"Hitler - Crazy or Sane?" Topic

Was Adolf Hitler literally a 'madman'? Or was he sane and knew what he was doing?

It's too facile and simplistic to say he was "mad".
Are we too afraid to say he was just plain "evil"?

Saying he was "mad" excuses him. It implies he was not responsible for his actions. I would say he was sane and knew exactly what he was doing.

In other words, he deserves to be in Hell.

Ditto. He knew exactly what he was doing and thought it was the right thing by his twisted logic. Calling him insane excuses his action. He was evil.

Are people like this that are blood thirsty monsters mentally ill? I would actually hope so, I don't follow the reasoning that while insane don't understand what they are doing just they have no feelings or concerns about others.

Many years ago I read Mein Kampf.
I puzzled me that the other European leaders understand that he was looking to expand the German influence by whatever means necessary.
Was Genghis Khan crazy?
Hitler was a power hungry, murderous, win at any cost kind of person.

Hitler was a megalomaniac tyrant thirsting for power who grossly under-estimated the opposition

Crazy – tough to say – but evil for sure

Someone needs to provide an objective definition of "mental illness". Was Stalin or Ivan the Terrible mentally ill? Pol Pot? Mao? Robespierre? Suleiman? Genghis Khan?

Had Germany and Japan won the war, we would somberly be discussing the mental state of Winston Churchill and Bomber Harris, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. The winners write the official history books, which tend to enshrine their propaganda. Getting an accurate picture of our friend Adolf under such circumstances is not easy.

One thing I think can fairly be said about the man: he was in no way stupid or irrational.

B

Define crazy.

sane he was arrogant and evil

Germany is the well-spring of the European Enlightenment, and Hitler managed to bend it to his will. So I'ld say, Sane. Trouble was, that Germany, and/or the Enlightenment, turned out to be insane – because either their desires, which Hitler facilitated, were mad, or they were too mad to stop his madness.

Either way, he was responsible for a lot of evil acts, and a lot of suffering.
Sadly so were, and are, many others.

"Crazy"=Psychotic. E.g., standing in the middle of the Sahara, he complains of the cold rain and the llamas biting his own tail. That is, so out of touch with reality that his subsequent actions cannot be relied upon to be safe for himself and/or those around him.

"Mentally Ill"=Seriously impaired emotionally to the point where otherwise rational decisions are fatally colored by prejudice, fear, hate, suspicion, hubris, self righteousness, feelings of superiority, entitlement and--above all--selfishness.

Probably the closest The Bastard ever came to "crazy" was in the last year or less of the war, after the July 20 attempt on his life, and years of chronic misuse of methamphetamine and an ocean of other mood altering drugs provided by his quack, Morel.

It was definitely irrational to order the Ardennes Offensive, a classic attempt to repeat a previous triumph under radically worse circumstances.

Always suicidal, perhaps even before the Great War, he was forever inclined to take huge risks, both with his life and his policies. He loved fast cars, flying when it was still not a common--or safe--practice, and, at the start of the war, moving as close to the front as his body guards (Rommel in charge) would let him.

He lived on an "All or Nothing" basis, a sure sign of irrationality. Always attack, never defend! Capture the objective or die--Stand to the last man when attacked!
Declaring war on the US just as Barbarossa was freezing to death before Moscow was probably his worst decision of the war, but far from the first serious miss-reading of the realities confronting him. Still sure he could finish off Russia before the US could meaningfully intervene, and just as convinced that Britain could do no harm to his rear in the meantime. The acts of a gambler, and not one who played the odds.

These characteristics certainly explain the way he conducted the war. But if The Bastard was only to be compared to Napoleon (if not Louis XIV), it would end there. But the Bohemian Scum Bag went ever so much farther in trying to make the world adapt to HIM, rather than the other way round.

All evil starts with selfishness. Not merely the taking of the last cookie from the jar without asking, but of putting one's own wants/desires above any other consideration.

Not the last word on it, but every Commandment is founded on the practice of selfishness and self aggrandizement without the considering anyone or thing else.

Thus, he chose to become the God of Life and Death--create a mythical race of "Aryans" while consigning all others to the flames. He wanted an entire world be as he saw himself, tall, blond, muscular, blue eyed, pitiless, cold, impervious to any thought or feeling that brought weakness.

Aside from the last few qualities, his self vision was as far off the reality as could be.

Did he know the difference between right and wrong?

Yes, but it just didn't matter to him one iota.

And let us not confuse cunning with "intelligence." Like any good psychopath, he could perceive the weaknesses of other people and the governments they represented and strike at his advantage. In a world still reeling from the Great War, he was able to seize and hold the political initiative because he knew what they feared. And those same fears granted him the military initiative until the failure to invade Britain made him turn on an astonished Russia.

No, Hitler knew what he wanted and did all in his power to get it, but what he wanted was ultimately beyond the reach of any man or country. But that fact did not deter him from trying to have the world the way he wanted it, nor was he afraid of the price of failure.

