bob bobato
L'imparfait
Was Hitler Evil, or just horribly confused?
Hitler's sanity
- Thread starter bob bobato
- Start date
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Interesting question.
Anti-semitism certainly predated him - I think it wouldn't be unfair to describe anti-semitism as commonplace throughout pre-war Europe.
On the other hand, whether Hitler was being "evil"* (ie, he carried out his monstrous acts just because he could, or toward political, personal gain, etc) or delusional (ie, he honestly believed getting rid of the jews was a good thing for Germany or the world), or a combination of the two is a much harder question - virtually every evidence we have is what Hitler told others, so...
*I generally find that term has little place in history.
Anti-semitism certainly predated him - I think it wouldn't be unfair to describe anti-semitism as commonplace throughout pre-war Europe.
On the other hand, whether Hitler was being "evil"* (ie, he carried out his monstrous acts just because he could, or toward political, personal gain, etc) or delusional (ie, he honestly believed getting rid of the jews was a good thing for Germany or the world), or a combination of the two is a much harder question - virtually every evidence we have is what Hitler told others, so...
*I generally find that term has little place in history.
Evil Tyrant
Eccentric Dictator
If I remember correctly the guy was on meth wasn't he? That probably didn't help.
I agree with Oda. Asking whether someone is "evil" or not isn't a historical question - it's a subjective evaluation.
I'd say there's no question that Hitler was very odd, psychologically, though whether he was actually insane would be impossible to tell. You can't psycho-analyse the dead.
I'd say there's no question that Hitler was very odd, psychologically, though whether he was actually insane would be impossible to tell. You can't psycho-analyse the dead.
bob bobato
L'imparfait
I would have put 'mean' instead of 'evil', but that seamed so juvenile. When i say 'evil' I mean words like 'evil', like 'hatefull' or 'sadistic' or,of course,'mean', among others.
Well even identifying himself with his country to that degree can be called 'insane'. If one trusts the quotes, he pretty much thought that Germany was him, and so it did not have any reason to survive him either.
Identifying with country is something that many people do (imo it is entirely problematic) but very rarely does one see it in such a scale.
I suppose that by and large it is just another way to project one's own image on an object which for whatever reason that person holds a positive view, and so now that trapped positivity can help him find some defence against his own negative views of himself, in the process of course perpetuating the unresolved foundations of such self-destructive negativity.
Identifying with country is something that many people do (imo it is entirely problematic) but very rarely does one see it in such a scale.
I suppose that by and large it is just another way to project one's own image on an object which for whatever reason that person holds a positive view, and so now that trapped positivity can help him find some defence against his own negative views of himself, in the process of course perpetuating the unresolved foundations of such self-destructive negativity.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Hitler was mad. No question. However the question is, if he was so mad he was unable to be responsible in a legal way for it. The question, if he was evil though is another one. But that is a subective, personal one, which has nothing to do with a scientific, historic point of view.
So yes, he was insane. And to my eyes evil. IMO no one doing that can not be mad or evil. But for the historic question, if he was so insane he wasn't responsible for his deeds, I mean if he should have gone to the gallows or into a booby hatch, I can not answer, as I have not so much knowledges about psychatry and psychology.
