Talk:Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Untitled

This Article is false...

The very most important reason that you know that Hitler didn't care about animals is because he killed, tortured, and made so many people suffer. Humans are animals, mammals and Hitler did not show any love or emotion to any human except to the ones who were fighting by his side. Oh and he eats pork making him not a vegetarian..

Fake, give us a proof, saying "Oh and he..." is nothing without a proof or a reference. Torturing animals and humans is not the same, so your argument is 0% valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:747F:788B:7728:AA20 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent POV edits

Tatlock123 has recently been editing the article pushing an edit that represents Hitler as not a vegetarian. Most of the quotes revolve about Hitler's penchant for things like stuffed squab and liver dumplings, taken completely taken out of context. For example Dione Lucas worked at a restaurant he patronized prior to the war, while Ilsa Hess's comments and those of the New York Times date to 1937. In short, there are many documented incidents of Hitler consuming meat prior to the war, and none after 1942. The incident relating to Eva Braun ordering turtle soup for supper is interesting (and probably deserves to be in the article) but ultimately proves nothing i.e. we should not draw our own conclusions.

A lot of the material added has some merit, but it is not appropriate to construct a case for or against Hitler's vegetarianism. The article is divided into contemporary records, personal testimony and retrospective analysis to retain a sense of objectivity. These are the changes I made to the content with explanations:

1. [1] and [2] – Dione Lucas is already covered in the article, while Ravioli is a dish that has many permutations and isn't necessarily meat based. The remaining quotes are tangential to the issue of Hitler's diet.
2. [3] – The New York Times commentary was relocated to the appropriate section
3. [4] – Frau Hess's comments (from 1937) were moved to the "personal testimony" section.
4. [5] – The commentary about Eva Braun ordering a "turtle soup" supper taken from interrogation notes were moved to the "contemporary records" section, and the OR conclusions were removed. They do not confirm one way or the other if Hitler partook of the supper.
5. [6] – Modern day analysis of Hitler's diet was fully integated into the "analysis" section.

Unfortunately, after making these edits Tatlock made more POV edits that are not actually supported by the sources within the article. Can I please remind editors of WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and remind them to observe WP:Original research and WP:NPOV. If you feel that the article misrepresents the sources then please raise the issue here. Betty Logan (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The ravioli story is from Inside the Third Reich. Speer is referring to events in 1933, just after Hitler came to power. He does not say whether or not it was a vegetarian ravioli. It may not have been in 1933, but Hitler is known to have enjoyed vegetarian ravioli (several sources have a veggie ravioli as his last meal, as depicted in the film Downfall). "Turtle soup" was very rarely made from turtle. It was a term for a type of soup, which was usually "mock turtle", of which there were various recipes, including vegetarian ones. The ham, liver dumpliings, etc, have been dealt with elsewhere. The stuff about vegetarian societies and confiscating eggs etc is just totally irrelevant, as is the content of medication. Paul B (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems that "tutrle soup" (whether real or mock) was Eva's favourite dish. She had it for supper nearly every night. It has nothing to do with Hitler himself [7]. Paul B (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for your input Paul, you always bring clarity to these disputes/debates. The factoid about Turtle soup being Eva's favorite dish is certainly illuminating and I will incorporate that into the article, although I wonder if there is much point retaining the turtle soup segment since it obviously pertains to Eva Braun and not Hitler? As for the ravioli it seems to be largely irrelevant i.e. the incident took place in 1933 before Hitler was completely vegetarian, it didn't necessarily contain meat, and most likely didn't. Betty Logan (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Tatlock123 (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Tatlock123

Turtle soup may have been Eva Braun's favourite dish, but one dish often said to be loved by Hitler was Bavarian sausage. I'm not sure why, if Eva Braun was ordering turtle soup, sandwiches and sausages in 1944, we are only going to focus on the turtle soup and completely ignore the sausages. The sandwiches may have contained something vegetarian, the turtle soup may have been for Eva Braun alone, but we need to acknowledge that sausages were a known Hitler favourite, therefore it is relevant that Eva Braun was ordering turtle soup and sausages. On what possible basis can one write 'I wonder if there is much point retaining the turtle soup segment since it obviously pertains to Eva Braun and not Hitler?'

The word 'obviously' would need to be explained there so that the reader can understand why it is 'obvious' that the sausages Eva Braun ordered regularly in 1944 for supper were not for Hitler?

'@Betty Logan:' writes "You have my support. The letter/cookbook material is not reliably sourced by any stretch of the imagination and con be omited entirely."

It is very reliably sourced in fact. It is written on page 89 of the Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook (1964). The author of that book, Dione Lucas, had two TV shows on United States TV, published six books, Lucas helped to introduce the omelette to the American palate. She was the first woman trained as a Cordon Bleu chef, she opened a Cordon Bleu school in New York (the first) and can be seen as a predecessor and influence to Julia Child. She owned and managed various restaurants in New York, including the very successful Egg Basket near Bloomingdales. She wasn't just a random nutter writing letters to editors.

In the 1930s she was employed as a chef in Hamburg. It was in that capacity that she prepared food for Hitler, and reports his favourite being the game bird squab.

StoneProphet writes "Rynn Berry is not a reliable source ( not a historan, not an acknowledged author or anything), so I took him out, his opinion just dont matters..."

Again, I have to correct you. Rynn Berry was a prolific published author. He taught comparative literature at Baruch College in Manhattan (a school within the City University of New York), and later culinary history at New School for Social Research in New York City. Additional to the works below, Rynn also wrote entries on vegetarianism and related issues for the Oxford Encyclopedia of American Food and Drink and The Oxford Companion to Food and Drink in America. Rynn Berry's books have been translated into many languages and were reedited numerous times.

The Vegetarians, Autumn Press, 1979. ISBN 0-394-73633-8

The New Vegetarians (updated edition of his previous book, with William Shurtleff interview instead of Marty Feldman's), Chestnut Ridge, New York, Townhouse Press, 1988 ISBN 0-940653-17-6; Pythagorean Publishers, 1993. ISBN 0-9626169-0-7

Famous Vegetarians and Their Favorite Recipes: Lives and Lore from Buddha to the Beatles, Pythagorean Publishers, 1993; Eighth Printing (Revised: 2003). ISBN 0-9626169-1-5

Food for the Gods: Vegetarianism & the World's Religions, Pythagorean Publishers, 1998. ISBN 0-9626169-2-3 Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover (with an introduction by Martin Rowe) Pythagorean Publishers, 2004. ISBN 0-9626169-6-6

"Veganism," article in The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 604–605. Becoming Raw: The Essential Guide to Raw Vegan Diets (with Brenda Davis & Vesanto Melina), Book Publishing Company, 2010. ISBN 1-57067-238-5

The Vegan Guide to New York City (with Chris A. Suzuki & Barry Litsky), Ethical Living, 2013 (20th edition). ISBN 0-9788132-8-6[54]

So one may say "Rynn Berry is not a reliable source ( not a historan, not an acknowledged author or anything)", but in so doing, one need also question one's own reliability as a source.

I have ignored the sections on vivisection and the Nazi leadership's tender concern for animals, but the Nazi laws were based almost entirely on The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, an Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. This act, when it was introduced in Britain, placed some largely cosmetic restrictions on vivisection. Anti-vivisectionists were enraged, viewing the Act as nothing more than an attempt to provide legal cover for vivisection.

The piece in your Wiki page as it stood earlier today, completely disregarded the connection between Nazi 'animal rights' & Jewish persecution. The Nazis could do vivisection on human beings after all, but used animals as needed when gypsy or Jewish subjects proved too sick. E.g. Joseph Mengele at Auschwitz. A former Auschwitz prisoner doctor said:

'He was capable of being so kind to the children, to have them become fond of him, to bring them sugar, to think of small details in their daily lives, and to do things we would genuinely admire ... And then, next to that, ... the crematoria smoke, and these children, tomorrow or in a half-hour, he is going to send them there. Well, that is where the anomaly lay.'

When the human subjects were too sick (as in Mengele's epilepsy experiments) the doctor instantly switched to rabbits. Hitler proved equally disattached when it came to testing cyanide on his beloved dog Blondi. Should we be surprised that he'd give in to weakness for Bavarian sausage?

The evidence of Nazi experiments on animals is overwhelming. In "The Dark Face of Science," author John Vyvyan summed it up correctly:

"The experiments made on prisoners were many and diverse, but they had one thing in common: all were in continuation of or complementary to, experiments on animals. "In every instance, this antecedent scientific literature is mentioned in the evidence, and at Buchenvald and Auschwitz concentration camps, human and animal experiments were carried out simultaneously as parts of a single programme." Beneath is a link to Nazi human vivisection experiments and the camps where they took place.

http://www.websteruniv.edu/~woolflm/deathcamps.html

Lastly Paul B writes 'The stuff about vegetarian societies and confiscating eggs etc is just totally irrelevant, as is the content of medication.'

As the tone of this Wiki entry appears to be that Hitler was an animal lover, the implication being that this is connected to his 'vegetarianism', why, during the Reich, vegetarians being forbidden to organize new groups or to start publications, or if already up & running, being suspended or prohibited from using the term "vegetarian movement" is 'just totally irrelevant' would also need further explanation in my opinion. Thanks for listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatlock123 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, Tatlock, you actually added some decent material, but it is not editors to adopt a stance on whether Hitler was or was not vegetarian. There are numerous sources pre-dating 1937 that say Hitler ate meat and the article reflects that accurately. We already cover Dione Lucas in the article, and her position as a chef at a restaurant favored by Hitler before the war is consistent with that. The same with the New York Times article of the same year. You yourself added the content about Frau Hess, in which Hitler effectively gave up all meat except for liver dumplings in 1937 and you also added several other compelling sources to that effect too, so I find it curious you are adopting a stance contrary to what your own sources say. There is compelling evidence Hitler was not vegetarian prior to 1937 (and the article reflects this). There is compelling evidence (added by you) that Hitler stopped eating all meat except liver dumplings in 1937, and the article reflects this. From 1942 there is no record or witness testimony that he willingly ate meat (the only times he deviated from this were due to trickery by his chef and doctor), and plenty of evidence (such as that of his food taster) suggesting the opposite, and the article accurately reflects this. The incident in 1944 with Eva Braun ordering a supper of turtle soup, sausages and sandwiches is interesting, but far from conclusive for three reasons: i) Braun ordered the supper; ii) turtle soup was her favorite dish, suggesting it was for her; iii) crucially, it is not clear if Hitler shared the supper. Most of what you added has actually been retained in the article, but just reorganized into the correct chronology. So yes, there is plenty of evidence Hitler ate meat up to 1937, but plenty of evidence that he didn't after 1942 and that is really the crux of the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

31.52.39.135 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Tatlock123

I hear what you are saying. But are you hearing me?

