Talk:Drug policy of Nazi Germany

Hitler's alleged Drug-Abuse

"Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich's head of state and government until his suicide shortly before the war's end, is believed[citation needed] to have been addicted to drugs initially prescribed to treat chronic medical conditions."

This is misleading. Generally it is Anglo-American authors who like to claim that Hitler abused drugs. The claim has an attraction in the Anglosphere because it is consistent with Anglo-American war-propaganda that portrays Hitler as deranged.

There are credible German authors who reject this claim: Ernst Günther Schenck, who was present at Hitler's last medical examination and Henrik Eberle & Hans-Joachim Neumann whose book was discussed in the English-language edition of Der Spiegel. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

But Hitler was deranged. Do you perhaps some have a deeper interest in trying to make sure Hitler is not portrayed in a negative light by 'propaganda'?Devgirl (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The medicalized view of Hitler is that he was "deranged" or suffered from mental illness. If so, then millions of other Europeans suffered from the same mental illness, and that is hardly consistent with the present-day claim that people diagnosed as mentally ill have putative brain diseases. Another option is that Hitler was evil, or engaged in evil behaviors. The "deranged" claim let's Hitler off the hook as, by definition, a deranged person is incapable of agency. Someone with dementia or severe CTE, for instance. Are you suggesting that Hitler was not morally culpable? Nicmart (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Pervitin use

Is there any real proof that Pervitin was really used by the Germans or is this simply a well organized attempt of further discredit the Nazi system. Dudley1936 (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be addressed on its own page. Seems propagandist somewhat to me. Geremy.Hebert (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)'

It is a big subject, so why not a separate article. It is not perfect, this a start, I hope that others that know more can improve it. I do not understand the claim about propaganda in it, advocation for what??? If you have claims you must be specific23:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I would rather see a broader article pertaining to Drug policies in Germany throughout a large time frame rather than specifically on 'Third Reich'. Like you did here Sweden. Less emphasis on Nazi and more emphasis on Germany's march through time as a community would be a better article for inclusion to wiki, imo. I don't see how, in it's present form, it could be considered 'big subject'. The mere fact that you even touched on 'Poisonous gas ...were used during the Holocaust.' That's propogandist to me. Geremy.Hebert (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

'or is this simply a well organized attempt of further discredit the Nazi system.' Jesus Christ Devgirl (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of military aircraft of the German Third Reich which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've done a rewrite of this article to improve organization, but more specific information and additional sources would still be nice. Antediluvian67 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Highly questionable source: Norman Ohler. He is not a historian and his book "Blitzed" contains biased opinions rather than facts. He tries to describe the whole population as delusional and under drugs which is simply not true and puts the whole holocaust under a false persepective.TucanLemur (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction

The entry reads thusly: "Most drugs were permitted either universally or for individuals with a medical prescription."

If an "attitude of tolerance" existed, why would individuals need prescriptions, and for what drugs? What is meant by "tolerance"? It's obviously not a synonym for freedom, or there would be no prescriptions. Would anyone say that Government X has an "attitude of tolerance" for free speech because some newspapers could publish without licenses while others needed licenses to publish? By definition, if a prescription was required, then some people were denied drugs. Which drugs, which people, and on what basis? Until such information is supplied as to answer those questions, we learn nothing useful about civilian access to drugs. Prior to the early 20th century, any American could buy any drug without a prescription. That is clearly a condition of freedom. Key American founders explicitly eschewed the term "tolerance" in regards to religion because it implied that people did not have the right to worship without permission. A prescription is government permission. Nicmart (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)