Hungary makes historic apology for its role in the Holocaust (2014) Hungary still murders Romani people

Hungary makes historic apology for its role in the Holocaust

Hungary, 27.1.2014 14:41, (ROMEA)
--ilustrační foto--

–ilustrační foto–

Speaking at the United Nations in New York, Hungary has apologized for the first time ever for the role the country played in the Holocaust. News agency MTI reported today that the apology was made last Thursday by the Hungarian Ambassador to the UN, Csaba Körösi.

“Until today at this forum, no one has ever expressed, on behalf of the Hungarian state, its responsibility for its role in the Holocaust,” MTI quoted Ambassador Körösi as saying. The ambassador went on to say he would be making two separate statements of Hungarian responsibility that Thursday.

The ambassador made the apology during an event held at the UN on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the Holocaust in Hungary, whose victims were Jewish and Romani people. He then repeated it at the opening of an exhibition called “Remembrance of the Holocaust in Hungary” which was put together by various organizations with the participation of the Hungarian mission to the UN.

“We owe the victims an apology because the Hungarian state was guilty of the Holocaust, on the one hand because the state did not manage to protect its citizens from annihilation, and on the other hand because it aided their mass murder and provided financial resources for it,” Körösi said during a press conference at the New York headquarters of the United Nations to launch a series of events dedicated to the Holocaust. Hungary is commemorating the 70th anniversary this year of the transport of more than 430 000 Hungarian Jews to the Nazi death camps, deportations that began shortly after the German invasion of the country.

The problem of anti-Semitism is currently alive again in Hungary due to the controversial ultra-right Jobbik movement there. Its members reject Hungary’s responsibility for the murder of Jewish people during WWII and are notorious for making anti-Semitic declarations.

Recently the government of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán generated even more bad blood with a plan to erect a large monument in Budapest to be unveiled on the anniversary of the German occupation of Hungary in March 1944. Representatives of Hungary’s Jewish communities protested the move, which critics consider part of efforts to obscure the responsibility of the former representatives of Hungary and its local security forces at the time for the deportation of the Jews.

ČTK, translated by Gwendolyn Albert
Related articles:

Hungary: Life in prison for murdering Romani people

9.5.2015 14:14

Yesterday the Associated Press reported that a Hungarian appeals court has upheld the sentencing of four men responsible for attacks on Romani people during which six individuals, including a five-year-old boy, died in 2008 and 2009. Three perpetrators were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in 2013 and the appeals court has now agreed with that verdict.

The court also upheld the original 13-year sentence for the fourth man involved. According to the indictment, the three perpetrators attacked Romani settlements near small villages in central and eastern Hungary from July 2008 to August 2009, setting Romani dwellings on fire and shooting people dead as they fled.

There were reportedly nine such attacks during which the perpetrators used firearms, grenades, and Molotov cocktails. The fourth defendant drove the getaway car during the group’s last two attacks.

The racist violence shocked the entire country and led to accusations that the police were not sufficiently protecting members of the Romani minority. In addition to the fatalities, five Romani people were seriously injured during these anti-Romani pogroms.

According to the indictment, the men shot 78 rounds of ammunition, threw 11 Molotov cocktails and endangered 55 people total. The victims are still feeling the consequences of the attacks to this day.

As the sister of a 45-year-old woman who was murdered by one attack in the village of Kisleta said, their 81-year-old mother “still cries three times a day” over the attack that took her daughter’s life. The victim’s 13-year-old daughter was also seriously wounded when the village was assaulted.

The group of culprits was arrested on 21 August 2009 in the town of Debrecen. In the indictment, the prosecutor said the perpetrators were motivated by racial hatred during all of their crimes and prepared their attacks “with military precision” because they wanted to terrorize the entire Romani community.

ČTK, translated by Gwendolyn Albert

High Hitler! Medical records show Fuhrer Adolf was a cocaine addict and was injected with bull’s semen to help his sex life

High Hitler! Medical records show Fuhrer Adolf was a cocaine addict and was injected with bull’s semen to help his sex life

Dictator also suffered from flatulence – and was known to break wind during meals with his generals

5th January 1919, the German Farmers Union was formed. It soon changed both its name and its leader; it became the Nazi Party and its leader was Adolf Hitler
Coke addict: Hitler used powdered cocaine to soothe sinuses


Adolf Hitler was a cocaine addict who suffered from flatulence and was injected with bull’s semen to rev up his sex life, according to personal medical records.

