Another thread I barely know anything about. I have made some experiences with mental illness and watched a lot of documentaries on the Nazis. My words are ones of layman and probably any scientifical research would be better than reading this thread.
I copy and paste parts of the wikipedia article which I consider pretty good.
Difficulty of Hitler's psychopathography
In psychiatry, pathography has developed a poor reputation, especially diagnostics that have been carried out ex post, without the direct examination of the patient.[2] It is even considered unethical (see Goldwater rule).[3] The German psychiatrist Hans Bürger-Prinz went so far as to state that any remote diagnostics constitute a "fatal abuse of psychiatry".[4] The immense range of mental disorders that Hitler has been credited with over time indicates how inconclusive this method can be (see table).[5] Another example of the deficiencies present in many of the following Hitler-pathographies is an either completely absent or grossly abbreviated discussion of the abundance of publications which have already been submitted on this subject by other authors.
In the case of Hitler, psychopathography poses particular problems. Firstly, authors who write about Hitler's personal matters have to deal with the issue that a possibly voyeuristic readership uncritically accepts even the most sparsely proven speculations – such as that which happened in the case of Lothar Machtan's book The Hidden Hitler (2001).[6] Even more concerning is the warning issued by some authors that pathologizing Hitler would inevitably mean discharging him of at least some responsibility for his actions.[7] Others fear that by pathologizing or demonizing Hitler, all the blame for crimes of Nazi Germany could be placed entirely on him, whilst the populace and those in positions of power who enabled Hitler to rule would consequently be relieved from responsibility.[8] Famed is Hannah Arendt's coinage of the phrase the "banality of evil"; in 1963, she stated that for a Nazi perpetrator as Adolf Eichmann, mental normality and the ability to commit mass murder were not mutually exclusive.[9] Harald Welzer came to a similar conclusion in his book Täter. Wie aus ganz normalen Menschen Massenmörder werden.[10]
In his 2015 biography, Peter Longerich pointed out how Hitler implemented his political goals as a strong dictator, with assertiveness, high readiness to assume risk and unlimited power.[11] Some authors were fundamentally opposed to any attempt to explain Hitler, for example by psychological means.[12] Claude Lanzman went further, labeling such attempts "obscene"; after the completion of his film Shoah (1985), he felt such attempts bordered on Holocaust denial, with particular criticism directed towards the historian Rudolph Binion.[13]
As the psychiatrist Jan Ehrenwald has pointed out, the question as to how a possibly mentally ill Hitler could have gained millions of enthusiastic followers who supported his policies until 1945 has often been neglected.[14] Daniel Goldhagen argued in 1996 that Hitler's political ascent was not in any way related to his psychopathology, but rather was a consequence of the precarious social conditions that existed at that time in Germany.[15] On the other hand, some authors have noted that figures such as Charles Manson and Jim Jones, who have been described as having a severe mental illness such as schizophrenia, nonetheless succeeded in having a tremendous influence on their groups of followers.[16] Early on, the view was also expressed that Hitler was able to handle his psychopathology skillfully, and was aware of how he could use his symptoms to effectively steer the emotions of his audience.[17] Still other authors have suggested that Hitler's followers themselves were mentally disturbed;[18] evidence for this claim however was not produced.[19] The question how Hitler's individual psychopathology might have been linked with the enthusiasm of his followers was first discussed in 2000 by the interdisciplinary team of authors Matussek/Matussek/Marbach.
My opinion on that: I like this paragraph a lot. Speculating on Hitler's conditions can be unethical, voyeuristic and be used as an excuse for his crimes. Why I am still doing it? Maybe someone with some of the conditions can give some insights what it feels like to have them. And whether it is still possible to be leader of a country. This thread might be a little bit unethical because it is specualtive and remote diagnosis even of psychiatrist have a very bad reputation. However I want to emphasize that his conditions are not in any way an exuse for his actions and it does not play down his crimes against humanity which were disgusting, despicable, hateful and should have deserved a way bigger punishment.
Here is another informative paragraph:
Psychoactive drug use
Hitler regularly consumed methamphetamine, barbiturates, amphetamine, opiates and cocaine.[80][81] In 2015, Norman Ohler published a work Der totale Rausch ("The Total Rush", translated in 2016 as Blitzed: Drugs in Nazi Germany) in which he claims that all of Hitler's irrational behavior can be attributed to his excessive drug use. Helena Barop, who reviewed the book in Die Zeit, wrote that Ohler's account is not based on solid research.
