets (by 'the international definition'). My position is that Hitler tried different diets; he may have made occasional comments about the ethical reasons for being vegetarian, as 'social actors' are wont to do, but they don't disclose the inner self in real, long-term, genuine or authentic, and dependable ways. MaynardClark ( talk)
//Also judging by the lack of animal welfare speeches, how little media there is (if ANY) of Hitler actually advocating animal welfare to the public, it is apparent that Hitlers alleged vegetarianism was likely a ploy to support World War 2. I could be mistaken, but I am sure ANY footage containing ANY speech of Hitlers', promoting vegetarianism from a POSITION OF AUTHORITY, would literally end up on this very page. How many years has this page existed? Why is there only breadcrumbs on this subject when anything else (Nuremburg trials, domino day, etc etc etc) related to the second world war is extrapolated upon beyond extension on the wiki?
But Hitlers' supposed, interjected vegetarianism, remains such a goddamn mystery.... I'm not buying it. Vegetarian dictators do not commit genocides when they have the power/support to change the policies for the entire country. In fact, bondskanselier Merkel only recently forbade flesh from being served at any governmental type meeting/gathering. So, why didn't Hitler do it.
Hitler had so much power and support, so where was the speech where he banned flesh from Germany? Why did he take inspiration from slaughterhouses in constructing the (factory farm inspired) concentration camps? If... he was so disgusted by the concept.
So, are we going to delve into this further, and assume he was a vegetarian with 'such good principles', but that somehow the man was censored? Then we must also assume, that Hitler did not order the blitzkrieg or the extermination of the jews, no, it couldn't have been vegetarian Hitler, so, therefore, the only logical conclusion left available is that someone was ruling over Hitler. Either that, or, Hitler simply was NOT vegetarian and in fact far from it!//
This version of the Downfall viral(-ly mutating) parodies clip is somewhat tangentially related to Hitler's vegetarianism (but more directly related for H's love of his dog).-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 13:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Copied from user talk pages:
Hi, I noticed your (
nirvana2013) alterations to this article. One of the problems of putting
Robert Payne's views front-and-center is that Payne's book is universally regarded by historians as complete garbage. A problem with this article is that it gives the view the Hitler was not a vegetarian far too much weight. //But Hitler was not a vegetarian....// All actual specialist historians agree that he was.//Then ALL actual specialist historians fail at simple English, for the definition of vegetarianism does NOT include the consumption of flesh foods, which Hitler did even throughout the period in which he claimed to be a vegetarian. Remember kids, there's a difference between saying you are a vegetarian and actually being a vegetarian. I can call myself African, and call Africa a 'feeling' but that doesn't literally make me an African.// The "evidence" that he wasn't is an accummulation of gossip articles in cookery magazines and the like which have no real evidentiary value at all, since they are not based any first hand testimony or experience. One of them actually mistakes a joke for a fact (ie that Hitler was a vegetarian but he made an exception for ham - to prove he wasn't Jewish).//Vegetarians usually do not joke about vegetarianism, as it is a very serious subject.//
Paul B (
talk)
19:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The inset of Neugeist/Die Weisse Fahne (German magazine of the New Thought movement), a popular magazine of the time and therefore no more credible as a bearer of real fact than Vogue or Teen i the US today, is evidence that NPOV is not maintained in this article. //Credibility is unverificable, however, it remains as evidence that weighs more than our simple conjecture and speculation on events that predated most of our births. On this ground, the evidence should not be merely discarded// MaynardClark ( talk)
There seems to NOT be a 'universal view of specialists on the subject' (only the repeated assertion that there is universal view of specialists on the subject' (particularly by those who want to assert their respective opinions (or 'convictions') on this matter. To me, it seems that even those who believe that Hitler was intentionally vegetarian would want to acknowledge in the initial sentence that 'it is widely believed' (and there is also controversy, which the article discusses) or 'a majority of historians and commentators think' but substantial doubts have been raised, etc. (which the article would outline). Instead, the 'battle' seems to be about which POV would prevail (who yells the loudest). To be sure, few (if any) of us who are discussing this topic knew Hitler personally (so nearly all of it is second and third-hand comment, or maybe even fourth-hand or worst). For instance, a newspaper reporter interviews an elderly woman before her death; the woman claims to have been one of Hitler's several food tasters (did she do this? did she taste ALL his food at the time?). She says she never saw meat come through to be tasted. MaynardClark ( talk)
Rynn Berry Nirvana2013 ( talk) 19:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to "Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism". The suggested target is not gaining consensus and the previous title had substantive opposition. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism → Adolf Hitler's diet – It is disputed that Hitler was vegetarian (see Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism). The current title does not adhere to NPOV, unlike other neutrally titled articles such as the Sexuality of Adolf Hitler and Religious views of Adolf Hitler. Nirvana2013 ( talk) 19:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Hitler's vegetarianism was remarked on prior even to 1933, however, when the Führer-to-be's personal asceticism was held up as the model Nazi lifestyle. Foreigners eventually took note, recording also some apparent backsliding. Otto D. Tolischus in 1937 in the New York Times pointed out that the Führer was a vegetarian who "does not drink or smoke" but who also "occassionally relishes a slice of ham" along with delicacies such as caviar and chocolates. Postwar observers have often—and understandably—used this to question whether Hitler was in fact a vegetarian. [4]
[...]