Documents going under the hammer show he was doped up on 28 medications as his Nazi empire crumbled.

Evidence from his doctors shows he used powdered cocaine extensively to soothe his sinuses and throat.

He was also known to break wind during meals with his generals in the cramped confines of the Fuhrer-bunker and took huge amounts of anti-flatulence drugs.

The report also notes he had a less than sizzling sex life with girlfriend Eva Braun and would be injected with extracts from bull’s testicles to boost his libido.

The files are expected to fetch £1,250 at auction in Connecticut, US.

PAA recently discovered postcard which suggests Adolf Hitler was was surprisingly keen to return to the front line after getting injured in the First World War
Spelling errors: Hitler couldn’t spell the German for immediately ‘Sofort’

A rare postcard from Hitler recently surfaced at a family history roadshow almost a century after being sent by the future dictator to his comrade Karl Lanzhammer.

It revealed that the then 27-year-old soldier as surprisingly keen to return to the front line after being injured in the First World War – and he had trouble with his spelling .

PAA recently discovered postcard which suggests Adolf Hitler was was surprisingly keen to return to the front line after getting injured in the First World War
Rare find: Hitler’s postcard resurfaces after 100 years


The missive came to light when its owner, who wants to remain anonymous, took it to a Munich roadshow run by Europeana digital innovation project set up by Oxford University and the British Library – after inheriting it from his stamp-collecting father.

* Two small paintings by Hitler were sold for £1,600 at auction in Penzance.

Remembering the dead in Hungary: An example of civic engagement

Remembering the dead in Hungary: An example of civic engagement

It’s impossible to detach public history and collective memory from contemporary politics. How a society portrays the past is determined by current realities, contemporary values or interests, as well as the dominant, “preferred” narratives of history. But the government and public institutions don’t have a monopoly over the past ; where civic engagement is strong, grassroots organizations and local activists have the agency to alter the dominant historical narrative or, indeed, offer a new one altogether. When I was in Budapest a couple of weeks ago, I witnessed two striking examples of how a sense of civic engagement can influence the politics of memory.

The "alternative" Holocaust memorial in Budapest's Freedom Square/Szabadság Tér. Photo: Christopher Adam.

I often tell friends who are planning to visit Budapest, that the Hungarian capital’s most important and most telling monument is an alternative Holocaust memorial established in Freedom Square (Szabadság tér), just over a year ago, when Prime Minister Viktor Orbán government began constructing a monstrous monument commemorating Hungary’s occupation by Nazi Germany and portraying the country as a passive, innocent victim of the Germans. A group of remarkably dedicated activists erected their own “makeshift” monument consisting of photographs of “ordinary” victims, personal mementos, shoes, votive candles, flowers and rocks. These activists communicate and organize through Facebook. Not only do they now form a coherent community, but they are starting to redefine Freedom Square. Anyone can add to the memorial and it changes from month-to-month. In stark contrast to the grandiose and static bronze heroes on horseback, this monument is modest, but it’s also dynamic and a powerful example of how to challenge (and deconstruct) the grand narrative of history.

Alternative Holocaust memorial in Freedom Square. Photo: Christopher Adam.

The only reason this monument has remained untouched by Hungarian authorities–who are distinctly unsympathetic to its message–is thanks to the commitment of about three dozen activists who are present each and every day in the square. They hand out multilingual information sheets to tourists, they are a sign of constant resistance to the ever-present police officers, who linger in pairs, around the largely abandoned government monstrosity that looms over the votive candles and mementos. It’s critical to note, that since the government monument–situated about three meters away from the alternative memorial–was constructed without any input from the affected community and from historical “stakeholders,” it attracts no interest, respect nor attention. Passers-by only see a living, organic, grassroots reflection of history that now partially encircles it. And–most importantly–these organizers, students, historians, essayists, pensioners, children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors are an overt sign of resistant. One of the regulars in Freedom Square, actor Róbert Garai, won a grant last year from the Hungarian government, as part of a series of official Holocaust commemorations. Mr. Garai handed back the circa $10,000 that he received, in order to protest the government’s blatant falsification of the country’s World War II history.

