Why I reject the ‘MADMAN HITLER’ myth

Adolf Hitler was a very naughty boy, and one of the worst individuals in history. He killed a lot of people, and you know the drill. But many are of the opinion, including numerous historians, that we can't understand this guy at all. He's so evil and so monstrous that we aren't even on the same wavelength as him. He's not human. And since we are human, well, most of us are, how can we possibly understand Hitler's reasoning? Worse, there's this weirdo online who has a YouTube channel that's pushing the idea that Hitler wasn't actually completely insane. I mean, a lot of people are complaining about this, just listen to one of his commenters. "...please quit constantly defending Madman Hitler. It is something you do in nearly every episode and it comes off as kinda sketchy after a while. I'm sure fanboys are gonna have a lot to say about this opinion of mine. I really love the detailed assessment of very important campaigns of WW2, but the constant defense of Hitler's sanity worries me." That's right, this YouTuber must be a secret Nazi, or closet Fascist, or something else I do not like but cannot define. "...I have no problem with him explaining in detail events of the Stalingrad campaign or any other campaign. But if you repeatedly make the point that Hitler was sane, you are complaining to the freaks and weirdos that are out there on the fringes, the neo-Nazis and anti-Semites. That's why I'm a little put off by the narrator constantly promoting Hitler's sanity. If you believe he was sane in his war manoeuvres, then you could also believe he was sane in his desire to wipe out races that he felt were inferior. I don't think that tick feels that way, but people like that who are watching these episodes may get the idea that he's in line with them." So, by rejecting the madman-Hitler idea, this YouTuber is defending Hitler, and is pandering to the neo-Nazis and anti-Semites, and might even be a closet Nazi himself, and might be saying that Hitler's desire to wipe out groups of people was sane. I mean, this is pretty damning stuff, so I wonder what the YouTuber's response would be to this? Oh nuts, it's me isn't it? Okay, let me get my to-do list out. Let's see. Get a swastika tattooed on my forehead. Go to my secret Nazi occult meeting on the moon. Teach my dog to do the Hitler salute. Spell out to the YouTube censors that this list is satirical. Oh, here it is! Point out that calling Hitler a madman spares him of responsibility for what happened, and lets him off the hook for the crimes he committed. I guess I'm not a secret Nazi then. Well, in that case, I'll scrap my plans to be the next head of the World Economic Forum. Okay, let me explain. If Hitler is insane, then that means that he's got a mental disability. And since we don't chastise disabled people for being disabled, we actually feel sorry for them because it's not their fault that they're disabled, then we must therefore feel sorry for Hitler for being disabled, since it's not his fault. And everything he did can be dismissed as an accident, since his disability was what drove him to do what he did, and he can't take responsibility for his actions since he couldn't control his disability. Therefore, if he was a madman, what happened wasn't his fault. So, the irony of all of this is that those of you who are saying that I'm defending Hitler are themselves defending Hitler. You are excusing him of his crimes, and it's actually me who is damning him. Rather than saying that Hitler was a madman and that he should have been in a mental hospital, I'm saying that he was sane, and that he was responsible for his actions, and that this makes what he did that much worse. He did what he did based on his core beliefs, not by accident or by some disability. So I think, instead of being put in a mental hospital, Hitler should be put in jail or sent to the gallows. I think he's a criminal and is responsible for what happened, not someone we should feel sympathy for. The same applies to the Neo-Nazis of today. People are quick to call them insane or whatever, but I don't think that's necessarily true or the right strategy. I think the ideology of National Socialism is bad and has corrupted these people. They are misguided. They have fallen for the ideology for various reasons. But, by explaining why their core beliefs are incorrect, we can convert them away from National Socialism so that they can be normal people again. And some have actually done that. They've watched my videos on National Socialism and realised that I actually had a point, and that they then stopped being Nazi or Fascist. And yes, that has actually happened. I don't want to name any names, but if they're willing to say it, there might be a couple of them in the comments below. Whereas, I think, by dismissing them as insane, or pushing them away, or just punching a Nazi, you're just going to radicalise them and make the problem worse. I don't really agree with your central point, but I certainly enjoy being challenged. Having said that, your most central point of all, that the Madman Hitler routine is at best lazy, is spot on. The logic of Nazism is compelling to people to this day, and needs to be understood. Dismissing it makes it considerably more powerful in the underground, and that has consequences aside from simply being wrong. I cannot thank you enough for your work on this point. And if Hitler was a Madman, why did so many people support him? Although I totally despise Hitler and the Nazis, I've always believed it's a mistake to dismiss Hitler as insane or a Madman. This is far too simplistic in understanding who this man was, and how he was able to come to power in Germany and do all the things that he did. By dismissing Hitler and National Socialism as insane, what people are doing is opening the door to misinterpretations of history. Despite everyone calling each other a Fascist, nobody knows what the definition of Fascism is. And the reason why is because they think if they read up about this ideology, they'll somehow get converted into