"Of Hitler’s daily routine in 1944: After midnight [Eva] would direct that there should be another light snack of turtle soup, sandwiches, and sausages." (Eberle, Henrik and Uhl, Matthias, ed. (2005). The Hitler Book: The Secret Dossier Prepared for Stalin, New York: Public Affairs p.136)

"The incident in 1944 with Eva Braun ordering a supper of turtle soup, sausages and sandwiches..." you say.

"Incident" is an interesting word for what is called in the text a 'daily routine'. 'Incident' suggests it took place just the once, whereas 'daily routine' suggests this was a regular occurence?

Also, if one eats nothing but fruit, vegetables & the odd liver dumpling, one is not a vegetarian by any known deffinition of that word.

Now maybe they were cucumber sandwiches, maybe Hitler did not eat the soup, or maybe there were no turtles in it, & maybe he derived vicarious pleasure from watching Eva devour the sausages. Maybe Hitler ate not one liver dumpling after September 3rd 1939, but that is a lot of 'maybes' upon which to pitch one's tent.

I hope this clarifies my position on this. Tatlock123 (talk) 13.25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes and the maybes are all coming from you. They may have been vegetarian sausages for all we know. There is no reference to meat in any of this, with the possible exception of "turtle". That's an assumption on your part, just like the assumption about the term "ravioli". What you are doing is to try to, as it were, "catch out" Hitler by extrapolating speculatively from a primary source. That's not really the proper way to write up a topic on Wikipedia. We should look at what experts say about the issue: scholars who have looked at all the evidence and weighed it up. Berry is certainly no expert on Hitler, or history, and clearly has a conflict of interest. Paul B (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not the one making assumptions here, nor the one with an agenda. I only want a fair and balanced presentation of the evidence. With your deletions, you appear not to want that. 31.52.39.135 (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Tatlock123

Your additions are transparently agenda driven. You want to disassociate Hitler from vegetarianism and animal rights. History is more paradoxical than "bad people must do everything I think is bad". Paul B (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is "balanced". Every single source you added directly related to Hitler's meat consumption (i.e. those that specifically addressed Hitler's diet) was incorporated into the article, except for the Dione Lucas one simply for the fact she is already covered. You were the one that added Frau Hess's comments that Hiter stopped eating meat except for liver dumplings in 1937. You were the one who added several other sources saying Hitler's diet excluded meat except for liver dumplings, so how exactly is the representation of these sources in the article unbalanced? Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the article seems to conclude that prior to WWII Hitler was not fully veggie, but during WWII he was. This is an impossible conclusion based on present evidence. Why? Because there is a wide open possibility he ate liver dumplings and sausages during WWII. Not a certainty, but a very real possibility. That is as far as either position can take it. Without further evidence, that is as far as we can go. Tatlock123 (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Tatlock123

Tatlock. Please add the signature after the message - at the end. Plus you don't need to type your username by hand. It automatically appears (as long as you are logged in). If you write it it just gets tacked on at the end. Regarding your points, we go with what the evidence says. Historians who specialise in the topic have concluded thast Hitler became completely vegetarian. Can we prove this beyond doubt? Of course not. He might have scoffed pork pies in secret while sitting in the toilet. But we have no evidence to support that. It's just imagination. What evidence we do have is consistent that he was vegetarian. Saying "it's possble" he might have done something that all the sources say he didn't, when there's no evidence and no reason to believe it's at all likely, is of no value. Also, please remember that we have to conform to WP:OR and WP:RS. You tend to add statements that are not sourced at all, or sourced very unclearly. Nothing in the many paragraphs below about vivisection is sourced. Clearly you are getting this from somewhere, but where? For example, who says anti-vivisectionists were "outraged" by the legislation?

p.s. did you know that vegetarian sausages were invented by none other than Konrad Adenauer? How ironic is that? Paul B (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The stuff was all sourced in its initial format, the one you removed from the page. In redoing it I couldn't be bothered to add the sources again. The fact is though, that when it comes to vivisection, the Nazis not only duplicated a weak law which gave them opportunity not to stop vivisection, but to choose who to give vivisection licences to. They also, over and above any other nation on earth, expanded their vivisection program to include breeds of animal that other nations (apart from their ally, the Japanese) did not use, namely Jewish and Romany human beings. Tatlock123 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I checked in the original fortmat, and though there were scatered citations, it was impossible to tell how they sourced specific statements, nor what the satus of the source was. There were very few. The Japanese did not "vivisect" Romany and Jewish human beings. In any case, the argument that this is somehow an expansion of vivisection is silly. All countries experiment in some ways on human beings - it's just that the Nazis did it with no ethical limits. Paul B (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that the Japanese didn't use vivisection on Jewish and Romany human beings. They, of course would have done had they been available to them, as they were to the German Nazis. The Japanese did practice human vivisection extensively during WWII though.

You ask, "For example, who says anti-vivisectionists were "outraged" by the legislation?"

“many animal welfare advocates on both sides of the Atlantic lamented the weaknesses of the Cruelty to Animals Act,”

(American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) ‘Our History’ http://aavs.org/about/history/)

“The Act left [Frances Power] Cobbe disillusioned. She wrote that ‘Justice and Mercy seemed to have gone from the earth’. She became an all-out opponent of vivisection, and her Society followed, changing its name in 1897 to the National Anti-Vivisection Society…”

(http://journals.physoc.org/site/misc/History/Info_Sheets/Info_Sheet_Royal_Commission_and_Act_1876.pdf)

“Cobbe wrote an animal autobiography Confessions of a Lost Dog (1867) with the intention to promote animal shelters, but she is best known for the formation of the anti-vivisectionist Victoria Street Society (1875) with George Hogan and Richard Hutton (editor of the Spectator) in the wake of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876.”

(Nickianne Moody, “Where Cook Has Treated, Cat Should Be Caressed!”: Mr Punch and Feline Form. Liverpool John Moores University p.4)

“In a pocket-sized tract, Cruelty to Animals: Suggestions, Acts of Parliament, Prosecution, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals cautions readers that the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act was so complex that “its provisions can hardly be applied by the police; much less by individuals” (qtd. in Ritvo 160). The Act was indeed complicated. In decades to come, anti-vivisection societies would comb carefully through Home Office returns in search of actionable discrepancies, and reactions to the increasingly widespread experimental research practice would occasionally burst onto the public scene. Anti-vivisectionists would also change their tactics, discovering less paper-bound ways to hold experimental science to account. Women like Louisa Lind-af-Hageby, a Swedish anti-vivisectionist and student at the London School of Medicine for Women, achieved medical expertise in order to challenge vivisection on its own scientific terms. Witnessing the sufferings of a terrier, used repeatedly in vivisection experiments at a University College physiology laboratory during her training in 1903, Lind-af-Hageby published her findings in The Shambles of Science with fellow medical student, Liese Schartau. The legal and political fall-outs from that publication are many and complex. Most prominently, the publication spurred the donation of a drinking fountain, known as the Old Brown Dog, to Battersea Council, which readily erected it on 15 September 1906 in local recreation grounds. Its inscription proved the source of serious clashes between medical students, labor unionists, suffragettes, and anti-vivisections, the most tumultuous of which became known as the Old Brown Dog riots of 1907…”

(http://www.branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=susan-hamilton-on-the-cruelty-to-animals-act-15-august-1876)

“Questions posed as the Act took shape and came into effect proved tenacious, occasioning extensive debate and indicating differences that were not to be eased, at least for anti-vivisectionists, for decades to come…”

(http://www.branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=susan-hamilton-on-the-cruelty-to-animals-act-15-august-1876)

“This led to the infamous, but well named, Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, which reached the statute book on 15 August 1876…The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 legalised vivisection, as well as providing total secrecy to the vivisectors and to the laboratories, with no public accountability. The Home Office awarded licences to vivisectors in secret, the locations of laboratories were secret. No access was allowed, for any reason - whether Member of Parliament, media, public, or local authority - all were barred. And so, the numbers of animals used as well as the number of licences awarded rose year on year for a century, protected by successive governments and a silent scientific community. However, opposition to vivisection also increased, and the Victoria Street Society grew in strength and influence and after a few years changed its name to the National Anti-Vivisection Society (6 October 1897).”

(http://www.navs.org.uk/about_us/24/0/299/)

If you read that last paragraph again, it explains why actual anti vivisectionists were so against the 1876 act, and even though their efforts had been in progress for well nigh 50 years, the Nazis, who were not anti vivisection even one iota, chose to adopt it in its entirety. It had absolutely everything they needed.

"The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 legalised vivisection, as well as providing total secrecy to the vivisectors and to the laboratories, with no public accountability. The Home Office awarded licences to vivisectors in secret, the locations of laboratories were secret. No access was allowed, for any reason - whether Member of Parliament, media, public, or local authority - all were barred. And so, the numbers of animals used as well as the number of licences awarded rose year on year for a century, protected by successive governments and a silent scientific community."