The alternative Holocaust memorial in Freedom Square/Szabadság tér. Photo: Christopher Adam.

During the winter months and in the early spring, twice a week the “guardians” of this living and ever-changing memorial organize public talks on issues related to the Holocaust, Hungary’s responsibility in the murder of 600,000 Hungarian Jews, contemporary antisemitism and racism, as well as the broader question of civil liberties in Hungary. Organizers spend a half hour assembling a tent in the middle of the square for these talks, and then another half hour removing it. As darkness falls on Freedom Square, you could hear the buzz of drills and hand-held tools disassembling the tent, while a handful of participants linger and quietly reflect in front of the glowing votives.

Public talk in Freedom Square on March 19th, 2015...this was the 71st anniversary of Nazi Germany's occupation of Hungary, on March 19th, 1944.

On March 19th, I gave a talk along with historian Iván Szegő (from the 1956 Institute). The discussion was moderated by prominent civil rights activist Eszter Garai-Édler, who set the tone and focus of the discussion, as the tent filled with about 35 participants. “An entire generation came of age in an environment filled with anti-Semitic hate during the interwar period. This isn’t any different today. Isn’t it frightening that a generation of university-educated Hungarians, who have every chance of obtaining positions of political leadership, has been socialized and taught within this antisemitic environment…in an environment where Miklós Horthy is considered a role model?”–noted Ms. Garai-Édler.

Eszter Garai-Édler in Freedom Square on March 19th, 2015. Photo: Christopher Adam.

We spoke about the fact that Hungary was a trailblazer when it came to antisemitic legislation, and that Hungarian authorities were “overachievers” when it came to orchestrating and administering the most rapid deportation of Jews in all of war-torn Europe. Adolf Eichmann had, in fact, commented on the enthusiasm of Hungarian authorities, in terms of collaboration and the deportation of the country’s Jews. Ms. Garai-Édler told me that young right-wing Hungarians do, occasionally, show up to these talks and they often come to present the stereotypes about Jews and to question the narrative of Hungarian responsibility for the Holocaust that these talks and that the alternative monument aim to explore. The activists allow these voices of right-wing dissent to speak, they are listened to, but the hope is that those who come with prejudice will leave Freedom Square with at least a little more openness to dialogue and to tolerance.

Eszter Garai-Édler, who was the recipient of the Radnóti Anti-Racism award, leaves white orchids one evening at the Szabadság tér memorial. Photo: Anna Vörös.


While in Budapest, I witnessed another powerful example of how younger generations of engaged Hungarians take it upon themselves to remember the dead and to reflect on some of the most difficult episodes in twentieth century Hungarian history. Szilárd Kalmár is the chair of Hungary’s Left Party (Balpárt), a left-wing movement formed just over a year ago, which sees the mainstream Hungarian centre-left as having little or nothing to say on issues of social justice. This in turn has allowed for the far-right Jobbik to build its support even among opposition voters who traditionally would have voted for the Socialists. Mr. Kalmár is a thirty-something Hungarian who during the week is employed as a social worker in Budapest’s somewhat infamous 8th District. The borough,  home to over 75,000 residents, is known for its glaring poverty, high unemployment, relatively large Roma population and, most recently, is where new migrants to the European Union congregate, before trying to head west.

Mr. Kalmár finished up serving behind a counter in a soup kitchen, which also doubles as the headquarters of the Left Party, as well as a community space with internet access for the local population. The tight space is filled with multilingual posters on anti-racism initiatives and was teaming with local residents, who were either having a meal, were using one of the computer terminals or were chatting with the volunteers. Mr. Kalmár offered me a plate of chicken paprikás, but was then keen to take me on a historical tour showcasing the 8th District’s social democratic and workers’ movement heritage. We walked past buildings that once housed the offices of key left-wing papers, social democratic political movements, a graveside monument for late Hungarian Prime Minister Mihály Károlyi, and he showed me the locations of World War II massacres of 8th District Jews. It was quite an eye-opener, even though I had been familiar with much of the 8th district and some of its local history.

