Was Hitler Insane?

[Takaram]

the true question is....was he an anti-christ?

A better question:
Do Anti-Christs actually exist?

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Depending on what Japan did, Germany could have won the European, North African, and Middle East (?) Theaters during WWII. I'm not claiming this idea as my own, but I can't remember who told me this, but had Japan attacked India instead of the US, then there are many scenarios that branch off of that which would result in Britain being forced out of the war.

Except, of course, a Japanese invasion of India would've failed.

I sure as hell hope it would.

[Sjovenia]

hmmm to answer both questions.
Yes i think he might of been. and yes the bible says so, so i believe it.

[Kingdom-democracy]

I'm pretty sure he was capable of having psychological or emotional attachments to others. I mean, the guy wasn't Stalin.

Or Charlie Sheen.

ha ha burn! Even stalin had emotional attachments but thinking about this so doesnt charlie he seems to love himself alot.

[Ceannairceach]

hmmm to answer both questions.
Yes i think he might of been. and yes the bible says so, so i believe it.

For one, he doesn't fit the characteristics of a biblical Anti-Christ, does he? Second, believing every word of the bible is like listening to Fox News as your reliable news source; it ain't gonna end well.

[Qatarab]

Nah...he wasn't insane. He was just bored shitless. If had established an Aryan race all over the world,he'd probably start killing Aryans just cause he didn't have anything to do.

[Nazis in Space]

Hitler was paranoid (Actually, even this is debatable until circa 1943), and a romantic. Counts as vaguely insane, I suppose. He wasn't dumb, though. he wasn't stupid. He just operated on the basis of assumptions that weren't always grounded in reality, and he had a faible for romantic notions were cold realism would've been more appropriate.

His paranoia is noticeable in his issues with jews, and various other minorities - 'The jews are out to ruin us all!' is a pretty paranoid belief.

His romanticism is noticeable in the way he treated the war - in a thoroughly unscientific fashion that set belief (We'll win the war/ hold the line/ whatever because we're the good guys, and morale triumphs over steel') over numbers ('We can churn out this many tanks and planes and ships and can equip this many soldiers, we can transport this much fuel and ammunition etc. to roll over our intended target in this and this time'). He'd have been a brilliant author/ scriptwriter (As novels and films generally follow the exact same notion of romanticism. 'Flesh over steel', if you will, despite its thorough disconnect with reality), but it's not exactly an adequate methodology for turning a country into a superpower.

However, within his frame of reference, within the base assumption around which he based the entirety of his concept, his actions as far as the grander scheme of things was concerned were perfectly logical.

He wanted to turn Germany into a superpower. To do this, Germany needed land and resources and, of course, people to populate the land and use these resources. He also wanted to make sure that the 'Aryans' would not be contaminated by 'Non-Aryan' influences. Within the context of these core concepts, every single one of Hitler's decisions until late 1943 (When he started to get desperate and enjoyed ever higher doses of medications) makes perfect sense. And naturally, when one holds a firm belief that one's race is superior, it makes sense to pay less attention to numbers and logistical logic (Though it'd have made more sense to use logic because as a member of the superior race, you're more inclined to use hard numbers as opposed to romantic notions of glorious struggles. Of course, doing so would've made clear just how gigantic the gamble he was taking was, putting some holes in the whole ideology).

Ruining Germany's long-term economy to be prepared to start and win a short-term war that'll catapult Germany into the superpower league along with Britain was a necessity - it couldn't be done any other way. For the same reason, gettign rid of the conservative military leadership was a necessity - when they insisted on going slowly, they did, in effect, insist on Hitler dropping his program. A slow, 'Riskless' approach could've resulted in (re-)acquiring the Sudetes and pieces of Poland, it'd have resulted in the Anschluss (Which had been the goal of every single party in both countries, anyway), but that'd be it. A continental Germany between France and Russia, dependent on friendship with one of them, always limited to at best 500000 km^2 and maybe a hundred million people, tops. That's not what Hitler wanted. What he wanted was bigger, and he couldn't get it the slow, the conservative way. He had to be faster than everyone else, not operate on the same pace as them. And that's exactly what he did.

Eliminating the jews and thus destroying a significant chunk of Germany's intellectual potential, not to mention becoming a pariah in diplomatic terms made sense under the assumption that the jews actually were a threat to Germany/ the Aryans. They weren't, of course. They were an asset. But if antisemitism, one may as well pull through to its logical conclusion, as opposed to be whimpy, warning about the threat, but not doing shit about it.

