Wow....I find this truly offensive...
I can't even imagine this campaign went through all stages of production without somebody stopping it. (Then again, Peta is usually pretty extreme when it comes to trying to prove its point, but still.)
I really hope the ads have been pulled immediately.

We do a disservice to the Holocaust if we refuse to compare it to other human actions, as though it is so incomparably different to anything else or before, as if arrived without precedents. There is also the question of ownership - is this a Jewish tragedy or a human one? And thus who has the right to use its memory.

The last quote was from Isaac Bashevis Singer, "In relation to [animals], all people are Nazi's; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka."

You have a right to your opinion George, but as a Jew who has lost family in the Holocaust I find this truly disgusting. My Synagogue, one that is made up of many Jews, protested PETA and this ad. You can not compare the pointless deaths of millions of HUMANS to the deaths of animals, as horrible as they may be killed. When animals contribute the same way humans do perhaps then it will be a valid comparison.

Ah PETA, not getting since...whenever the hell PETA was first invented.

Is it beyond paranoid of me to imagine there is some vast right-wing conspiracy behind groups like PETA that SEEM to want to do something good but go about achieving that goal in the worse way possible to make real groups doing good look stupid?

It may, in fact, be that I am paranoid.

these images are also used for anti-abortion campaigns, most notably on college campuses.

When animals start getting together and forming autonomous activist groups demanding equal rights under the law, humane treatment from people, and/or the right to have self-determination in government, then I'll start believing these images (and PETA's agenda) aren't a horrifying false equivalence.

humans ARE animals. get over your ontological problems.

Just more proof that humans don't play favorites; we treat other species as poorly as we often treat ourselves, even as we shave the rest of the evidence of our primate past off our bodies. Mass slaughter is business as usual, and has been throughout history. I fear we ain't seen nothin' yet; people are just getting nuttier and the population is much, much larger now. These ads are as appropriate as any since they're all just emotionally manipulative BS anyhow.

PETA is also in the mega-hypocrisy business, there's plenty of interesting stuff out there to read that really makes me wonder, but I don't think it's a false-flag type group; as far as I can tell they really are as sincere and fanatical as any fringe group. They also don't get it. I oppose factory farming for many reasons, including the inhumane nature of it, but those ads are anti-human not pro-animal; congratulations on alienating your audience! Most of the harder-core, activist members of PETA that I've met and spoken to really do hate human beings, and I've been told "yes, I think it would be great if humans went extinct," presumably so cute furry creatures could run around freely enjoying that person's fantasy of an animal's life. Most of the donors to PETA I've met have no idea what they're really all about.

I find this comparison extremely fair period.

They've done it again: http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/08/cannibalistic_a.php

PETA are a bunch or radical new age cultists of animal worshippers their rediculous and stupid and only a complete idiot would have anything to do with them

I saw Elizabeth's response, who was offended "as a Jew who has lost family in the holocaust", and I must counter that, as one too, directing you to my mother's (who is a survivor) LETTER OF SUPPORT:

http://special.peta.de/holocaust/letters

Also, I must say I see Elizabeth's argument: "When animals contribute the same way humans do perhaps then it will be a valid comparison." It actually appears there is no other species on the plant that causes as much damage then the human species. I hence see the argument as quite poor. On top of that that argument makes one wonder, who is to say who "contributes enough" to earn the right no to be a victim? Do we REALLY want to go to that place in which we divide the world to those who are "worthy", and those that should be victims of those that are "worthy"?

"When animals start getting together and forming autonomous activist groups demanding equal rights under the law, humane treatment from people, and/or the right to have self-determination in government, then I’ll start believing these images (and PETA’s agenda) aren’t a horrifying false equivalence."

Here's what bothers me about this:
This statement assumes that because animals do not have language similar to the ones we use and do not organize using the same systems we do, that they don't care about dying senselessly. It's ridiculous to insinuate that because we're more "civilized" (by our own standards), we're greater than animals. By no means am I promoting the extremist "I hate people; all humans should die" crap, but let's at least be respectful.

I find it not only offending, but also incredibly stupid. Honestly, just lack of basic logic.
In connection to what has been said here by Elizabeth and Interrobang, and the reaction to it: the way I see it, this isn't about what the animals can or can't do, it is about ideology.
The day I see a human leader saying that cows are the scour of the earth, that their mere presence near humans is poluting our race, and that therefore they must all be killed - that day I will agree with such a comparison (but only in relation to that one specific man). The way we treat animals is debatable, but to say that it is like the Nazis completely misses the point of WHY the Nazis did what they did, and this is why it is disrespectful to the Holocaust.