We then walked over to the Kerepesi Street cemetery, which–for left-wingers–is perhaps best known for its massive Workers’ Pantheon and for the grave of Hungarian communist leader János Kádár, the father of “Goulash Communism.” But that isn’t what Mr. Kalmár showed me. He took me to an abandoned corner of the cemetery. Overgrown with trees, an endless tangle of branches and weeds, we came to the untended grave of former Social Democratic government minister Ernő Garami, who served in the revolutionary cabinets of 1918 and 1919, and had previously been the editor-in-chief of the Népszava daily paper. Mr. Garami started off his career as a mechanic, but ended up being one of the iconic (yet by today, largely forgotten) figures of the early twentieth century Hungarian left.

Mr. Kalmár tried to contact Mr. Garami’s descendants, who showed no interest in tending to his grave. After getting in touch with the Kerepesi Street cemetery, Mr. Kalmár was told that as long as the grave did not appear to be completely abandoned, the administration would not remove the tombstone, nor would they excavate and dispose of the remains. So Mr. Kalmár has taken it upon himself to clear the area of weeds and to visit the grave, at regular intervals, with a red carnation.

Szilárd Kalmár, a social worker in Budapest's 8th District, is the only person to tend to the abandoned grave of a prominent Hungarian left-wing political leader. Photo: Christopher Adam.

In my mind, these are striking examples of civic engagements in Hungary. Unfortunately, it is a small-handful of Hungarians–community activists, social workers, artists, public thinkers–who are leading the way, while much of the population is completely disattached from the public discourse. Fear undoubtedly plays an important role. People like Mr. Kalmár or Ms. Garai-Édler, and the handful of outspoken activists, risk losing their jobs and livelihood, and certainly of being labelled with any number of pejoratives by government circles. Unpatriotic, treasonous, Bolshevik, communist–these are just some of the labels that come their way. Yet none of this seems to deter them at all.

If you open your eyes and look close enough, you can see the flickering flame of civic courage in Budapest.

Hitler: Not a Vegetarian. Allowed Nazi Experiments on Humans and Animals

More evidence that Hitler was indeed a carnivore and allowed animal experimentation along with human experimentation (vivisection). Hitler and his Nazi regime were not animal rights activists at all, but took part in the very same torture and exploitation on animals that they took part in against humans. There is proof that many of those people experimented on were not even Jews.


Contrary to myth, Hitler wasn’t a vegetarian. Although the Nazis purported to pass an anti-vivisection bill, they did not. In fact, they were required by law to first perform their experiments on animals before carrying them out on humans. Experiments on humans did not replace animal experiments; on the contrary, animal experiments made them possible. John Vyvyan, in The Dark Face of Science, summed it up this way: “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.”

Hitler was not a vegetarian by Michael Bluejay • 2007-2009
Before we see the evidence that Hitler wasn’t a vegetarian, it’s important to look at where the argument that he was comes from, because it’s an argument that’s rarely made honestly. People who insist that Hitler was a vegetarian usually just “heard it” somewhere, and immediately assumed it was true. And yet, if you tell them that Hitler wasn’t actually a vegetarian, these same people who instantly believed in Hitler’s vegetarianism without question, will suddenly demand all manner of proof that he was not.

Why do they require such a high standard of evidence that Hitler was not a vegetarian, when they require no evidence at all that he wasApparently many people want to believe that Hitler was a vegetarian. Perhaps they’re threatened by vegetarianism because it implies that they’re doing something wrong.  But armed with the (mistaken) idea that the infamous Hitler himself was a veggie, that allows them to easily dismiss the whole concept of vegetarianism in one fell swoop.  “Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism itself must be flawed!”  Of course, that’s a patently retarded argument.  But the point is, many people are eager to believe it, which is why they require no proof at all when they hear that Hitler was a veggie, and then suddenly demand reams of supporting evidence when someone suggests he wasn’t.