Now my personal opinion:
I also don't think the drugs are the sole reason for his behavior. I could very well imagine that Hitler had several conditions. I had psychosis and I have bipolar. I doubt Hilter had a psychosis or had bipolar at least not before his health went dowhill. It is fact that he took so many drugs. It is likely that affected his psyche. I am pretty good at controlling myself in psychosis, mania, mixed manic-depressive states and I cannot imagine that anyone could get elected when they are in a psychotic episode. I have met people who became antisemites during their psychoses but I think no one would take them serious. However to that time mental illnesses were less known and the demands of a state leader were way less. There are rumors Churchil was either bipolar or had major depression a couple of times while in office. Today in Western countries this would be impossible.
I could imagine he had a couple of personality disorders. Especially the dark triade you be personality traits that fit to him.
The Dark Triad is a psychological theory that describes three interconnected personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.
The following paragraph of the wikipedia article sounds plausible to me:
Psychopathy / antisocial personality disorder
Given the inhumanity of his crimes, Hitler was early on linked with "psychopathy", a severe personality disorder whose main symptoms are a great or complete lack of empathy, social responsibility and conscience. The biologically determined concept still plays a role in the psychiatric forensic science, but it is no longer found in the modern medical classification systems (DSM-IV and ICD-10). Today, corresponding clinical pictures are mostly classified as signs of an antisocial personality disorder. However, the symptomatology is rare, and unlike in popular discourse, where the classification of Hitler as a "psychopath" is commonplace,[71] psychiatrists have only occasionally endeavored to associate him with psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder.
My personal opinion again: PTSD sounds also plausible because he almost died in WWI. I think psychosis or bipolar in a young age does not sound convincing to me. You have to function at rallies and campaign speeches. Hitler's health went downhill during the war. The drugs were one reason. If you read which drugs he took no wonder why. Psychosis at a very late state does not sound impossible to me. I think personality disorders like psychopathy or narcisissm could fit. The people are still able to manage their workload, can be manipulative and still function in our society. They can hide in the shadows.
Moreover I doubt that all his followers were just mentally ill that sounds like a lame excuse.
I copy and paste parts of the wikipedia article which I consider pretty good.
Difficulty of Hitler's psychopathography
In psychiatry, pathography has developed a poor reputation, especially diagnostics that have been carried out ex post, without the direct examination of the patient.[2] It is even considered unethical (see Goldwater rule).[3] The German psychiatrist Hans Bürger-Prinz went so far as to state that any remote diagnostics constitute a "fatal abuse of psychiatry".[4] The immense range of mental disorders that Hitler has been credited with over time indicates how inconclusive this method can be (see table).[5] Another example of the deficiencies present in many of the following Hitler-pathographies is an either completely absent or grossly abbreviated discussion of the abundance of publications which have already been submitted on this subject by other authors.
In the case of Hitler, psychopathography poses particular problems. Firstly, authors who write about Hitler's personal matters have to deal with the issue that a possibly voyeuristic readership uncritically accepts even the most sparsely proven speculations – such as that which happened in the case of Lothar Machtan's book The Hidden Hitler (2001).[6] Even more concerning is the warning issued by some authors that pathologizing Hitler would inevitably mean discharging him of at least some responsibility for his actions.[7] Others fear that by pathologizing or demonizing Hitler, all the blame for crimes of Nazi Germany could be placed entirely on him, whilst the populace and those in positions of power who enabled Hitler to rule would consequently be relieved from responsibility.[8] Famed is Hannah Arendt's coinage of the phrase the "banality of evil"; in 1963, she stated that for a Nazi perpetrator as Adolf Eichmann, mental normality and the ability to commit mass murder were not mutually exclusive.[9] Harald Welzer came to a similar conclusion in his book Täter. Wie aus ganz normalen Menschen Massenmörder werden.[10]
In his 2015 biography, Peter Longerich pointed out how Hitler implemented his political goals as a strong dictator, with assertiveness, high readiness to assume risk and unlimited power.[11] Some authors were fundamentally opposed to any attempt to explain Hitler, for example by psychological means.[12] Claude Lanzman went further, labeling such attempts "obscene"; after the completion of his film Shoah (1985), he felt such attempts bordered on Holocaust denial, with particular criticism directed towards the historian Rudolph Binion.[13]
As the psychiatrist Jan Ehrenwald has pointed out, the question as to how a possibly mentally ill Hitler could have gained millions of enthusiastic followers who supported his policies until 1945 has often been neglected.[14] Daniel Goldhagen argued in 1996 that Hitler's political ascent was not in any way related to his psychopathology, but rather was a consequence of the precarious social conditions that existed at that time in Germany.[15] On the other hand, some authors have noted that figures such as Charles Manson and Jim Jones, who have been described as having a severe mental illness such as schizophrenia, nonetheless succeeded in having a tremendous influence on their groups of followers.[16] Early on, the view was also expressed that Hitler was able to handle his psychopathology skillfully, and was aware of how he could use his symptoms to effectively steer the emotions of his audience.[17] Still other authors have suggested that Hitler's followers themselves were mentally disturbed;[18] evidence for this claim however was not produced.[19] The question how Hitler's individual psychopathology might have been linked with the enthusiasm of his followers was first discussed in 2000 by the interdisciplinary team of authors Matussek/Matussek/Marbach.