This Nazi law would prove extremely useful when they added human beings to animals on the vivisection table. You will understand, I hope, one's irritation at any insinuation that the Nazis adopted this Vivisectionists Charter, (rather than a progressive set of anti vivisection laws) because of the tender sensibilities of Adolf Hitler? Tatlock123 (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatlock123 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Vegetarian organisations

Tatlock has added a large section on various issues - vegetarian organisations etc. I deleted it because, frankly, it was a barely readable hodge-podge of material, though it had some potentially good content. When the title of this article was changed from "Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism" to "Adolf Hitler and Vegetarianism", the way was opened for a broader discussion of Hitler's attitude to vegetarianism, which might include his views on vegetarianism in Germany and vegetarian groups. It's usually said that the banning of vegetarian groups was simply part of a blanket ban on any organisation that could be used as a cover for anti-Nazi activity. But obviously this could be included in a separate section, with that point included. The real issue is whether we want to have such material in this article. Paul B (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

31.52.39.135 (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Tatlock123

Paul Barlow writes "Tatlock has added a large section on various issues - vegetarian organisations etc. I deleted it because, frankly, it was a barely readable hodge-podge of material"

I will repost it here. I do not believe I mention 'vegetarian organisations etc' in it even once. You write "Tatlock has added a large section on various issues"

Actually just one issue: 'vivisection'.

The 'large section' is needed to counterbalance this: 'His regime also passed many laws against animal cruelty, many of which are still in existence in modern day Germany'

The section you so kindly and helpfully deleted read as follows:

"The Nazi laws were based almost entirely on The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, an Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. This act, when it was introduced in Britain, placed some largely cosmetic restrictions on vivisection. Anti-vivisectionists were enraged, viewing the Act as nothing more than an attempt to provide legal cover for vivisection.

The Nazi laws were based almost entirely on The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. The Act was criticized by the National Anti-Vivisection Society — itself founded in December 1875 — as "infamous but well-named," in that it made no provision for public accountability of licensing decisions.

There is a strong connection between Nazi 'animal rights' & Jewish persecution. The British model was useful, as again, there was no provision for public accountability of licensing decisions. Firstly, the Nazis used their limited new law to persecute Jewish scientists, granting licences to institutions they deemed worthy (i.e. free of Jewish scientists), secondly they used it to close down kosher butchers.

"Moreover, Hitler never promoted vegetarianism as a public policy for either health or moral reasons. His lack of policies and public support for vegetarianism is significant in a leader who rigorously enforced other health policies, such as anti-smoking and anti-pollution legislation, and pregnancy and birthing measures for women.

The rumour that the Nazis passed an anti-vivisection law is also filled with contradictions. No such law was passed, although the Nazis reported that such a law existed. The Nazis allegedly passed an anti-vivisection bill in 1933. "Lancet," the prestigious British medical journal, reviewed the Nazis' law in 1934 and warned anti-vivisectionists not to celebrate because the Nazis' law was no different, in effect, from the British law that had been passed in 1876, which restricted some animal research, but by no means eliminated it. An enormous amount of research on animals continued to be carried out by Nazi doctors." (Dr. Kalechofsky 1996)

The Nazis could do vivisection on human beings after all, but used animals as needed when gypsy or Jewish subjects proved too sick. E.g. Joseph Mengele at Auschwitz.

A former Auschwitz prisoner doctor said:

'He was capable of being so kind to the children, to have them become fond of him, to bring them sugar, to think of small details in their daily lives, and to do things we would genuinely admire ... And then, next to that, ... the crematoria smoke, and these children, tomorrow or in a half-hour, he is going to send them there. Well, that is where the anomaly lay.'

When the human subjects were too sick (as in Mengele's epilepsy experiments) the doctor instantly switched to rabbits. Hitler proved equally disattached when it came to testing cyanide on his beloved dog Blondi.

The evidence of Nazi experiments on animals is overwhelming. In "The Dark Face of Science," author John Vyvyan summed it up correctly:

"The experiments made on prisoners were many and diverse, but they had one thing in common: all were in continuation of or complementary to, experiments on animals. In every instance, this antecedent scientific literature is mentioned in the evidence, and at Buchenwald and Auschwitz concentration camps, human and animal experiments were carried out simultaneously as parts of a single programme."

Beneath is a link to Nazi human vivisection experiments and the camps where they took place.

http://www.websteruniv.edu/~woolflm/deathcamps.html

So let's stick to the facts. To Paul Barlow, the above may be "a barely readable hodge-podge of material", but I assume at least a basic level of itelligence among Wiki readers.

Please don't be silly. OK, so the veggie organisations stuff was in your previous edit. Much of this has nothing whatever to do with vegetrarianism. What has "persecution of Jewish scientists" or "human vivisection experiments" got to do with the topic? If you are looking to have intelligent readership, you need intelligent content. Even experiments on animals are irrelevant. All countries performed experiments on animals. it's a completely separate issue from vegetarianism. "There is a strong connection between Nazi 'animal rights' & Jewish persecution." That's just a complete non sequitur. If there were a connection, then all countries that allowed animal experiements would logicaly also allow experiments on Jews. It's a classic "slippery slope" fallacy. See also Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. Paul B (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Tatlock123 (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Talock123

"If there were a conncetion, then all countries that allowed animal experiements would logicaly also allow experiments on Jews. It's a classic "slippery slope" fallacy."

It would be if all countries that allowed animal experiments also planned to wipe out European Jews. But that was the Nazis special difference wasn't it?

Someone can still support vivisection and be a vegetarian i.e. they are not mutually exclusive. As for vegetarian associations, the Nazis didn't outlaw vegetarian associations per se, they outlawed most associations indiscriminately to undermine any organized opposition to their power. Besides, Hitler's stance on animal rights, vivisection and vegetarian associations is largely incidental to this article which is why we don't expand on that aspect, so I support Paul Barlow's revert in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Tatlock123 (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Tatlock123

It seems to be getting better. I still have a problem with this sentence :

"His regime also passed many laws against animal cruelty, many of which are still in existence in modern day Germany."

The problem with it is that it gives an ambiguous picture of what these laws actually achieved in practice. Without the context, the sentence above suggests that because Hitler was an animal lover, he passed laws to protect them. The main problem British anti vivisectionist had with the law upon which they were based, the British 'Cruelty to Animals Act 1876' was that it made no provision for public accountability of licensing decisions.

In 1933, when the Nazis passed a Bill identicle to the British model, it may have been precisely because of this lack of public accountability of licencing. The controversy had been inflammatory for over fifty years by 1933, so it is suspicious that animal lovers would make their legal model a law which was actively detested by anti vivisectionists, and well known to be so. This meant, in practice, that the Nazi law of 1933 was not a ban on animal cruelty, or vivisection, but simply gave the Government an option of who they would grant a licence to. This, in 1933, gave them free legal reign to close down laboratories and institutions which employed Jewish scientists, but reward others with licences to continue vivisection as if there were no law. It also gave them an opportunity to shut down Kosher butchers and slaughter houses. This is, in fact, exactly what happened.

"Lancet," the prestigious British medical journal, reviewed the Nazis' law in 1934 and warned anti-vivisectionists not to celebrate because the Nazis' law was no different, in effect, from the British law that had been passed in 1876, which restricted some animal research, but by no means eliminated it. An enormous amount of research on animals continued to be carried out by Nazi doctors.

As the Nazi philosophy was that the animal kingdom was a hierarchy, with Aryans at the top, pigs and other mammals near the top, and Jews quite low down beneath large mammals of other species. Therefore, vivisection on Jews became de rigeur by the 1940s, making a mockery of any 'laws' to protect animals the Nazis claimed to have passed, as under Nazism, Jews were held to be one of the 'lower animals'.

Therefore, this sentence "His regime also passed many laws against animal cruelty, many of which are still in existence in modern day Germany" seems to scholars either naive and simplistic, or in some way wilfully ignorant. Such a sentence really needs a counter balance, or at least some contextualizing analysis.

Also, I found this if you are interested, The wife of Rudolf Hess, Ilse, in her memoirs, states that Hitler’s vegetarianism began in 1931, as a reaction to the death of his niece, Angela Maria "Geli" Raubal, in that year. Prior to 1931, Frau Hess says that she often made Hitler Munich Weisswurst (white sausage) and Leber Knoedel (liver dumpligs) but that after 1931, Hitler swore off all meat except Leber Knoedel (liver dumplings). (James P. O’Donnell, The Bunker, Da Capo Press 2001 p228)

Again, I think most of this is tangential, but I agree you have a legitimate point that the article intimates that the animal welfare reforms came about due to his interest in vegetarianism. We have a whole other article that deals with this topic so all of this is best left to that, and this article should exclusively ficus on Hitler's dietary record. There is a obviously a strong connection between the two topics so I am simply going to remove the sentence and just place the link in a "see also" section. Betty Logan (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2014

Hitler is in no way recognised by the vegetarian society as being vegetarian. I think they would know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourLogicalFallacy (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not an edit request. As for the vegetarian society, they are not historians, and clearly like most vegetarians (including myself) would rather that Hitler wasn't included in our number. The historical record however proves otherwise, and Wikipedia does not mislead its readers in order to make contributors feel comfortable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2014

I can believe what ever the hell I like that doesn't make me that. I can say I am an elephant or I believe in world domination but if my actions show the opposite of this then in reality I am not this. Hitler wasn't a vegetarian, he eat meat occasionally. This instantly means he wasn't a vegetarian. He might of idealised ideas surrounding vegetarianism and wanted to be one but he didn't follow through and so wasn't one. Not really. All his actions show a megalomaniac personality with a delusion to change things in the future. Nothing he did has any roots in vegetarianism. He wasn't a vegetarian. The premise of being vegetarian means not killing animals, not eating them, and not supporting the killing of animals. None of these criteria's where meet by him. He wasn't vegetarian.

Towards the end of his life Adolf Hitler has been said to claim to follow a vegetarian diet, however the supporting evidence is weak, especially the source of Goebbels as the Minister of 'Propaganda'. And all the evidence seems to show that he didn't remove all meat from his diet, and killed people & animals through out the second world war, he even left people to starve to death. He directly gassed people to death and burned people alive too. These are all things that vegetarians would be against. A means to an end is not something vegetarians support either because that in tale means suffering, which is far from ideal.

