Was Hitler Insane?

[smiling_bandit]

Any definition is going to be incomplete so long as we do not fully understand how the mind works. As you admitted, even your definition was incomplete.

So what? I say my definition is an attempt to create a complete definition, a step towards it, rather than wallowing in ignorance.

Good question, and one that folks wrestle with all the time. Remember the European couple that got into trouble because they left their kids in a stroller while they went in and ate a restaurant in NYC? Authorities had trouble deciding on what, if any punishment the parents should have faced, simply because they were outsiders who were following the customs of their native country.

No, I do not remember this. I do not consider this insane, and while illegal, it is not without a case of the law having no reason for mercy. Granted, I think the European custom in question is totally boneheaded. I could be wrong. However, any punishment I would impose would bepart of my attempt to find an objective good/bad and enforce it.

Because society would be incapable of functioning if one didn’t.

So what? Why is society an absolute good? What reason does any individual have to obey it, except that it seems rational. Moreover, taken to the logical extreme, your are literally saying that in a truly vile society it is insane to do good, since that is “abnormal”. Fuck abnormal. I don’t care. people should do what they think is right.

Because one of the key factors in determining a person’s mental state is how they follow social norms. You wouldn’t question a person’s sanity if they acted more or less like everyone else.

Here is where you once again go wrong. Simply because one acts like everyone else does not mean everyone is sane. In fact, there are some things lots of people do that I think is borderline psycho, which I do not wish to state here since I do not want to turn this into a thread full of people ranting at me for calling them nuts.

It’s when they deviate from the accepted norms of society that you begin to question a person’s mental state. Indeed, in my example of someone urinating in the street, you immediately provided examples of situations where our society had deemed such acts to be acceptable.

[I don’t recall saying anything about peeing in the streets, and my quick review didn’t show anything] Which was [or at least, would have been if I had done so] meant to show that no act is unusual, and that circumstances are simply a bunch of people’s say so. Culture changes and has nothing to do with any real principle of sanity, merely that a person does not think the same things as those around him or her. Even if unusual behavior is how we “know” (very inadequately) that someone is insane, that is merely one sign, and not an ironclad one. The real disease is much deeper, and may or may not expres itself in unusual behavior, at least not yet. Eventually, a truly insane person might engage in behavior truly out of whack with reality, but not all of them do. Many simply suffer quietly and are never treated. Therefore, “insane behavior” is not and cannot be the sole criteria.

Because, as you admitted, it’s not simply the act which makes one mentally unstable, but the circumstances underwhich one commits the act that determines if one is or is not sane.

You misunderstand again. It is not the circumstances I am interested in but the actual state of a person’s mind. You seem to believe that insanity is the relationship between a person and the outside world. I state that it is the inner state of a person’s mind.

But we are hijacking this thread, so I will post no more on this topic here.

[Tuckerfan]

bandit, without a working definition of what is “sane” when cannot define what’s “insane.”

**No, I do not remember this. I do not consider this insane, and while illegal, it is not without a case of the law having no reason for mercy. Granted, I think the European custom in question is totally boneheaded. I could be wrong. However, any punishment I would impose would bepart of my attempt to find an objective good/bad and enforce it.

**The European custom is not boneheaded in their country. They were, IIRC, from the Netherlands, where kidnapping is extremely rare. So to them, what they were doing, was perfectly normal.

**So what? Why is society an absolute good? What reason does any individual have to obey it, except that it seems rational. Moreover, taken to the logical extreme, your are literally saying that in a truly vile society it is insane to do good, since that is “abnormal”. Fuck abnormal. I don’t care. people should do what they think is right.

**Well, you’re wrong about this. You seem to think that there is an objective standard of what’s right and what’s wrong. There isn’t one. There are values which a society decides are good or not. Had you been raised in a society different than America, your values could very well be different than what they presently are. And indeed, in a vile society doing “good” is insane, because it puts your own life at risk.
**

Here is where you once again go wrong. Simply because one acts like everyone else does not mean everyone is sane.**

Never said it did. What I did say is that the only way we can tell if a person is insane or not, is by how they act differently than others. We all have the potential for madness inside us.

