202 Chapter 9
policingthe dietsandphysicalactivityof children.Kidswereforcedto exercisefor five
hourseachschoolday.^2 The Nazisemphasizedteamsportsin theirphysicaleducationfor
two reasons.First,theybelievedit wouldcultivatephysicallyhealthyAryanswhowould
disseminatetheirhealthfulnessto subsequentgenerations,therebycontributingto the
collectivebenefitof the race.Secondly,havingchildrenworkin concertin teamswould
instillin thema feelingof loyaltyto socialcollectivesin general.Thatwouldbe a formof
trainingfor servingthe community-statein adulthood.A 1937NaziPartydocument
entitledGuidelinesfor Boys’ Schoolsinstructs,
- Physicaleducationis a fundamentaland inseparablepartof NationalSocialisteduca-
tion... .NationalSocialisteducation... graspsmanin his totalityin orderto make
himableand readyto servethe communityof the people... - In the trainingof the youthin the schools,physicaleducation,withinthe framework
of educationas a whole,is of the greatestimportance.... a) Physicaleducationis
educationin community.By demandingobedience...it trainsthemin thosevirtues
whichconstitutethe foundationsof the Volkcommunity[boldfaceadded].^3
Suchhealthpolicingand health-relatedindoctrinationwasimposeduponadultsas well,
and for similarreasons.
TheNazis,Proctorproclaims,werecognizantof the harmfulhealtheffectsof cigar-
ettes,anticipatingthe U.S.federalgovernmentby decades.Hitlerforesawthe late-1900s
movementto preventprivatetavernownersfromdecidingwhethersmokingmayor may
not be allowedwithinthe wallsof theirownprivateestablishments.Taxespaidfor the
disseminationof antismokingpropagandain schools.Proctoradditionallydetailsthe
manystate-imposedlimitson cigarettemarketing.^4 ThisPennsylvaniaStateUniversity
sciencehistorianassumesthatany government—whetherthatof the USAor the Nazis—
is morallyrightto spoliatebusinessownersif it is withthe ostensiveintentof preserving
the healthof the commonweal.Consequently,Proctordoesnot expressoffensethatthe
Nazisthreatenedforceupona restaurateurwhopermittedsmokingon his ownprivate
premises.NordoesProctorjudgeanythingterribleabouttax moneybeingconfiscatedto
pay for this.He surmisesthat in the finalanalysisthe Nazicampaignprovesthe needfor
tax fundingof publichealthefforts.Buttressingthis is his claimthat the Nazisdiscovered
tobacco’s toxicitybeforethe U.S.did,andthatthis wason accountof the Nazishaving
committedmoretax moneyto publichealthresearch.However,fromthe 1910sto early
1930s,privatelyfundedscientificresearchin the UnitedStatesalreadydemonstratedthe
carcinogenicpropertiesof smoking.In 1928,the medicaldoctorsHerbertL. Lombardand
CarlR. Doeringtestedfor cancersin tobacco-usersand non-usersalike—the usersinclud-
ing pipesmokers,cigarettesmokers,cigarsmokers,and tobacco-chewers—and discerned
a statisticallysignificantpositivecorrelationbetweentobaccouse andincidenceof can-
cer.^5 In 1915,the medicaldoctorFrederickL. Hoffman(1865–1946)madenoteof the link
betweentobaccouse and cancerincidence.He citeddatafromexperimentsconductedin
Germany,but thoseexperimentswereconductedin 1906andnot financedby the Nazi
regime.^6
It is easyfor someoneto concludethat Proctor’s proposalfor furtherU.S.emulationof
the ThirdReich’s publichealthprogramsoundslike tacitapproval,on Proctor’s part,for
specificaspectsof Naziism.Awareof this,Proctortakesa preemptiveswingat thosewho
wouldopenlyobserveas much.“My ownintentionis not to arguethat today’s antitobac-
co effortshavefascistroots,or that publichealthmeasuresare in principletotalitarian—as
somelibertariansseemto wantus to believe.”^7 Proctor’s endnotessectionevincesthat the
“libertarians” to whomhe alludesincludeJacobSullum(b. 1965)of the ReasonFounda-
tion.^8 In 1999Sullumrespondedby notingthat of coursesomeinstitutionis not automati-