There is no evidence via his actions that during the second world war he had some kind of empathetic break through of compassion where he started to form a new ethical way of thinking and changed his moral character which would then be reflected in his actions. This means if he were actually vegetarian for ethical reasoning that with all the power he had, he would decide to stop the war and find a peaceful solution, where he outlawed the killing of animals and vowed to never kill a human or animals life again, which is the main ethical premise behind going vegetarian and so to imply for a second that he was a vegetarian for the last 3 years of his life is not supported by the fact he didn't decide to outlaw the killing of animals or people.

Anyone who says Hitler was vegetarian gives no supporting evidence par he didn't eat as much meat as other people and statements not actually made by Hitler himself, IE: magazine quotes. People say many things out of context, this isn't evidence. Evidence is hard proof: historical records of him writing policies to outlaw the killing of animals, photos or paintings of what he generally eat, eye witness reports, records showing him giving long speeches on the subject of vegetarianism, NOT off the cuff statements in a talk one time, which are out of context and could mean anything. He wasn't a vegetarian in any sense and he didn't show evidence of caring about animals or people, his actions in the last 3 years of the second world war negate any claims to be one of any influence when it came to vegetarian issues, as in he wasn't a spokesman for vegetarians. He may have said something about vivisection in the past as many meat eaters believe in some kind of animal welfare, that in no right made him vegetarian.

Hitler's actions in the last 3 years of the war do NOT support a person who is opening up to the idea of a non-violent way of life or finding a way to create the least amount of suffering, another characteristic most vegetarians have, he didn't even stand for the very basic premises of not killing animals or people, which is what classes a person as vegetarian, even if he had some kind of delusion of doing it properly in the future, most rational people would rather focus on diplomatic solutions over using force to keep some kind of utopia working, in other words opening people up to being more compassionate. And the very fact he was limiting meat and not completely against any kind of animal cruelty shows he was on some kind of diet, not going down the path of vegetarianism at that time. As far as history shows he wasn't acting like a vegetarian at least in the sense of ethical issues surrounding vegetarianism. He was acting like a megalomaniac, with delusions of changing in the future.

I requested that there should be a section with criticism and showing evidence that shows Hitler didn't act anything like a vegetarian while he was alive, even if this was his idea for the future, that isn't who he was while he was alive. What he said he was is irrelevant to his actions and even eating less meat than others or supporting animal welfare doesn't make someone vegetarian. That is clutching at straws. Supported concepts most meat eaters support which is anti-vivisection in the sense of don't torture animals doesn't make him vegetarian. Although I don't quite understand how people think killing animals isn't a form of torture, but Hitler wasn't vegetarian. At least not based on his actions... his words may show he liked vegetarian concepts, but obviously based on his actions didn't truly grasp or get them, and did everything in the wrong way, what ever his intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourLogicalFallacy (talk • contribs) 19:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources - and the evidence from historians (the best source, obviously) is that during Hitler's final years he adhered to a vegetarian diet. Your personal opinion as to whether Hitler's behaviour was compatible with vegetarianism is of no relevance to this article. And no, we don't need a 'criticism' section for an article on Hitler. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid Andy is right. --John (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, killing an animal (or human being) is in no way inherently a form of torture (the fact that different methods can be used should not be overlooked either, as it usually matters) – in fact, it can be the very opposite: to name only the most obvious example, a coup de grâce to deliver a severely injured horse from its suffering.

This, by the way, happens to illustrate of a key problem I've encountered in debates with (especially the most outspoken) animal rights and vegetarianism/veganism proponents: them not knowing what they are talking about and aggressively defending misconceptions, and never conceding an inch but rather doubling down, as in the classic Dunning–Kruger effect. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Princess Sophie

This article in the Daily Mail says, that according to Princess Sophie's memoirs, :

'I had been warned he was a vegetarian, and found it difficult to plan an appropriate meal. In those days we had a cook-housekeeper, which was just as well, as my ideas about cooking and housekeeping were fairly hazy (being only eighteen at the time).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3167558/Now-Royals-face-TV-Nazi-exposure-Palace-considers-legal-action-Hitler-salute-photos-new-blow.html

Deonyi (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting facet of information and I will incorporate it into the article shortly. Betty Logan (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705055423/http://www.rcpe.ac.uk/publications/articles/journal_35_1/Hitler%27s_medical_care.pdf to http://www.rcpe.ac.uk/publications/articles/journal_35_1/Hitler's_medical_care.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The article's neutrality is problematic

It appears as though the article went from saying that some historians believe Hitler was a vegetarian, with some flaws to this theory, to stating it as an undisputed fact. Most of the material questioning this notion from this past version has been gradually deleted without proper explanation (save for a few lines that were actually discussed on the talk page).

This article says that Hitler's "former personal chef, Dione Lucas, published The Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook, in which she listed turtle soup, stuffed pigeon, and sausages (citation here) as among his favourite foods. A few decades later, highly acclaimed biographer Robert Payne argued that Hitler’s vegetarianism was a myth created by his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels. (Book cited)

That being said, the claim currently found in the article that "turtle soup was one of Braun's favourite dishes and the interrogation notes do not indicate if Hitler shared the supper" therefore seems to be WP:OR as the sources cited do not explicitly say so.

Add all of this to the fact that Hitler took supplements which contained animal components according to Theodor Morell, his personal physician (a sentence that was removed as well).

The article should present all reliable points of view on the subject. Therefore, some of the books and articles (if the Daily Mail can be used, then the above Daily Kos and SBS Food Network links can as well) that provide a more critical and contradicting coverage should be incorporated back into the article. Shalom11111 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

This debate was settled in 2013 when the woman forced to become Hitler's food taster at the Wolf's Lair from 1942 onwards confirmed that all the food she tested was vegetarian. This is consistent with all the other testimony from those familiar with Hitler's diet at the time. Dionne Lucas worked as a chef at a restaurant Hitler patronised before the war, as explained in the article. Lucas's testimony is consistent with Ilse Hess's testimony that Hitler still ate meat occasionally, as late as 1937. Hitler did not self-identify as a vegetarian until 1942 and there are no other accounts of him eating meat during this period. Robert Payne's book is from the early 70s, and his claim that Hitler's vegetarianism was fabricated is practically worthless considering it does not take account of all the contradictory evidence uncovered since then. Payne's book even includes the now debunked claim that Hitler visited Liverpool as a young man. Rynn Berry is a vegetarian writer, not a historian, and certainly not an authority on Hitler. As for the turtle soup (Eva Braun's favorite dish), there are many recipes—some of them vegetarian—and she was the one ordering it according to the Hitler dossier, so I question whether it is relevant at all. It seems to me the OR here seems to be the insinuation that Hitler shared her supper, of which there is no evidence. And somebody slipping broth into your food without your knowledge does not mean you are not vegetarian, and there are many vegetarians today who take tablets and supplements without realising they contain animal deivatives. A vegetarian is somebody who has made the conscious decision to not eat meat, which is evidently true for Hitler from at least 1942 onwards. I advocated the open-ended view the article took in 2012 which questioned Hitler's vegetarianism (I even questioned the merits of Hitler's vegetarianism myself in the discussions above), but the debate is over now. Even the online vegan magazine Ecorazzi conceded that Hitler was indeed vegetarian in 2013. Betty Logan (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the elaborated reply. The main issue here is not whether Hitler (yimakh shemo) followed a vegetarian diet post 1937 - that claim seems to be true for the most part. It problem is, the article needs to provide more information about the views questioning his motives, because too many of those have been deleted and because the article doesn't quite represent contemporary academic discussion on this important question. The supplements fact cannot be censored either (it is currently not found in the article. It was in the past). A vegetarian by definition he wasn't, though that label of him should logically stay. Your argument that "many vegetarians today who take tablets and supplements without realising they contain animal deivatives" is irrelevant, you simply cannot decide whether Hitler was aware of it or not, isn't it one step worse than original research... Regarding the turtle soup, I will need to look further into it later. I think we should leave the tag on the page for 4 more days before deleting it, and give others a chance to comment on the subject. I will then propose several small insertions to the article. Shalom11111 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no problems with further additions regarding his motives, but it needs to come from legitimate historians or contemporary testimony. For example, Rynn Berry is a vegetarian writer not a historian. Bee Wilson is a food critic. I am sure they believe they are not misrepresenting facts but neither of these are qualified authorities on Hitler. There is a wealth of scholarly research about Hitler that can be drawn upon. Also, please don't mistake vegetarianism for veganism—it is mostly a dietary choice and by definition does not preclude injections, leather shoes, genocide etc. Turtle soup is a delicacy that can be made out of real turtles, but more often than not was "mock" turtle soup, which can either be vegetarian or non-vegetarian. But it was a favorite dish of Eva Braun, and she was the one named in the dossier—I don't have any objections to rewording the sentence, but the implication that he did not share the soup is no more OR than the implication that he did. I shall have a go at re-writing it to make it more neutral. Betty Logan (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Betty Logan, I agree any additions need to come from legitimate historians or contemporary testimony. And yes, the difference between vegetarianism and veganism is well known. I am now proposing two additions to the article (merely updated versions of content that has been deleted), after which the tag can be removed.

• For the contemporary records section:

Three possible options. The first one is: From 1936 almost until Hitler's death by suicide in 1945, Theodor Morell, his personal physician, gave him "quack supplements" which contained animal components [There are several possible sources from history books for this]. Or, alternatively, the sentence Mainstream historians [agree that] Hitler didn't meet contemporary vegetarian standards" [8]. Lastly, the third option would be [Rynn Berry] maintained that although Hitler reduced the amount of meat in his diet, he never stopped eating meat completely for any significant length of time. Berry argues that many historians mistakenly use the term "vegetarian" to describe a "flexitarian" i.e. someone who simply reduces their meat consumption. [Wilson, 1998: "His diet thereafter was free of flesh, but bolstered with a medley of quack supplements, administered with zeal by Theodor Morell"]. One of them is enough for some balance.