However some historic background:
Hitler was born in Braunau in Austria. His father abused him and after his death he quitted school although being shortly before the Matura (Austrian A-level). He wanted to become a painter, but the Academy in Vienna does not take him. He could have started architecture there, but he needed therefore an A-level. So he has to paint post cards to survive in Vienna. In this time some Jews seem to be his clostest friends, nonetheless due to an extremely antisemitic mayor and environment he comes in contact with that ideology, especially some antisemitic papers by the Czarist secret service, made to agitate against Jews. Shortly after he flees to Bavaria, Germany, to avoid doing his military service in Austria. Nonetheless, when ww1 broke out, he cheered with the masses and is one of the many to conscript themselves willingly. He serves in ww1 at the western front, where he was wounded. He also got the Iron Cross, but is not promoted over the rank of a corporal. He was wounded and was in hospital when the German armies collapsed. After that Hitler joined for a short time a left radical Arbeiter- und Soldatenrat, but soon after, and as the left rebellions did not succeed, he joined as one of the first the NSDAP. IIRC he was the 32nd member, but got the number 532 in his party book, to push up the member number at least to others. The then DAP is only a small party, which are numerous and most of them have a short life. The "crème de la crème" of the German people is now entering such parties. Such as a fighter pilot who is a junkie (opium), Göring, Goebbels, and so on. Shortly after the party is renamed NSDAP, what is not more than a PR gag to get votes from all political positions. Hitler also tries a coup d'état in Munich, but fails. Not for the first time he escapes death only barely as the man next to him was shot. After a small imprisonment in Landshut he writes his Mein Kampf and becomes a multi millionaire because of that book. He rejoins the political theatre soon. In the times of the crise of 1929-1933 many elect his party not because his antisemitism, but depite it. Most of them are protest electors. However the president, Hindenburg, declines to take him as chancellor, as he is only seen as the Bohemian Corporal. But Hindenburg is finally persuaded to take him. But never convinced. Later Hindenburg saw his mistake but feared a civil war if he would try to dismiss Hitler. Due to the early successes Hitler becomes even more megalomaniac. But he does not see that he is getting the fruits others worked for, and so started to do things on his own. Most of them are catastrophes. Also his antisemitism now get an even more radicalization with the Holocaust. As it is obvious the Nazis would loose the war, he gives the Nero order to destroy everything in Germany as the German people did not deserve to live further on, as it was monor to the other races. This order was not executed. On April 30 he committed suicide with his just married wife, Eva Braun, and his dog, Blondie.
New president is Dönitz, who does not get the news he is until another day later, after Goebbels committed suicide. After a small "talk" with Himmler Dönitz releases all NS minister. A few days later Germany surrendered.
Adler
So yes, he was insane. And to my eyes evil. IMO no one doing that can not be mad or evil. But for the historic question, if he was so insane he wasn't responsible for his deeds, I mean if he should have gone to the gallows or into a booby hatch, I can not answer, as I have not so much knowledges about psychatry and psychology.
However some historic background:
Hitler was born in Braunau in Austria. His father abused him and after his death he quitted school although being shortly before the Matura (Austrian A-level). He wanted to become a painter, but the Academy in Vienna does not take him. He could have started architecture there, but he needed therefore an A-level. So he has to paint post cards to survive in Vienna. In this time some Jews seem to be his clostest friends, nonetheless due to an extremely antisemitic mayor and environment he comes in contact with that ideology, especially some antisemitic papers by the Czarist secret service, made to agitate against Jews. Shortly after he flees to Bavaria, Germany, to avoid doing his military service in Austria. Nonetheless, when ww1 broke out, he cheered with the masses and is one of the many to conscript themselves willingly. He serves in ww1 at the western front, where he was wounded. He also got the Iron Cross, but is not promoted over the rank of a corporal. He was wounded and was in hospital when the German armies collapsed. After that Hitler joined for a short time a left radical Arbeiter- und Soldatenrat, but soon after, and as the left rebellions did not succeed, he joined as one of the first the NSDAP. IIRC he was the 32nd member, but got the number 532 in his party book, to push up the member number at least to others. The then DAP is only a small party, which are numerous and most of them have a short life. The "crème de la crème" of the German people is now entering such parties. Such as a fighter pilot who is a junkie (opium), Göring, Goebbels, and so on. Shortly after the party is renamed NSDAP, what is not more than a PR gag to get votes from all political positions. Hitler also tries a coup d'état in Munich, but fails. Not for the first time he escapes death only barely as the man next to him was shot. After a small imprisonment in Landshut he writes his Mein Kampf and becomes a multi millionaire because of that book. He rejoins the political theatre soon. In the times of the crise of 1929-1933 many elect his party not because his antisemitism, but depite it. Most of them are protest electors. However the president, Hindenburg, declines to take him as chancellor, as he is only seen as the Bohemian Corporal. But Hindenburg is finally persuaded to take him. But never convinced. Later Hindenburg saw his mistake but feared a civil war if he would try to dismiss Hitler. Due to the early successes Hitler becomes even more megalomaniac. But he does not see that he is getting the fruits others worked for, and so started to do things on his own. Most of them are catastrophes. Also his antisemitism now get an even more radicalization with the Holocaust. As it is obvious the Nazis would loose the war, he gives the Nero order to destroy everything in Germany as the German people did not deserve to live further on, as it was monor to the other races. This order was not executed. On April 30 he committed suicide with his just married wife, Eva Braun, and his dog, Blondie.
New president is Dönitz, who does not get the news he is until another day later, after Goebbels committed suicide. After a small "talk" with Himmler Dönitz releases all NS minister. A few days later Germany surrendered.