I don’t recall saying anything about peeing in the streets, and my quick review didn’t show anything]

Ah, how soon we forget. You said

You would not be insane. Well, you could be insane, bbut that that isn’t a neccessity. You might simply not care about other people’s opnions, or you might have some reason for “making a statement”. regardless, there is no reason to assume you are mentally ill. There is nothing wrong with your mind, in this case, it is simply that you do not agree with other people.

(BTW, in your browser there should be a “find in page” function. Handy for reviewing threads like these.)

** Culture changes and has nothing to do with any real principle of sanity, merely that a person does not think the same things as those around him or her. **

Indeed, culture does change, and it has a great deal to do with a “real” principal of sanity. During the Victorian Era, women were considered to be “hysterics” (The root hyster- comes from the Greek word for womb. So, the psycholological disturbance termed hysteria was originally believed to be a disease of women and resulted from some disturbance in the uterus. Its origin is in the late 17th century.) and exhibited all sorts of behavior (fainting and panic attacks) that are indicative of mental illness. The mental health practitioners of the time assumed that this was because women were “the weaker sex” and that they were in need of treatment and medication. Today, we know that the women weren’t mentally ill, but were acting in the only ways acceptible to their society.

**Even if unusual behavior is how we “know” (very inadequately) that someone is insane, that is merely one sign, and not an ironclad one.

**
Agreed. Which is why it’s so difficult to determine if one is insane or not.
**

The real disease is much deeper, and may or may not expres itself in unusual behavior, at least not yet. Eventually, a truly insane person might engage in behavior truly out of whack with reality, but not all of them do. Many simply suffer quietly and are never treated.**

Again, agreed.
**

Therefore, “insane behavior” is not and cannot be the sole criteria.**

Except, it’s the only one we have. This is not to say that a credible mental health professional would look at one action of an individual and declare them to be sane or not. They would spend an extensive period of time questioning the patient about their other actions, the reason they commit their actions, and why (if they do) feel that they are mentally ill.

**

You misunderstand again. It is not the circumstances I am interested in but the actual state of a person’s mind. You seem to believe that insanity is the relationship between a person and the outside world.**

No, I believe that the only way to determine if a person is insane or not, is by studying their relationship with the outside world.
**

I state that it is the inner state of a person’s mind.**

Indeed, but as of yet, we have no way to conclusively determine what the inner state of a person’s mind is. Additionally, our behaviors cause changes in the physical structures of our brains, so that simply declaring that differences in brain structure alone determine who is sane and who is not, is totally inaccurate. If there was a simple way of determining if a person was sane or not, then there wouldn’t be large number of expert witnesses testifying at trials.

Remember that woman who drowned her five kids in the bathtub because God told her to? She was definately mentally ill, and yet was found guilty because she knew what she was doing, under the law’s definition.

[GOM]

*Originally posted by kingpengvin *
**

We weren’t talking about Hitler and the occult and no he was not a magical man hypnotising his followers with deamon powers. If I sound trit about it well I am, it is a silly notion. **

Hitler’s interest in the occult could indeed bear on the idea of his being sane/insane…

Btw, I notice how “silly” is sometimes used to describe something that you have never personally observed. Not a criticism, just an observation.

[PatriotX]

Convenient how you “go silent” when salient questions are asked.

[David_Simmons]

Whether Hitler was insane or not is immaterial. Those who actually operated the extermination camps and were in the Gestapo and the SS couldn’t all have been deranged.

Ordinary folks can do some pretty awful things. Get used to it.

[Magiver]

Without a definition of “insanity” to work with I looked at a dictionary as a starting point.

*insane *** (adj.) Afflicted with a serious mental disorder impairing a person’s ability to function.

I would add to that the ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

I was actually watching a PBS show (Hitler: In His Own Words) when I saw the thread. According to the show, Hitler manipulated his way up the ladder and considered the common man a total boob. At some point in his ascension, he needed a rallying point to focus the despair of the masses. He wanted a monster that could be easily slain. Of all the people he hated (the list was long) Jews worked out well for him. They were within easy reach, couldn’t defend themselves, and were already disliked.

It appears to me that Hitler was capable of detailed, long-term planning. This demonstrates an ability to stay focused.

Killing 8 million people for your own personal political gain implies a serious inability to empathize with the plight of others. This leads to a logic test: was Hitler aware of the gravity of the crime? Since I’ve always believed his suicide was intended to avoid prosecution for his war crimes it appears to me that he could distinguish right from wrong.

