Last night I finished reading Norman Ohler’s fascinating and best-selling Blitzed: Drugs in the Third Reich (2017, translated by Shaun Whiteside). Ohler describes the relationships between Adolf Hitler and drugs, Nazi soldiers and drugs, and German society and drugs. In addition, Ohler explains how drugs changed the nature of wars. 

Society, War, and Drugs

Before continuing, we must recognize that the “drugs” in Blitzed generally consist of substances deemed illegal or highly-regulated today. What is a “legal” vs. an “illegal” drug is socially constructed. During the 1930s and 1940s, drugs taken by or administered to Germans were not always illegal. And as Norman Ohler discusses, drugs prompt a variety of ethical questions: Who owns my body? Do I own it? Does my family, including ancestors, own it? Does my society own it? 

Ohler argues that modern drugs initially emerged to masks effects of modernism: Industrialism and urbanism required that people work faster than ever and live in uncomfortable conditions. To survive, people turned to new substances designed to alleviate stress or to provide more energy.

Such drugs first changed conditions on the battlefield, Blitzed says, during the American Civil War of the 1860s. Such mind-altering substances–drugs–made more intense wars possible. Wars became longer and increasingly demanded more intense fighting. Soldiers previously incapacitated by casualties of war, were given pain medications and were sent back to the battlefields. Soldiers were also more immune to what was happening around them and to what they were doing.   

In Nazi Germany, drugs were a ubiquitous part of society, according to Norman Ohler. In particular, soldiers and other ranking Nazi officials were administered a variety of drugs, depending on what was required. Billions of pills, especially the methamphetamine Pervitin, were manufactured for purposes of war, specifically. Germany, Ohler argues, had a leg up on inventing a whole host of drugs (and other synthetic products) because it had little-to-no natural resources and did not have any colonies.

Nazis tested these drugs on people set to be murdered at Concentration Camps (tests, Ohler says, were continued by the United States) and on soldiers and other officials. No one really knew the short- or long-term effects of these drugs. Drugs there were sometimes combinations of different drugs. Drugs in the form of a pill, other times in the form of gum, other times in the form of injections. 

Because of Adolf Hitler’s desire to have a super army and because of such mind-altering substances, Nazi soldiers had speeds unmatched by other armies. Nazi armies could also go incredibly long periods–up to at least four days–without sleep or rest. The British didn’t understand what was happening in these regards. 

Some officials and soldiers were given substances, not that would increase their emotions and energy, but that would suppress emotions, feelings, and even consciousness. Norman Ohler makes it clear he is not excusing anyone’s behavior, but points to the common sense consequence that some soldiers were deliberately kept immune to the atrocious acts they committed. 

Before interrogations, other people were given substances in hopes of decreasing their inhibition. 

People throughout Nazi Germany, even those in general society, were addicted to new, synthetic substances, substances that were readily available, Blitzed argues. And, for sure, similar such substances were available in the United States and elsewhere before present-day notions of “illegal drugs” and “prescription-only drugs” developed. 

Adolf Hitler and Drugs

Adolf Hitler created an illusion of himself: He was brave and strong, was a leader and in control, and represented the purest race of people. In reality, Norman Ohler–primarily a journalists and novelist–argues, is very different and has been ignored by professional historians. Especially in the 1940s, Hitler constantly grew weaker and sicker and could only function with the cocktails of drugs administered by his personal physician, Dr. Theodor Morell. Hitler’s appearances were almost nonexistent in an effort to hide how incapable and unaware he really was. Approximately half of the book is devoted to describing Hitler’s dependence on drugs and on his close relationship with Morell, who left detailed notes explaining how he treated Hitler.

Adolf Hitler, reportedly, constantly took vitamins and supplements and medications in the form of 120-160 pills and 8-10 shots weekly. His drugs consisted of Cocaine, Eukodal, Opium, and a variety of experimental substances. In short, Blitzed says, Hitler was always high, and his death in 1945 is at least partly the result of withdrawals, as there were no drugs left to take in the war-torn Germany. 

