Psychological analysis of Hitler-taking sides

[Maduro_Scotty]

While perusing the net, I found a great link from the Cornel law school. They have a pdf. formatted version of a work that was completed in 1943. The mission?, to psychologically diagnose Hitler, as well as to make a prediction as to how he will react when the war ends, as well as how to handle him should he be taken alive. One of the central points of this report is that Hitler has two main problems. First, he is a paranoid schizophrenic. Second, he had bouts of hysteria. Combine those things to gether, and you get one very interesting world leader.

Hitler report (http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/library/donovan/hitler/)

So, was Hitler insane? Is he more or less evil? Do you buy the analysis? Any thoughts?

[ArthurDent]

Insane or not, I don't see him as any less evil as I saw him up until now. A person who dreams up a master plan like he did, is the epitome of evil.

Also, you do realize that he is dead right? since you were refering to him in the present tense :)

[Jezebel]

To the best of my memory, I have never heard him described as a paranoid schizophrenic, although I'm not saying it hasn't been said and isn't true. He certainly displayed paranoia, however he also displayed very characteristic behaviors of APD (antisocial personality disorder (http://www.psyweb.com/Mdisord/jsp/anpd.jsp) ), or in other words, his behaviors fit the definition of a psychopath. He also, if I remember correctly, displayed obessive-compulsive behaviors as well. That diagnosis in a leader would be disastrous, as was evidenced by Hitler's self-serving practices, manipulation of the masses, disregard for human suffering, and poor military strategies.

[Maduro_Scotty]

One of the more interesting things about the report is that it constructs how Hitler succeeded and wasn't imprisoned for being insane. If he set before him goals, then he would work tirelessly to accomplish them. Not only that, but he also had a tendency to thrive when being challenged. Opposition within the party, from communists, or the authorities, would spur him on to action. His hysteria worked well as a mesmerizing public speaker and spoke to their primitive power desires. I believe in section 7, it is speculated as to how Hitler would meet his end. The psychiatrist predicted suicide as a likely option, as well as having a tendency to take all of Europe down with him with no remorse. that is reflected in how he gave orders to wipe out farm fields and even civilians towards the very end. Surrender?, never an option as it would ruin his "man of the people" personna that he highly valued.

[Jezebel]

All of that fits better with APD....hysteria isn't really used as a diagnosis anymore, especially not like it was back then. He is an interesting person, that's for sure.

[blp]

Why does the question of whether someone is 'evil' ever get asked? What does it mean if we decide they are?

[Jezebel]

Nothing, evil is subjective. If we say they're evil it's a good way to try to deter others from following in the evil doer's footsteps. It's a good way of justifying why you're killing or conquering them.

[oceanflower]

www.dictionary.com defines evil in the following way:


morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

By these definitions, Hitler was evil.

[Jezebel]

www.dictionary.com defines evil in the following way:

[list=1]
morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.


Ah but what is "morally bad or wrong" if not subjective?

[blp]

To sharpen up my question, what is at stake in trying to determine whether Hitler was mad or whether he was bad?

[ArthurDent]

Morally wrong is subjective.

But the definition in the dictionary did not take sides. You could look at it from any direction you want. Hitler could have applied it to the non-arians as easily as I apply it to him.

blp - Absolutely nothing :) My opinion is that he was bad and another person can say he was mad. Maybe the real question should be "why does one think Hitler was morally wrong/right?". Not that I can picture an argument for the latter...

[Durga]

Nothing, evil is subjective. If we say they're evil it's a good way to try to deter others from following in the evil doer's footsteps. It's a good way of justifying why you're killing or conquering them.
You are absolutely right - some of our heroes, if they would lose, would be considered evil. Someone even said that history says something is good because it won. Unfortunately i don't really remember who said it:(

[oceanflower]

If Hitler had won the war, I still would have found him to be "bad." There is no other way to define the Holocaust, is there?

[Jezebel]

Well if you were a supporter of it you could call it a "success" or a "start" or a number of other positive words. Remember, the people who really bought into it thought it was a good thing they were doing- a good thing for society, a good thing for mankind. If you've got termites in your house and you call an exterminator you don't feel guilty or morally wrong and you're happy when all the termites are dead. If Hitler won the war he probably would have won because the US supported him. If the US supported him then the US would probably also support his actions and goals. As such, the US government and education systems would have worked hard to make sure its citizens also supported those goals and actions. And not to burst any bubbles (not to say that anyone here has any), but Americans are just as dehumanizing when it suits them- any person is.

[oceanflower]

Well if you were a supporter of it you could call it a "success" or a "start" or a number of other positive words. Remember, the people who really bought into it thought it was a good thing they were doing- a good thing for society, a good thing for mankind. If you've got termites in your house and you call an exterminator you don't feel guilty or morally wrong and you're happy when all the termites are dead.

First of all I wouldn't compare the murder of Jews to termites. And no matter how many people believed that ridding society of Jews was a good thing, their belief did not make the Holocaust "good". This is simply not subjective. The Holocaust was "bad" (an understatement to be sure).

