Adolf and amphetamines

[masteroftheveiledthreat]

Maybe I should have mentioned this was inspired by "The medical casebook of Adolf Hitler : his illnesses, doctors, and drugs" by Leonard L. Heston. Very interesting.

[Snake Featherston]

None whatsoever as Hitler retaining all centralized power in his hands is strategically unworkable and by 1944 the gap in favor of the Allies is incapable of changing in the favor of the Axis regardless of what the Axis do or do not do.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Tongera

He could have avoided the pressure if he wasn't an idiot (war with the USA (largest industrial power), UK (largest navy and Emprie) and the Soviet Union (largest land army)).

Hitler has a major dilemma here, however.

Originally Posted by Tongera

I agree with you about bringing Germany back into a great power. He was still an idiot for fighting three of the powers i mentioned at the same time.

For you see Hitler didn't want to defeat the UK and destroy the British Empire, as he made clear over and over again. But he also didn't rate the USA very highly as a military power (which to be fair, the US Army did display major weaknesses in force structure, especially in infantry, but it didn't matter in terms of WWII as it was), while he was guaranteed unless he had really, really, really, really, really, really fucked up the invasion of France to go to war with the Soviet Union. An invasion that as he deliberately sets it up, he can only fail and leave himself in an impossible situation of waging a major unwinnable war in the East while facing the impending catastrophe in the West.

If Nazis weren't real, they'd be called a near-perfect situation for a novel, the villains just threatening enough to scare the pants off of everyone but for inherent reasons incapable of ever closing their victories fully. Like if someone had tried to take High Fantasy Dark Lords and make them real life rulers of a state subject to the rules of logistics and the iron law of attrition.

[jmc247]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

For you see Hitler didn't want to defeat the UK and destroy the British Empire, as he made clear over and over again. But he also didn't rate the USA very highly as a military power (which to be fair, the US Army did display major weaknesses in force structure, especially in infantry, but it didn't matter in terms of WWII as it was), while he was guaranteed unless he had really, really, really, really, really, really fucked up the invasion of France to go to war with the Soviet Union. An invasion that as he deliberately sets it up, he can only fail and leave himself in an impossible situation of waging a major unwinnable war in the East while facing the impending catastrophe in the West.

It wasn't the American troops that were the real threat to Germany it was the massive aid to the Soviets and the UK through Lend Lease. What most people don't get is that was coming in if Hitler did or did not declare war on the US he still would have lost. He did so he could get at those ships openly. He vastly overestimated the abilities of his U-Boat fleet. I actually suspect Hitler wouldn't have declared war after Pearl Harbor if the U.S. hadn't just given the Soviet's Lend Lease and multi billion dollar loans. Hitler wasn't that demented and insane as of 1941, but there were certainly signs he was becoming demented. Amphetamines was actually a pretty common treatment for Parkinsonian dementia back then as they had no real treatment for it.

Lend Lease made certain defeat for Germany if the U.S. did or did not enter the war, without it Germany could have fought the Soviet's and the UK to a draw and held on to a good chunk of Europe

[Crimea]

Originally Posted by wietze

surprised nobody mentioned the drinking habits of churchill yet, he wasn't what you would call a ideal leader either (so guess it just came down who made less mistakes).

Churchill wasn't micromanaging the military, though. As far as I'm aware, at least.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Crimea

Churchill wasn't micromanaging the military, though. As far as I'm aware, at least.

I have read author that accuse him of doing just that action. These authors tend to site his very detailed orders sent to the Med commanders.

Churchill had great victories but also great failures, and likely without a drinking problem and clinical depression, he would have performed better.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by jmc247

It wasn't the American troops that were the real threat to Germany it was the massive aid to the Soviets and the UK through Lend Lease. What most people don't get is that was coming in if Hitler did or did not declare war on the US he still would have lost. He did so he could get at those ships openly. He vastly overestimated the abilities of his U-Boat fleet. I actually suspect Hitler wouldn't have declared war after Pearl Harbor if the U.S. hadn't just given the Soviet's Lend Lease and multi billion dollar loans. Hitler wasn't that demented and insane as of 1941, but there were certainly signs he was becoming demented. Amphetamines was actually a pretty common treatment for Parkinsonian dementia back then as they had no real treatment for it.

Lend Lease made certain defeat for Germany if the U.S. did or did not enter the war, without it Germany could have fought the Soviet's and the UK to a draw and held on to a good chunk of Europe

The American Army, however, made much of the WAllies' advances to the Elbe feasible in manpower terms, however. I don't even think Hitler was demented so much as paying the price for being an omnicidal prick whose ideas had worked against all the advice of people who theoretically knew more than he did, to a point that he ceased to be able to listen or care what they said even they actually were right and he was very very wrong.