being a Fascist and then end up being Hitler. Well no, that won't happen. Secondly, Hitler was a National Socialist, not a Fascist. And yes, there is a difference between the two ideologies, even though Wikipedia and many historians can't distinguish the two, or even clearly define either of them. They can't define them because they've dismissed them as insane ideologies that are unfathomable to normal human beings. Only monsters could understand these ideologies apparently, which is why anyone who does understand them, like me, is instantly dismissed as crazy, or insane, or a Nazi and a monster and blah blah. Well, I think this is a lazy narrative at best, and deceitful at worst. The reason why they're willing to do this is because they're pushing their own ideological agenda. Also, by dismissing Hitler as a monster-raving loony-bourgeoisie, what you're doing is saying, he's not human, he's a monster, and since none of us are monsters, Hitler was a one-off and such things will never happen again. Well, I've got news for you. Hitler was a human being. What he did can happen again, and has happened multiple times in history. From Lenin, to Stalin, to Mao, to Pol Pot, as well as North Korea and modern-day China, we see the exact same things playing out again and again. Persecution of the Judeo-bourgeoisie, concentration camps, kidney farming, and mass starvation. History repeats, and the reason it does is because we've dismissed Hitler, and others, as some mythical monsters who we just can't possibly understand. No, they are human, and we can understand them, and it means that any human being can become the next Hitler, and that we're all just as capable of committing the crimes that were committed before, because they were committed by human beings. I don't think people brand Hitler as a madman because they are lazy, or that they are trying to hide something. My suspicion is that they simply cannot accept that he was a rational man, but that his rationality led him down some evil pathways that resulted in horrific outcomes. They cannot accept that any reasonably intelligent person can manoeuvre their thinking into what became the Third Reich, because to believe that is to believe any of us could become Hitler. That sort of thinking is just too much for a lot of people, and thus it is better to simply assume he was a loon. But, while Hitler wasn't a madman, and therefore was responsible for his crimes, that doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't make a bunch of stupid decisions throughout the war. And since I'm saying he didn't make all the stupid decisions that the German generals said that he did, I must therefore be defending Hitler. Right? Hi TIK, longtime subscriber here. I just wanted to tell you that it's a pity you spend so much energy to convince, or so yourself, the audience, that the revisionist view that Hitler was right, and the general staff wrong, is the correct one. It takes away from the good work you do providing historical content at an unprecedented high level, never seen before in such visual documentary format. When it comes to Hitler, as much as it may look difficult for you to believe, he had no grand strategy objectives, nor good grasp of tactical flexibilities to achieve them. No, he did have grand strategic objectives. He wanted to take the land and resources of the East, Lebensraum, for reasons I've explained in detail in several videos, including this one, backed by sources at the bottom of the screen, link in the description. Now, you may not have watched these videos because you are under the false impression that TIK me, doesn't understand politics or economics, a view promoted by blatant ideologues pushing their own biased agenda. But by saying that Hitler had no grand strategic objectives and his ideology cannot be defined, you have confirmed that it is you who doesn't understand politics or economics, or history. Don't stick to tanks. Educate yourself. The simple proof is that, if Germany had no oil, and Hitler was right to go to the Caucasus to get it, why didn't he just provide another panzer corps to Rommel in 1942 to get the Egyptian and Middle Eastern oil, while also capturing Malta, blah blah blah? Well, if you hadn't dismissed the economics and politics, you would understand. Literally watch any of the previous videos on oil, logistics, and anything else. The Afrika Korps could barely be supplied as-is, and more forces would just make the overall situation even worse. Besides, the Middle East didn't have much oil at the time, unless you drive all the way to South Iraq and Iran, then somehow transport it back across the Mediterranean when the Axis didn't have much shipping capacity and infrastructure for that anyway. Not sure why you're against an objective view of what Hitler and his generals actually said and done. Tick is only presenting the history, and then it's up to you to make of it what you wish. And this is Gecky's high-IQ response. I think you are confused. Great response, bruh. In a nutshell, Hitler was the one who decided that autarky was the way to go, which meant he needed Lebensraum, living space in the East, which brought him into conflict with most of the world. Hitler was ultimately responsible for all of this. However, his generals helped him along. They then later claimed their innocence and blamed everything on Hitler. And, since Hitler was dead, he wasn't there to defend himself or explain why they were wrong. I've taken the view that, while Hitler did make some bad military decisions, a lot of the bad decisions were actually made by his generals, who then blamed Madman Hitler instead of admitting their own mistakes. But, of course, this has led some to jump to false conclusions. I love your videos. I have been watching all of them. However, there is one issue that irks me, and which you keep bringing up again and again and again. Madman Hitler. According to you, all the mistakes made by the Germans were made by his subordinates? I never said that. Yes, all of them. I never said that. Whether that be tactical or strategic, whether