(I meant 'scourge of the earth', of course. Not a native English speaker, so I remembered the word wrong, and forgot to check it. So don't go into over-analysis on it, yeah?)

I would like to make two points.

1) This campaigns presupposes that animal and humans are of equal 'value', as many PETA follower state, after all humans are merely animals themselves.If this is so i would like to point out that many animals are meat eaters. Why is it natural for lions to kill and eat deer but 'inhumane' for humans to eat chicken or beef, after all at a very basic level it really comes down to the fact that we are higher in the food chain, just as lions are higher than deer or birds -worms. Its perfectly natural and indeed logical to eat meat.

2) Much in agreement Yael i would like to point out how illogical this ad is. The animals in question are killed for food- The victims of the holocaust (or any other genocide) were killed because of ideological extremists.
as i stated in 1) the consumption of meat in the animal kingdom is nothing unusual however rarely do you see or hear of animals killing for game or fun or for ideological reasons. If these ads were in reference to gaming or hunting i could see a small logical connection (yet still find them extremely offensive and insensitive) however there is no logical connection between the senseless slaughter of humans and the eating of animals as part of a well balanced diet!

And before anyone starts going on about how animals are killed needlessly in the production of meat i would like to say that its not akin to eating meat. I don't agree with the slaughter of animals for no reason but that doesn't take away from the fact that it is perfectly natural to eat meat! Furthermore before any tries to tell me that meat is bad for you id tell them to go and do their resource and they will find that there are a lot of ESSENTIAL nutrients found in meats and animal products that you can't not get from veg. (and which is it not more unnatural to need to supplement you diet with chemicals and tables than to eat what is naturally provided).

(i went on a bit there ..woops =) )

Jeff

Actually, Jeff, I was trying to avoid your sort of argument, for various reasons:

1. I have already seen extremist vegans make the argument 'Oh, so if the Nazis ate the Jews, that would make it okay?' - which of course [I believe] is a very stupid reductio-ad-absurdum kind of argument, but I just did not want to go there; I was trying to show that this is not about the WHAT but about the WHY. Nazis did what they did because they thought that the lesser races (Jews, Roma, PoC etc.) need to be purged off the face of the earth, because they thought their mere presence was polluting the purity of the Master Race. This is the basis of their ideology and of their actions. Comparisons to animal industry (be it their living conditions or the basic idea of slaughtering animals for food) ignore this ideological basis, and therefore cheapen the true horror of what happened in the holocaust.

2. I am a happy carnivore myself, but I very certainly do not want to get into an argument about whether we need to eat meat or not. Some vegetarians claim that humans were never meant to eat meat, and that it's actually bad for you (I disagree, but the people who make this argument tend to be so vehement about it that I just don't want to bother arguing to begin with); others argue (more reasonably, in my eyes) that thanks to technological advancement modern humans no longer need to get their nutrients from meat, and so can try to prevent the animals' suffering. I have my opinions on both of these views, but my point was not related to that at all. This post is, after all, not about whether eating meat is right or wrong, or even about the meat industry. It is about PETA's choice to use a comparison to the holocause, which I find not only tasteless but also illogical.

Forget PETA believe the word of GOD.
Genesis 9:2-3 (New King James Version)

2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.

4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,

I think this campaign is wonderful.

Everyone in their right mind agrees that the holocaust was horrible. But rather than just feeling offended, shouldn't we use our understanding of how horrible the holocaust was to make sure nothing like that ever happens again? If we are eating meat, and thereby causing a huge amount of suffering that is in many ways comparable to the holocaust, shouldn't we stop what we're doing?