[jmc247]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

The American Army, however, made much of the WAllies' advances to the Elbe feasible in manpower terms, however. I don't even think Hitler was demented so much as paying the price for being an omnicidal prick whose ideas had worked against all the advice of people who theoretically knew more than he did, to a point that he ceased to be able to listen or care what they said even they actually were right and he was very very wrong.

Hitler was very demented by late 1944. If he was a genocial prick which he was is seperate from that point.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by wietze

surprised nobody mentioned the drinking habits of churchill yet, he wasn't what you would call a ideal leader either (so guess it just came down who made less mistakes).

It always does.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Garrison

It always does.

Agreed.

I think a lot of it comes down to our inner need for heroes. Starting as children, we read stories of great men (real and historical). As adults, we do the same to sports stars, singers, and military men. We are disappointed when the stumble in scandal, and we are shown there are merely humans with some exceptional ability.

Few want to read history books about how the less dumb, often luck ended up ruling the world. WW2 is not an example, because it really was a bit of a blow out. But WW1 is a better example, if the Austrians or Germans had just made a couple fewer mistakes, we would be reading history books on how Churchill was a leading figure in the destruction of the British Empire, and I doubt he ever gets a second chance at power. Or if you just have a USA President IOTL who does not help the UK, Churchill would be the fool who did Gallipoli in WW1 and then in WW2 extended the war and achieve harsher peace terms. Churchill had his virtues, but he had his vices. He was also lucky at the tend, luck being things beyond his control. The reason we have 100 Hitler was dumb, and 25 Mussolini was dumb comments for every Churchill was dumb is that the UK won. Victory is a great deodorant, and to a large extent, the winners write the history books.

[Shaby]

Well, mr. Churchill was lucky enough to be head of the country that could handle larger number and graver mistakes than could Germany and Italy. Germany in order to win the war needs flawless operational execution of a brilliant strategy and then some luck. Britain can win even muddling through. USA can not effectively lose, nor can USSR.

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by jmc247

Hitler was very demented by late 1944. If he was a genocial prick which he was is seperate from that point.

The man had any number of serious personality and mental disorders his entire life; but for most of his adult life he was able to tuck them in and be pretty lucid (at least when he was at work)... the stress of the war going poorly reduced his ability to control the creep of his personality flaws and disorders and this only increased as the war went on; compounded by his horrendous sleeping and eating habits and the 7/20/44 bombing

From 33 to 41 he was very lucid, his memory functioned very well and he could hold a room with the most professionally trained military advisers if anything from 33 to 41 he was a shrewd as hell political and military operator and gambler. Blitzkrieg was hardly a universal idea for development in the heer, there were competing camps and visions; and he sided with the younger more aggressive officers. Sickle cut happened due in no small part to Hitler thinking that Halder's Schlieffen 2.0 was too conservative

The few times he allowed himself to be won over by the generals in 1940 and 41 lead to blunders at Dunkirk and Typhoon.

Not everyone can take military failure as gracefully (god does that word not fit) as Stalin or FDR.

When his generals failed him, Hitler who already had fairly intense levels of paranoia lost his ability to delegate or to objectively hear different views and focused the entire war effort on himself which proved not only unmanagable but also brought out his personality defects en masse.

Their was a brief moment between Stalingrad and Kursk where this may have been slowed down or even partially healed, as the Stalingrad debacle was entirely Hitler's fault (and he even admitted it) at which point he turned extremely depressed and he brought on Guderian and Speer who were objectivish. Had he chosen properly at Kursk (Guderian/Speer/Rommel plan of sit put and do nothing as opposed to Kluge/Zeitzler pincer attack) it may have restored his confidence in sounding out different military opinions then picking between them instead of relying on picking the entire strategy himself which in every case proved unworkable

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Shaby

Well, mr. Churchill was lucky enough to be head of the country that could handle larger number and graver mistakes than could Germany and Italy. Germany in order to win the war needs flawless operational execution of a brilliant strategy and then some luck. Britain can win even muddling through. USA can not effectively lose, nor can USSR.

Yes, the strength of the RN was it could afford losses, as a 2-1 or greater advantage gives a country. The very aggressive attitude of RN admirals works great in this environment.

Germany in order to win/draw needs the USSR not to enter the war. If this is possible is debated on many threads, but so I will skip this issue except to say that if the USSR stays neutral, German has an excellent chance at a white peace. If it is impossible, Hitler is doomed when he invades Poland.

