Many Nazis, including the Führer, were heavily into drugs ...

[Extreme_One]

... including cocaine, heroin, morphine and, above all, methamphetamines (aka crystal meth) ... the Führer, by Ohler’s account, was an absolute junkie with ruined veins by the time he retreated to the last of his bunkers.

 

Fascinating interview/article with the author of the book The Total Rush – or, to use its superior English title, Blitzed

 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/sep/25/blitzed-norman-ohler-adolf-hitler-nazi-drug-abuse-interview

[ZachariasX]

Nobody sober could stand those guys. Not even they themselves. RAF pilots were put on hard drugs (MDMA type of stuff), Churchil was an alcoholic. But I guess Blondie was sober (at least most of the time).

[CisTer-dB-]

Good read thanks

[Bearcat]

I was aware of that..  I find it interesting that in many societies drugs are considered a gateway to the spirit realm..  Given what came out of the Nazi regime.. it does make you consider ... The term demonic when applied to the hell on Earth unleashed by WWII seems ....  appropriate.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

(Merck's) MDMA, Autobahn, VW and Hugo Boss.

The greatest "achievements" of the 3rd Reich.

Edited September 26, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Are you sure about the MDMA? It is a drug that produces euphoria and has a hallucinogenic type property as opposed to amphetamines which is more pure stimulant. Allied pilots also used amphetamines, particularly for long range type flyers. Most forces since WWII have used stimulants as well - all the way to the present. The current versions have far fewer side effects. The SEALS get some really interesting stuff too.

 

*No, not a user. I was part of a professional sleep study. We got a whole history lesson before our 72 hour session.

[unreasonable]

I read that article too and I have to admit I thought this was all common knowledge for many years, including the use of stimulants by the Germans to stay awake during May 1940.

 

(Which they only took before the offensive on doctor's orders because they had asthma).

 

Maybe it is just the depth of documentation that makes the book stand out. 

Edited September 26, 2016 by unreasonable

[Cybermat47]

"Throw enough morphine at a problem, and it will go away."

- Herman Göring.

 

 

Not really.

 

[Juri_JS]

It's funny that the British newspapers dig up these well known Nazi drug stories at least once a year.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Not to mention that all Germans were automatically Nazis during WW2. Le sigh  

[Ace_Pilto]

Benzedrine is probably what you're thinking of for British and Commonwealth troops, it was most commonly issued to members serving long periods of duty where tiredness was a factor and in survival rations with very strict instructions for the ranking survivor.

 

Anyway, roll on the recycled National Enquirer standard drug stories.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

Are you sure about the MDMA?

 

Well, can't be certain, because i wasn't there, but i read that bomber pilots got MDMA in the latter stages of the war when they went on "suicide" missions, means attacking something in enemy heartland without fighter cover - to take away their fear of death.

Same goes for the 109 "kamikaze" pilots (Sonderkommando Elbe)

[ZachariasX]

Ok, I was being just sarcastic in my initial reply, but I find this an utterly flawed article. Only the fact that you seem to take it as positive prompts me to write a critique.

 

I can do this by doing it the traditional way, namely first discredit the writer, second dismiss his writing. (In this order this comes even easier.)

 

So first of all, who writes something about ‘Do you know the massive role drugs played in National Socialism?’

 

Well, someone who was experimenting [my emphasis] “with party drugs like ecstasy and LSD”. I guess he didn’t inhale. Or did he? Well, I would say that amongst the folks he was (the ones that visit the “empty houses in the east” for purpose of party/getting high, you don’t experiment with drugs. You take them. Only the guy who was cooking the MDMA was “experimenting” while Mr. Ohler was the lab rat, effectively doing quality control of the production (and cutting) process.

 

Working in the field of drug development, I have a very precise idea of the risks that any consumer of synthetic stuff is taking (and being oblivious to it). But the dead don’t talk.

 

One thing that is commonly seen is that when you take hard drugs (with or without prescription) it commonly lasts with you somehow, even though you might be clean again. But you taking it is something that stays. This is something in this article writing that you can almost grasp with your hands.

 

What happened to Mr. Ohler? He came across the public and readily available info that Nazi party bigwigs were on similar drugs like he was. He probably remembered being spastic to weird music in dark places when taking them. Now what does he do? He makes the connection between himself and those people. In this sense, it is probably easy to imagine rabid zombies on tanks invading Poland/France/prom night/your local Wendy’s.