Attacking Russia was likewise not a mistake, but a necessity - Hitler needed to conquer Russia to fulfill his plans. I'm not sure if he liked attacking it this early, but after Molotov's Berlin visit, and Molotov stating quite plainly that Russia planned to attack Finland again, that it wanted Romania (It already gotten a piece of it, modern Moldova, not to mention collecting the baltic states), and the unsteady flow of resources - especially grain - from Russia to Germany (It was high in early 1940, then ebbed in mid-1940, then rose again, seemingly on the whim of the Russians), he'd little choice but to attack early. Incidentally, this early attack was also in line with attacking while the Red Army was still weakened from Stalin's purges, and still in the process of replacing its somewhat aged equipment dating to the Spanish civil war - an attack in 1942, 42, or 44 would've hit a far better prepared red army. And that's assuming that the Russians would've waited for that long. It's doubtful that they would've attacked in '41, considering the sorry state of the red army at the time, and probably not in '42, either. But the content of Mein Kampf was known. Hitler's attempts to create a German/ Polish alliance against the Sovjet Union were known (Poland refused on account of Roosevelt telling it to refuse and promising it all kinds of support that never materialised. Roosevelt later thanked them for this by giving them to the Sovjets who kept them under their yoke for half a century. In short, Roosevelt was a giant asshole. But that's an aside). Once the red army was actually ready to strike... I doubt Stalin would've hesitated, barring a peace between Germany and Britain.

Hitler's administrative eccentricism - essentially running a doubled bureaucracy whose higher-ups owed their positions to Hitler's personal intervention rather than conventional selection processes -, while staggeringly inefficient and letting morons like... Well, pretty much every higher-up NSDAP person, really... into power, served the not exactly unimportant purpose of not allowing the continuing existence, or construction of a bureaucratic infrastructure that could continue without him - a key in remaining in power, especially when one considers that Röhm, Halder, and others were all perfectly happy to overthrow him if they didn't get their wish (Röhm), or that Hitler was running the country into the ground (Halder). Granted, Hitler didn't know about Halder, but he sure as hell did know about Röhm (I simplified here. There's no evidence of Röhm actually planning to overthrow Hitler at the time he was killed. However, Röhm and Hitler were increasingly at odds with each other, and Röhm, rather than being malleable like Göbbels - who'd dropped his strongly socialist/ communist leanings after a talk with Hitler -, actively resisted and pressured Hitler. If someone was going to challenge Hitler, it was Röhm).

Hitler's base assumptions were either wrong (Jews), or megalomaniac and staggeringly unrealistic (Conquering Russia to the Ural to turn Germany into a superpower), but within their context, Hitler acted a lot more rationally than pretty much the entirety of his staff. And it should be noted that up until 1943, his decisions in military matters were 1. Not really bad as such and 2. Usually shared by at least some Generals/ Marshals. Stopping the tanks before Dunkirk? Rundstedt agreed and demanded this. Attacking London instead of the RAF airfields? Eh... Wrong, but the RAF was preparing to retreat sufficiently to avoid those attacks, anyway. Not providing sufficient support for Rommel? Fuck Rommel, it's staggeringly obvious that Russia was the more pressing question. Attacking Russia? Covered earlier. Stalingrad? The 'Haltebefehl' worked in 1941! Tens of thousands of soldeirs were encircled until spring '42, and the Luftwaffe successfully supplied them - and Göring promised that the same would be possible with Stalingrad. It was Göring's, not Hitler's mistake.

After Stalingrad, yeah, Hitler rapidly went nuts. But before it, he wasn't 'Nuts', he just operated in a frame of reference not wholly compatible with reality, but, apart from this limitation, perfectly logical. It's not quite the same as being 'Insane' in the colloquial use of the term.

[The Corparation]

the true question is....was he an anti-christ?

A better question:
Do Anti-Christs actually exist?

Yes. He's like regular Christ, but made of Anti-Matter.

[Takaram]

A better question:
Do Anti-Christs actually exist?

Yes. He's like regular Christ, but made of Anti-Matter.

Maybe we should get the two of them together...

[Sjovenia]

hmmm to answer both questions.
Yes i think he might of been. and yes the bible says so, so i believe it.

