Adolf Hitler: Evil or Insane?

[Eastern Roman]

I don't think he was evil, life is not like the movies "the good and the bad", he had his plans for a better world, like he imagine it. He was insane.

[rusina]

He was insane, and because of that he became evil (atleast he pretended to be).

[Markas]

He was as clinical, amoral and criminal as those who carried out his orders. They were Human Beings, not automatons. 'Evil' is a little theatrical for me and insane is an over-used label. The insane generally don't run for political office.

[Beeeno]

I would say that he was both evil and insane.

... for me too !!

[Spartacus the Irish]

Does it matter? Does either outcome proposed by the OP excuse his actions? No; so why bother debating it?

[Oklop]

He was insane and evil. It does not matter if he personally believed that he is "good" and that he is doing good things for Germany.

I mean, that Mason guy probably was good in his own view right?

[Bovril]

Insane is a braod term. He was certainly paranoid, had nigh on psychotic beliefs about himself and the world, had severe mood swings, and so on, so he was far from mentally stable. As for evil, he seems to have had a severe deficit of empathy for people outisde of the group he regarded as 'real' people, i.e. (north) europeans. He was very manipulative, especially of groups. He seems to have been extremely intollerant of failure. And he had a very authoritarian personality type. He seems not to have been sadistic in the traditional sense. I'm not aware of him enjoying or glorying in causing pain to people who were actually physically present.
Whether the characteristics I've described count as either insane or evil is not for me to say since I don't like to use those terms about individuals as opposed to conditions or actions.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Insane is a braod term. He was certainly paranoid, had nigh on psychotic beliefs about himself and the world, had severe mood swings, and so on, so he was far from mentally stable. As for evil, he seems to have had a severe deficit of empathy for people outisde of the group he regarded as 'real' people, i.e. (north) europeans. He was very manipulative, especially of groups. He seems to have been extremely intollerant of failure. And he had a very authoritarian personality type. He seems not to have been sadistic in the traditional sense. I'm not aware of him enjoying or glorying in causing pain to people who were actually physically present.
Whether the characteristics I've described count as either insane or evil is not for me to say since I don't like to use those terms about individuals as opposed to conditions or actions.

Yes he was not like Vlad Tepes who had people tortured in front of him while he dined..Strangely Vlad Dracul seems to have been a cruel but just ruler.

[Visna]

Yes he was not like Vlad Tepes who had people tortured in front of him while he dined..Strangely Vlad Dracul seems to have been a cruel but just ruler.

He was a bit more complex than someone who enjoy watching people die in pain while he was eating. On one hand he had no qualms with extermination on an industrial scale using (among other things) poison gas, on the other he was very strongly opposed to the use of chemical weapons. Something he had ample opportunity to get to loathe in the trenches in WW1. The examples of Germany using poison gas against enemy forces in the field are extremely sketchy at best. Whereas the evidence of Germany using poison gas against undesirables and POW's is overwhelming.

[MrMofo]

he was neither. Saying that he was one or the other is a cop-out excuse for the worst side of human actions. He did what he did because he was human, he believed what he was doing was right, and was in the position to make it come true, so he did. He started a war, it went further than he planned, his plans got muddled, out of control, and one thing led to another and a lot of people were dead. It makes him an , but not evil or insane.

[Faramir D'Andunie]

How do we judge someone as evil? What criteria do we use? That he was doing something he judged to be morally wrong and cruel, or something that we judge to be us so. Cause Hilter himself believed to be doing a good thing and helping Europe, even if that meant the deaths of thousands.

And all that without counting the fact that he had little involvement in desicion making. He simpy said I want "that" done and he did not care how his subordinates accomplished it. Funny how such a dissorganised regime gives the impression of order and unrivaled organisation. Says a lot for their propaganda.


Anyhow for the original question I believe him to be mentally dangerous and delussional but not insane. If one wishes to find both evil and insane members of the Nazi administration he can find many examples. Himler, Dr Mengele, the german rulers of Poland and countless more examples.

[Godless Pickle]

He was most likely a healthy mix of both.

[watty_14]

IMO i would say both, but you have to admit that the guy was smart and a charismatic man, to be able to turn i disheartened and broken country into a strong and very strong nation., im not a pro nazi btw

[MaximiIian]

He was just a dickhead.

This.

Hitler wasn't exactly "insane", as that is a legal definition by a court, not a medical concept. In retrospective analysis, he probably did have some kind of sociopathic and megalomaniacal tendencies, as he was uncaring towards most individuals and aggrandized himself as a messianic figure. Probably stems from his abusive and drunkard father beating him half to death when he was a wee lad.

However, it's not like he was a psychopath or something like that. He was just a meanie. Evil is relative; being a douchebag isn't.

[Ahlerich]

evil is relative.

he sure was extremly reckless and inhumane like many leaders in history. unfortunately germans just dont only make good things better - they also make "evil" things "more evil"

we are just thorough perfectionists har har

[Mangalore]

...

he sure was extremly reckless and inhumane like many leaders in history. unfortunately germans just dont only make good things better - they also make "evil" things "more evil"

...

Anything worth doing, is worth doing right?

[Ahlerich]

german efficiency made the bad much worse because we were so efficient in the goal of "removing" the jews. that was terrible of course.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

IMO i would say both, but you have to admit that the guy was smart and a charismatic man, to be able to turn i disheartened and broken country into a strong and very strong nation., im not a pro nazi btw

This is the kind of stuff im trying to say..Germany was defeated after ww1 and Hitler made it into a world power..He was probably one of the best speakers in history yet..I still think he was ing crazy.

evil is relative.

he sure was extremly reckless and inhumane like many leaders in history. unfortunately germans just dont only make good things better - they also make "evil" things "more evil"

we are just thorough perfectionists har har

Wir Deutsche tun alles besser.

[Faramir D'Andunie]

If I remember right, the very first exterminations in Nazi Germany began with mentally retarded people who were hospitalised in special facilities. This was sparked by a random letter addressed to Hilter, of a father asking permition to kill his mentally retarded child.


How something that small can trigger such huuge events...

[Steel of Fury]

Both. I would say Hitler was a case of genes and mental illness ( which could also be related to the former ). His father is written to have been a brutal man who terrorized the young Adolf. Modern medicine considers his behavior to have been that of a manic-depressive, and as what one psychologist stated, a few doses of Lithium could have changed world history.