Implication and Reception of Blitzed

Some scholars, such as Richard J. Evans, have been critical of Blitzed because Norman Ohler is not a trained historian and because he writes a different kind of history. Evans even wrongly asserts that Ohler tries to dismiss and excuse the Nazis’ behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Blitzed is certainly not a typical examination of war, especially when it comes to Nazi Germany. The horrors committed by Nazis generally result in articles, books, and lectures that only discuss such horrors–because how could they not. The Holocaust is of such importance it can never receive too much attention. (You can listen to a podcast I made about it here.)

Yet, not every book has to or can examine the most horrendous acts. Hundreds do that. This book does not provide in-depth comments about Concentration Camps or battlefields, for example. We need to understand the full scope of what happened and why. For sure, we need more research and more perspectives on the relationship between drugs and Nazis, but Ohler provides an important book with important conclusions.

I do wonder, as a result of Blitzed, who was actually “calling the shots” and who made the public appearances and what else was going on, given that Hitler was so far removed from everyday life. I hope that Ohler’s scholarship is the first of many books that help form a more comphrensive picture of what happened in Nazi Gemany. 

For a more detailed summary of the book, see “The Very Drugged Nazis” and “Hitler’s Little Helper: A History of Rampant Drug Use Under the Nazis.” And I encourage you to read it for youself! 

Dr. Andrew Joseph Pegoda

I often think about important ways in which the children who become star singers or become star actors or actresses in various television or film productions are exploited–exploited by their families, agents, colleagues, and audiences. Kids in such positions receive far too little critical academic attention. 

The Kids Who Work

Historically, child labor has not existed. For most of history, there was no such concept. In the United States, as the industrialism of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era spread, public education spread and child labor decreased. For non-Whites, child labor on farms often continued until the World War II era. While what we now call child labor has been basically nonexistent–in the United States–for a few decades, hundreds of children have been involuntary pushed into the world of entertainment–work and capitalism as children. This is especially problematic when we look at, say, the Olsen Twins, who became laborers as babies.  

Have you ever taken pause to recognize that the child(ren) in your favorite movies or television shows are working? And that they are too young to consent? And that they are too young to understand the implications of capitalism? (And who gets all of that money?) And that they are often abandoned by their managers when they become adults? 

Consider the example of Billy Gilman. He achieved fame as a singer and had several record deals as a young child. According to his statements, once he reached puberty and his voice changed, record labels were no longer interested in him. He is still a talented singer. He even entered The Voice competition in an effort to re-enter the industry. 

Concerns grow further when recognizing how many people who achieve fame as children encounter problems with drugs and alcohol. 

The Kids Who Work – For Free 

I want to also make one separate–and small–point. I watched PBS’s documentary Generation Like a few nights ago. Really interesting, really important presentation of how children use social media. The only problem I have with it is that it focuses only on wealthy (mostly White) children and generalizes their experiences to all children.

One of the points its writers make is that the entertainment industry has tricked everyday children into working for them for free. They do this by encouraging children to “like” and “tweet” and use other social media platforms to advertise content that generates millions for advertisers and producers.

These children are also exploited. They don’t know they are working, they (generally) don’t understand how social media uses and creates them, and they don’t understand the long-term consequences of their online activity. 

The Kids Who Do Not Exist 

In addition to film and television characters having a very limited existence (as I wrote about here), such characters actually do not even exist, as I wrote about at-length in my dissertation. This is especially important when considering children. 

Do you remember that first moment between Mae Mobley and Aibileen in The Help (2011) where viewers are supposed to be touched by the loving bond between them? 

You is kind. You is smart. You is important.

Well, that moment never actually happened. Sort of. 

Both Mae Mobley and Aibileen are fictional. They were created by writers. The words the bodies of Viola Davis (Aibileen) and Eleanor Henry/Emma Henry (Mae Mobley) speak were written by someone else.

This is especially important when thinking about children. Not only are they involuntarily forced to labor, they are involuntarily forced to create characters. In the process of creating these characters, children do and say things as required by others.

Adults often forget this or do not think about this, but other children–the children who see other children on-screen–don’t know they are seeing children who do not actually exist. Children–even babies–in film are often more adult-like because adults create those characters.