• For the Analysis section:

Author Rynn Berry, a historian and vegan activist, said Hitler "was in no way an ethical vegetarian," [and then cite his book [9]. The quote could be possiblely extended]. Regards, Shalom11111 (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Neither Rynn Berry or Bee Wilson are in any way acceptable sources. Berry is primarily a vegetarian writer who has made a living out of vegetarian advocacy while Bee Wilson on the other hand is a food writer. Neither are peer reviewed authorities on Hitler, and since there is no shortage of peer reviewed authorities on Hitler then there is no need to defer to them. As for the the Slate article, I have a couple problems with this; the first is that the article actually states "Mainstream historians don't refute Berry's assertion that Hitler didn't meet contemporary vegetarian standards, but they do have trouble finding meaning in it". The one expert it quotes states that Hitler was "mostly a vegetarian" after 1938. The second is that the article was published a decade before Margot Wölk was interviewed, so I think it's a bit outdated in documenting Hitler's vegetarianism towards the end of his life. On the other hand I do not have a problem with covering Hitler's supplements and I think it would make an interesting addition to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

As a matter of fact knowing whether Adolf Hitler was vegetarian or not is really a meaningless detail of his biography and one should not even have an article devoted to this. This being said there are numerous testimonies of people close to Hitler and who have share many dinners or lunches with him that explain that he was vegetarian. And contrary to what Rynn Berry explains there is a wide consensus among mainstrain historians, that is historians who have written biographies of Hitler like Kershaw, Fest and others, that Hitler was a vegetarian. In my view this discussion should stop here as all sources which might say he was not fully vegetarian or even not vegetarian at all are simply not reliable. --Lebob (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Lebob, Hitler was a vegetarian for some period of his life - that is settled and closed, but it's not the issue here, the issue is returning the balance in the coverage.

Betty Logan, okay, so it is agreed that the supplements fact should be added to the article. Readers will make of it what they want, but it is an integral part of the topic (why was it even deleted?) - you shall have a go adding it if you will.

Lastly, at least a single claim that his motive was not an ethical/moral (it is unbelievable none of these words are found in the article) one is needed. Rynn Berry is a respected professor who has written his entire life about vegetarianism and authored a book analyzing the exact subject of the article, and thus is an authority that merits the sentence "[... believes] Hitler was not an ethical vegetarian" in the Analysis section. If not him, someone else can be used. Shalom11111 (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Content has been removed for a variety of reasons: most of it is badly sourced, some of it is tangential to the topic. Nothing actually related to his diet that was well sourced has been removed from the article to my knowledge. Things have been moved around slightly to identify a chronology of Hitler's transition, but that is about it. The issue of Hitler's medication, for example, has little bearing on his actual diet. We could discuss Hitler's leather shoes for instance, but all it really demonstrates is that he was not a vegan which has never been claimed to my knowledge. Anyway, I have restored the content about his medications to the article. Once again, Rynn Berry is not an appropriate source for discussing Hitler's motivations. He may be a respected writer in vegetarian circles, but he has a clear agenda for discrediting Hitler as a vegetarian. I do not believe it would be neutral for the article to adopt a stance on this, because many theories have been put forward, as explained in the analysis section. There is evidence that Hitler's vegetarianism started with the death of his niece, so the reasons could very well be psychological. On the other hand some historians have theorized that his vegetarianism was politically motivated, and there is a lot of evidence for this i.e. his advisors had to dissuade him from imposing vegetarianism on the German people. However, you cannot definitively rule out animal welfare—and therefore a moral rationale—as a motivation: there is eye-witness testimony that said he could not stand watching animal deaths, and the Nazi regime was progressive in some areas of animal welfare with some laws still standing today. Betty Logan (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Betty Logan, I see your edit on the supplements (medicine) now. Well done, thanks (this should have never been removed, as opposed to the other content you pointed at which was likely rightly omitted). Let's stay focused, the matter here is material that's missing from the article - which does give the morally-driven argument multiple times. But only that! As you yourself wrote, where is, "On other hand [the] historians [that] have theorized that his vegetarianism was politically motivated, and there is a lot of evidence for this"? There's simply no mention of that in the article (there was, in the past). I do think we can skip a WP:NPOVN discussion and agree on a reliable source that says exactly that (I can do the research and offer options here). Or, alternatively, a single sentence/quote about the claim that his motive was not an ethical one - because some researchers did made that assertion which is an important part of the core subject of the article. After that the issue would be solved in my opinion and the tag can be removed. Shalom11111 (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean. The analysis section gives more coverage to Hitler's political motivations (i.e. that vegetariansm is intrinsically linked to the Nazi ideology) than any other possible motivation. The lead attempts to balance all the possible explanations by saying "Some modern day analysis has theorized that Hitler's vegetarianism may have been due to Richard Wagner's historical theories, or even a psychological reaction to his niece's death rather than a commitment to animal welfare, but these theories are contradicted by reports that he was often distressed by images of animal cruelty and suffering, as well as being an antivivisectionist." Perhaps you could be more specific about what you would like to see restored to the article? Betty Logan (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

That sentence in the lead was a clear breach of WP:Point/OR rules, presenting a supposed motive for his diet (the moral one) as a clear conclusion. I fixed it now; that, in addition to just one more quote/analysys, would be enough to partially restore the article's neutrality and remove the tag on top. I will clarify: Since the analysis section's job is to analyse the subject, it should include another interpretation about Hitler's vegetarian diet. (By the way, the claim that it was his national political ideology seems to be contradicted by this source [10] which states Hitler not only ate meat occasionally but also "banned vegetarian organizations once in power (Berry 2004; Schwartz 2001), but that's not important for now). I suggested a short addition from the respected vegetarianism-historian Rynn Berry's book, "Hitler: Neither Vegetarian nor Animal Lover": [... said] "Hitler was in no way an ethical vegetarian" [this can be expanded slightly] - a quote which is not about the factual accuracy of Hitler's diet in any way; rather, it provides a relevant and widespread point of view on it. You said that source was no good - I don't mind finding another one which stresses that Hitler's motives were not ethically driven, either way it needs to reappear in the article because it is nowhere to be found. Shalom11111 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hitler banned most organizations, societies, associations and unions, and the vegetarian associations were no exception. There is no inference that he singled out vegetarian societies simply because they were vegetarian. Making a case that Hitler's motivations were politically motivated is neutral; making the argument they were not ethically motivated is agenda pushing. We don't know what his motivation was and it would be disingenuous if we tried to rule any one of them out: it might have been moral, it might have been psychological guilt, it might have been political ideology. It would be wrong for the article to explicitly say it was one or none of these. I support adding content that makes the case for any of the three possibilities, but I do not support singling one of these out and attempting to discredit it using advocacy journalism. Betty Logan (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hitler's actions (or lack thereof) towards vegetarian bodies is irrelevant to the discussion and I've stressed that. It is not agenda-pushing in any way to provide all view points on the subject; exactly the opposite - preventing it would cause a serious breech of the NPOV policy, among others. Let the "Analysis" section (not the Contemporary records one, a big difference) present what various analysts of different professions thought or concluded. Whether it was political ideology, psychological guilt, moral or immoral, all relevant viewpoints and analyses should be there - no one is saying that the article should claim just one! It is a problem to favor a statement which literally states that because a report said he was stressed by images of animal in pain, the catalyst for his diet was a some moral awakening. That sentence and whoever wrote it are demonstrating the problem in the article. If you "support adding content that makes the case for any of the three possibilities", then great, we should all find a single quote/claim that has the word "moral" or "ethical" in it (in a critical way, like the one I provided, because most the opposing stands were spared from the deletions the article underwent). Shalom11111 (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If Hitler was not an ethical vegetarian then he must have been vegetarian for either health reasons, political reasons, or psychological reasons. The article is already neutral in this regard: the lead does not take a position and clearly states that Hitler's vegetarianism could be due to a number of reasons and the analysis section then argues the case for each of those reasons. If eyewitness testimony says Hitler was distressed by images of animal slaughter then it would be negligent to leave this out; it is relevant to the argument that he was vegetarian for ethical reasons. The paragraph about Hitler banning vegetarian societies was removed purely for sourcing issues IIRC; I have no fundamental opposition to restoring the paragraph provided the sourcing issues are addressed. Betty Logan (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No further progression on the POV issues brought up here has occurred in the past couple of weeks, and I believe that in any case that they have been satisfactorily addressed by Betty Logan. If there are no further objections, I'm inclined to remove the template. Conformancenut347 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Please allow the template to remain for two more days. In the meantime, the reinstatement of Hitler and vegetarian societies/orgs could take place as suggested by Betty Logan, and I will make an effort to find another (agreed upon) claim from a reliable authority that further emphasizes the notion that Hitler's diet/vegetarianism was not necessary due to ethical reasons. It is needed as evidenced by the fact that many others have contributed to this subject, before it was largely deleted. Shalom11111 (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

As agreed, I have now restored shortened info about the organizations, followed by a one sentence analysis from a professor (who is much more relevant than the previous journalist cited, Alexander Cockburn) that doesn't dispute the claim Hitler was a vegetarian but rather analyses the issue as the section should do. I removed the said template. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