My opinion on that: I like this paragraph a lot. Speculating on Hitler's conditions can be unethical, voyeuristic and be used as an excuse for his crimes. Why I am still doing it? Maybe someone with some of the conditions can give some insights what it feels like to have them. And whether it is still possible to be leader of a country. This thread might be a little bit unethical because it is specualtive and remote diagnosis even of psychiatrist have a very bad reputation. However I want to emphasize that his conditions are not in any way an exuse for his actions and it does not play down his crimes against humanity which were disgusting, despicable, hateful and should have deserved a way bigger punishment.
Here is another informative paragraph:
Psychoactive drug use
Hitler regularly consumed methamphetamine, barbiturates, amphetamine, opiates and cocaine.[80][81] In 2015, Norman Ohler published a work Der totale Rausch ("The Total Rush", translated in 2016 as Blitzed: Drugs in Nazi Germany) in which he claims that all of Hitler's irrational behavior can be attributed to his excessive drug use. Helena Barop, who reviewed the book in Die Zeit, wrote that Ohler's account is not based on solid research.
Now my personal opinion:
I also don't think the drugs are the sole reason for his behavior. I could very well imagine that Hitler had several conditions. I had psychosis and I have bipolar. I doubt Hilter had a psychosis or had bipolar at least not before his health went dowhill. It is fact that he took so many drugs. It is likely that affected his psyche. I am pretty good at controlling myself in psychosis, mania, mixed manic-depressive states and I cannot imagine that anyone could get elected when they are in a psychotic episode. I have met people who became antisemites during their psychoses but I think no one would take them serious. However to that time mental illnesses were less known and the demands of a state leader were way less. There are rumors Churchil was either bipolar or had major depression a couple of times while in office. Today in Western countries this would be impossible.
I could imagine he had a couple of personality disorders. Especially the dark triade you be personality traits that fit to him.
The Dark Triad is a psychological theory that describes three interconnected personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.
The following paragraph of the wikipedia article sounds plausible to me:
Psychopathy / antisocial personality disorder
Given the inhumanity of his crimes, Hitler was early on linked with "psychopathy", a severe personality disorder whose main symptoms are a great or complete lack of empathy, social responsibility and conscience. The biologically determined concept still plays a role in the psychiatric forensic science, but it is no longer found in the modern medical classification systems (DSM-IV and ICD-10). Today, corresponding clinical pictures are mostly classified as signs of an antisocial personality disorder. However, the symptomatology is rare, and unlike in popular discourse, where the classification of Hitler as a "psychopath" is commonplace,[71] psychiatrists have only occasionally endeavored to associate him with psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder.
My personal opinion again: PTSD sounds also plausible because he almost died in WWI. I think psychosis or bipolar in a young age does not sound convincing to me. You have to function at rallies and campaign speeches. Hitler's health went downhill during the war. The drugs were one reason. If you read which drugs he took no wonder why. Psychosis at a very late state does not sound impossible to me. I think personality disorders like psychopathy or narcisissm could fit. The people are still able to manage their workload, can be manipulative and still function in our society. They can hide in the shadows.
Moreover I doubt that all his followers were just mentally ill that sounds like a lame excuse.