Hitler was indeed, for the most part, a vegetarian—though he did occassionally allow himself a dish of meat. Gestapo chief Rudolf Diels after the war wrote that HItler would sometimes eat Bavarian liver dumplings (Leberknödel), but only when they were prepared by his photographer friend, Heinrich Hoffmann. The New York Times mentioned ham and caviar, but HItler was also said to have enjoyed squab [5]...Hitler is said to have been unable to tolerate the idea of animals' being killed for human consumption, but at least one author has countered that this was an image deliberately crafted to popularize the German leader as kind and gentle. Animal-rights historians Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax have noted that both claims may be true. [6]
As I said above, you respond by simply producing Walls of Text filled with misdirection that function to bludgeon editors into silence. Your comments systematically misrepresent sources and also misrepresent what other editors have said to create fake "answers". I find this approach to dealing with any topic morally and intellectually repugnant, as it stops proper debate and proper evaluation of sources. Even your first sentence has no relevance to anything ("I am not aware of any source that says Hitler took "sundry remedies" for flatulence brought on by his vegetarianism") Yes, he took remedies for flatulence. Whether it was specifically brought on by his vegetarianism is arguable, but wholly irrelevant. This is Agument by misdirection.
Payne is unreliable in this matter beause he is a potboiler biographer, not an expert, but also because this - and other books of his - are known to contain egregious errors. That is one of the ways we determine reliability. Payne is simply talking crap when he says that Hitler's vegetarianism was a fiction invented by Goebbels. If Hitler tucked into Steak and Kidney pies every night, he might have an argument, but the fact that his diet was vegetarian is a reality commented upon by numerous witnesses, so it obviously is not made up by Goebbels is it? You know that to be true. It is also true that he lived a frugal lifestyle; did not smoke; did not drink, except the odd glass rarely. He seemingly didn't much care for sex either, by all the evidence we have of his relationship to Eva. So, yes, he was frugal. Lots of mass killers have been puritanical in their lives. There's nothing inherently "good" about not enjoying life. Indeed one can argue there is a short step between puritanism and fanaticism, but that's another topic. Incidentally, it's not a "fallacy" that a rotten apple spoils others. It's a fact. However, it's true that one mistake does not invalidate a source. Even highly reliable sources contain slip ups. The point is that Payne is generally sloppy about facts, preferring a good story. And, of course, not a single other biographer agrees with him. You can find others saying that Hitler was not veggie all the time at various periods, but not a single one says anything so wild as Payne: that the whole thing was a fairy tale made up by Goebbels (or by Hitler himself, or by anyone). WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG put Payne way way "out there", by any reasonable standard.
As for the liver dumplings, squab etc, it has already been pointed out repeatedly that this information comes either from unreliable original sources (gossip articles), or refers to a transitional period when Hitler generally avoided meat, but was not rigid in doing so. It is clear that he became more "fixated" on vegetarianism as he got older. It is also clear he promoted it and that he asserted that it was the future for the western diet. That was about as accurate as most of his other insights into the future, but it is an undisputed fact, however you or anyone wriggles. Paul B ( talk) 20:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I think this article needs to be restructured. The way it is split "Hitler as a vegetarian/Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism" introduces POV and original research. It seems to me some sources are being taken out of context to make a case that they don't really back up. Case in point: Letter writer Carol Jochnowitz wrote: "On page 89 of The Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook (1964), Dione Lucas, recalling her pre-World War II stint as a hotel chef in Hamburg, Germany, states: 'I do not mean to spoil your appetites for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined at the hotel often. Let us not hold that against a fine recipe though.'". Two problems here—we shouldn't be sourcing letter writers to newspapers, and secondly, it refers to a period of Hitler's life before he was actively self-identifying as a vegetarian. It doesn't really prove anything, since it doesn't pertain to the period of his life when he was supposedly vegetarian. Given the RS issues I would prefer to this quote and source pulled.