by corps commanders Heim, Seimlitz, army commanders Paulus, army group commanders von Weichs, or the chief of staff of the OKH Halder, I have yet to hear you blame Hitler for anything or even acknowledge that, as commander-in-chief, the ultimate responsibility lies with him. The ultimate responsibility lies with Hitler. He started the war and led the European Axis powers to a path of destruction. He also did make bad military decisions. However, his generals were not innocent. And a lot of myths have crept into the narrative. Let's take Barbarossa for example. I did a poll a couple months back where I asked, how could Germany have beaten the Soviet Union in 1941? The first option was by going straight for Moscow, Halder's strategy. The second option was by going straight for the Caucasus, Hitler's strategy. And the third option was by retreating all the way to Berlin, Manstein's strategy. Now, many of you took this poll seriously and were confused by the Manstein plan. You know, how can retreating all the way to Berlin help you win the war? Exactly, that's why I put it in there. This poll was tongue-in-cheek. It's a reference to how Manstein always suggested giving ground to the Red Army before counterattacking. Hitler wanted to just keep the land captured because he considered it economically vital, both to Germany and the Soviet Union. And, as a lot of you pointed out, none of these options were really great. And many said that they couldn't have won now, no matter what they did. Arguably, the Caucasus option was probably the best in theory, but it's logistically impossible. They struggled to supply their armies in the Caucasus in 1942, and that's after improving their logistics behind the lines over the previous year. So, there's no chance of this strategy winning in 1941, unless the Soviet Union collapsed in the first few weeks, which was what Hitler hoped. As Alex said. Tick, a year ago I would have said A or B, but after your series, I don't know. Honestly, you open my eyes to the whole logistics issues. Battles are won in the battlefield. Wars with logistics. But if you listened to Halder, or the mainstream narrative up until a few years ago, they would have told you that going straight for Moscow was the best option, and that they would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling madman Hitler. No, it's too cartoonish. Hitler takes ultimate responsibility for having an autarkic economic policy that sent him to war with the Soviet Union, which he didn't have enough oil to win, which meant that they had to choose from a handful of bad strategies, which Halder then dabbled with and ultimately lost. So, Halder is to blame for some of this, Hitler is to blame as well, and the same applies to other generals and for other campaigns. His generals weren't innocent is basically the point here, as Mango explains so eloquently. The madman Hitler thing was from the generals to save their asses at the end of the war. And there's enough evidence to hang Hitler, even if he didn't make any mistakes in the military campaigns, which he did. So let's just look at what actually happened, and stop telling false narratives that make the generals or other ideologies appear innocent. And ultimately, that's what I'm trying to do here. Maybe I don't always get it right, but I'm challenging the old narratives for the right reasons. Also, here's a long but good quote from historian Ian Kershaw, who holds a similar view on the madman Hitler idea. But although the strains of the last phase of the war took their toll on him, there is no convincing evidence that his mental capacity was impaired. Hitler's rages and violent mood swings were inbuilt features of his character. Their frequency in the final phase of the war was a reflection of the stress from the rapidly deteriorating military conditions and his own inability to change them, bringing, as usual, wild lashings at his generals, whom he could lay the blame that properly began at his own door. In looking for the loss of genius through pressures of overwork inappropriate to Hitler's alleged natural talent for improvisation, Speer was offering a naive and misleading explanation of Germany's fate, ultimately personalizing it in the demonic figure of Hitler. "...the adoption of such a harmfully overburdensome style of working was no chance development. It was the direct outcome of an extreme form of personalized rule, which had already by the time war began seriously eroded the more formal and regular structures of government and military command that are essential in modern states." No other war leader, not Churchill, Roosevelt, or even Stalin, was so consumed by the task of running military affairs, so unable to delegate authority. The breakdown of governmental structures in Germany had gone yet further than their erosion in the Soviet state under Stalin's despotism. The reins of power were entirely held in Hitler's hands, nonexistent that could bypass the Führer. All vital measures, both in military and in domestic affairs, needed his authorization. There was no overriding coordinating bodies, no war cabinets, no politburo. But Hitler, forced entirely onto the defensive in running the war, was now often almost paralyzed in his thinking, and often in his actions. "...far more gifted individuals than Hitler would have been overstretched and incapable of coping with the scale and nature of the administrative problems involved in the conduct of a world war." Friends, Romanians, countrymen, I have come to bury Hitler, not to praise him. But I can't bury him in lies, so don't confuse my rejection of the Madman Hitler myth as a defense of Hitler. It may seem that way when you don't understand the reason why I'm doing it, but blaming Hitler for everything lets his generals off the hook, and leads us to conclude that Hitler was a madman who was just misunderstood and should be forgiven because of his mental disability. No, not happening. And now I've got to go to my secret Nazi occult meeting on the moon, so I'm going to leave it there. Thanks for watching, bye for now.