In this edit you added a quote from Rynn Berry's book and attributed it to Richard Schwartz. I have already outlined why Berry is not an appropriate source: he is a vegetarian advocacy writer who is not approaching the subject matter from a neutral position. I fail to see the causal link between a world leader being vegetarian and how failing to impose a vegetarian diet on his people precludes that person from being an "ethical" vegetarian, but in any case Hitler was planning to transition Germany to a vegetarian diet after WW2, so Berry's argument completely fails in this regard. I am also not happy with how you presented the ban on vegetarian societies either: Hitler banned all forms of societies and didn't discriminate, so the statement is sorely lacking context. Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I have undertaken some fixes which I hope you will find satisfactory. I have bypassed the Schwartz review completely and directly sourced Payne's quote to his book; I have also moved his quote to the second paragraph in the analysis section, which I think helps the section flow better. I have also found a more acceptable source for the Nazi ban on vegetarian socities, but I have expanded on this to give the ban a more balanced context i.e. the Nazis pretty much banned everything that wasn't Nazi. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The quote from said edit did come from Mr. Schwartz, who supported a notion raised in the book being reviewed. Professor Berry has now been established as a reliable source (you may see his article and consider new developments that support his credibility and authority, as you openly adapted this article to new findings). Indeed you fail to see, or are unhappy with, how subjective views coming not from me but from professional authors with a life of research in this field who seemingly challenge the trend this article has come to take - are of importance or relevance. Millions of readers do find interest in them. The post WW2 transition is shown nowhere, and I think the new edits in the last paragraph further make a WP:point, but am willing to disregard them as long as a quote touching the ethical part is allowed. This will be my last suggestion (I'm open to a different similar one) - it is from an earlier version of the article. Hitler was in no way an ethical vegetarian," Berry asserts. He believes that it is important to counter the assertions of scholars that the chief Nazi abstained from meat "because nonvegetarians tend to use the Nazi issue to discredit vegetarianism in general." — Deborah Rudacille[16] Note: If only the first 10 bolded words of this quote are added, before Robert Payne's claim in a new paragraph, that would be okay too. If not, I will politely bring this to WP:DRN or the NPOV noticeboard at a near time. Shalom11111 (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Being a reliable source on vegetarian history does not make you a reliable source on Hitler. The problem with Berry is that he very clearly set about pursuing an agenda that Hitler was not an "ethical" vegetarian. You and I both know that when Berry set about writing his book no amount of facts were going to stand in his way of reaching his preordained conclusion. In this Slate interview Berry explains his decision to not reference established authorities on Hitler that ""It's too good a story for [historians] to spoil it with the truth." Also, you were the one who wanted to restore the material regarding the Nazi ban on vegetarian societies; the wider context of the ban is part of the earlier version you favored, but you chose to omit these details when you added back the material. It slightly concerns me that you would choose to do this, because clearly a wide-ranging ban on all organizations is quite different in motivation to one that just targets vegetarians. That aside, Berry does advance the theory that Hitler adopted a "mostly meatless" diet for health reasons, which is not a controversial claim in itself, so if we qualify his opinion in that context I can live with that. I am hoping this attempt at a compromise is sufficient. However, if you would like to use some third party mediation such as DRN to resolve the impasse then I am willing to participate in that, if you think it will help. Betty Logan (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Your comments and edits on this page are worrisome. For the record, I will provide just a few examples of removal of information: 1) Hitler's actions regarding (or, more accurately, against) vegetarian organizations (which could have easily been verified) [11]; 2) his consumption of meat-containing extracts, as recorded by his own personal doctor who is now not even mentioned in the artcile [12]; and 3) Payne's (a trustworthy authority by all standards) statement on the subject [13], as well as other edits [14]. These points are super relevant to this article but they were systematically removed, forcing an editor who values neutrality to go through an exhausting process here and then attempt to fix all the "however, since Hitler did love his dog, this and that are contradicted" twists and various NPOV violations on this extremely sensitive, yet largely unchecked article. That is also evidenced by the WP:UNDUE WEIGHT you have given to the claims in the last paragraph (the vegi orgs' full paragraph was indeed not added but unintentionally since my edit was not a copy-edit of that particular past version you linked to). Your quote of Berry didn't match the source and was factually incorrect - I fixed it now - and your repeated attacks on him (but not on other less notable and relevant authors) don't hold water since his established subjective opinion about Hitler's motives cannot be dismissed by an analysis like the one you've just written, and later deleted and modified too, on this talk page: "The porblem [sic] for me is that you simply cannot prove that Hitler was not an "ethical vegetarian", but you can make the case he was vegetarian for [...other] reasons." This is a serious false logic pattern of thought, as if Hitler's responsibility for the deaths of millions of innocent humans beings (Jews, disabled, gypsies, homosexuals, etc.) cannot be a good enough reason to suggest his diet was motivated by reasons other than compassion for animals. Insanity. I shall monitor this page closely and if just one more modification persists on your behalf it appears I will have to report this entire issue at the administrative noticeboard as soon as possible. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw the minor edits you have just made, they are fine, thanks. Hopefully, now that we can move on and direct our contributions at less controversial areas, readers will find this article more informative and neutral. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe all my edits stand up to scrutiny and here are my responses:

1. It is completely within Wikipedia policy to remove unsourced claims such as here.
2. It is completely proper to remove sources attributed to David Irving, a convicted Holocaust denialist. I doubt he is regarded an appropriate source by anyone these days. As I stated in the edit summary, this information simply repeated material already included in the article, and it also makes an unsubstantiated claim that taking animal derived medication violates the "vegetarian code". Vegetarianism is simply a diet and does not preclude animal derived medications.
3. This revert here was part of a wider dispute and discussed in some length at Talk:Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism#Recent_POV_edits. As you can see here I was not the only editor who opposed the new material, and some of that material actually ended up being included if you follow the whole pattern of edits throughout that day.

Now let's address my concerns with your sources and edits:

1. Your insistence that Robert Payne is a "trustworthy" source by all standards. By which accounts and what exactly are those standards? The standard by which Payne claims Hitler spent a year in Liverpool which was later debunked? Just because a book was a bestseller doesn't mean it is credible. The numerous errors in Payne's book have been catalogued down the years.
2. Hitler's vegetarianism has not been debunked by Rynn Berry. Your insistence on relying on him undermines your position. As the Slate interview reveals, Berry's true motivation for writing his book was "I've been the target of a lot of abuse and taunts from hostile non-vegetarians who bring out the alleged fact of Hitler's vegetarianism and tax me for not having put him the book." Furthermore, Berry prefers to cherry-pick accounts detailing Hitler's diet prior to the war so he can construct an alternative record of Hitler's diet, noting that "It's too good a story for [historians] to spoil it with the truth".
3. Your seeming refusal to acknowledge the testimony of Hitler's surviving food tester (a Polish woman forced to test Hitler's food and who lived in fear of being poisoned) who categorically states Hitler's food was vegetarian. Do you think she is lying, and if so, why would she do that? As a victim of Hitler does she not deserve to be believed?
4. Your preoccupation with Hitler banning vegetarian organizations, and then accusing me of making a WP:POINT by adding the context for the ban i.e. Hitler banned all organizations, except those related to the Nazi cause. Adding the context for the ban is not making a WP:POINT.

I can live with the article in its present form even though I don't approve of the use of Berry—a man who is an idealogue who is selective in his choice of facts to suit his agenda—and if you still wish to have my actions reviewed by all means please do so. I fully believe my edits at this article will stand up to scrutiny. Rynn Berry not so much. Betty Logan (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

There could be various explanations and interpretations to justify nearly any action here. The point still stands though: Up until three months ago at least those three important points were absolutely missing with zero mention in the article, as the article had underwent a dramatic restructuring and to some degree censorship (of course there were a few more editors involved). Whether the term "vegetarianism" means the complete abstinence from all meat consumption or whether the definition excludes animal by-products such as pills, Hitler's intake of these foods deserved a place in the article by all means; it was covered in several books and publications about the subject; yet it was nowhere to be found until I raised the issue. Having said that and in light of the following words it is not clear how you can be concerned with edits I made on this page as they were merely minor reinstatements of deleted content. Answering your points briefly: I remind you that Payne had been included in the article, he is a professor specializing in history and biographies, the book at hand is a bestselling one. What else is needed, a written recommendation from the current counselor of Germany? That man actually met Hitler in person! Berry's accounts are cherry picked? If we are to believe him, let's consider his words: "...So I decided to research the matter and discovered five primary sources and countless secondary sources attesting that Hitler continued to eat liver dumplings, cured ham and other meats throughout his life; so he was emphatically not a vegetarian." Either way, and I repeat, it was his analysis of Hitler's motives that was used here and not direct comments about what he put on his place. Yes, a subject like this can be analysed, or interpreted, by an authority like him, and provide more than just supposedly dry facts. Are you really conducting a self critical review of his work using some quotes from a a random interview and then rule that his book should be dumped? It is not how Wikipedia works. My "seemingly refusal acknowledgement" of Hitler's Polish food taster? I advice against putting words into other people's mouths, as I did not give her the slightest mention throughout this entire discussion. Notice the difference - I am not opposed to her account and I'm saying this properly. But I as well as dozens of other editors over the years, are not opposed to views from Hitler's doctor, from other testimonial accounts, from vegetarians or possibly moral authorities who meet the highest BLP standards and have a say about this curious topic. The wp:point I told you about was not due to the fact you added more content regarding the organizations, it was the extensiveness in which you did so; the sentence about the banning/killing of vegetarian organizations/members is followed by as many as four lines that attack it as if this was a debate paper. The article's WP:STRUCTURE and other WP:GUIDELINE(s) seem to overall be okay now and I too think it can remain as is. Shalom11111 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Dental

• Adolf Hitler definitely died in 1945 in Berlin, from taking cyanide and a bullet, according to French researchers who were given rare access to fragments of the dictator’s teeth held in Moscow. France24, atest update: 2018-05-19, accessed 5/19/2018
• Hitler definitely died in 1945, according to new study of his teeth. The Telegraph, News: 2018-05-19, accessed 5/19/2018

There articles discuss work by Philippe Charlier, a specialist in medical and legal anthropology, who was also involved in the analysis of the mummified heart of Richard the Lionheart, who claims that examining Hitler's dental records provides indisputable evidence that Hitler was vegetarian.

The analysis of the Nazi leader's bad teeth and numerous dentures found white tartar deposits and no traces of meat fibre - the dictator was vegetarian.