In another example, in the television show This Is Us there is also a moment where viewers are supposed to be especially touched. In a nutshell: Man passes away and leaves orders that his two granddaughters (teenagers) alone are supposed to plan his funeral. And they plan this beautiful service. Such occurrences are only possible in fiction, fiction where adults create children. 

From Here?

What can we do? Should we just not have children in media? That might be extreme. I do not know.

And to be clear, I’m not as concerned about local theatre productions or school productions that use children. I myself was an “actor” in a few programs in first and second grade at school!

Dr. Andrew Joseph Pegoda

The seventh installment in my interview series spotlights the experience and wisdom of (the future Dr.) Ali Mroue! I first met Ali in the Spring 2013 when he was a student in one of my United States History from 1877 Lab classes at the University of Houston. Ali was a remarkable student–in terms of his academic talent, dedication, and friendliness–and we have stayed in regular contact over the years. Ali and I talked today: Keep reading to learn about his life before and after his time at the University of Houston in his own words! 

Dr. Andrew Joseph Pegoda (AJP): Hey, Ali. I’m so excited to talk with you for my blog and to get your perspective since you have such a unique background compared to most people I know!

Ali Mroue (AM): Thank you, Dr. Pegoda, for giving me the opportunity.

AJP: Absolutely. Thank you! Can you tell us some about who you are, where you are from, and what’s currently going on in your life?

AM: I am a Lebanese American. I lived most of my young life in the Middle East in Lebanon and am currently living in Houston. I recently graduated with a BS in Biology and Minor in Chemistry from the University of Houston. Currently, I work as a Gross/Lab Technician at a dermatopathology lab based in Houston and am in the process of applying to medical school.

AJP: Sounds like you’ve had a really busy couple of years! To continue, can you please tell us more about where you are from and about your childhood? I understand that you have seen a great deal of war firsthand.  

AM: When I was very young, my parents wanted me to learn more about my culture and my roots, so we moved to Lebanon after briefly living in various places in Africa, in the Caribbean, and in the U.S. My family had just escaped a civil war in Africa that I was too young to even remember. It was the civil war in Sierra Leone, not sure if you’ve seen the movie Blood Diamond, but that’s what it was. When we were in Lebanon, there was always a sense of tension, and war broke out twice. Once in 1996 and another time in 2006. The 2006 war is the one scarred in my memory. It was between Hezbollah and Israel. The worst part about it is civilian casualty felt like an afterthought, and everyone was fair game. We would always hear “the terrorist group is hiding amongst civilians” as a justification to the killings. My most vivid memory is being in a basement with a bunch of other people praying and reading Qurans, while we could hear bombs dropping around us. Hoping it would not drop on our building. Thankfully, United States and European ships came to pick their citizens up from the shores of Lebanon. Luckily, I was a US citizen, so we were able to escape unharmed. The journey did not end there. My memory may be faulty, but what I do remember is the ship dropping us off in Cyprus, an island nearby while they tried to figure out how each of us would get to our respective countries. Eventually a US military plane came for us and dropped us off in Washington DC. It was a relief hearing welcome back home from Marines as soon as we arrived.

AJP: I am also curious to know more about what you have said about how religion and politics are very much connected in Lebanon and influence everything, including who can be in what office. Can you tell us more?

AM: Because Lebanon is the most religiously diverse country in the Middle East, there is always a power struggle. North Lebanon is predominantly Christian, and South Lebanon is predominantly Muslim. In addition, the government recognizes 18 religious sects. While this has many positives, which include going to school with different kinds of people and sometimes understanding each other and forming a community no matter what religion you belong to. It has plenty of negatives, too. In Lebanon, certain religions are assigned positions in the government. For example, only a Maronite Christian can become President, only a Sunni Muslim can become the Prime Minister, and only a Shiite Muslim can become the Speaker of Parliament. Which is a bit weird because as a non-religious Lebanese American who was born in Africa, I technically cannot aspire to become president. The way the government is set up causes the formation of many political organizations. Even in elementary school, your classmates would ask you what religion your family is from and what political group they support. You are immediately judged no matter what answer you give. This causes a lot of tension, and because of this there are always arguments and fights about how the government is controlled. In my 12 years of living there, I only saw arguments and fights, no discussion and solutions. Our economy there is severely damaged, and to make things worse we recently elected a president after two years when the groups couldn’t agree who to elect. During that period, I witnessed Lebanon go through the “Garbage crisis” where the government couldn’t figure out what to do with the trash people threw away, so it just gathered in the streets.

