Meta history!~ Histories are written to serve a purpose in relation to a particular place in space and time. Whether or not to bolster a particular narrative or garner support for social policy. I always found it interesting how popular opinion seeps in and helps color a particular narrative. Often times its done to advance the author's credibility, but its often much more interesting when the author does it rather unknowingly.

It's quite an intractable claim to make that Nazis were drugged out, when all major combatants during the 2nd World War employed Amphetamines and their derivatives to increase performance and productivity on the field, at home, or even at school, in the same way stimulants are generally used today in combat operations and civilian life. In every conflict since the end of world war 2, you can find the imprint of stimulants on every single battlefield.

I remember reading around some where that there was a concerted effort by the high leadership to control distribution and use of Pervitin, atleast in North Africa, as symptoms of fatigue became rapidly apparent following a protracted period of combat ((you're not exactly sleeping, and stimulants tend to not do you any good if you're sleep deprived anyway))

There was also that paper from Doyle that outlined Hitler's medical care, albeit, based on 2ndary sources, and other popular print publications that kind of capitalize on this image of Hitler as a degenerate druggie, but from a historical standpoint, it's generally not good practice to paint your subject(s) with ad hominems or let moral predispositions color your evaluation of a society or an individual, no matter how terrifying and repulsive the results of their actions may have been, kind of disconcerting how these things get free passes because hey, low hanging fruit.