[Durga]

What about colonizing Africa or America? It caused death of plenty people but is considered to be good for development. If Hitler won, we would be taught in schools that he pushed our world into development. So probsably we would never think of him as a monster, because they would put different ideas into our minds from the very beginning. But i'm not saying he is not a monster. He is. But we see him like this Because since he didnt win, we can judge him in more objective way

[Jezebel]

First of all I wouldn't compare the murder of Jews to termites. And no matter how many people believed that ridding society of Jews was a good thing, their belief did not make the Holocaust "good". This is simply not subjective. The Holocaust was "bad" (an understatement to be sure).

I wouldn't compare the murder of Jews to termites either, but I used that example because I'm sure people who supported Hitler and his ideas thought about it in very similar ways. The Jews and those who didn't fit into his mold of "ideal person" were dehumanized and thought of as pests, problems, and "things" to get rid of to improve society.

If the entire world supported the killing of Jews as a good thing then it would be considered a good thing. Every person alive would think, "this is good", which would make it "good" when they would talk about good and bad, right and wrong. People would be viewed as morally correct and good if they killed a Jewish person and morally bad if they didn't- they would be "killing society", which would be far worse than "killing a non-human creature".

We now think slavery is wrong and cruel, yet not so long ago good old Americans though there wasn't anything wrong with it. Many slave holders justified slavery as "helpful" to the "savage", "beast-like" slaves.

[Jezebel]

What about colonizing Africa or America? It caused death of plenty people but is considered to be good for development. If Hitler won, we would be taught in schools that he pushed our world into development. So probsably we would never think of him as a monster, because they would put different ideas into our minds from the very beginning. But i'm not saying he is not a monster. He is. But we see him like this Because since he didnt win, we can judge him in more objective way

Is is really an objective view we have? I'd argue that we are not objective, we are simply holding an alternative subjective view. We did win, therefore "backing up" our subjective view that what he did was "wrong". Our wrong became the more powerful wrong, but it is not necessarily a more objective wrong. If Hitler had won would his view have been more objective? If not, why is ours?

[oceanflower]

I wouldn't compare the murder of Jews to termites either, but I used that example because I'm sure people who supported Hitler and his ideas thought about it in very similar ways. The Jews and those who didn't fit into his mold of "ideal person" were dehumanized and thought of as pests, problems, and "things" to get rid of to improve society.

If the entire world supported the killing of Jews as a good thing then it would be considered a good thing. Every person alive would think, "this is good", which would make it "good" when they would talk about good and bad, right and wrong. People would be viewed as morally correct and good if they killed a Jewish person and morally bad if they didn't- they would be "killing society", which would be far worse than "killing a non-human creature".

We now think slavery is wrong and cruel, yet not so long ago good old Americans though there wasn't anything wrong with it. Many slave holders justified slavery as "helpful" to the "savage", "beast-like" slaves.

My point is that "sayin' it don't make it so." If the whole world supported the killing of Jews, the whole world would be wrong.

[blp]

I don't think it's all quite as relative as you make out, Jezebel. It's a difficult case to make, but I think you can apply certain principles in the judgement of any situation, not necessarily as absolute deciders, but at least as measures. Even modern apologists for Hitler such as David Irving generally fight shy of saying it was OK to murder millions of Jews, opting instead to deny it happened, and even at the time it wasn't widely known to be happening among the German population and I think the reason is that, however antisemitic some of these people might be or might have been, the massacre of innocent people is morally repugnant to the majority. You can see a parallel in the protest movement that arose against King Leopold II of Belgium when Roger Casement drew attention to the mass atrocities he was committing in the Congo in the early 20th Century. Many of the people who objected might well have believed, in the abstract, that blacks were inferior to whites, but the possibly genocidal level of killing in the Congo was beyond what most people can tolerate.

I think the more likely scenario is that, if Hitler had won, we simply wouldn't hear much about the concentration camps. What we did hear might be roughly as anodyne as what we hear about Indian reservations - whereas, in fact, if we heard the truth of what had happened to America's native population, we'd find it as abhorrent as what happened to the Jews under Hitler. We might even, instead, hear more about how Nazis encouraged exreme Zionists in the foundation of the state of Israel.

[Durga]

There is a novel by Robert Harris Vaterland and it's kind of alternativ history - what would our world look like if Hitler won. You may find it interesting

[Maduro_Scotty]

Foreign Affairs has an excellent essay on the Saddam Hussein and his mind (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85301/kevin-woods-james-lacey-williamson-murray/saddam-s-delusions-the-view-from-the-inside.html) :)

[The Careful Collector]

Can good and bad, right and wrong really be subjective? Our personal definitions of it may vary based on what is most convenient to us but does that necessarily mean there is not a set standard. It seems to me there must be. Otherwise where did good and bad come from. It may be really wonderful for you personally to have money, but if you get that money by embezzeling from your company, it is bad for them. There must be an ultimate Good by which things are judged.