With an All Or Nothing worldview, he couldn't lose--even if doomed from the start to absolute and total disaster.

TVAG

I never use the words "sick", "insane", etc. when referring to evil people. Those words give the scum of the Earth what sounds like an excuse, as if they couldn't help committing their war crimes or genocides.

Evil is evil, it exists, and must never be tolerated.

Dan
PS. Just like the habit some people have of calling anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi trivializes what the real Nazis were and did to fellow man.

He knew what he was doing and thought he'd get away with it.

Spot on! Just like Stalin and other evil leaders.

Dan

Crazy or sane are a false dichotomy.

It is not a case of black-and-white. If we mean sane as in absent any mental illness, then at least the two may be seen on the same scale (ie: more or less sane = less or more crazy). But there are so many dimensions and gradients to mental illness that it is too limiting to just say "sane or crazy".

As The VAG says, we might well use a definition of crazy that is only a measure of psychosis. Were his mental processes separated from reality? Did he see an audience populated by savage winged lizards when he spoke from the podium? Did he hold conversations with people that no one else could see or hear?

We would all agree on that much as a definition of crazy. But what that reflects is deep psychosis.

Even here there are lesser degrees of psychotic breaking … loosing track of what's real and what's not real. It's not really that uncommon for people to have some form of psychotic break in times of stress. Lack of sleep can do it. Many psychoactive drugs can do it. Enduring various physical stresses from pain to isolation can do it. Sometimes even the simple decline in mental facilities associated with old age can do it. For example my very elderly aunt (since departed) once tried to explain to me that under the table in my mother's living room, there was a secret passage down some stairs to room where my mother kept things she didn't want anyone to know about. I could not persuade her that she was mistaken, and she insisted I help her to find the passage which she was quite sure was there.

There are many other forms of mental illness. Do they qualify as crazy too? I have had the experience of knowing a few folks who suffer(ed) from mental illness, and have visited more than a few mental institutions in my life (always a visitor, never a patient … so far).

If you get to know someone who is a type 1 bipolar, you might see behavior patterns that explain a lot of historical figures. Once you see someone you know well go through a severe manic episode, to the point of a psychotic break (loosing track of reality), you can also easily see why almost every culture has concepts of demonic possession, and where cultural myths like Werewolves or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde find their origins.

Would diagnosis of some form of mental illness short of psychosis excuse the behaviors of a Hitler, Stalin or Mao? I don't consider it useful to even ask that question. I think it would be better to understand and explain them first. We can put off consideration about excusing behaviors until after we can explain them.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I would say he had a narcissistic personality disorder, but that doesn't make him mad. To be mad to the point of lacking capacity is very different matter. You can be properly mad with a psychosis and still have capacity to make decisions. There are 3 things you have to be able to do.
(1) Be able to process and retain information on which to base a decision.
(2) Be able to make that decision based on the information.
(3) Be able to evaluate the consequences of the decision or failure to make a decision.
I doubt Hitler would fail on any of those accept maybe temporarily while under the influence of drugs.
I suspect he rationalised the wrongdoing by thinking he was doing it for the greater good. The few must suffer so the majority benefit.

Sane. And extremely evil.

If you take Hell seriously, we ALL deserve to be there. Not my dogma, just that of people who like the whole nonsensical shebang.

Simply evil.

Evil. Sane, maybe up to a point. If he was crazy, it's because he welcomed evil and madness.

If only he had been a successful artist, all might have never happened. Whether he was mad or not he said what the German people wanted to hear. He brought immense pain and suffering to his fellow man and one can only hope that he suffers ten fold for everyone he harmed in any way.

Whatever.
He was not then and is not now, unique.

The fact that Hitler was evil goes pretty much without saying.

He was sane enough at the beginning of the war, but as Germany's initial military successes turned into one setback after another on the eastern front, his sanity began to show signs of fracturing and he gradually descended into the mouth of madness.

Ignoring his generals' sound advice and condemning the German Army to a slow death with his no retreat, stand and die orders are symptomatic of the Little Corporal's (as Rundstedt called him) growing insanity.

By the time we see him ranting and raving with trembling hands as portrayed in the movie 'Downfall,' he was quite literally what one might call bat guano crazy.

I am not a psychiatrist, neither I have read any psychiatrist that did interview Hitler extensively. Even his later war decisions weren't irrational. He choose to ignore his generals' advice, but that he did before -in May 1940- and it worked. Same with the "no retreat" order. He didn't take that decision in a vacuum. It had worked in the winter of 1941. In both cases he had gone against his generals' advice. He was overconfident and proud, but that doesn't make him irrational.

In other words, there is no any scientific basis for a diagnose of Hitler's sanity. Not with the available data. You can't trust postwar memories either. They were self-serving justifications, when blaming Hitler of insanity came handy for those that having played their part in Hitler's Germany wanted to whitewash their past.

