WAS HITLER AUTISTIC?

Post Reply New Topic

Not at all - I am talking about approach here. Lets look at something on a smaller scale - school shootings. Both Scandinavia and the US have had them - but they looked at them in different ways. The former took the what went wrong is this persons life approach and decided to see what they would do as a society about it. The US on the other hand decided to proclaim the school shooters as evil, twisted and so on a lot more and decided on school security being a better way to prevent it.

Which approach do you think is the best? I am rooting for the Scandinavian one.

I guess, now that I think about it, my real point is that there is no way to point the finger of blame on a single entity. All parties are equally responsible, no more or less than if they had acted in isolation. I think it's a human tendency to try to place the blame on one party because it's easier to manage if we think in terms of a single culprit. The real world is much more complicated however.

Forgive me for going off on this tangent. I tend to do that.

After the fact of a school shooting, I'd say it's too late to understand the gunmens' internal motivations. If you do bad things, you must be punished. Your personal problems can be sorted out later, in jail.

It's the responsibility of the individual to accept the consequences of his actions, no matter what they may be.

Compassion for the school shooter is admirable, but compassion must also be extended to the shooter's victims & their families.

Fair point, but then Hitler I'm sure, would have favoured the US approach. Of course, if the Treaty of Versailles had been more reasonable, and German society more healthy, Hitler's character would have been different and different politics would have taken root in Germany. But whatever we don't know about Hitler, he was a megalomaniac and would have hated the idea he was a patient, so to speak. If he'd succeeded, the approach to the human condition that you advocate would be firmly discouraged and probably wouldn't even exist in practical terms.

I think the idea that all parties are equally responsible is an ideal which we should try to create by good education and a wise organisation of society. We're a long way from it as yet, but there are large parts of the world where this ideal doesn't even exist. In practical terms, we have to forgive the mass of people when some madness descends on a country. The Nazi's came to power because Germany was punished too harshly after the first world war. Hatred of Russian communism led to the country being pillaged by Western capitalists in the 90's. Now Russia has a government which looks suspiciously like a proto-fascist state. Making leaders scape-goats is convenient, but they can hardly complain if they preside over some horrendous evil.

Hitler was evil.

If the leader isn't responsible, who is?

Who was responsible for the Jonestown massacre if not Jim Jones?

I don't think Hitler was autistic. I've read the book of David Owen (''In sickness and in power'') and he wrote about Hitler many psychiatrists throughout the years have tried to put a finger on what was wrong with him, but no one ever found a real disorder or pattern in him. There were many diagnoses being made, though not one of them was really good or believeable. Autism is just one of the many diagnoses, there are many more which can be totally different. The diagnoses being made in Hitler's case aren't that trustworthy. Many psychiatrists have tried, and they came up with many differend theories on Hitler's insanity.

If Hitler was autistic, than I must be.... a coconut.

Hi, this is my first post here.

I just started reading a book about Hitler's notes and letters, which contains the original documents.
I quickly came to the conclusion that he might be on the autistic spectrum which led me to google the keywords and I arrived here.

I think I should say a few words about my person and my definition of autism. Last year I found out about autism and have read a lot of different sources on the internet about it (I have not yet bothered to read some books mainly because most of them seem not to contain anything new for me and I really thought about the whole topic alot). I have not yet let myself be diagnosed because on the one hand I am pretty sure I could get the result I "wanted" just because I know how I should react and on the other hand some of my autistic traits might be put off as aspects of personality disorders resulting from traumata which makes me a very difficult case.

The reasons why I suspect myself being slightly autistic are mostly occuring traits in my family - on my father's side there is an autistic child, while my father himself shows a lot of autistic traits like perfectionism, obsessive collections and really bad "social skills" with no real ability to recognize other people's emotions or general social rules. Most of his traits are also found in me, even though I am trying hard not to mirror him. However, I myself have a very good sense of social rules and behaviours so I can avoid the most awkward situations because I analyzed it my whole life but in spontaneous situations I still have a really hard time trying to figure out what I should do and sometimes even what is going on.

I also personally do not believe in most of what psychology is teaching (I think it is really one of the worst of the interpretive empirical sciences with one of the meanest and most abusive tools in their hands - hypnosis) and that most personality disorders are probably somewhat connected to being on the autism spectrum even if one is not a real "Aspie". I also think that what is described as the sometimes very different aspects of the personality disorders are only the results of having one's autistic elements been misguided. This viewpoint is of course very controversial because it implies that one needed to be genetically disposed towards certain disorders which psychology mostly claims result from environmental factors only.