Some might doubt the 'strength of the evidence'! MaynardClark (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Humans

This kind of supports the narrative that ethical vegetarians and vegans, who care about animals, have no compassions for humans, which is messed up. There should be more scientific studies on caring about cute fluffy animals than one's own species. --2001:16B8:314A:200:D497:F594:6DD5:BA7D (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Some vegetarians and vegans do lack compassion for humans, as was clearly the case with Hitler. Just like some pro-life backers are happy to support bombing abortion clinics, and some Christians are happy to back capital punishment, and some Muslims like setting off bombs and beheading people. What an ideology advocates, and how its adherents practice it can sometimes be very different. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I love cows, sheep, and pigs, but that doesn't mean I don't eat them.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Motive

The article's introduction starts with

Towards the end of his life, Adolf Hitler (1889–1945) followed a vegetarian diet. It is not clear when or why he adopted it since some accounts of his dietary habits prior to the Second World War indicate that he consumed meat as late as 1937.

However the rest of the article seems to contradict the part I've emphasized in the quote. The most important accounts, including transcripts of his own monologues argue that it is concern for animals. Furthermore, I don't see how the second part I've emphasized is related to the rest of the second sentence. I don't see how accounts of occasional indulgence in meat up to 1937 contradict this motivation. Thus I argue for the removal of the "or why". 185.18.61.113 (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Having read the monologues transcripts I can't remember Hitler providing concerns for animals as a justification for his vegetarian diet. Before removing the "or why" it would be necessary to develop in the article the fact that his diet was justified by concerns for animals and this should be based on reliable secondary sources. --Lebob (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Screw that, I'm not reading Hitler's nonsense. It seems I was mistaken that his antivivisectionism comes from the transcripts cited in the article. However, I still argue for the removal of "or why", because the when has nothing to do with why. Same guy, honest. 89.201.185.197 (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

No-one knows for sure why he became vegetarian. It has bene the subject of speculation for a long time. There could be psychological motive, it could have been due to his political ideology or out of concern for animals. The article covers some of these explanations so it is factually accurate for the article to state that the reasons are unclear. Betty Logan (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources?

A great many claims are made in this article, without any credibly cited sources. In fact, the entire piece reads more like a subjective essay without much appropriate validation. Can someone look into this? Hanoi Road (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The sources look reputable to me. You need to be more specific about which sources you find problematic. Betty Logan (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how I feel about this article either. We know for a fact that hitler was an animal lover, as he used kosher slaughter propaganda to get his point across, but a vegetarian???

I have been reading some articles recently about Hitler's vegetarianism debunked.

I am not saying this article should be removed but I do think we should include the notion that "While many scholars believe Hitler was vegetarian, there is not clear evidence that Hitler was a vegetarian." At least in the introduction and another section. Emo524 (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There is eye-witness testimony (in the form of his food taster no less) and scientific evidence that Hitler was a vegetarian. This is clearly documented in the article. That would meet the threshold of "clear evidence" in most people's eyes. Betty Logan (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

PETA debunked Hitler's vegetarian lifestyle years ago. https://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/wasnt-hitler-in-favor-of-animal-rights/ Emo524 (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

PETA is an animal rights/vegetarian advocacy group and they are pushing an agenda. They are entitled to their opinion but that is all it is. There is nothing in there that "debunks" the fact that Hitler was vegetarian. It is rather telling that they use the Nazi position on vivisection (which was actually much stricter than other European countries at the time) to argue the point, and not actual facts about Hitler's diet. Hitler's food taster (who was not there by choice) who covered lunch time duty for the final 2 years of his life said there was no meat. What is PETA's position on that? Forensic examination of the tartar on Hitler's teeth found no meat deposits, which means we can be almost certain Hitler consumed no meat during the last 6 months of his life. What is PETA's position on that? PETA addresses neither of these issues because they are impossible to argue against. You can be sure that if examination of the tartar had revealed traces of meat PETA would have accepted the results then! The evidence for Hitler being a vegetarian at the end of his life is irrefutable. Forensic evidence and eye-witness testimony by someone who had intimate knowledge of his dietary habits corroborate each other. If we are going to arrive at a contradictory conclusion—that Hitler was not vegetarian—then this evidence must be contested in an impartial manner, not simply ignored because it doesn't align with the facts as you want them to be. Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I am no fan of PETA, by any means. But PETA is a legitimate company and has been around for decades. If that is not credible then what is?

Second of all, it is common knowledge (not proven) that Hitler faked his death, given the fact that his body looks nothing like him, and given the fact that there is a photo of him in Columbia in the JFK files. Therefore the forensic evidence is invalid.

Third, there are multiple reliable sources that debunks Hitler being a vegetarian. Don't believe me? Read here https://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html

Lastly, if we are going to have an article like this then we should not confirm it as factual. We should write something in the introduction like "Despite these claims, Hitler's vegetarian diet has been disputed by historians" or something on the lines. Emo524 (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all, that is a vegetarian guide, so therefore not a credible source on Hitler. Second of all, it was written in 2009 and that predates the testimony by Margot Wölk and also the forensic work undertaken by the French scientists. Third of all, Hitler's vegetarianism isn't disputed by historians and neither is his death! Betty Logan (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly! It's a vegetarian guide! Which makes it even more credible. A vegetarian can tell if someone is a real vegetarian or not. Margot Wölk lacks credibility. This is equivalent to the George Washington Cherry Tree Story, lol. Hitler's death hasn't been disputed by historians? LOL Are you really that naive? When the Soviet forces found his body they were not satisfied. They thought Hitler's body was a decoy. And if his death is not disputed by historians then why is there are a separate Wikipedia article about it? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories_about_Adolf_Hitler%27s_death Emo524 (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Edits that use outdated sources

Twice on this article and also at List of vegetarians Fixing volatile has attempted to insert information casting doubt on the legitimacy of Hitler's vegetarianism.

While it is true that there are many accounts of Hitler eating meat (and thus examples of reputable historians drawing to the conclusion that Hitler was not in fact a vegetarian), this analysis is outdated and does not take into account developments in the last decade that put this issue beyond doubt. Namely Hitler's food-taster, Margot Wölk being tracked down in 2013, and forensic tests on Hitler's remains in 2017. Wölk was forcibly recruited to work as Hitler's food taster from 1942 and she categorically stated there was no meat and she could recall no fish. Wölk's account was consistent with the findings of forensic analysis of the tartar on Hitler's teeth in 2017 that found no traces of meat fibre.

Older sources that draw to the conclusion that Hitler was not vegetarian refer to accounts of him eating meat. However, these accounts are not disputed but invariably all refer to instances prior to when Wölk started to test his food in 1942. As this article points out Hitler still ate meat as late as 1937 (albeit a reduced intake) and would be considered a "flexitarian" by today's standards. However, by 1942 he was proclaiming himself to be vegetarian and both Wölk's testimony and the forensic analysis bear that out. This issue has been extensively discussed in an RFC at Talk:List_of_vegetarians/Archive_4#RfC_about_Hitler_being_a_vegetarian which came to the conclusion Hitler was vegetarian, but let's review your sources and consider why they are no longer valid for the claims you are attempting to add to the article:

1. Skeptical Inquirer (2016) – The author refers to Dione Lucas who during the 1930s worked as a chef at a hotel in Germany that Hitler occasionally patronised. Hitler apparently admired her stuffed squab. The author also refers to Robert Payne who dismissed the idea of Hitler being vegetarian in his 1973 biography. The problem here is that Lucas worked in Germany before the war while Payne met and dined with Hitler in 1937. The author acknowledges Wölk's account and comes to the conclusion that Hitler was an "on and off" vegetarian. However, this analysis neglects that these accounts come from a period when it was readily accepted Hitler still ate meat.
2. The New York Times (1991) account again defers to Lucas and Payne.
3. Le Point (2011) dismisses Hitler's vegetarianism as a rumor but does not offer any rationale. It also predates Wölk and the forensic tests on Hitler's teeth.
4. The Times (2018) article is actually a follow-up piece on the story about the forensic analysis on Hitler's teeth. Here are the pertinent parts:

   “Your piece on Hitler’s health contains misinformation,” Marta Nytko wrote to Feedback. “Hitler was never a vegetarian.” For evidence, Ms Nytko cited a proselytising vegetarian website where a blogger demolishes the vegetarian claims, pointing to accounts of Hitler’s fondness for stuffed pigeon and liver dumplings ... Margot Woelk, the last surviving Hitler food taster, who had to test everything he ate for poison, told an interviewer that his meals never included fish or meat. Roger Boyes, The Times diplomatic editor, who spent 14 years reporting from Berlin, confirms the vegetarianism, but says Hitler was not vegan.

All these accounts—with the exception of The Times article from 2018—either fail to address the new evidence from the last few years or pre-date it. The only source that you advance that accounts for both Wölk's testimony and the forensic analysis comes to the conclusion Hitler was indeed vegetarian. Per WP:AGEMATTERS newer sources trump older sources because older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light. Hitler's vegetarianism is a textbook example of that; the older sources confuse the chronology and might have come to different conclusions if Wölk and the forensic analysis were known to them. If you wish to challenge the newly established position you must provide sources that take these latest revelations into account in their reasoning. Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"followed a vegetarian diet"

Seeing that my edit got reverted, I decided to check the sources.. There's literally 3 sources in this article that mention Hitler's enjoyment of liver sausage.

"Today, it is acknowledged by historians that Hitler—at least during the war—followed a vegetarian diet"

This isn't what's said by Bullock. And Rudacille gives a more nuanced view in her text. Even she mentions liver sausage.