If you think I’m exaggerating about the importance that anti-veggies place on the idea that Hitler was a vegetarian, look at this letter that someone wrote to award-winning author John Robbins, who has written several books promoting a meatless way of eating:

You people who say that we would all be more peaceful if we ate a vegetarian diet always seem to forget that Adolph Hitler was a vegetarian. That pretty well destroys your belief system, doesn’t it? (

My god, take a look at that: It pretty well destroys your belief system?!  That’s how important Hitler’s alleged vegetarianism is to many non-veggies.  Their belief is that if Hitler were a vegetarian, then vegetarianism itself is completely invalidated.  Is it possible to be any more ridiculous than this?

Thinking people will realize that it wouldn’t matter even if Hitler had been a vegetarian.  That is, it would not “pretty well destroy [our] belief system”.  Bad people occasionally make good choices.  This shouldn’t be so difficult to understand.  Had Hitler actually chosen to be a vegetarian, that would simply have been one of the better choices he made.  If Hitler were fond of chess, that wouldn’t invalidate chess.  In fact, one of the best players in the history of the game, Bobby Fischer, was a raving anti-Semite, but nobody stops playing chess because of that.

And what if Hitler had been fond of chess?  Would non-chess players taunt those who do play the game about that?  No, because people who don’t play chess generally don’t give a flying flip about whether other people play it or not.  They don’t feel threatened by someone being a chess-player.  But once the issue is vegetarianism, it’s a different story.  This should lay bare the motivations of those who champion the idea that Hitler didn’t eat meat.

And of course, even if Hitler had been vegetarian, likely every single other mass-murderer in history was not.  If you were keeping score, that would be, Vegetarian Mass Murderers: 1, and then Non-Vegetarian Mass Murderers: 100’s.

And now we come to a curious battle: Hitler vs. Benjamin Franklin.  Franklin was a vegetarian only for about a year, from the ages of 16 to 17 (,, but of course most people don’t know that.  If a meat-eater is (mistakenly) told that Franklin was a vegetarian, they’ll often demand to know whether he ever ate meat, and if it’s admitted that he did, well, then that’s their “Aha!” moment.  They’ll triumphantly exclaim, “So Franklin wasn’t really a vegetarian, was he?!”  I’m sad to have witnessed numerous conversations that actually went that way.

That’s important because the same people have much softer criteria for Hitler. Franklin could have eaten meat once every four years and his vegetarianism would be dismissed as a fraud, but if Hitler ever ate a potato, then bang! He’s vegetarian. This is important because there are numerous accounts of Hitler eating meat throughout his life, and incredibly this is just brushed off by those who say Hitler was a veggie. But the standard for Franklin is different: Franklin has to avoid meat 100% of the time, for his entire life, from the day he’s born to the day he dies, unwaveringly, otherwise he’s not really considered a vegetarian at all. It’s like if Hitler ever had a meatless meal then he’s a vegetarian while if Franklin ate fish once after sixty years meat-free then he’s not.

(To be clear, as we said earlier, Franklin was a vegetarian only for about a year, but most people don’t know that. I’m talking about how people have different standards for Hitler’s vegetarianism vs. anyone else’s.)

So what constitutes being a vegetarian? Most would agree that it’s a deliberate decision to not eat meat, for whatever reason. By that criteria Franklin was a vegetarian for about a year, and for the rest of the time he wasn’t. For Hitler, there’s no compelling evidence that he stuck with a real veggie diet for any appreciable length of time. Multiple sources document him as eating meat throughout the 1930’s. (See below.) Shortly before his death (in 1941 and 1942) he claimed to be vegetarian, and “Hitler was a vegetarian!” proponents have latched all over this. Because, Hitler wouldn’t ever lie, or even exaggerate, would he? I mean, this is Hitler we’re talking about, and who on Earth would ever question Hitler’scommitment to the truth? After all, if you can’t trust Hitler, then whom can you trust? If you were going to pick one person in the whole world whose word you would definitely accept unquestioningly, that person would be Hitler, right? I mean, surely we can believe that every word that ever came out of Hitler’s mouth can safely be believed to be the absolute truth without any doubt at all, right?