Adler
Lord Malbeth
Emperor
Personally, I think he was a genius, but a cruel, sick, twisted genius at that. Yes I belive he was insane.
Yoda Power
✫✫✫✫✫✫✫
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 13,870
I'm pretty sure he was a psychopath. His ability to attract people certainly indicates it.
I do not believe "evil" exists, it's just a subjective term used to indicate whether or not you like someone.
I do not believe "evil" exists, it's just a subjective term used to indicate whether or not you like someone.
Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
His acts were evil.
I don't believe there are very many people who are actively 'evil'.... which I'd define as knowing an act is evil and doing it anyway.
I believe Hitler was sincere in his beliefs and actually believed he was working for the greater good - so I can't classify him as 'evil', no matter how his acts horrify me.
OTOH, he IMO also didn't qualify as insane in the legal sense.. that is, he certainly knew very well what he was doing.
So: sick, twisted, delusional... but neither evil nor insane.
He should have been stopped, if necessary with a bullet - just like other megalomaniac dictators of his ilk: Stalin and Pol Pot spring to mind immediately. Or Saddam...
I don't believe there are very many people who are actively 'evil'.... which I'd define as knowing an act is evil and doing it anyway.
I believe Hitler was sincere in his beliefs and actually believed he was working for the greater good - so I can't classify him as 'evil', no matter how his acts horrify me.
OTOH, he IMO also didn't qualify as insane in the legal sense.. that is, he certainly knew very well what he was doing.
So: sick, twisted, delusional... but neither evil nor insane.
He should have been stopped, if necessary with a bullet - just like other megalomaniac dictators of his ilk: Stalin and Pol Pot spring to mind immediately. Or Saddam...
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
1- With the war turning against him and the demands of leadership placing imense stain on him as furher. Hitlers behaviour was rather psychotic
2- It ranged from Vertble rage screaming and lecturing which had no connecton with matter, Child like hiding and delusion
3- There were periods of relative clam no doubt as hitlers secutary would observe as well as frequent periods of total disconnection. But Hitler mind and body was failing by then.
2- It ranged from Vertble rage screaming and lecturing which had no connecton with matter, Child like hiding and delusion
3- There were periods of relative clam no doubt as hitlers secutary would observe as well as frequent periods of total disconnection. But Hitler mind and body was failing by then.
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
I would happen to agree. This would be more of an opinion than not. And you know what most people say: "the insane ones tend to be more sane than those that are thought to be sane."
1889
Mayor of H-Marker Lake
I wouldn’t call him insane. He was surely a sociopath, but he made sense to many people. He did not attract followers because of his mad rants, but because he was able to express what they wanted to hear. He retained the ability to make complex plans and to be careful about obscuring his culpability for those actions that he knew would not meet the approval of the general public. None of those actions sound insane and by attaching that moniker to him I feel it allows us to deny that such motives and intentions can exist within an otherwise normal and perhaps popular person.
As a trivial example I’ve seen it many times in high school cliques lead by mean people. The ringleaders of such groups are certainly culpable for their actions, but let’s not overlook the responsibility of those who empower such people by following faithfully and silently.
As a trivial example I’ve seen it many times in high school cliques lead by mean people. The ringleaders of such groups are certainly culpable for their actions, but let’s not overlook the responsibility of those who empower such people by following faithfully and silently.
EdwardTking
Deity
Much my opinion.
Towards the end, the combined impact of the drugs he was taking,
the strain of the war and the fact he knew he was losing it, no doubt
resulted in instability. But even then he was well organised enough to
plan his suicide (very rational and preferable to being captured, tortured
and executed by the Soviets) and appoint Admiral Doenitz successor.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
"Evil" has no place in a serious historical question.
However, sane and insane do. I would say he was somewhat lacking in sanity.
However, sane and insane do. I would say he was somewhat lacking in sanity.
Stolen Rutters
Deity
He would have been called evil then (and actually was called evil), but today he wouldn't.
Hitler WANTED to cause pain and suffering in others and said so in his only work. He even took pains to hide the socially unacceptable actions until he felt he was safe from retribution. The fact that we no longer consider murder and torture evil acts today has no bearing on the question.
Saying a moral concept has no place in a serious historical question is ducking a serious historical question.