Some might say the teeth research closes the door on this. Reading the original source, the researchers don't say he's conclusively vegetarian, or even probably vegetarian.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says that Hitler was "reportedly vegetarian", which just seems more honest to me. [15] Stix1776 (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Bullock wrote his book in 1952. All of the reports of Hitler eating meat are from before the war. Ilse Hess's testimony backs this up, where she says he gave up all meat apart from liver dumplings by 1937. This is consistent with all reports of Hitler eating meat. From 1942 onwards, when Hitler identified as a vegetarian there are no reports of him eating meat. The woman forced to be his food taster in 1942 confirmed that none of the food she tested contained meat. Forensic analysis of the tartar on his teeth in 2017 revealed no traces of meat. The debate has moved on and the developments of the last ten years emphatically prove Hitler was vegetarian in the final years of his life. This is all clearly spelt out in the article. If you have any sources that challenge the most recent evidence (per WP:AGEMATTERS) then by all means they can be considered, but advancing pre-war reports of Hitler eating meat is disingenuous. I ate meat prior to becoming vegetarian, as I am sure Paul McCartney did. Betty Logan (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I already mentioned sources, yet you show none that he stopped eating liver sausages in 1942. Rudacille was written in 2015, and even she mentions the sausages.

The tooth analysis, from the original researcher, says

The absence of muscular structures within the dental calculus fragments has to be confronted to the fact that Adolf Hitler is said to have been vegetarian (even if only two fragments were examined, and not the totality of the dental calculus deposits).

This is not any sort definitive answer. I can't help but think that this is WP:SYNTHESIS, as your ideas are going beyond what the source is saying.

Weird how you're criticizing the date of Bullock yet his text is used as the source for the quote I'm critiquing.Stix1776 (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Rudacill does not actually make any claims of her own about Hitler's vegetarianism either way; she quotes Rynn Berry as a dissenting voice who was an animal rights advocate who was on a lifelong mission to disprove that Hitler was a legitimate vegetarian. Berry wrote his book in 2004, prior to Woelk's testimony and the forensic analysis, and his arguments are slightly more subtle than you make out. Even though Berry is not regarded as a reliable source on Wikipedia, his research is fairly thorough, and he goes into extensive detail about Hitler's diet, pointing out that his favorite meal included liver dumplings, and recounts eye-witness accounts of Hitler eating meat during the 1930s on many occasions. This is consistent with Ilse Hess's account, who stated that by 1937 Hitler had cut out all meat except liver dumplings. Berry further notes that in 1938 Hitler's doctors put him on a "meat free" diet, so in this regard he cannot be considered an "ethical" vegetarian. This is an important distinction: Berry draws a line between Hitler's vegetarianism and what he regards as "ethical" vegetarianism. There are numerous other accounts by Hitler's chef and other leading Nazis, and Hitler himself, that he was vegetarian as of 1942. Even Berry, Hitler's harshest critic, does not dispute that Hitler was on a meat-free diet in the latter years of his life. If Hitler was omitting meat from his diet in 1942, and considered himself vegetarian, he was vegetarian (ethical or not). Everyone accepts that Hitler ate meat up until 1937, and both Rudacill and Berry both appear to accept that Hitler's diet was meat-free after 1938; in 2013 his food taster confirmed that the food contained no meat (she was employed from 1942 onwards), and this is corroborated by forensic analysis. There is no synthesis here; we have accurately relayed the facts and they back up what Hitler self-identified as. Even Ecorazzi conceded the fact that Hitler was vegetarian. I was one of the editors who originally argued for precluding Hitler from the List of vegetarians, but like Ecorazzi I revised my beliefs in line with the newly discovered facts. Vegetarian idealogues have a massive problem with Hitler's vegetarianism because they have always regarded their own vegetarianism as affirmation of their own moral superiority, but in reality it is a fringe theory mindset akin to Holocaust denial, anti-vax and climate change denial. Betty Logan (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

OK you literally ignored my points. So I'll repeat them. The two sources for that line don't say what's in that article (OR). The teeth research aren't as conclusive as this article makes it out to be (OR). No source says that Hitler gave up sausages in 1942 (synthesis).

All the other stuff you're saying is directly ignoring my main point. You're also getting really personal in this discussion, which you notice I'm not. I'm really trying to talk about the sources on this page. Stix1776 (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I have not made any "personal" remarks to you. Second of all, you haven't made any valid points. The article does not say Hitler "gave up eating sausages in 1942". What it does do is quote Ilse Hess as saying he had given up all meat except liver dumplings by 1937. It quotes the food tester who was employed in 1942 and stated that "there was no meat...everything was vegetarian". It quotes Professor Charlier who undertook the analysis of the tartar who said that "The analysis of Hitler’s bad teeth and numerous dentures found white tartar deposits and no traces of meat fibre the dictator was vegetarian". It uses Rudacill for the claim that Hitler was vegetarian during the war period, who states that he was put on a "meat free" diet in 1938. If you want the article to state that Hitler was eating sausages during this period the onus is on YOU to produce a source to that effect. I am done debating it with you. If you wish to take it further then I suggest you file an RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

"The analysis of Hitler’s bad teeth and numerous dentures found white tartar deposits and no traces of meat fibre the dictator was vegetarian" was not the direct quote from the author of the study. I keep trying to get you to read the source, but you won't.

"Disingenuous"... "fringe-theory mindset". Yes you got personal. Stix1776 (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It is a word-for-word direct quote from the reports that are quoting Professor Charlier about his study. And as for the "fringe theory mindset" I was referring to Rynn Berry who dismissed "mainstream historians". That is textbook fringe theory. I don't care if Hitler was vegetarian or not, but I care about facts, and there is not a single shred of evidence that suggests he ate any meat from 1942 onwards. Betty Logan (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - The discussion as to Hitler's vegetarianism has been repeated in this talk page ad infinitum - I was an editor that believed Hitler was not a vegetarian. But more importantly didn't want to believe it. The evidence from reliable sources shows that I was wrong. But I realised something else - that it doesn't matter whether Hitler was vegetarian (even if for a short time) or not. My desire for him not to be a vegetarian was in part motivated by comments by meat eaters to me like 'Oh you're a vegetarian...Hitler was a vegetarian wasn't he?' In my more uneducated time this riled me because the implication was that somehow vegetarianism and Nazism were associated. But, of course, this is wrong - a fallacy of association. So motivations of vegetarians to deny Hitler's vegetarianism aren't just based in a belief of moral superiority (by some) but also by a genuine desire not to be associated with Hitler (and by association - Nazism) - however minimally. They don't have to worry though as anyone insinuating an association is clearly in error. (I'm not suggesting any editor in the above discussion has had a similar experience or journey or analysis. I just wanted to share how I came to be accepting of Hitler's vegetarianism - and of course if new evidence demonstrates he wasn't then that's also fine - it doesn't matter - but evidence does matter and currently the evidence demonstrates vegetarianism) Robynthehode (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not a word for word quote. Do a Google search and there's no quote marks. I literally wrote the quote that Charlier wrote in study, and I challenge you to reread the study [16] and find the quote. What you're quoting is non science news sources summarizing him.

I don't know why you mention Rynn Berry as it's never part of my argument.

Per WP:RS/AC "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors", yet no source writes that a consensus exists. Yet the language of this page implies a consensus. Stix1776 (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyhow, just to make this easier and end this, I propose changing the statement to "some historians believe/think/stated that Hitler followed a vegetarian diet during the war" or "historians X, Y, Z etc think that...". This is just a more honest reading of the source. Stix1776 (talk) 06:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I am quoting what Charlier said to Agence France-Presse when they interviewed him, and no, I don't consent to the insertion of weasel language into the article. What we could is state that "all known eyewitness testimony indicates that Hitler was vegetarian during the war and forensic evidence corroborates these accounts, but historians x,y and z contest this evidence", that is of course if there are any mainstream historians who still believe that Hitler was not vegetarian during this period in light of the latest evidence. Betty Logan (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm actively telling you that the cited sources, Bullock and Rudacille, don't say what this page is page is saying. I'm quoting the WP:RS guideline that says you can't imply consensus when no source states consensus. In regards to Charlier, you can click on the link for the source [17] and see that there's quote marks around other statements but not the statement that you're calling a quote. It's in the sources, plain as day, for someone willing to just click on a link.Stix1776 (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Charlier is quoteed or paraphrased, the conclusion that Hitler was vegetarian is explicitly attributed to him, and not just in the source cited by this article but by many others reporting on the study. Also, Rudacill does clearly say that Hitler is regarded as vegetarian: "These authors along with Robert Procter and other scholars, agree that Hitler and many of his chief aides were vegetarians...". However, we know from witness testimony that Hitler was still eating meat as of 1937 and Rudacill narrows down the period for us: "Hitler's doctors put him on a meat-free diet in 1938". Along with the witness testimony from Hitler's food-taster and the forensic analysis I regard that as sufficient weight for the claim that Hitler was vegetarian during the war. Your entire argument is based on arguing that Rudacill doesn't say something she actually does say and some punctuation in an interview. I have asked you several times for just one authority to put forward an argument that Hitler was not vegetarian during the war period and you have not done this. You dismiss what Rudacill says (that his diet was meat free from 1938), you dismiss what his food taster said (that everything was vegetarian) and you dismiss the results of forensic analysis that found no traces of meat fiber. Is it possible that Hitler succumbed o temptation and downed a Wurst? yes it's possible, just as it's possible for most vegetarians. Are we saying he never, ever, ate a single piece of meat during this period? No, and the article is not claiming that. But the facts are clear that by 1942 Hitler was fully committed to a vegetarian lifestyle, and was probably just as vegetarian as I am or any number of other people who we describe as vegetarian. There is no evidence that Hitler was pursuing a flexitarian lifestyle during the war period. It is rather telling that you are prepared to accept eyewitness testimony from people claiming Hitler ate meat during the 1930s, but not their accounts of him not eating meat during the 1940s. Betty Logan (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Ya the text doesn't say what's in the source. I'm putting a dispute tag on this.Stix1776 (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the quotes from the statement (it is likely that the article was paraphrasing Charlier and hence why the words are not in quotes, but the article explicitly attributes the observation and conclusion to Charlier). If you believe they are misrepresenting what he said then the onus is on you to provide evidence to that effect. Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm really only reading the existing source. Thanks for making it half there. Really. Still though, it doesn't attribute what he said there to AFP. That was for a few paragraphs ago.

I'm sorry if I'm not being BOLD in edits. I just get the vibe that I'm going to get reverted immediately.Stix1776 (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)