Evil with impaired judgement due to drugs & his personality.

A narcissist with a complete lack of ability to empathize with others. Paranoid probably goes with that territory.

Are we talking about Hitler of 1914 or 1944?

From what I have read, his behaviour in the 1920's and 1930's sounds a lot like narcissistic personality disorder. He craved for absolute power, and was prepared to do pretty much anything to obtain it. He was good at manipulating people, variously described as charismatic or even hypnotising, and very capable at lying or bluffing. Not to mention also cruel and seemingly low on empathy.

However, towards the end of the war – especially after the July 1944 assassination attempt – he seems to start losing his touch with reality. He seems to harbour delusions of the war being winnable until quite late, has frenzied anger attacks, and starts to see traitors all around.

The only good thing I can say about Hitler is he was killed/is dead. The bad thing about the is it didn't happen much sooner.

But as others here have noted, there were some others as bad if not more so. Stalin and Mao come to mind …

"Hitler Never played Risk as a Kid" Sums it up best. No understanding of the scale of the map he was playing on. Oh Yeah and Bat %^&$ Crazy

"If only he had been a successful artist, all might have never happened." Yeah those guys are always sane

"Hitler Never played Risk as a Kid" Sums it up best.

Not sure if the other kids would have liked to play a game with young Adolf in the first place. At least in the later life he seems to have been a WAAC gamer and a poor loser. Beat him in a game and you might find yourself in the next truck to the closest konsentrationlager.

The madness of a Van Gogh is much more preferable than the madness of a megalomaniac like Hitler.

The point is that, had Hitler pursued his supposed artistic talents instead of politics, fewer people would have perished to say the least.

The question doesn't specify when. He was nuts in 1918.

Hitler was messed up by his experiences in ww1 which led to hysterical blindness. His personality changed following therapy. Supposedly this was due to the therapy given by doctor Forster.

There is a book written in 1998 that addresses this subject ''Hitler: Diagnosis of a Destructive Prophet'' (Oxford University Press,) by Dr.Fritz Redlich, professor emeritus of psychiatry at both Yale University and the University of California at Los Angeles. To Dr Fredlich this is not just academic but personal as he was born and educated in prewar Austria,escaping to the US in 1938.

He concludes, that, though Hitler exhibited many psychiatric symptoms, including extreme paranoia and defenses that ''could fill a psychiatry textbook,'' he most likely was not truly mentally ill. Hitler's paranoid delusions, Dr. Redlich writes, ''could be viewed as a symptom of mental disorder, but most of the personality functioned more than adequately.'' Hitler, he added, ''knew what he was doing and he chose to do it with pride and enthusiasm.''

While Hitler suffered from a variety of physical illness and conditions , both real and imaginary he suffered from nothing severe enough to take the blame for his crimes.

Psychology and especially psycological- analysis, has had a fixation on Nazis and Hitler in particular for a long time One of the first analysis was conducted by the US Government in 1942 in an attempt to "understand" Hitler.Dr Redlich maintains that this method can offer very little to our understanding of the period and Hitler as there is simply not enough "clinical" information upon which to make a conclusion

Labeling Hitler as insane is an attempt to explain the unexplainable and in many ways gives Hitler an excuse to explain away his actions by suggesting an illness or uncontrolable condition was responsible and not the person himself.Hitler knew exactly what he was doing and did so willingly and with personal pride and committment. Sometimes we have to accept that evil exists and that it is real .

He was a er. Doesn't matter if he was mad/ evil genius. Aslong his brains end up splattered over his bunker floor and commies trampling over his charred remains.

Labeling Hitler as insane is an attempt to explain the unexplainable and in many ways gives Hitler an excuse to explain away his actions by suggesting an illness or uncontrolable condition was responsible and not the person himself.Hitler knew exactly what he was doing and did so willingly and with personal pride and committment. Sometimes we have to accept that evil exists and that it is real

Absolutely.

Evil or crazy are not mutually exclusive. Someone can be both evil and crazy. I think most are in agreement that he was evil. Whether or not crazy is up to debate, but I noticed no one has yet mentioned that Hitler was rumored to have had syphilis, which can affect the brain.

For whatever it's worth, the "legend" of Hitler's syphilis is unsupported by such medical data that survived, and though the Russian autopsy can be suspect in at least one area, they would have loved to hang the The Big Syph on him if there was any evidence.

And paresis manifests itself in hallucination, drooling, staring, and generally becoming totally non-functional, not "crazy" or ill-considered acts.

The daily use of methamphetamine, administered orally and by injection, as well as other drugs to induce sleep, over several years, alone could explain his declining decision making skills. But the hollow core of his being was preexisting and immutable.

But it's comforting for me to read that so many, if not all, posters on this thread recognize that Evil exists, and is not to be explained away or "understood" as anything other than a moral aberration--a choice.

TVAG