That diagnosis is mostly retrospective conjecture, of course and we all know how reliable that shit is, but is anyone really surprised that der Herr wasn't someone who enjoyed felicitous sex with a consenting adult? I've always thought it was stupidly fucking obvious. Who wants to bother with genocide or world domination or Goldman Sachs when you could be getting your clock cleaned/salad tossed/pipes drained etc?
I mean all that regardless of physiology. I doubt Hitler could have enjoyed sex under any circumstances because petulant arseclowns tend not to like or understand intimate mutualistic transactions. But you know everyone's jumping on the tiny cock lolol aspect and that's not cool; there are plenty of dainty dicks out there belonging to perfectly productive and sexually-engaged members of society. Let's not get it twisted. Hitler was a basic, chickenhearted fucktard who couldn't deal with his own perfectly commonplace shit and that's what we should spraypaint on his headstone at night if anyone ever bothers to get him one.
It's peculiar, isn't it, that whole excessive genital significance thing? Crediting one's junk with the rest of one's properties. Men have always tried to apply this retarded metric to significant women in that really stupid literal way, painting them as insatiable sluts or neuters in lieu of visible, quantifiable inches. Cleopatra VII Philopater: skank. Joan d'Arc: virgin. Catherine the Great; popular masculine imagination has her dying trying to fuck a stallion because what could be more important to a chick than like, the biggest penis eva?
It's important to keep in mind that none of this relates directly to genital size, configuration or orientation beyond the dictates of my or Catherine's or Hitler's essential character. How we respond to our own physicality is governed by our personalities. Whilst a wee cock or a hungry hoo-ha might inform aspects of our disposition, giving them too much credit is lazy, puerile, reductive and exculpatory.
I'm not going to lie, though. A small penis is a sexual disadvantage, by and large. There are definitely women who really don't mind/prefer modest dimensions and most of us don't come vaginally anyway, so it doesn't have to be a dealbreaker if you cultivate good all-round technique. Technique is awesome. We love that shit, will lavishly praise your pussy proficiency to other women and you will become that guy in our minds.
In the right hands, a large one can turn you out like no one's business and it's a horrible shame they're so often attached to guys who've drunk the size-conquers-all koolaid. Men tend to imagine they'd all be rockstars/astronauts/sex professors if only they'd been granted those vital extra inches and I've heard some really talented, satisfying dudes express this peculiar notion which is both sad and amusing. News flash: generally speaking, XL = extra responsibility, not automatic ecstasy. You better know what the fuck you're doing with that thing, says anyone who's ever been rubbed the wrong way by an epic portion. Within the scope of consensual hetero sex there are few things more annoying and boring than being poked in the kidneys for 4.5 minutes by someone who thinks you should be grateful for their hallowed magnitude. Except getting poked in the sigmoid colon by said magnitude during butt stuff*. If you do know what you're doing, consider yourself blessed and try not to get sucked into the idea that it's your most valuable quality; it probably isn't.
It's best not to take any of this literally. Genitals are all absolutely, utterly relative to each other and the reason researchers have failed to uncover a gold standard is because there really isn't one. If we like you, chances are we'll like your junk, especially if you're okay with it too and know how to enjoy ours.
Unless you're Hitler. Cock size was the least of his problems.
* lexicographically, I prefer arseplay but this footnote and quite possibly this entire piece are brought to you by the power of hoodrat; phonetic considerations prevail.