Comments by "Harry Stoddard" (@HarryS77) on "" video.
-
8
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
@djfringe1 In "The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler," Robert Payne mentions Hitler's fondness for Bavarian sausages. Other biographers, including Albert Speer, point out that he also ate ham, liver and game.
Hitler banned vegetarian organizations in Germany and the occupied countries, though vegetarian diets would have helped solve Germany's World War II food shortage.
Don't Put Hitler Among the Vegetarians https://nyti.ms/29ugIpt
A 1937 New York Times profile called “At Home with the Furher,” for example, describes Hitler as a vegetarian, though notes that he “occasionally relishes a slice of ham.” (Hitler apparently celebrated Germany’s 1938 annexation of Czechoslovakia with a slice of ham, a Prague specialty.) And in her 1964 book, The Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook, Dione Lucas, who worked at a Hamburg hotel that Hitler frequented, writes, “I do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Hitler. … Let us not hold that against a fine recipe though.”
https://slate.com/human-interest/2004/02/was-hitler-a-vegetarian.html
However, one of his food tasters, Margot Wölk later asserted he only ever ate vegetarian. She claimed this 70 years after her tenure, which was only 2 years, so some fallibility of memory is to be expected. For instance, she couldn't even remember whether the food was good or bad:
"And when she had finished eating the bland vegetarian dishes put before her,"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hitler-s-food-taster-reveals-horrors-wolf-s-lair-9738880.html
But in another interview this bland banquet was transformed into "the most delicious fresh things, from asparagus to peppers and peas, served with rice and salads."
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_2680264
There's also sources alleging his cook and physician would slip animal broth in his soup, and upon learning of the treachery, Hitler would would get annoyed and develop a spontaneous stomach ache, indicating his objection was at least as much gastrointestinal, if not hypocondriacal, as ethical.
In Adolf Hitler, John Tolland writes that Ilse Hess claimed Hitler was a vegetarian sometime after 1937, but would still indulge in Leberknödl, a Bavarian dish of liver dumplings.
You'll notice that I never said - as you claimed - that Hitler was not vegetarian at all. I said he was occassionally vegetarian, which is admittedly an understatement for the last 7-8 years of his life, when he was primarily vegetarian, but conflicting sources allege at least occassional carnivorous indulgence.
I've been trying to parse your other remark about "right," and I can't figure what you mean in any way that makes sense. The only time I use that word, as "rights," is when discussing Nazi reforms to animal rights, such as the prohibition on sport hunting. Your other remark, about "history knowing no sides" is a remarkably shallow and asinine deepity, and not worth exploring further.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@djfringe1 The remark about the conservative tendency to raise the issue of Hitler's vegetarianism, entirely as a cynical attack against vegetarianism, was not directed at you but was instead a general observation about how easy it is to vilify an individual's unorthodox lifestyle while ignoring the much larger social reform happening around it. Non-vegetarian conservatives (Steven Crowder for instance) have no problem refuting vegetarianism on the grounds of its tenuous association with Hitler, but are silent on Nazi animal rights reform - because by now virtually no one disagrees with at least the basic notion of animal rights, meaning that the "guilt by association" argument isn't taken seriously even by the people making it.
Lastly, history is not an objective activity; it is not merely a collection of facts. It is rather a social activity engaged in by humans with limited perspective. There is no division between history and interpretation. History is always precisely interpretation. Even the bare cataloguing of facts is interpretative since one must always decide which facts to include, how they were generated, how to order them, how to inscribe them, and so on - all of which, while appearing on the surface to be neutral, objective, disinterested, actually belie a historical moment with its own theories of history, information, interpretation.
All that aside, we can (and do) easily speak of sides in politics and ideology, even if their exact terms and contents can't be specified and are subject to drift.
1
-
1