I would put him in the “manic” category. He was very single minded and went after what he wanted to the exclusion of all else. At some point the adage: “absolute power corrupts absolutely” became a reality for him.

[smiling_bandit]

I would add to that the ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

That is, for me, the key thing, particularly in this case. Hitler and the other high-ranking Nazi’s did not have the courage to do i themselves. They hid the truth, pretended even among themselves that they weren’t really doing what they all knew they were doing. That, to me, says they wanted to play “Let’s Pretend” to sooth their consciounces. They knew it was wrong.

Hitler’s interest in the occult could indeed bear on the idea of his being sane/insane…

Nah. Hitler wasn’t really into that, and I suspect the Nazi’s picked it up as part of the high echelon’s contempt for Christianity.

[Muldoon_s_Squishiness]

*Originally posted by Magiver *
** According to the show, Hitler manipulated his way up the ladder and considered the common man a total boob. At some point in his ascension, he needed a rallying point to focus the despair of the masses. He wanted a monster that could be easily slain. Of all the people he hated (the list was long) Jews worked out well for him. They were within easy reach, couldn’t defend themselves, and were already disliked.

Killing 8 million people for your own personal political gain implies a serious inability to empathize with the plight of others. This leads to a logic test: was Hitler aware of the gravity of the crime? **

Hitler was very careful not to go too far in his public speeches as far as his thoughts on exterminating the Jews were. he would get to the point where the crowd was in a frenzy of hatred, but he never said, “Now, go out and kill every Jew you can find.”

Also, by the time 8,000,000 Jews had been killed hitlers had all of the political power in Germany. He didn’t need any more. His underlings and subordinates were fighting amongst themselves to try and curry favor with him.

smiling bandit The high ranking nazis who were in on the plan certainly knew what they were doing, they simply talked in a kind of code, hence the use of such phrases as "resettlement to the East & Final Solution of the Jewish Question.

[kingpengvin]

*Originally posted by GOM *
**Hitler’s interest in the occult could indeed bear on the idea of his being sane/insane…

Btw, I notice how “silly” is sometimes used to describe something that you have never personally observed. Not a criticism, just an observation. **

I don’t see that at all. Being interested in teh occult says nothing about Hitler’s sanity or insanity. I know people who have an interest in those things and are not insane. I think that their belifs are a little “silly” and I have observed there mumbo jumbo, but that doesn’t mean they are nuts.

Also Hitler’s supposed occult obsession has never really been proven except by thrid hand anecdotal rumours.

[Northern_Piper]

*Originally posted by kingpengvin *
**Yes exactly… had someone had teh guts before the final bunker days to say how bad things really were Hitler may have shot himself earlier. It was amazing the lengths his people went through to appease him. I can’t remember who it was but didn’t one officer or Party member actually fly to Berlin on Hitler’s orders even though the Allies controled the Skies and the Russians had breeched the outskirts of Berlin? **

In addition to Greimer, Speer made a similar flight from Hamburg to Berlin in the final days. He didn’t do it on Hitler’s orders, but because he had some deep personal need to say good-bye to Hitler. He had a couple of fighter planes as an escort in, but flew out and back to Hamburg without an escort.

[Northern_Piper]

sorry - “von Greim”, not “Greimer” (it gets tricky when the post you’re replying to is on the previous page).

[Gatopescado]

I say he was crazy as a shit-house rat! (somebody had to say it) Of course that may just be a metaphore. You could argue that the actually was crazy like a fox, pursueing his own twisted agenda.

I think the truth of the matter is :

*Originally posted by David Simmons *
**Whether Hitler was insane or not is immaterial. Those who actually operated the extermination camps and were in the Gestapo and the SS couldn’t all have been deranged.

Ordinary folks can do some pretty awful things. Get used to it. **

He did have some mighty strange habits. Have you seen the footage of him both at the olympics and at some state function where he has a crazed, glazed look on his face as he rocks back and forth like a mental patient?

---

Hitler: Ruined a perfectly good name like Adolph for generations!

[owlstretchingtime]

I remember reading (sorry no cite - this from memory) that his mental stability went south after the bomb plot, and it could be the case that there was some brain damage, which would impact on his thought processes.

His physical health certainly deteriorated rapidly after that.

As to demonic posession: This would explain why a complete LFB like Tony Blair is such a good public speaker.