My definition of Asperger Syndrome and the autism spectrum is as a result very loose. Especially since some autists seem to be able to counter their problems due to experience, observing or just by being exceptionally intelligent, therefore one might show only a few traits which would not be sufficient for a clinical diagnosis but could still be considered autistic or "on the spectrum". As others pointed out in this thread for example not all Aspergers are socially inept. Traitst I would say are defining: being exceptionally strong willed, being in someway obsessive about something with no direct connection to practional use. being difficult for others in conversations

After reading the whole thread my general impression was that most of you really differentiate between two groups of people: AS and NT - where it seems that most of you believe there is a clear cut difference, while the term spectrum already implies there is not. If I would need to picture it now I would say that I think of the spectrum somewhat like of a branching tree where there is no real structure and some branches might exhibit entirely different characteristics. And I think most of you are too focussed on one in today's science accepted and defined branch.

While I am at it I might also explain my viewpoints on why something like autism exists in humans. This may sound very delusional if you are too much influenced by egalitarian views: Humans are propably the most complex living objects on this planet. Therefore the interactions between humans in their so called social constructs are also propably the most complex. For interactions between more basic animals organized in human like communities a very small ruleset with one "rulekeeper" and "leader" (usually a so called "alpha animal") is sufficient. For humans the rules became more comeplex with the advancing level of civilization. Take for example the concept of property which is propably old enough to have an evolutional effect on humans; the concept itself is already pretty abstract but taking property as an existing rule in a tribe like situation one can easily derive problems and conflicts which are even pretty complex and if handled wrongly, e.g. brute force, may result in a very lethal situation after which most of the tribe may very well not survive any more. The solution is of course an entity within the human community which purpose is not only being the strongest and most intelligent person therefore the most respected and the most important in hunting (like a human "alpha animal") but also understanding abstract rules, being able to apply them to different situations and if necessary be consequent enough to enforce them (or in general: to be obsessive about a given set of rules) (Assuming we say that rules and the concept of justice are a necessity for the success of communities).

If you consider situations and an environment like this, I feel that most of the autistic traits tend to be a lot better understandable. Emotional detachedness for example is necessary for a good judge, having a good understanding of how a system works is very important for a leader, being very confident about one owns belief system and following it rigorously defying any outside doubts is also very important for a leader.

This thoughts are of course a bit dangerous because it might lead to believing that autistic people are somehow more important.




I might finally come to the whole subject of the topic now.

I personally think that most important figures in history were somewhat autistic. Marx for example as a prominent "enemy" of Hitler. This also gives a whole new spin on why the system of communism might fail: simply because their main theoreticians assumed that every man would in the given circumstances always follow the principle of a greater good which was evidently not the case.

But I must admit after reading some of Hitler's earlier letters (I have not yet read everything) I was shocked how similar and how understandable for me some of his characteristics were. For example a friend of his youth describes how he was often used by Hitler to be "spoken to". Hitler seemed to tend to lecture people about his own belief system or in general found himself and his thoughts to be a very interesting subject even at an early age (where was not particularly antisemitic). One could of course argue that this might be narcissistic, but when taken into account that when later writing letters to the same friend he once remarks that he has thought long and hard about what to tell him because nothing much of interest had happened to him, it seems to me a lot more like he felt that everything would need to have a purpose if it should have the right to be told. A lot like most people on the autistic spectrum have problems with "small talk".

I also read recently that in simple conversations he sometimes had problems to focus on one subject, jumping sometimes from topic to topic, about which I also read that this is an issue with some people "on the spectrum".

Another factor speaking against a narcissistic interpretation of his "disorders" is that while he was practicing his public speaking skills in the early NSDAP days he thought of himself just as of someone who would pave the way for the "coming great man to lead", he did not believe this "great man to lead" to be himself. And only assumed this role later after being pushed into it by other party members. Clearly a narcissistic person would not only have enjoyed the attention he would have gotten at the center of a speech (which were very small and private at first), but would also have thought of himself as the "next great man".

When considering the letters to his friend another aspect is that he always ended with a greeting to his friend and his family. The historian who put the book together writes that this is a formulaic way for Hitler to assume the role of a well educated and well-mannered person with no real meaning behind it. That he would waste a whole sentence in every letter however does not fit in with the Hitler who "thinks long and hard" about what to write. It might indeed be that he really meant literally what he wrote and that it was some kind of a ritual for him.

In general a lot of the communication with this particular friend generated the feeling that Hitler himself did not really knew what was socially expected from one side in a mutual friendship.

One point which was brought up here concerned the Hitler's way of dressing, which was later very formal and always official, and noted that people on the autistic problems have problems with adequate dressing.
This may hold true for today's standards but more than half a century ago the dres code in Germany was really strict. I also do not believe that there were even a lot of different ways to dress. And as some else pointed everything in his speeches was perfectly planned. There is really no way one could believe that people would labour for days to create the perfect presentation and the main protagonist would destroy everything by choosing the wrong clothes, even if the person in question is as autistic as one could be in such a position.


