I've heard this from many people who seem to use it as a convenient excuse to both explain Nazis and what they did, and to not have to address the grievances Hitler took the time to spell out against what he viewed as subversive influences on German society. If Hitler's book really were the ravings of a mad man I suspect it would not have been banned, or even acted upon in the first place. What do you think? Was Hitler a nutter, end of story, or is there more to the story? There will be a push to start a flame war which I don't want. Hitler didn't like communists as much as he didn't like other people. I'd like one rule to be followed in this thread which should avoid lots of headaches for the moderators. No mention of Jews one way or another is to be mentioned in this thread from here on out. So, was Hitler crazy? Why, why not?
no because a crazy man cannot control himself and his thoughts in a manner understood by a whole nation desperate to get out of an economical post-war depression.
In the begining, no. But by the end of the war he was making many irrational decisions that may be the reason for his defeat. I've heard there's evidence that he was addicted to speed and received several injections of it per day from his quack personal physician. By the time he was in the bunker where he commited suicide, he was a physical and emotional wreck who could barely walk and appeared to have aged well beyond his years.
I agree with MAW. He was rational in the beginning but soon succumbed to thinking he was super-intelligent and could accomplish anything. There were many indications that he was rapidly becoming irrational - one of the first being his very, very stupid decision to attack Russia. Attempting to fight a HUGE was on two major fronts at the same time was near-idiotic. By the time the entire free world (along with Russia also) opposed him, he pretty much became insane. You should read his book sometimes - he rants, raves and rambles like someone locked up in an asylum. Just that one thing alone would give you the perfect answer to your question. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, Mein Kampf was his first book, you know! Hitler was not a scholarly man and I don't know how much one could expect. I cannot agree with Read-Only's assessment. I have only read the book in translation, and a strict translation produces oddnesses of language that were probably not in the original. There are also references/allusions that would have been understood by contemporaries but no longer make much sense. I think he was perfectly sane in the 1920s. (I suspect Read-Only believes there are posters on this forum who rant and rave like someone in an asylum; but you have to show understanding, old chap!) By the end, like many others who have been subjected to intolerable psychological pressures, Hitler was "losing it". I don't think there's much room for argument about that. So, in judging Hitler's conduct as Fuhrer (prior to the end period), I think there are two elements to be considered: the influence of POWER, and the influence of DRUGS. In regard to POWER, this time I think Read-Only is spot on: Hitler's successes, both in achieving supreme power and in bringing renewed prosperity to the nation and triumph in war, led him to believe he could accomplish anything. He had been so incredibly successful on almost every front that it led to boundless optimism -- boundless of analysis, realism, doubt, or good judgement. His sidekicks were not inclined to take him down a peg in his own estimation of himself. In trusting his instinct, and having the power to act upon it, Hitler abandoned such modest intelligence as he may have possessed. In regard to DRUGS, one should probably not put him into an entirely separate category from other performers upon the stage whose demandingly energetic appearances take a lot out of them, and who take whatever it needs to "psych them up". I would find it difficult to extricate his drug use from his dispair in analysing his final collapse. On the basis of a dozen years spend in a psychology department, I would suggest that, on the whole, you generally get nearest the truth by assuming your subject is not totally removed in mentality from the rest of humanity.
Anyone thinking that they are the "chosen" people and everyone else is against them must be a little wacky upstairs. That only shows paranoia and distrust which are not rational. Hitler was being manipulated by the Catholic Church to try to dominate the world if they could pull it off. If you weren't a Catholic then you were not going to be well liked by the Germans.