 

How far off the journalist is himself, he shows by stating “I guess drugs weren’t a priority for the historians,” he says. “A crazy guy like me had to come along.” No, it was commonly known how much drugs they took. And it is not likely that on average it exceeds the substance abuse common in the UK or USA. With the availability of this book you can even add the numbers of consultations Hitler had with his nurse yourself. It is really no secret. (I have the book, no book about Hitler even comes close to those illustrated 2430 pages of just looking over the guys shoulder…)

 

So, drug abuse is about the oldest story you can find about the Nazis there is. The journalist as well as Ohler seemingly not knowing, that tells a lot.

 

 

Now, what is the case he is making? Let’s start with the most obvious blunder:

 

“Germany awake”. This is wrongly translated from “Deutschland erwache!” which more means the “wake up”, it is the process, not being awake. It also has a radically different meaning. It is referring to “converting to the Nazi feeling of how society should look like”. Mind you, you have to understand Nazism as a way of “gut feeling over mind” instead of the rational approach western society assumed from the Enlightenment on. It is more a conversion of faith than the simple “don’t go to bed!” We see, Ohler has absolutely little knowledge about even the most basic facts about the German society of that age. But he likes tomake a pun.

 

In line of his reasoning is that “they produced lots of dope (production picture)” and thus they were all in a clearly altered state (this very much reflects of how the Journalist and especially Mr. Ohler remember being when “experimenting”) when invading [your favorite Nazi invasion here].

 

Were they truly dope heads, more than anyone else, having even Cocaine (Ohler must be salivating) readily available on every corner… But wait… Today we have stuff like Oxys and tons of other little helpers for mommy available on every corner. Let’s imagine... what would the dope head of all dope heads do…? Ah… YES! You mix it with Kool-Aid! HA! And you get…

 

******Spoiler ahead************

 

Coca Cola!

 

Again, Endsieg USA!

 

 

But wait… They still produced Pervitin, “Panzerschokolade”. So the Nazis must have been influenced by drugs. They surely needed less sleep. But what about the competition? In the Luftwaffe, pilots had a choice if they wanted to get high or not. On average, Luftwaffe pilots frowned on drugs. They got drunk after a flight, but when you likely die tomorrow, why not? But looking at the RAF, drug use was enforced: Benzedrine (yes, Amphetamine) was one of the cookies the got every day. They were issued many different substances, it was all try and error for the doctors. They (the doctors) must have had a blast.

 

 

In the interviews of “Une Sacrée Guerre”, Pierre Clostermann gives a detailed account in how that happened. Basically after the entry of the US in the war, American doctors came over with a card blanche to experiment with the pilots to keep them “more fit”. Especially the times after the invasion of Normandy were tough. Clostermann recalled everyday high readiness and on standby in the plane from dusk on until nightfall. After every take-off straight up to 30’000 ft. in the freezing cold after soaking in sweat from sitting in the plane for hours under a cloudless sky. He detested the great weather more than anything else. No cloud to hide and his large formations could be seen over great distances. And every morning  the cookie. And whenever you needed it. By the end of the year, he was a shaking wreck. So much for your “invading rabid zombies”.

 

The biggest blunder the authors (Ohler and the journalist) are making is that they equal the moral of taking drugs then and today. Cocaine wasn’t bad. You put it in lemonade. Now you tell me you couldn’t sell it at the Tabac on the corner?? It was more like taking coffee. You could put a drop of morphine on the comforter of a crying baby without being a bad parent!

 

Drugs were made illegal over vastly different issues than “consumer health”. Hence the radically different penalization for basically similar substances, eg. Cocaine or Crack-cocaine. (Exercise: guess the taste and background of the legislator.)

 

The concept of “performing more” is also an utterly modern one. Back then, you took something to feel good. It is unpleasant feeling gloomy (“I can’t believe it, he even invaded a minuscule Catholic country on Good Friday, and he f**ked even that! Now I have to fix that! I mean, what is it that that guy can do??”) You know, if there’s really nothing you can do, you may at least not suffer excessively. And even today, people get their fix from their doctors on grounds of MUCH less hassle.

