Hitler, the anti-smoking Nazi

People have been using the name "Hitler" in a debate about a smoking ban in Kansas. The ban resulted in a number of voicemails to a newspaper, TheKansan.com. A columnist wrote a piece based on the voicemails:

On the other hand, Adolph Hitler did not smoke, and did not permit smoking in his presence. So I suppose, he is the first “anti-smoking Nazi.”

In addition to being a non smoker, Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore people who enjoy a medium-rare filet mignon now and then are genocidal, racist Nazis determined to conquer the world through force of arms, right? And let's not forget that Hitler was anit-hunting, too. All you Bambi killers should be ashamed of your Nazism.

The story prompted a Kansan to submit a comment:

I read Mark Schnabel’s column (Nov. 29) and, after much thought, decided to comment to it. I understand world history is not taught like it was in the ‘40s and ‘50s, therefore Mark did not put much time in studying World War II.

Adolph Hitler was not a smoker, but the comparisons were not about smoking. Before Hitler took power, he wrote a book, “Mein Kampf,” published in 1925 (vol. 1) and 1927 (vol. 2) and translated into English in 1933. In it he outlined how he would take over the world, and he came close.

His way was simple: First, infiltrate. Second, remove all rights and guns. Third, divide the people. Fourth, take over. The Fuhrer took Poland, France and Norway almost without a shot fired.

And now the comparisons. Before the county and city commissioners did what they did, 75 percent or better of Newton businesses were already non-smoking and had a smoking policy in place. The Free Air Coalition — check it out on Google, 80-plus pages, makes one wonder is it a coalition or a front? — entered the city of Newton, found their Quislings and now the smoking ban.

I don't have a strong opinion on smoking bans, but a ban on using the name "Hitler" to support arguments in modern debates would be interesting. In truth, neither the columnist nor the letter writer warped history to fit their views. I just find this continual use of WWII history in modern political debate a strange phenomenon.