1) Hitler was not an ethical vegetarian, and not even a vegetarian.
It's still
disputed.
yes, and some sources claim he wasn't vegetarian
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.htmlI guess we will never know the truth. Luckily, the truth doesn't matter here.
2) He also did not protect the rights of jews, so he was not consistent in protecting animal rights. (jews belong to the species Homo sapiens, who belong to the class of mammals, who belong to the kingdom of animals)
In 1931 Hitler proposed a ban to vivisection, and it was enacted when he came to power. He signed a
Reichstierschutzgesetz (i.e. Reich Animal Protection Act) in 1933.
yes, the nazi's had (for those days) very progressive animal and environmental protection laws. Not really consistent with what they did to jews. But at least we learn again that not everything is black or white. Even the nazi's did some good things or abstained from doing some bad things.
seriously now: when refering to Hitler's diet, what argument did you really try to make? Can you explain the logic of your argument, and the point you wanted to make? It seems you wanted to make an argument against vegetarianism, but that would be strange, because it would be an obvious fallacy. So what were your intentions?