AJP: What’s a common misconception people have about Lebanon and the related politics and religion that really bothers you?

AM: A common misconception is that Lebanon is predominantly Muslim and controlled by a Muslim government – where women have to wear head scarfs or cannot drive or cannot divorce. This is completely wrong. In Lebanon, none of those are mandatory or banned. Women and Men can marry and divorce, wear whatever they want, and in recent years, Lebanon has been making progress for the LGBT community, too. In Lebanon, drinking alcohol, clubs, partying, and freedom of expression are all legal. Unlike some other middle eastern country, Lebanon is very liberal and a great tourist destination during peaceful times. It has beautiful beaches and mountains. You can go to the beach in the morning and be in the mountain tops skiing by the evening. Most people speak at least 3 languages, Arabic, English and French.

AJP: That’s really interesting that Lebanon can be so violent and war-like but also very liberal and welcoming. Can you elaborate on the stark contrast here?

AM: The reason Lebanon is very liberal is because we don’t have one religious figure or one person saying what we can and cannot do. There is no majority religion. Before the 1975 civil war, Lebanon was known as the Paris of the middle east, where everyone wanted to visit and go. However, after some of the core Lebanese values stuck, but the country has been shrouded with arguments on how to steer it in the future. Basically because of the civil war, it brought a lot of hate between people. Which is why Lebanon is the way it is now. Our economy was severely affected, and areas where I lived still only get Electricity only 12-16 hours a day. The civil war was between Christians and Muslims (North and South), by the way.

AJP: Can you tell us how and why you came to the United States?

AM: Because my father is American, I was born with U.S. citizenship. I did a little bit of elementary school here, but eventually went back and lived most of my childhood and teens there. I decided to come back after my first year in college due to the political environment in Lebanon. In addition to the cronyism there, I did not feel like I would be able to progress in life being from an underprivileged family. I decided to come to the United States where a sense of meritocracy exists.

AJP: From your perspective and experience, how are the dynamics of religion and politics different in the United States?

AM: I feel like here, a majority of people don’t really care about what you believe in. They won’t go out of their way to ask you. In my experience, even in elementary school other students would ask if your parents are with X or with Y? Like everyone was part of some kind of club. If you belong to this religious group then why do you support Y? Some people would kill friendships on the very basis of what you stand for. Here, people are more open-minded and willing to listen to different perspectives. Albeit, I don’t want to make the mistake of generalizing.

AJP: How was your time at the University of Houston?

AM: I was amazed when I first arrived. Classes were so large, yet professors cared about their students. What I especially loved is that getting an “A” in a class does not mean memorize everything word-by-word. There were different ways you could excel and learn more. For example, a lot of professors sacrificed additional time to explain stuff to me outside of class that I did not understand. I’m not trying to imply all professors weren’t like that at my old university, but I did not feel the same engagement there except from a handful of professors. In addition to the vast amount of extracurricular activities. I absolutely loved my time at the University of Houston, and I’m proud to call myself a UH COUGAR!

AJP: I am so happy that you are currently working on your applications for medical school. What drew you to medicine?

AM: There is not one single thing that drew me to medicine. It has been a culmination of my life events that have carved this path for me. Being exposed to many sides of human nature starting in a war-torn country, to my time at the University of Houston, to time in the emergency room as a scribe, and to as a lab technician now. I am eager to fight for humanity, to learn more about human nature, and to make my mark on society in my life time.

AJP: What else do you want to tell my readers?

AM: The Jeita Grotto, located in Lebanon, should be one of the Seven Wonders of the World!

Also, in Beirut, Lebanon, there is a Church and a Mosque next door to each other. 