 

Also stating that Hitler’s was on withdrawal (I guess Ohler knows what that is like) just shows Ohler’s junkie attitude toward a bombed supply factory. It would mean that Hitler had established a just-in-time production of his Pervitin. Or that he, on severe withdrawal symptoms would actually have shared his stash with “all the other druggies” out there. How likely would that be, given that he only had to say “All your dope r us!” and he has it. Before Ohler makes a point that “they mass-produced it”. And *pooff* with the bombing of the factory production ended, when conversely that didn’t happen with oil production (or ball bearings, or…).

 

Hitler, the greatest druggie of all time, but without a stash. C’mon.

[ZachariasX]

Well, can't be certain, because i wasn't there, but i read that bomber pilots got MDMA in the latter stages of the war when they went on "suicide" missions, means attacking something in enemy heartland without fighter cover - to take away their fear of death.

Same goes for the 109 "kamikaze" pilots (Sonderkommando Elbe)

 

Nobody with the fear of death can act as a guiding system for a weapon, may he or she have a belt or a 109 strapped on his/her waist. Drugs don't help with that, especially in the case of a Bf-109, where you really had to have your wits with you in order to hit something. It's not like just "go to market and pull the trigger". (And if you don't, I press the remote. But that is usually info above the paygrade of a suicide candidate.)

 

Elbe was a failure. They just didn't commit suicide in any form beyond what was done in any JG at that time.

[unreasonable]

Good grief, ZachariasX, I do not think I have ever seen such a long post from you before!

 

That article really got under your skin. Perhaps you need a little something to help you relax...... 

[ZachariasX]

Good grief, ZachariasX, I do not think I have ever seen such a long post from you before!

 

That article really got under your skin. Perhaps you need a little something to help you relax...... 

 

It's just I've hardly read so much crap per sentence like in that article. Where's the next parmacy...? I need my no-go pill now...

Edited September 26, 2016 by ZachariasX

[Extreme_One]

...

 

Probably better to read a book rather than an article about a book, before making a judgement as to its credibility.

 

 

 

Anyway, I was unaware that this was "common knowledge" I'd certainly heard no reference to it in the past.

[ZachariasX]

Probably better to read a book rather than an article about a book, before making a judgement as to its credibility.

 

Anyway, I was unaware that this was "common knowledge" I'd certainly heard no reference to it in the past.

 

Actually, I like you posting that one article.

 

After all it is a recurring topic and basis of may wild speculations. Along similar modes of reasoning (in proceedings, not the specific issue), I feel extensive damage has been done to understanding history.

 

But dealing with that kind of stuff profesionally, I didn't want to leave it uncommented. And on that one, trust me, I really can "crump" the author as well as the journalist.

 

Z

[unreasonable]

It's just I've hardly read so much crap per sentence like in that article.

 

 You obviously do not read the Guardian regularly. (Not that it is so much worse than most mainstream "news" sites these days).

 

Nazis plus drugs = clickbait.

 

 

 

Anyway, I was unaware that this was "common knowledge" I'd certainly heard no reference to it in the past.

 

By "common knowledge" I simply meant among people who have been reading loads of military/WW2 history for years, not among "general readers".

 

Put it another way: the idea that top Nazis took loads of drugs and their soldiers used them in the field is not the groundbreaking news the article seems to imply.

[coconut]

I was also unaware of the role that drugs played in WWII. That drugs would still be in use today to enhance performance of soldiers is news to me and utterly shocking. I mean, I've wondered what kind of people can strap explosives to themselves and detonate them, and without going into politics, the usual explanations you hear in the media very seldom mention drugs. How much violence and conflicts nowadays are partially enabled by drugs? Could we avoid some of them by tackling drug production and transport?

[ZachariasX]

I mean, I've wondered what kind of people can strap explosives to themselves and detonate them,

 

That's not even that difficult to answer. Some conditions have to be met:

 

1) No expectation of a (decent) future.

 

Example 1: A pilot in a striken aircraft may well veer is burning craft onto an enemy ship, regardless whether he is American or Japanese. People from all nations reacted in such manner given the situation or at least considered it.

Example 2: When your life consists in watching people die around you, then you may well take some of "the persons/organziation responsible" with you.

 

2) You need to be convinced that you do not have a choice on life.