Rynn Berry adds, “To be sure, Hitler professed to be a vegetarian…, but the primary sources that I have cited in my book show that while he paid lip service to vegetarianism, he was not consistent in his practice of the diet.” (source)

The fact is, many people use the word “vegetarian” to describe diets that aren’t vegetarian at all, and Hitler’s case is no exception. An article from May 30, 1937, ‘At Home With The Fuhrer’ says, “It is well known that Hitler is a vegetarian and does not drink or smoke. His lunch and dinner consist, therefore, for the most part of soup, eggs, vegetables and mineral water, although he occasionally relishes a slice of ham and relieves the tediousness of his diet with such delicacies as caviar …” (source) So when Hitler says he’s a vegetarian, he’s almost certainly using it in this context: He’s a “vegetarian” who eats meat. That’s like someone saying, “I’m not a bank-robber! I only do it once a month.”

Still, for those who insist that we take Hitler at his word literally about his claiming to be a vegetarian in the 1940’s, we have this gem from The Hitler Book, about Hitler’s daily routine in 1944: “After midnight [Eva] would direct that there should be another light snack of turtle soup, sandwiches, and sausages.” (source)

If Hitler was really a vegetarian, he was a sausage-eating one.

Below are some articles which give the details about Hitler’s true diet.

From John Robbins’ Food RevolutionRobert Payne is widely considered to be Hitler’s definitive biographer. In his book, Hitler: The Life and Death of Adolph Hitler, Payne says that Hitler’s “vegetarianism” was a “legend” and a “fiction” invented by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda. According to Payne:

“Hitler’s asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend, he neither smoked nor drank, nor did he eat meat or have anything to do with women. Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages and kept a mistress, Eva Braun… His asceticism was fiction invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self-control, the distance that separated him from other men. By this outward show of asceticism, he could claim that he was dedicated to the service of his people. In fact he was remarkably self-indulgent and possessed none of the instincts of the ascetic.” (more…)

From the Toronto Vegetarian AssociationWhile it is true that Hitler’s doctors put him on a vegetarian diet to cure him of flatulence and a chronic stomach disorder, his biographers such as Albert Speer, Robert Payne, John Toland, et al, have attested to his liking for ham sausages and other cured meats. Even Spencer says that Hitler was a vegetarian from only 1931 on: “It would be true to say that up to 1931, he preferred a vegetarian diet, but on some occasions would deviate from it.” He committed suicide in the bunker when he was 56 in 1945; that would have given him 14 years as a vegetarian, but we have the testimony to the contrary of the woman chef who was his personal cook in Hamburg during the late 1930s – Dione Lucas. In her “Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook,” she records that his favorite dish – the one that he customarily requested – was stuffed squab (pigeon). “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 in the hotel often.”

From “The Animals’ Agenda”1996 issue, attributed to Roberta Kalechofsky
In their efforts to discredit animal rights activists, supporters of animal research periodically proclaim to the media that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian and that the Nazis did not engage in animal research.

The implication is that these ‘revelations’ suggest a sinister similarity between Nazis and animal rights ‘zealots’ and serve as a warning that animal advocates have an anti-human agenda.

But the real story about Hitler and the Nazis is miles from the myth. One legitimate response to such claims is that it doesn’t matter whether Hitler was a vegetarian; as Peter Singer said, “The fact that Hitler had a nose doesn’t mean we’re going to cut our noses off.”

Biographical material about Hitler suggests a contradictoriness in reports about his diet. He is often described as a vegetarian who nevertheless had a special fondness for sausages and caviar, and sometimes ham. One of his biographers, Robert Payne (“The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler) took exception to the view of Hitler as an ascetic, and said it was deliberately fostered by the Nazis to project an image of Hitler as pure and dedicated.

Wrote Payne: “Hitler’s asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend, he neither smoked nor drank, nor did he have anything to do with women.

“Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages, and kept a mistress… “His asceticism was a fiction invented by (Nazi propagandist Joseph) Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self-control, the distance that separated him from other men…” Biographer John Toland (“Adolf Hitler”), describes Hitler’s early student diet as consisting of “milk, sausage, and bread.”

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 rumor 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 hardly eliminated it. An enormous amount of research on animals continued to be carried out by Nazi doctors.

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.”

It is important that the facts be known so that the myths about Hitler and the Nazis cannot be used against the animal rights and vegetarian movements.

Animal rights advocates should not let these false claims appear in the media unchallenged. The record must be set straight.

Roberta Kalechofsky is a writer, publisher, and the president of Jews for Animal Rights