Finally, I would also like to thank them for reading this, and hopefully they are able to see a different perspective of Lebanon and the environment there.

AJP: Thanks so much, Ali. I know my readers will love learning about you.

AM: Thank you for having me, Dr. Pegoda.

To read other exciting interviews in this series, please click here. Don’t forget you can sign up for email updates and/or follow this blog on Facebook, Twitter, or WordPress (look on the far right if you’re using a Desktop computer, on the bottom if you’re on a tablet or phone).

Thanks for reading! Don’t forget you can like, comment, and share, too. 

In almost all cases, this particular ritual occurred at least once every twelve years, once members of the Nacirema reached age 15 or 16 on the Gregorian Calendar. This ritual involved several steps but ultimately permitted them to legally steer large machines on rows of asphalt, concrete, or dirt. These machines went at unprecedented speeds for their time–up to 150 miles per hour, although, 30-80 miles per hour was most typical. These rows stretched hundreds and hundreds of miles. Instead of walking or teleporting themselves, Naciremas used these machines to get from place-to-place.    

Although some members of the Nacirema drove without permission from the State, most had permission. The final step of receiving permission was particular odious. With their body fully covered, they walked into this small structure that could only hold fifty people at most. This structure had one large room and three tiny rooms. At the back of the room, there were four people in charge. There were three rows pointed away from the people in charge. Each row contained several objects the Nacirema used to temporarily squat. 

The Nacirema had strict rules against talking to people they did not know well and rules against being too physically close to people they did not know. These rules were closely followed. The Nacirema squatted down in absolute silence with spaces in front of them, behind them, and next to them empty. The Nacirema felt so strongly about these rules that they would go to extraordinary lengths to obey them, even if it meant suffering. Only ocasional whispers could be heard between younger members who knew each other from elsewhere.

Occasionally, one of the four people in charge would call out something like “80” or “85” and one of the Nacirema would get up and walk over to that person. Naciremas waited several hours to be summoned. The people in charge were very coarse and each processed over one hundred Nacirema each day. They were particularly coarse to people really young or older than 80.

Processing each Nacirema involved dozens of papers and several different objects. Some of these objects had the capability to magically display everything about any of the Nacirema. The people in charge constantly banged loudly on little objects that were part of larger objects. Each object they banged affected what was displayed in front of them. Before the Nacirema were released, the people in charge shined a bright light on them and printed a copy of their face.

(If you’re unfamiliar with the Nacirema, please read this, too.)

Dr. Andrew Joseph Pegoda

Recently, I was listening to videos on YouTube for research, and I didn’t realize the “autoplay – up next” feature was on until I heard Shawn Mendes’s “Treat You Better.” The song bothered me. Once I looked, the music-video bothered me, too. It’s taken a few days to start put my finger on it, but I have some thoughts. 

Before going on, please take a look at “Treat You Better” and its music video. 

“Treat You Better” wants viewers to think it prompts concern for women. Through the lyrics and video, we learn that the woman’s boyfriend does not always treat her very well, and this really concerns a friend of hers. The friend shows concern and offers to “let it go.” And the video ends with a “public service announcement” that cannot be stated enough.

However, “Treat You Better” is actually a one-sided manifesto–by a young, fit, able-bodied, (presumably) heterosexual, White (presumably cisgendered) male–at a woman about why she shouldn’t be with her current boyfriend and should be with the writer of this manifesto. He begs her to leave her current boyfriend.

And the “I can let it go” proves to be a very conditional offer. 

When you should be with me instead 

And why did he put her in a position where she has to crawl out of a window to escape from him?

The song transforms the woman into a commodity to be fought over. Love and women are male-dominated competitions in “Treat You Better.” The manifesto tells her over a dozen times how that he can treat her better than the current boyfriend can.

I know I can treat you better
Better than he can

What about the woman and her agency? Why does she have to have a boyfriend? What does she think about all of this?

The manifesto-writer is also overly confident and thinks that he alone can solve all of her problems. 