CJ: No. No, no, no.
This is a horrible, offensive campaign.
Bad as people may treat animals (and even as a carnivore, I can see that point about raising animals for meat), it is NOT the same as the holocaust. You are, just as I explained, looking at the 'how' rather than the 'why'.
The Nazis put other human bengs in ghettos and concentration camps, and killed them in great masses, because they saw those other human beings not only as inferior but as something so vile that they are polluting the earth and the human race by their very existence. They thought that the ideal solution is to destroy every single one of those inferior people.
Show me the human leader that thinks cows or chickens or whatever are a cancer that needs to be wiped from the face of this planet. Show me the meat eater that thinks that by killing animals it is doing the world a favour. Then and only then will I agree to a holocaust comparison - and even then, only in relation to that specific person.
Ignoring the reasons for the Nazis' actions - saying that a campaign like this is good because 'the holocaust was horrible, ergo everything that is even mildly horrible is totally like the holocaust' - is basically diluting the importance of the actual events of the holocaust. (I feel the same, by the way, with the ubiquitus 'nazi' tag in things like 'feminazi' or 'grammar nazi'; once again, it's blurring the actual meaning, the actual deeds of the Nazis, into a vague 'bad dictator-type thing' label)
The way to make sure nothing like that ever happens again is by making sure that these images and concepts are not taken easily, and not used as a synonym for 'bad' - by making sure that they keep the full horror that they represent. By learning and remembering the true context, the full details of the holocaust, of the Nazi cincentration and extermination camps, of the whole Nazi mechanism. Not by using them for whatever means your personal ideological belief deems worthy.

Hey Yael.

I appreciate your response.

It sounds like we are mostly on the same page. I agree with you that it's fucked up when people say things like "feminazi" or "grammar nazi." I agree with you that the holocaust should not be taken lightly. I agree that "holocaust" should not be used as a synonym for "bad."

But imagine just for a moment-- what if something were to happen that was as terrible as the holocaust? Let's say it didn't happen to Jews this time, but it happened to others this time? What if a huge group of individuals -- as many as those in the holocaust, or maybe even more -- maybe a hundred times more -- were locked up against their will, even though they had committed no crime? What if this was done to infants? What if they were torn away from their families, had their body parts sliced off without anesthesia, were made to live in filthy conditions, were beaten and burned, were forced to watch while their friends died, and then were killed themselves in various violent, painful ways? What if they never got to see grass, nor sun, for their entire lives? What if they were not even given the freedom to stand up, stretch out their limbs, or lie down comfortably -- not even once?

Sadly, this exact situation is happening right now. For an introduction, you can watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4

First, i agree that using the Holocaust imagery is offensive and alienates people from the cause. And i agree Yael with your statement about the how and why.

But it is not simply about whether humans should eat meat or not, it is about the horrible suffering inflicted on billions of animals that they endure throughout their lives in factory farms.

And though i believe we should draw parallels between human suffering and animal suffering (much more than we do), it doesn't have to be about stating an equivalency between humans and animals.

TU POLSKA, PRZEJMUJEMY TĘ STRONĘ!

I think, for those people who think that this is offensive, they cannot understand the meaning of it, because they cannot be sympathetic to this campaign. I mean, if you don't TRULY believe that animals should live free and should be treated with respect, then you cannot understand anything. It is POINTLESS to discuss with people who doesn't give a shit. Of course you can compare the holocaust with this animal slaughter. It's the only way to show it HOW IT REALLY IS FOR THE ANIMALS TO LIVE THROUGH SUCH A TERRIBLE LIFE.

I agree animals should be killed in a more humane way, but to stop eating meat is ridiculous.. Wild animals kill each other all the time to survive off meat, we humans need to eat as well. I wish the pigs were treated better, but to compare it to a massacre like that? Ridiculous, Insensitive, and Disrespectful. PETA isn't gaining any support with stuff like this.

PETA are a bunch of evil hypocrites. Firstly they appear to care more about animals than people, if a squirrel fell out a tree and died they would cry for days. But if a group of crocodiles came into a city and killed thousands of people, they would say it's 'animal revenge' and we 'deserved' it. But here's the good part. PETA are cruel to animals too. If you look at how many pets they put down in their shelters, you'd be shocked. About 90% of all animals in PETAs shelters are put down, ones which were perfectly healthy and adoptable. They'd rather an animal be dead than be a pet.  So who's really the mass animal murderers? 

This is a fantastic campaign because it makes us think about the role we play as bystanders to atrocities that are being committed every minute in our name.