Secondly, the section depends on quotes by his physician, dietician and cook and presents their comments/actions as proof of Hitler's non-vegatarianism. Again, this is drawing unfounded conclusions: if they are slipping him animal by-products you can argue that Hitler isn't vegetarian on a technicality, but at the same time these are quotes from the people who would be the most informed about his diet and they strongly suggest that he had chosen to omit meat from his diet, otherwise there is no logic to their actions. They simply don't belong in a section called "Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism", they just provide a factual basis to the claims for and against.
I suggest scrapping the current structure, and replacing it with a chronological structure: start with his diet in the pre-vegetarian period of his life, move on to the factual stuff and the contemporary claims of his vegetarian period, and then move on to the modern day analysis of those claims. As it stands, we have a huge section that just isn't neutral, because it misrepresents sources and twists facts, and these shouldn't have any spin put on them. The facts can speak for themselves. Betty Logan ( talk) 11:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: You have my support. The letter/cookbook material is not reliably sourced by any stretch of the imagination and con be omited entirely. The opinions of his physician, dietician and cook do not carry any weight UNLESS they have been seriously mentioned by more serious reliable sources. They certainly don't trump or "balance" his own self-identification, the recollections of people who knew him better, or the conclusions drawn by more serious and qualified sources. And yes, evidence that others adulterated his food is no grounds for claiming that he was not a vegetarian. The chronological presentention you propose would be a vast improvement on the article. Great job! Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 11:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Heinz Linge, Hitler's personal valet:
"Two vegetarian courses, (both including the obligatory apple) were provided for him to choose from. Hitler had long eschewed meat, but if strangers came to lunch, his food was carefully arranged in such a way that the absence of meat was not obvious at first glance.
Because Hitler was such a late riser, it might be that the midday meal, usually attended by a dozen guests, would not be served until 2.30pm, by which time many of those invited would have satisfied their appetites by eating elsewhere. Hitler's meals were prepared lukewarm after an operation on his vocal cords - following a gas attack during World War I - left his voice sensitive.
His diet consisted principally of potatoes and vegetables, a stew without meat, and fruit. Hitler would occasionally have beer with his meal, and wine on official occasions when a toast was to be made. He was strict about his vegetarianism and non-smoking, but was not opposed to alcohol.
However, he found drunkenness repulsive and gave up beer in 1943 when he began to put on fat around the hips. He believed the German people would not want to see a corpulent Chancellor. Dinner was a much smaller affair, with only a few guests present, beginning at around eight.
Again, of course, it was vegetarian, with Hitler believing the 'most disastrous stage in human development was the day when man first ate cooked meat'. He was convinced that it was this 'unnatural' way of living that 'cut short' human life span to 60 or 70 years.
By Hitler's calculations, all animals whose nutrition was natural lived eight to ten times as long as their period of development to full maturity.
He was convinced we would all live to be 150-180 if we became vegetarian. Such a view exasperated his physicians, who constantly tried to persuade him to change his diet, keep regular hours, sleep normally and take exercise."
Margot Woelk, Hitler's food taster:
"It was all vegetarian, the most delicious fresh things, from asparagus to peppers and peas, served with rice and salads. It was all arranged on one plate, just as it was served to him. There was no meat and I do not remember any fish." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.91.82 ( talk) 15:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Who is this guy and why is he so important for an inclusion in this article? He seems to have zero credibility when it comes to historic work about Adolf Hitler (or historic work at all). So why is his opinion added here? Especially since he seems to ignore the pile of evidence that he Hitler was indeed a vegetarian. StoneProphet ( talk) 21:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Google search for Rynn Berry (in response to "Who is this guy and why is he so important...?" MaynardClark ( talk)
When does an obscure British food writer that was born in 1974 become a source for or against Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism? I think it should be removed, it is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.232.38 ( talk) 17:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor has twice altered the structure of the article without discussing the changes here first. The structure of the article was discussed above in Talk:Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism/Archive 4#Restructuring this article and an agreement was reached. This currently represents a consensus, so if any editors wish to propose a new organization for the article, then by all means raise the issue, but please don't make unilateral alterations without reaching an agreement with other editors first. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
"Towards the end of his life Adolf Hitler followed a vegetarian diet. It is not clear when he adopted it."
So towards the end of his life he adopted a certain diet, but, we're not clear when he adopted it. That does not even make sense. We need more sources Orasis ( talk) 07:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)