Was Hitler profoundly human?

Would you believe that Nazis had the strictest animal protection laws ever written? One of their decrees of the 15th of February 1942 for example prohibited Jews – considered by them naturally cruel towards animals – from owning a pet. Kosher slaughtering was banned for its cruelty. Any infringement was considered contrary to the spirit of the German people and severely punished.
Many big shots of the Nazi regime, Hitler, Göring, Himmler, Goebbels, Bormann, to name but a few, were vegetarian and most of them owned a pet.
Himmler for one, commander in chief of the infamous SS corps and chief executive officer of the concentration camps, an avowed Buddhist, was violently opposed to hunting: "How can you find pleasure in shooting a poor defenseless animal going about his business innocently and unsuspicious. Its pure and simple murder", he would say to his personal physician while signing the execution order of tens of thousands of people.

As for Hitler, he would show very little emotion when his friends died but would break out in tears upon the death of his canary. He derived a lot of pleasure from watching people getting killed or beaten, but paradoxically, was incapable of seeing an animal being tormented in any way. Young man, he would keep his bread crumbs to feed birds and squirrels. During World War I, his first dog Fuschl stayed with him in the trenches for more than a year and a half. Presumably stolen, Hitler was devastated by his loss. After that, he always had dogs. Incapable of having normal relations with humans, he would spend most of his free time with them. He trusted no one besides his dogs and his mistress Eva Brown, in that order. Close to the end of his life, before just before committing suicide, he would go to his kennel often, to see one of his puppies called wolf that he jealously prohibited any one else from touching. But without a doubt his most famous dog was Blondie a female German Shepard. The Russians found her lying besides Hitler’s corpse dead from cyanide poisoning.

But the fact that he killed his favorite animal reveals the real nature of his feelings. He didn’t really love animals for their own sake but for what he could get out of them. Not only did he use them to escape from his loneliness but also to soften his public image. For PR reasons, he would often have his picture taken while affectionately hugging his beloved dogs. He was not a real vegetarian either. It was all a con. In fact, he was well known for his frequent breaks with principle. In practice, although Nazis had tough and very progressive animal protection laws there was absolutely no will to enforce them. Behind a humanistic façade, Nazis were in fact as cruel with animals as people. During the Russian retreat, they slaughtered millions of horses with a bullet in the head so the enemy would not get them. They would blow up in enemy territory their kamikaze dogs strapped with bombs.

The Nazis had used their love for animals for ostentatious reasons. In the mind of most people, having an animal is a sign of high human qualities. Whoever is cruel with an animal cannot be a good person» would say Schopenhauer one of their favorite philosophers. So they figured that by having an animal and pretending to love them, by being vegetarian, writing strict anti cruelty laws, or being a Buddhist, they would automatically become good persons not only in their own eyes but in those of the whole world: "Look, I cant be that bad, I love animals, in spite of all the horrors I commit, I’m a good person, trust me, I’m honest and I mean good", they seem to cry out implicitly.
This stratagem is quite common all over the world.

Merchants often use animals to boost their public image and compel a prospective client to trust them in buying one of their products.
I once had a client who did exactly that in his own odd way. He would also pretend to love his dog as much if not more than his own kids. On his first visit to my clinic, in a harsh tone, he almost ordered me not to harm his "child". At first, I was little intimidated, but I soon realized by his demeanor that he wasn’t really a bad person, that he was only trying to boost his ego on my back and that of his pet. To insinuate that a veterinarian - largely considered by all as the ultimate symbol of compassion for animals - could harm his dog, was more than effective. Apparently he was not conscious of any of this.

I have often detected the same logic in clients who had their aged and terminally ill pet treated beyond reason. The poorest would get into debt just to keep up with their image of a loving and caring person. In general, in time, once they made their point, or could no longer support the financial burden, they would invariably slip into euthanasia. As they paid their bill in tears, I would most often see a little flick of pride in their brightly lit eyes. I always thought they were only pleasing themselves by insisting so much. In other words, they used this seeming act of compassion to boost their own ego. Because of my symbolic function, I was an accomplice in spite of myself of this form of showing off. I would end the masquerade with a good handshake and comforting words like "You really did what you could. You must really love animals to have spent so much money". They would conclude by saying something like: "It's normal, this dog was like my child, I really loved him. Besides, what’s a few dollars when it comes to love?" I would barely approve with a nod before going back to my work as fast as possible.

In the same line of thought, I remember distinctly a televised debate of a rare violence. Hunters, butchers, cattle breeders and meat eaters were confronted with a group of non-violent vegetarians who were also animal rights advocates. Each party exposed its views before objecting to the other side’s point. At first, I thought vegetarians were really up to par, arguing peacefully and effectively. But as soon as the question period began, lo and behold, things suddenly deteriorated. Paradoxically, and to my greatest dismay, I must admit, it was the non-violent side that was the most… violent and hateful! Driven into their last corner, they were ferociously fighting back, going as far as to threaten the other party, obviously thrilled by this turn about, with no less than a slow and violent death! I sat back and quietly reflected on what I had just seen. "Is it possible", I thought to myself. "No, it can’t be, or can it, is it possible that their activism is self-serving? Is their cause an outlet for some deep failure of the personality?" In this case, it seems, violence had found shelter in non-violence, self-hatred in compassion. Is anything more "diabolical" than that?

All these people in their own way, Hitler, merchants, my clients and vegetarians, were all doing zootherapy, which I define in its simplest form as any interaction with an animal for therapeutic or leisure reasons.
This seems to be a profoundly human behavior judging by its predominance…

Notes:

Boria Sax, Animals in the third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats, and the Holocaust, Continuum, 2000.
Boria sax has been a consultant to many human-rights organizations including Amnesty International, Helsinki Watch, and the International league. He is founder of the non-profit organization Nature in legend and Story.

The book should be of interest to anyone seeking to understand either the larger context of the holocaust or the history of animal protection and abuse.
Anthrozoos