Whether or not we shield our eyes from it, the suffering meat-consumers inflict is real, the same way that the suffering of the Jews was real even though it was relegated to isolated camps. In that sense, the comparison to the holocaust is extremely fitting. I say this as a Jew whose family was decimated by the holocaust on both my mother's and my father's side. Peta has my full support.

ok everyone, i will soon be starting to work for an animal rights group, and i need to know both sides to be able to think critically and truly help.
at this time i believe peta to be hypocritical for several reasons :

a) You say human are animals, so why ruin the lives of human by destroying medical research labs where the people who work there have often given their whole lives to medical research (a benevolent cause, especially when animal rights activist suddenly have cancer and realise advancement is slow)

often peta activist dont understand the research they are destroying, and 'free' the animals and destroy the research (which is technically violating everything the research animals have arleady contributed)
b) when freeing said animals, peta puts them into there own shelters, and proceeds to kill the majority of them (89% in 2012)

they say this is because they have no room to take care of extra animals, but with an anual budget of 25 million dollars, to a TAX-EXEMPT organisation, im surprised they cant make room or pay more employees. This is especially true when you consider the money they donate to help Convicted felons. People like Rodney Conorado ( who set fire to a lab in michigan state university in the name of animals ) receive 45 000$ from peta for theyre trial and then peta has no money for animals?? plus another 25 000$ for that mans father, just so you know.

also c) they target kids. To me animals rights are extremely important and we must raise awareness, but the type of advertisement that peta uses makes them far less legit. It should be easy to convince people of a good cause. Therefore, why use psychological propaganda? that is what dictators do. not only that but theyre propaganda is so weak anyone with a brain can see that theyre videos are shock bullshit that often have no real footage of what theyre slamming. They also use loaded language all the time and overall they make me feel like they think im stupid and easy to convince. I will never listen to any add that treats me like and idiot or someone who is easy to manipulate, and neither will any other well educated rational person. So in essence, they should really just tell the truth and use the truth and not manipulate, this would add credibillity to there claims and if theyre cause is just then there should be no need to manipulate anyway"

so yea those are my thoughts on peta right now, pleas respond i love seeing counter arguments and pro-arguments

I agree with PETA on most things, but I found this campaign so grossly offensive it almost brought me to tears.

But this kind of extremism is NOT the way to get what you want.

When you act like this, you lose credibility and end up hurting your cause more than helping it.

Mmmmm...delicious holocaust.

I think it's great. Graphic, honest, and true to advertising that can cause change.

Are you a social pariah, who's only contact consists of snark?

There is one problem with this campaign. Animals aren't people and also they are delicious.

In my opinion the comparison was a bit of a stretch based on our motivations for these things, but the objection made even less sense as the exhibit wasn't flattering of any "Holocaust", human, chicken, cow, or pig.
if you truly think something is genuinely as bad as a historical tragedy it should be your right to compare even if someone like myself think it's a bit of a stretch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5hGQDLprA8

This is a disgrace to the human race and terribly disrespectful to Jews.

Hard to believe that this campaign is considered racist. No question that somebody is going to be offended by just about anything, but to actually pay any attention to their drivel is simply a waste.

Nie wierze w to co czytam! Dokladnie tego samego porownania uzyłam nie widząc tej kampanii bo dokladnie tak jest i nikogo to nie powinno obrazac te zwierzeta czuja bol i cierpią jak ludzie podczas Holocaustu . To bezbronne istoty ktorym krzywde robią ludzie bo maja taka przewage jak oprawcy podczas Holocaustu. Nie uwazam zeby zwierzeta byly gorsze od ludzi. Nawet powiem wiecej ja wole zwierzęta od wiekszosci bezmyslnych socjopatycznych okrutnych ludzi ktorzy wykorzystują te biedne zwierzaki tylko po to aby ktos tam mogl sie popryskac takim śmierdzidłem! Wstyd mi za tych ktorzy pisza tu takie brednie!!! Ludzie opamietajcie sie!

The only reason people would possibly find this offensive is because they already place animals at an inferior position to humans and believe they deserve to suffer and die. The animal rights movement acknowledges their desire to live and avoid suffering. What animals go through in industrial settings is objectively cruel and they suffer equally to humans. The Jewish holocaust killed roughly 6 million but nearly 200 billion animals are killed for meat every year so you decide which is worse.

Need I remind people that actual holocaust victims such as Alex Hershaft have acknowledged that animal farming is just as cruel to animals as a holocaust/genocide would be to humans. If industrial animal farming was done to humans it would be a holocaust, common sense.

El único argumento que tiene la gente que dice sentirse ofendida por la comparación es el argumento Antropoespecista, basada en la teoría de la excepcionalidad humana, que es un pilar de la discriminación basada en la superioridad de nuestra especie

I absolutely love animals. They're delicious!!