Hitler here, Hitler there. Hitler alone wouldn't have accomplished anything. Anyone who followed, and supported him must have been just as crazy as him, or maybe desperate would be a better word to describe them. Personally I believe that Hitler was a normal "asshole" who sadly got the chance to rule a country. I'm still astounded at how quickly Europe got over the fact that Germany destroyed several countries, and that not just on a victim level, but also economically. Countries that were flourishing such as the Czech Republic; all of them went down because of the Germans, and till today I don't see any proper recompensation coming from them. No, they want actually us to give them something. "Sudeten Land". Now, in the EU they have the biggest mouth with the French together, they have even the ECB located in their country. For 2nd WW damage refund Germany received almost as much as did France. Imagine that...the perpetrator was even re-compensated for the destruction they brought upon us. And they never fall short to criticise other countries. Now they're politically obliterating Greece, an other country which fell at their hand. I understand anyone who has something against the Nazis, and the German nation on a political level. Personally, I would have never ever given them the right to have an army back, I would have never ever given them ECB, etc. I would have never given them money to rebuild their Berlin. Nothing. Nil. Because as you can see now..it didn't pay off. They're back to their rude attitudes, and have even ruder requests towards the nations they destroyed not so long ago. Interesting thoughts about the involvement of the Vatican. Anyone who read Edmond Paris novel..would most probably agree with you.
of course he was a nutcase, even when he was young. mabye ww1 drove him mad ... it´s surely already common knowledge what war can do with a mind. or maybe, he was already born that way, i don´t care that much. his followers were also crazy, nobody with a functional brain wasn´t able to see what kind of monster he was. now saying that, i have to add that i think a large part of earths inhabitants are idiots (just look at PsychoTropicPuppys hatefully and moronic accusations). be glad, that history is a good advisor - everybody can see now what hubris on a national level can cause.
Oh? Idiots? Hateful and moronic accusations? Where? Since you're so agile in throwing insults left and right, I presume you mistook my username for yours. "i have to add that i think a large part of earths inhabitants are idiots (just look at sweet Pentaxs hatefully and moronic accusations). " That way it looks a loooot more fitting, in my personal opinion.
You mean crazy like a fox? Also I heard on the radio that Hitler et el copied the Armenian Genocide by Turkey. Any one has any more info?
Completely depends on definition of "crazy", conveniently not provided. So, in my personal opinion, I call Hitler "crazy as Hell". Very possibly majority of professional psychiatrists would not diagnose him "crazy". After all, you can't argue with success. Way over 99% of humans are too inept to become ruler of major nation and initiate a World War, causing death of 30 to 40 million humans including non combatants in concentration camps and sieged cities.
yeah he wanted to be an artist but they did not let him...so his vengeance came upon the world. Or so the story goes. Oh and an alcoholic father with suffering mother is in it too. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Perfect recipe for krieg. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
ADDENDUM. Why I call Hitler "crazy as hell". Because if he honestly had figured out big grievance against specific set of humans (nameless due to idiosyncrasy of thread starter), he acted thereafter in a totally illogical bent. If I walk out to my favorite Roller happily anticipating a nice ride over to my favorite specialty store, and see an unexpected flat tyre, I do not, exercising sane logic, react by getting out my best 44 and blasting the poor tyre to shreds. Using sane logic, I ignore destructive feelings and seek a constructive solution. I decide to dismount (or have one of my skilled people to do so) the failed tyre and constructively employ a new wheel fit for service. In analogy, anyone in Germany of the era could have reacted to earnestly try to positively create a solution to the undeniable sad financial situation. Hitler obviously had some kind of super good luck. What if he had sanely tried to do constructive works? With his good luck, he could have established his own financial empire, and used wealth to turn the financial tide of the entire nation. I call Hitler "crazy as Hell" because he took destructive path instead of even trying constructive approach.
and what would Hitler do to take a constructive approach? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! seriously Germany in 1930's was a mess of depression and economical collapse.
You completely miss my point. I am not economic adviser to 1930 Germany. Don't ask me pointless question. I call Hitler "crazy as hell" because he did nottry constructive approach. I call Hitler "crazy as Hell" because he did try destructive path. If you were Hitler in 1930, what could you possibly forecast as positive outcome of World War killing 40 million and maiming 100 or 200 million more?
dude you cannot advertise a "constructive approach" without saying what such an approach would be in 1930's Germany. So I await...whats that approach? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and Germans's Worker Party existed before Hitler, it would rise to power even if Hitler was not there. Anton Drexler and Karl Harrer had the potential to give it the force it needed.
Against Jews? The anti-Jewish polemic in the New Testament, perhaps? After all, he was a die hard Catholic. Other than that, he didn't have something just against the Jews, but also against Slavic people, Romanis, and on it goes. I think people are forgetting this.