 

This is the subtle undertone in the case of example 2. As a former recruiter of suicide bombers put it: "As soon as you manage to convince people that it is alone up to [your God] to judge, you have them".

 

Given the prerequisetes of 1) and 2), drugs cannot make you do things you otherwise don't do. They make things go out of hand, yes, but this is not congruent to a precise action. And keep in mind, a suicide bomber is nothing more than a mere guiding device. That needs to be precise. It has nothing to do with the regular soccer hooligan who is on dope to feel better beating people, as he would do that anyway. The hooligan takes drugs to feel better.

 

Explaining those awful things we see "in the news" every day these days, or any historic attrocity with the use of drugs alone, this just makes one guilty in providing 1) and 2), as one is not willing to mend an impossible situation the people are in.

 

Life really is complicated.

 

This is why

Could we avoid some of them by tackling drug production and transport?

Won't work at all. Besides, you had to define "drug". Imagine a world without caffeine. How do you imagine work if it wasn't available? Mind you, less than a Gram will possibly kill you. It is very potent of a drug.

 

There are thousands of substances out there, many of which are available in your local pharmacy. Do you really think you're not on drugs, just because your doctor gave you your fix?

 

Life really, really, is complicated.

[unreasonable]

That's not even that difficult to answer. Some conditions have to be met:

 

1) No expectation of a (decent) future.

 

 

2) You need to be convinced that you do not have a choice on life.

 

 

"Society made me do it": really?

 

These conditions may be the background for some - perhaps most - suicide bombers, but certainly not all.

 

Take the 9/11 bombers for instance: mostly middle class, educated. Plenty of choice in life and with a reasonable expectation of a decent earthly future greater than that of most people on the planet. 

 

Some people really do believe all the religious stuff, materialistic explanations do not always fit the facts.

[Ace_Pilto]

I was also unaware of the role that drugs played in WWII. That drugs would still be in use today to enhance performance of soldiers is news to me and utterly shocking. I mean, I've wondered what kind of people can strap explosives to themselves and detonate them, and without going into politics, the usual explanations you hear in the media very seldom mention drugs. How much violence and conflicts nowadays are partially enabled by drugs? Could we avoid some of them by tackling drug production and transport?

 

These days it's basically any kind of unscrupulous person who has an agenda and access to the right drugs and a handy supply of gullible kids. Africa is especially rife with the practice. Mentally ill people also are easy targets to be brainwashed too and they don't need any/much chemical persuasion which is more cost effective for the "freedom fighter" on a budget. Sometimes they don't even have to be brain washed at all.

 

Caffeine is the sanctioned drug of choice in rations these days for conventional armies, usually distributed in beverages, energy bars or tablets in some cases. Long gone are the days when the respectable military establishment gave out amphetamines to boost "morale and alertness" but they are mainly responsible for some of the illicit substances that we are struggling to deal with today due to the social problems that their misuse causes. Amphetamines, LSD and MDMA are three that come to mind. Amphetamines I've already explained, LSD was used as a "truth serum" for interrogations and MDMA was used to treat depression and shell shock, (MDMA was not used as a suicide incentive so far as I know, the idea is just plain silly and I guarantee you that it wouldn't work... Trust me ) Ultra-nationalist/religious brainwashing was the main motivator for suicide attacks in the 1940's, not drugs.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Ace_Pilto

[ZachariasX]

"Society made me do it": really?

I hope you don't mean that I said such. "Having no future" is always a personal assessment given circumstances that people bear full resposability for.

 

Caffeine is the sanctioned drug of choice

Well, who sactions?

 

Lucky strike infested the world that time with Nicotine by handing out free cigarettes. What was good then is bad now. What is bad here, is good over there. Illicit just reflects a society in time. There is no good or bad. It's just substances. And their dose will kill you. Not their quality.

 

Taking "drugs" are nothing other than a personal escape from (one's own) life, or at least a help putting it in pillows. It doesn't do more than that.

 

(MDMA was not used as a suicide incentive so far as I know, the idea is just plain silly and I guarantee you that it wouldn't work... Trust me )

Someone knows what he's talking about

 

Anyway, too much of that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------the end.

 

 

Happy fights in the air!

Z

[SYN_Mike77]

Offered without comment:

 

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KWodyapGNxI"frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[DD_Arthur]

Offered without comment:

 

 

 

Brilliant!  Roflmao!!