Evil is a real concept. It is someone intentionally doing things that are morally bad or wrong. You don't believe evil exists but the people who lived way back in history most certainly did.No serious historical discussion can ignore the motivations and worldview of the people of the time period you are discussing.
edit - I apologize if I offend. I am extrememly unsettled by the popular current today of filtering every single discussion and conclusion through our worldview, that only OUR beliefs are valid topics for a historical discussion and ignore what people actually held to be important at the time.
edit again - Today we would call Hitler malicious and sadistic, and at the end he was most certainly losing his sanity. He might not have actually gone completely insane from the drugs he was on, but it certainly mucked up his decisionmaking.
I still wouldn't use that as an excuse for his desire to hurt people. That motivation appears to have been around since early in his life, when he wasn't remotely insane. Yep, I would say that he was evil.
1889
Mayor of H-Marker Lake
You'll get no argument from me, Hitler was pretty evil. But I don't see how that is very illuminating. Evilness is rarely used in serious historical discussions because it not only fails to explain anything; it suggests that there is no explanation. Hitler's evilness is a result of his actions not their cause, unless he invaded Poland just to be a @#$%.
Stolen Rutters
Deity
@1889
The OP questioned basically whether Hitler was evil or insane, I guess looking for an explanation of the terror that engulfed Europe in Hitler's name.
I was pointing out that he was more or less sane until closer to the end, long after he had made some of his most "evil" decisions. Lack of sanity doesn't explain Hitler's actions any more than the "evilness" of them.
edit- actually it looks like your previous post said essentially what I was thinking until I saw the post about "Evil" as a word not existing and not being serious.
The OP questioned basically whether Hitler was evil or insane, I guess looking for an explanation of the terror that engulfed Europe in Hitler's name.
I was pointing out that he was more or less sane until closer to the end, long after he had made some of his most "evil" decisions. Lack of sanity doesn't explain Hitler's actions any more than the "evilness" of them.
edit- actually it looks like your previous post said essentially what I was thinking until I saw the post about "Evil" as a word not existing and not being serious.
[Stolen Rutters] The problem with asking whether someone was "evil" is that different people will have different definitions of it. You say that someone is "evil" if they intentionally do what is morally wrong. But pretty much everyone sometimes does that. Does it follow that everyone is "evil"? If so, there's not much point asking whether a particular person is "evil" or not as it becomes a trite question. More problematically, you won't find a consensus about which acts count as "morally wrong". You won't even find a consensus about what "morally wrong" actually means (this is one of the most hotly debated topics in modern philosophy). You say that we shouldn't judge people of the past only by our modern views, but in making such evaluations, that's exactly what you're doing. In Hitler's case, most people today would agree that he was morally wrong in being a racist, but in his day, most people were racists. Churchill was just as racist as Hitler was. So Hitler's opponents judged him to be in the wrong for quite different reasons from ours today.
And of course, the claim that someone is "evil" isn't really empirically justifiable. It's a statement about someone's inner motivations, and those aren't available for historical inspection.
Of course judgements and evaluations like these are historically important, but only as elements of history, not judgements upon it. That is, it is an interesting and important question whether people in the 1930s thought that Hitler was evil, and if so, who thought this and why, and what they meant by it. It's also an interesting and important question whether people in the 2000s think the same thing, and to consider whether they mean the same thing by it. But it's not really a historical question to ask whether Hitler was evil. It's like historical theology: it is the task of historians to track (say) the Arian controversy and explain the views of Arius, Athanasius, and the rest. But it is not the task of historians to say whether Arius, Athanasius, and the others were right or wrong in their understanding of the Trinity. That's the task of theologians. History deals with events, not metaphysics.
And of course, the claim that someone is "evil" isn't really empirically justifiable. It's a statement about someone's inner motivations, and those aren't available for historical inspection.
Of course judgements and evaluations like these are historically important, but only as elements of history, not judgements upon it. That is, it is an interesting and important question whether people in the 1930s thought that Hitler was evil, and if so, who thought this and why, and what they meant by it. It's also an interesting and important question whether people in the 2000s think the same thing, and to consider whether they mean the same thing by it. But it's not really a historical question to ask whether Hitler was evil. It's like historical theology: it is the task of historians to track (say) the Arian controversy and explain the views of Arius, Athanasius, and the rest. But it is not the task of historians to say whether Arius, Athanasius, and the others were right or wrong in their understanding of the Trinity. That's the task of theologians. History deals with events, not metaphysics.
Similar threads