The UK would have a hard time winning without outside help, but do to naval issues, it has a great shot a tying, even with a few more bad breaks.

[Podveleska Utoka]

Had it not been dor operation barbarossa and invasion of SSSR we would be looking at a diferent history. Soviet union, not US or UK or french resistance made the difference.

[b12ox]

There is way too much of this stuff like Hitler was insane, Hitler was not lucid, he was just a creep shut off in his bunkers or on top of the rocks saying and ordering things that were right off the bat not going to work. Hateful, tricky, vengful, he put too much faith on brutality as the easiest means to achieve a goal, sure, but this does not equal insanity. Hitler was a gambler on a grand scale. The attack on the SU was his biggest gamble, but even here he later said if he had known the scope of russian preparations to the war both miltary and propagandist, he would have never attacked. If he had not attacked, Germany would have had to face the world bent on the destruction of the Reich sooner or later, later, meaning you have the Russians equipped with modern weaponry throughout, better prepared and more aware. So, where is his madness. Now, I know where it is coming form; from the movie "Downfall" Not sure it is the best benchmark to judge Hitlers head in the war. The Nazis produced the toll of 50 million dead in 6 years. This is an achievment for a bunch of loonies. Whatever Hitler and his comrades in arms were, the word mad blurrs things only and prevents from inspecting them. The word capitualtion did not exist in Nazi dictionary, but the top Nazis were to be hanged anyway, had they capitulated or not. The rest was sheep turned to headless chicken as things went mad.

[Podveleska Utoka]

Hitler had periods of lucidity and calmness, but he used them to complain and talk instead of making plans

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by Podveleska Utoka

Hitler had periods of lucidity and calmness, but he used them to complain and talk instead of making plans

He showed no lack of problems with his faculties till at least 1942 when his paranoia started showing more outwardly and he began to disconnect from reality

In 1943 he was still fairly lucid; the debacle at stalingrad having compelled him to tone down the outward paranoia

The shitballs crazy Hitler is July 44-Berlin Bunker; which objectively is a man burdened with running a war for 5 consecutive years, very little vacation taken, the stress and burden of losing that war, poor sleeping habits, poor eating habits, intense depression mixed in with advancing existing personality and mental problems and of course suffering a serious head injury from being bombed. That Hitler was barely cohearant and couldn't absorb anything anyone said to him and take it seriously no matter how valuable the person was to him

but to write off Hitler, and his actions, impressive and monstrous alike as the acts of an insane person is to judge the man's mentality by only the final year of his life

[Podveleska Utoka]

I am not sure about when he started taking the drugs (anyone who knows say it)
but I am pretty sure it was before the war, near the end of the war he waws simply a mad drug addict, that comited so many blunders and missed so many chances cause of the drugs that it led to his ultimate end
(hmmm maybe we should build a monument to his doctor :)

[mrmandias]

Originally Posted by Zmflavius

You might get one who's less disconnected from reality, but only in the 'no longer self-delusional to the extent that he moves around imaginary armies to win imaginary battles for imaginary victories." Most of the stuff we'd like to prevent, or, for that matter, the important stuff, is still going to occur as OTL.

Yes, unfortunately. The holocaust and all that wasn't drug-induced.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Podveleska Utoka

Had it not been dor operation barbarossa and invasion of SSSR we would be looking at a diferent history. Soviet union, not US or UK or french resistance made the difference.

Yes, but at the time Churchill made his heroic and famous decisions, he did not know the USSR would enter the war. He took a huge risk. And the bet paid off. A lot of it is how one likes to analysis things after the fact.

Lets take no limit, Texas Hold'em. There are people who go all in with the odds clearly heavily against them. The win the pot, and later win the tournament. Using the way many historians write History, the risk would be ignored and the player would be praised. I prefer to look at the risks taken and see skilled player in the other hands who also got lucky.

Now the problem with history is we don't know the exact odds of the other outcomes as in cards. Some would argue that the Soviets had over a 99% chance of attacking Germany by 1944 if Germany did not attack first. Others see an attack as under 10%, with the USSR only entering after Germany is clearly losing. A lot of ones assessment of Churchill will be based on this assessment, even if one does not think in these terms.

It also applies to Adolf. He is made an insanely stupid decision to attack the USSR, possibly with drugs clouding his judgement or he had to attack the USSR and pick a very wise time to attack. And he was unlucky Japan attacked the USA and unskilled in some very, very bad military decisions.