But I think his speeches are definitely the most interesting aspects of his behaviour.
They are outstanding in such a way that the only way to explain how a human being could perform such a speech is indeed only with a very serious obsession. There are those who say that someone on the autistic spectrum cannot hold a public speech. I advise to really watch a speech of him. Hitler does not really interact with the audience like most modern public speekers do for example through eye contact, he just controls the audience through gestures of his hands. This is important, he does not let the audience have any influence on him which might be the problem some of you have. Even more important to understand is that he did not really speak with the accent he used in his speech. He is sometimes described to have spoken a very clean German in private conversations without even rolling the "r". Additionally to having every gesture in his speech planned, he also takes on another role by using a different voice. He transcends his usual his usual and becomes anohol.

First post topic

I have already contributed to this topic, a while back, and I cannot remember my exct owrds, but I am certain I answered negatively.

He was borderline, bipolar, paranoid, obsessional, drama queen, narcissistic and a violent racist advocating murder in a book to millions of innocent people, and carried out in his name.

But autistic? If he was AS, I am NT.

you are correct, he was nuts..plain and simple

no autistic could give those speeches in front of millions, lol

I saw an interesting program on TV that claims Hitler's doctor gave him regular shots for energy that was actually a form of meth and that he was zooming when he gave a speech. Without it they said he was flat and listless. I'll have to do some googling- apparently meth was given to the soldiers to create killing machines that didn't fatigue. I think that was given to the kamikaze pilots too. This show was on the History Channel I think in the U.S.

Here you go.



http://www.addictionsearch.com/treatmen ... th_58.html

No group should be stuck with Hitlers label the only thing it could do is destroy or make it extremely hard on that group.(the only reason i could see someone trying to get this label on Hitler is hostility towards AS/Autism.)

The man was crazy as all hell and that's really all we need to know about him.

No, it doesn't matter, but I think it is a very interesting discussion. Not because it's Hitler but because I find such themes interesting.

I don’t see how Hitler seem autistic. He enjoyed power, enjoyed leading people (even if it was as a tyrant). He promoted sociability for his people (Hitler-jugend), even though it was a way to indoctrinate. He was persuasive and had enormous charisma; when he talked the people present all felt that he was talking directly to them. He had no problem with violence. None of these points are common for Aspies.

Reasons to see him as schizophrenic: He was paranoid. His hatred for some groups and his greuel propaganda could be schizophrenic delusions. Same with his obsession with the occult, and his view that Aryans were Atlantis descendants. Fuzzy thoughts with ideas like fighting wars on several fronts and invading Russia at the worst seasonal point.

Reasons to see him as sociopath: He charmed people, and could sell his views, being manipulative and good at it. Loved control. Belittling Eva Braun. He pursued an interest in the black arts but such things were prohibited to the public. Publicly he embraced Christianity and KKK (Kirche, kuche, kinder = church, kitchen, children).
Symptoms
Characteristics of people with antisocial personality disorder may include:
• Persistent lying or stealing
• Superficial charm
• Apparent lack of remorse or empathy; inability to care about hurting others
• Inability to keep jobs or stay in school
• Impulsivity and/or recklessness
• Lack of realistic, long-term goals — an inability or persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals
• Inability to make or keep friends, or maintain relationships such as marriage
• Poor behavioral controls — expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper
• Narcissism, elevated self-appraisal or a sense of extreme entitlement
• A persistent agitated or depressed feeling (dysphoria)
• A history of childhood conduct disorders
• Recurring difficulties with the law
• Tendency to violate the boundaries and rights of others
• Substance abuse
• Aggressive, often violent behavior; prone to getting involved in fights
• Inability to tolerate boredom
• Disregard for the safety of self or others
• People with a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder often experience difficulties with authority figures

As for Hitler’s pacing, a lot of people do that, not only autists. The old Greeks allegedly did it a lot.

Personally I don’t see what the Germans saw in him. It has nothing to do with what I know about him. Looking at old recordings where he holds a speech, I don’t see the charisma at all. He has a look in his eye that I only see as mad, and his shouting just confirms it. Shouting people are just scary, unbalanced and something to avoid in my book. No matter who they are or what they stand for.

@ anemone: I have read the entire thread.


There are some questions regarding Hitler I have been asking myself (and others) without ever getting a single theory in return. Maybe some of you can help me?
We all know what Hitler’s ideal looked like. Why did he go for something that far from himself? Hitler himself was no Aryan!
Didn't the Germans see a contradiction there?
And third, why didn’t he see the Japanese as inferior, considering how far from his ideal they were?