Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

RadheyRadhey108

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    545

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RadheyRadhey108

  7. Posted · Report reply

     

    by the way...was Hitler a vegetarian:(?

     

    http://www.geocities.com/hitlerwasavegetarian/

    Surprsingly enough, I was reading this just last night:

    Hitler Was a Vegetarian like Bush Was a Valedictorian

     

     

     

     

     

     

    nationbushcover.jpg

     

     

     

    <!--readmore-->

     

     

    Thursday, March 8, 2007

     

     

     

    The Editor

     

    The New York Times Book Review

     

    229 West 43rd Street

     

    New York, NY 10036

     

     

     

    To the Editor,

     

     

    I must take issue with Mr. Rothstein's glib characterization of Hitler and his Nazi henchmen, Hess, and Himmler, as vegetarians, in his review of Tristram Stuart's The Bloodless Revolution (February 25). As the historical advisor to the North American Vegetarian Society, I am constantly being taxed with having to explain Hitler's alleged vegetarianism. In researching the matter, I discovered that Hitler was not a true vegetarian. I presented my findings in a book entitled Hitler Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover (Pythagorean Publishers, 2004).

     

     

    In my book, I cite numerous primary sources that attest that Hitler was not a thoroughgoing vegetarian. Here are a few examples: For instance, one of his closest friends, Frau Hess, asserted that Hitler was a strict vegetarian except for Liver Dumplings. "From that moment on, Hitler never ate another piece of meat, except for liver dumplings." (His habitual eating of liver dumplings is an important exception that disqualifies Hitler as vegetarian.)

     

     

    Chef Dione Lucas, who used routinely to prepare meals for him into the early 1930s, actually published Hitler's favorite recipes in her cookbook, The Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook (1964, p. 89) "I learned the recipe when I worked as a chef before World War II, in one of the large hotels in Hamburg, Germany. I do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler who dined at the hotel often. Let us not hold that against a fine recipe though." (His habitual eating of stuffed squab disqualifies Hitler as a vegetarian.)

     

     

    In the New York Times of May 30 1937, in an article entitled "Where Hitler Dreams and Plans," Times reporter Otto D. Tolschuss wrote, "It is well known that Hitler is vegetarian and does not drink or smoke. His lunch and dinner consist, therefore, for the most part of soup, eggs, vegetables and mineral water, although he occasionally relishes a slice of ham and relieves the tediousness of his diet with such delicacies as caviar, luscious fruits and similar tidbits." (His occasional eating of sliced ham and caviar disqualifies Hitler as a vegetarian.)

     

     

    Hitler biographer, Thomas Fuchs, in his book, A Concise Biography of Adolf Hitler (New York: Berkeley, 2000, p.78), also confirms that Hitler was not a vegetarian. " A typical day's consumption included eggs prepared in any number of ways, spaghetti, baked potatoes with cottage cheese, oatmeal, stewed fruits and vegetable puddings. Meat was not completely excluded. Hitler continued to eat a favorite dish, leberkloesse (liver dumplings)."

     

     

    To be sure, Hitler professed to be a vegetarian (in section 66 of Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-44), but the primary sources that I have cited in my book show that while he paid lip service to vegetarianism, he was not consistent in his practice of the diet. "Vegetarian"--which means, (according to the standard dictionary definition),"the practice of eating only vegetables and refraining from eating meat, fish, or other animal products"-- is like that other V word, Virgin: you either are one, or you are not. By that criterion, Hitler was a quasi vegetarian, a would-be vegetarian, or a flexitarian. He was decidedly not a true vegetarian.

     

     

    With regard to Rudolf Hess, the Fuhrer's fawning deputy, Hess may have been a vegetarian for a brief space--perhaps as a result of his faddish interest in Rudolf Steiner's bio-dynamic agricultural theories. In fact, Hess's biographer, Wulf Schwarzwaller, in his book, Rudolf Hess the Last Nazi (Bethesda, MD: National Press, 1988), suggests (pp. 157, 161) that Hess's flirtation with biologically dynamic vegetarian foods was just that--a dietary experiment prescribed by a Steinerian doctor. By the time Hess was in Spandau prison in the 1940s, he was back to eating animal flesh with gusto. Schwarzwaller (p. 278) quotes him as complaining to the prison doctor, "The sausages are much too spicy."

