He is a piss-take poster, a bit of a joke and not to be taken too seriously.
For balance, here is another point of view which is a bit more coherent.
--------------
Before we see the evidence that Hitler wasn't a vegetarian, it's important to look at where the argument that he was comes from, because it's an argument that's rarely made honestly. People who insist that Hitler was a vegetarian usually just "heard it" somewhere, and immediately assumed it was true. And yet, if you tell them that Hitler wasn't actually a vegetarian, these same people who instantly believed in Hitler's vegetarianism
without question, will suddenly demand all manner of proof that he was
not.
Why do they require such a high standard of evidence that Hitler was not a vegetarian, when they require no evidence at all that he was? Apparently many people
want to believe that Hitler was a vegetarian. Perhaps they're threatened by vegetarianism because it implies that they're doing something wrong. But armed with the (mistaken) idea that the infamous Hitler himself was a veggie, that allows them to easily dismiss the whole concept of vegetarianism in one fell swoop. "Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism itself must be flawed!" Of course, that's a patently retarded argument. But the point is, many people are eager to believe it, which is why they require no proof at all when they hear that Hitler was a veggie, and then suddenly demand reams of supporting evidence when someone suggests he wasn't.
If you think I'm exaggerating about the importance that anti-veggies place on the idea that Hitler was a vegetarian, look at this letter that someone wrote to award-winning author John Robbins, who has written several books promoting a meatless way of eating:
You people who say that we would all be more peaceful if we ate a vegetarian diet always seem to forget that Adolph Hitler was a vegetarian. That pretty well destroys your belief system, doesn't it? (FoodRevolution.org)
It
pretty well destroys your belief system?! That's how important Hitler's alleged vegetarianism is to many non-veggies. Their belief is that if Hitler were a vegetarian, then vegetarianism itself is
completely invalidated. Is it possible to be any more ridiculous than this?
Thinking people will realize that it wouldn't matter even if Hitler had been a vegetarian. That is, it would
not "pretty well destroy [our] belief system". Bad people occasionally make good choices. This shouldn't be so difficult to understand. Had Hitler actually chosen to be a vegetarian, that would simply have been one of the better choices he made. If Hitler were fond of chess, that wouldn't invalidate chess. In fact, one of the best players in the history of the game, Bobby Fischer, was a raving anti-Semite, but nobody stops playing chess because of that.
And what if Hitler had been fond of chess? Would non-chess players taunt those who do play the game about that? No, because people who don't play chess generally don't give a flying flip about whether other people play it or not. They don't feel threatened by someone being a chess-player. But once the issue is vegetarianism, it's a different story. This should lay bare the motivations of those who champion the idea that Hitler didn't eat meat.
And of course, even if Hitler had been vegetarian, likely
every single other mass-murderer in history was not. If you were keeping score, that would be,
Vegetarian Mass Murderers: 1, and then
Non-Vegetarian Mass Murderers: 100's.
And now we come to a curious battle:
Hitler vs. Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was a vegetarian only for about a year, from the ages of 16 to 17 (
ivu.org,
08016.com), but of course most people don't know that. If a meat-eater is (mistakenly) told that Franklin was a vegetarian, they'll often demand to know whether he
ever ate meat, and if it's admitted that he did, well, then that's their "Aha!" moment. They'll triumphantly exclaim, "So Franklin
wasn't really a vegetarian, was he?!" I'm sad to have witnessed numerous conversations that actually went that way.
That's important because the same people have much softer criteria for Hitler. Franklin could have eaten meat once every four years and his vegetarianism would be dismissed as a fraud, but if Hitler ever ate a potato, then bang! He's vegetarian. This is important because there are numerous accounts of Hitler eating meat throughout his life, and incredibly this is just brushed off by those who say Hitler was a veggie. But the standard for Franklin is different: Franklin has to avoid meat
100% of the time, for his entire life, from the day he's born to the day he dies, unwaveingly, otherwise he's not really considered a vegetarian at all. It's like if Hitler ever had a meatless meal then he's a vegetarian while if Franklin ate fish once after sixty years meat-free then he's not.
(To be clear, as we said earlier, Franklin was a vegetarian only for about a year, but most people don't know that. I'm talking about how people have different standards for Hitler's vegetarianism vs. anyone else's.)
So what constitutes being a vegetarian? Most would agree that it's a deliberate decision to not eat meat, for whatever reason. By that criteria Franklin was a vegetarian for a about a year, and for the rest of the time he wasn't. For Hitler, there's no compelling evidence that he stuck with a real veggie diet for any appreciable length of time. Multiple sources document him as eating meat throughout the 1930's. (See below.) Shortly before his death (in 1941 and 1942) he
claimed to be vegetarian, and "Hitler was a vegetarian!" proponents have latched all over this. Because,
Hitler wouldn't ever lie, or even exaggerate, would he? I mean, this is
Hitler we're talking about, and who on Earth would ever question
Hitler's commitment to the truth? After all, if you can't trust
Hitler, then whom can you trust? If you were going to pick one person in the whole world whose word you would definitely accept unquestioningly, that person would be Hitler, right? I mean, surely we can believe that
every word that ever came out of Hitler's mouth can safely be believed to be the absolute truth without any doubt at all, right?
Rynn Berry adds, "To be sure, Hitler professed to be a vegetarian..., but the primary sources that I have cited in my book show that while he paid lip service to vegetarianism, he was not consistent in his practice of the diet." (
source)
The fact is, many people use the word "vegetarian" to describe diets that aren't vegetarian at all, and Hitler's case is no exception. An article from May 30, 1937, 'At Home With The Fuhrer' says, "It is well known that Hitler is a vegetarian and does not drink or smoke. His lunch and dinner consist, therefore, for the most part of soup, eggs, vegetables and mineral water, although
he occasionally relishes a slice of ham and relieves the tediousness of his diet with such delicacies as caviar ..." (
source) So when Hitler
says he's a vegetarian, he's almost certainly using it in this context: He's a "vegetarian" who eats meat. That's like someone saying, "I'm not a bank-robber! I only do it once a month."
Still, for those who insist that we take Hitler at his word literally about his claiming to be a vegetarian in the 1940's, we have this gem from The Hitler Book, about Hitler's daily routine in 1944: "After midnight [Eva] would direct that there should be another light snack of turtle soup, sandwiches, and sausages." (
source)
If Hitler was really a vegetarian, he was a sausage-eating one.
Hitler was not a vegetarian -- detailed article
)