For one, he doesn't fit the characteristics of a biblical Anti-Christ, does he? Second, believing every word of the bible is like listening to Fox News as your reliable news source; it ain't gonna end well.

not cool man...not cool. besides im not a bible hugger. and yes he does. he was persuasive, killed a massive amount of people and was a leader. same with napolean. and maybe even....(dundundahhhhhhh) obama?

[Takaram]

For one, he doesn't fit the characteristics of a biblical Anti-Christ, does he? Second, believing every word of the bible is like listening to Fox News as your reliable news source; it ain't gonna end well.

not cool man...not cool. besides im not a bible hugger. and yes he does. he was persuasive, killed a massive amount of people and was a leader. same with napolean. and maybe even....(dundundahhhhhhh) obama?

Napoleon and Hitler do not belong in the same category. Besides, Hitler does not fit the qualifications to be the (there is only one in the Bible, Nostradamus created the second and third) Anti-Christ. The AC was supposed to take over the world, rule for seven years, and finally fall in Armageddon. Hitler did none of those things, nor did Napoleon. Saying Obama is the AC is just trolling.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

not cool man...not cool. besides im not a bible hugger. and yes he does. he was persuasive, killed a massive amount of people and was a leader. same with napolean. and maybe even....(dundundahhhhhhh) obama?

Napoleon and Hitler do not belong in the same category. Besides, Hitler does not fit the qualifications to be the (there is only one in the Bible, Nostradamus created the second and third) Anti-Christ. The AC was supposed to take over the world, rule for seven years, and finally fall in Armageddon. Hitler did none of those things, nor did Napoleon. Saying Obama is the AC is just trolling.

But the lady from the north with the writing on her hand!!!!![/antichrist trolling]

[Ceannairceach]

For one, he doesn't fit the characteristics of a biblical Anti-Christ, does he? Second, believing every word of the bible is like listening to Fox News as your reliable news source; it ain't gonna end well.

not cool man...not cool. besides im not a bible hugger. and yes he does. he was persuasive, killed a massive amount of people and was a leader. same with napolean. and maybe even....(dundundahhhhhhh) obama?

Lets take this in parts;
1. What wasn't "cool"?
1 1/2. I don't give a shit if its cool or not...
2. Whatever, you still went with the "Its in the bible, so I believe it" line.
3. Those aren't the characteristics of the biblical Antichrist. Napoleon nor Hitler nor Obama are Antichrists.
3 1/2. Obama hasn't killed many people.

[Nazis in Space]

Napoleon and Hitler do not belong in the same category.

Actually... Disregarding the excessive antisemitism on Hitler's part, the two men are absurdly similar. Similar careers, similar goals for their respective nations, similar forms of paranoia, similar philosophy concerning 'Fighting until the bitter end'... Napoleon and Hitler even shared the tendency to throw hissy fits towards the end of their respective careers, both enjoyed not insubstantial numbers of defecting high-profile personnel, both were unwilling to listen to professional advisors after a certain point, both had a habit of blaming the defeats of their underlings solely on said underlings incompetence, rather than other, usually more important circumstances. Disregarding the 'omg ze jews' issue, the most significant difference between the two was that one was French, and the other Austrian. That, and the 130 years between them, that is.

They don't just belong to the same category, they're practially identical twins.

[Takaram]

Napoleon and Hitler do not belong in the same category.

Actually... Disregarding the excessive antisemitism on Hitler's part, the two men are absurdly similar. Similar careers, similar goals for their respective nations, similar forms of paranoia, similar philosophy concerning 'Fighting until the bitter end'... Napoleon and Hitler even shared the tendency to throw hissy fits towards the end of their respective careers, both enjoyed not insubstantial numbers of defecting high-profile personnel, both were unwilling to listen to professional advisors after a certain point, both had a habit of blaming the defeats of their underlings solely on said underlings incompetence, rather than other, usually more important circumstances. Disregarding the 'omg ze jews' issue, the most significant difference between the two was that one was French, and the other Austrian. That, and the 130 years between them, that is.

They don't just belong to the same category, they're practially identical twins.

Napoleon wasn't a genocidal maniac who killed millions of people in the name of racial purity. Instead, he actually expanded the rights of people in France. He didn't ever begin a war, only retaliated against other hostile nations, and did not create a police state. Don't brush the 'omg ze jews' issue aside so lightly.
Regardless, we just had a thread on this exact issue. I'd suggest you read up on it.
And Napoleon was Corsican, BTW.