     

     

    Mr. Rothstein's statement that Heinrich Himmler, the architect of the Final Solution, was a vegetarian advocate ["Himmler was an advocate,"] is preposterous and utterly without foundation in fact. Nowhere in the biographical literature on Himmler does it state that he was ever a practicing vegetarian. In fact, in the definitive biography of Himmler, Peter Padfield's Himmler, (New York: Henry Holt, & Co., 1990, p. 352), Padfield writes that Himmler despite his queasiness about the hunting of animals, "was not a vegetarian."

     

     

    Finally, to suggest with Tristram Stuart, as Mr. Rothstein does, that many Nazis were vegetarians, ["Many Nazis, as Stuart suggests were either vegetarians or interested in related issues."] is a gross distortion of the facts. The truth is that not one Nazi was a thoroughgoing vegetarian--not even Hitler himself. I hope that you will be fair-minded enough to print this letter so that readers may judge for themselves whether Hitler, Hess and Himmler were vegetarians. I'm afraid Mr. Rothstein's review is just one further instance of a pundit's publicly relishing the (false) paradox that a triumvirate of genocidal tyrants should have been the followers of a Gandhian diet.

     

     

    Rynn Berry

     

    Historial Advisor

     

    North American Vegetarian Society

     

  9. Posted · Report reply

    Don't worry, friend. Your devotion to Kali will make it's own path to Her. I'm sorry it's hard right now, but Mira Bai's family also persecuted Her in Her choice of Krishna, and it only made Her love stronger. Just be patient... all will turn out as Kali Ma wishes it to be ;)

  15. Posted · Report reply

     

    Good question? Maybe people dont think or just dont care?

     

    I honestly dont know.

    I suppose that most of them don't think. But, when they actually take the time to think and consider 'Which is more important, my unnecessary sense gratification, or the torturous suffering of an animal?' and decide that their sense gratification is more important, it is then that they don't care.

  20. Posted · Report reply

     

    If you could please explain how Vedas were 'misused'. I mean if you follow anything thats written in a book tis not a 'misuse' of that book. ;)

    Well, there are some passages that certainly describe some sort of (possibly symbolic) sacrifice (whether misunderstood or misinterpreted) to God, which God obviously doesn't want, so that's how it would be misused. God didn't want people to sacrifice animals to Him, and that wasn't His intention in the Vedas, but people still interpreted it as such, and practiced it. That would be both a misinterpretation and a misuse of the Vedas.

     

     

     

    1st how did you know it did occur :confused:

     

    It still occurs! Some Hindus still sacrifice animals to God b/c they think that He wants it from the Vedas! Do you really think that every historian in the world is wrong about animal sacrifice having been perfomed in ancient India? I mean, it still occurs today. Why wouldn't it have occured at the beginning of the Kali Yuga as well?

     

     

    Has anyone, other than yourself, for instance Prabhupada, ever claimed (like the way it is said about Buddha avatar) that one of the purpose of Krishna avatar was to stop the widespread practise of killing animals for yajna & thus "Patram Pushpam Phalam Toyam... :)

     

    I still believe Krishna wouldn't have made allusions but would rather order people to follow Vedas but better skip Rig Veda hymns 1.162 and 1.163. :rolleyes:

     

    Once again, I think He was warning the people of Kali Yuga, the age in which corruption and animal sacrifice (whether for God or greed) is widespread. When they still offered Him more than He wanted (through animal sacrifice), He incarnated as the Buddha to stress the point even more (since people couldn't take a hint).

     

     

    it seems that some sense is prevailing
    .

     

    Well, since no one on here ever claimed that, I must say that sense has always been prevailing in this area.

     

     

    yes, coz Buddha didn't believed in the concept of God, but why do you believe in Krishna :confused:

     

    He is specifically mentioned as an incarnation of Krishna in the Bhagavata Purana... read it? Or do you believe in Krishna, but just not the scripture that details His pastimes in the most detail? :P So, the real question should be, "Why don't you believe in Buddha, when you believe in Lord Sri Krishna, and the scripture that details His pastimes the most lists the Buddha as His avatar?"

     

     

    donno about the rest, but I think I am :P

     

    see ya guys later :sleep:

    See ya.

×
×
  • Create New...