I’ll stop time for you
The second you say you’d like me too
I just wanna give you the loving that you’re missing

The manifesto also tells her how she is wasting time a half-dozen times without any acknowledgment for how she is choosing to spend her time or any consideration for how even bad experiences can shape who we are in positive ways. 

Tell me why are we wasting time
On all your wasted crying

Is the song saying the woman is “wasted” or “trash” for not doing what the man wants?

More importantly is what “Treat You Better” teaches audiences. It teaches women that they need a man, that such monogamous relationships are necessary to their happiness and safety. It teaches men that they too need a woman and should be a “gentleman.”

And any girl like you deserves a gentleman

And by a “gentleman,” “Treat You Better” means a man who defends his woman, who does everything for his woman, who makes impossible promises to his woman, who denies his woman her own voice and independence, who wants to ultimately use the patriarch’s psychological violence.  

“Treat You Better” suggests that the woman has no friends, no family, and no other possible support systems besides the man who is begging to be her boyfriend. 

Just know that you don’t
Have to do this alone

We must also acknowledge the intersectionality of the manifesto-writer. Look at physical appearance, he is the embodiment of what has come to be considered the ideal male in popular culture. (He only lacks blond hair.)

Young, fit, able-bodied, (presumably) heterosexual, White (presumably cisgendered) male

This matters in terms of the song’s and music video’s reception and in terms of the messages it delivers. Can you imagine the backlash or reaction if we changed some of the variables? Imagine how “Treat You Better” would change if the manifesto-writer was fat or crip or Muslim? Such “otherness” signifies a kind of cultural disability.

Or, would the manifesto-writer have been as concerned about a woman he wasn’t interested in sexually? Or a woman who wasn’t culturally ideal? 

So, how exactly is he going to “Treat You Better”?

Dr. Andrew Joseph Pegoda

 

1. Whereas 99.9% of the past is forever lost to direct analysis, the past and everything that has ever happened anywhere (history) is different from the study of what has happened (History). Historians aim to assemble and examine stories about the past and Homo sapiens, a past full of complexity and simplicity, a past that shows humans at their strongest and weakest, a past starting a second ago.
2. Important and relevant stories are embodied in an array of extant primary sources or cultural artifacts — e.g., cookbooks, songs, newspapers, bodies, memories, buildings, trash, and everything else humans have created or touched or that have created or touched them. Nothing is off limits for analysis.
3. Stories can be found and told from any vantage point—a person, a group, an institution, a period, a city, a state, a region, an ideology, and even the environment, for example. Historians write works focused on the history of pigs, marriage, children, hotels, swimming pools, wars, drinking, genocide, inventions, grandmothers, etc. Everything and everybody has stories to tell about everything—including you. Private life and public life matter.
4. In creating understandings of these stories, context matters — time and place (including geography) matter. History is not about events but processes. Such contexts and processes help reveal how humans create and live in culturally/socially constructed worlds. You cannot take anything as a given or an absolute.
5. These stories show how people have answered the big questions of life. They provide rich information about hopes and fears and everyday life. They show what people value. They show what people knew and didn’t know, what they used and didn’t use, what they needed and didn’t need.
6. Always appreciate how much Homo sapiens have in common. They were all mostly “blank slates” at some point. Generally, they have all needed nourishment, have experienced happiness and sadness, have communicated in some way, and have learned about their culture.
7. Respect, too, how much Homo sapiens are different. Differences dictated by time and place and differences created by the powerful. Different in what they believe or don’t believe when it comes to higher powers, different in what they need and have access to in terms of nourishment, shelter, and medicine, and different in terms of how they are divided up and identify.
8. While studying these stories, always look for new perspectives—not truths—and new ways of acknowledging agency (e.g., crip studies is one of the latest examples of how scholars have brought more people into the narrative – in this case those deemed not able-bodied). Being interdisciplinary will best help this be possible.
9. Eagerly look to analyze the ideas of other historians, change your mind as you learn more about the world, be a public intellectual or critic who sees beyond prevailing mores of your time and place, and acknowledge how History is far more about “the present” than the past.

Inspired by Dr. Michael Wesch’s “Big Idea” syllabus for Anthropology. For more of my thoughts on the Philosophy of History, click here.