[Nazis in Space]

Napoleon wasn't a genocidal maniac who killed millions of people in the name of racial purity.

Indeed. Instead, he killed millions of people in the name of OMGFRANCE. Big difference, I'm sure. Killing for France good, killing for Germany bad?

Rasis.

Instead, he actually expanded the rights of people in France.

By crowning himself EMPRAH and eliminating all the pwetty little democracies that'd been previously established?

He didn't ever begin a war, only retaliated against other hostile nations

Prussia declared war largely in response to France happily annexing Prussian territory in western Germany, Spain was invaded outright (As an ally!) because it didn't want to ruin its economy just to many Napoleon happy, and essentially the same happened to Russia. For that matter, the whole reason the entirety of Europe wanted Napoleon dead was that the 'Glorious' French Revolution first action in the field of foreign policy was to continue the imperialist program of the monarchy, and declaring 'The Rhine' to be the natural border of France. Napoleon continued to hold on to these aims (And expanded them) - it's hardly a surprise that he didn't make many friends.

In comparison, Hitlers wars: Invasion of Poland (Aggressor); Gets declared on by Britain (& Dominions) & France (Defender); Invades Norway to pre-empt allied occupation thereof (Justifiable invasion); Attacks Yugoslavia after it betrays him (They were allied, Yugoslavia suddenly changed allegiance to the Sovjets) (Justifiable invasion); Helps Italy against Greece (Alliance commitment); Attacks the Sovjet Union (Justifiable invasion, as it was either that, or handing the Sovjets half of the Balkans). Declaration of war against the United States (Who'd already given a shoot-first order concerning German submarines) (Justifiable action).

and did not create a police state.

Continental system. Not a police state. Fucking lol. Nevermind the fuckton of people in occupied territories he'd shot for, say, publishing material critical of him. NOT A POLICE STATE THIS IS VERY DEMOCRATIC INDEED.

Regardless, we just had a thread on this exact issue. I'd suggest you read up on it.

I suggest you get in touch with reality.

And Napoleon was Corsican, BTW.

So you excel at nitpicking details irrelevant to the actual matter in question. Congrats!

[Takaram]

You know what, you're so right I don't think I feel the need to continue this pointless threadjack. How can I question such amazing logic [/sarcasm]

[Nazis in Space]

Oh, and I forgot to mention Napoleon's reinstitution of slavery a decade after his revolutionary predecessors had abolished it.

Civil rights hero!

And then there's his turning his guns on Malta after it'd welcomed him with open arms. Cute, that (Well, it was pretty epic trolling).

Fleeing ahead of his army twice to get to safety - first when running from Egypt, and then the same again when running from Russia. Glorious.

Plundering every work of art across Europe he could get his hands on was pretty neat, too. Left them all in some archive in Paris without ever paying attention to them again, but hey.

[Trotskylvania]

Not to defend Bonaparte, but comparing a genocidal dictator like Hitler (who, besides his implemented Final Solution on the Jews, had planned to exterminate the Slavic people if victorious) to him is stupid.

[Voltronica]

Do you think Hitler was insane?

What do you define "INSANE" cuz there are theories out there saying the the "INSANE" are the ones that have achieved a higher conciousness then us "SANE" folk. Also for turns sake...the "IN" are in sane territory and the "Sane" are out of sane.

[L3 Communications]

His mental state had probably deteriorated in the waning days of the war, but I don't think he was insane from the get-go. I think, during the Great War, he was impressed upon by antisemites and German nationalists, and fell into believing what that crowd had to say. Impressionable maybe, but not insane.

This.

[Latin Hispania]

He was probably not insane, he had a very twisted view of things, I'm sure he believed everything he wrote on Mein Kampf and everything he said in his anti-semitic speeches.

[New Korongo]

To bad the gas did not kill him

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

To bad the gas did not kill him

Somebody else would have taken his place. Germany wasn't going to stay quiet about Versailles and the resentment toward jews was still waiting to be exploited.

[The Corparation]

To bad the gas did not kill him

Somebody else would have taken his place. Germany wasn't going to stay quiet about Versailles and the resentment toward jews was still waiting to be exploited.

Yes but the people who kept trying to kill him were more set on putting less radical people in his place. So it would of been an improvement.