Drug use for that purpose was a lot more wide spread than you'd think. .... because it worked.
Given the choice between "possible long term side effects" and "no long term"... most of us would choose the option including the "long term".
Wanting to win a war at any cost... historically is not that telling at all.
If I were looking for a tell, I'd look at why someone started a war, and how they behaved while winning.
Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt and Tojo all wanted to win the war. All gave their troops drugs. That does not make them equal. Or provide much of a tell.
Hard choices are made in wars. It is easy to sit in judgement. The pressures leaders faced were staggering. This does not forgive all lapses in judgement.
Hitler giving exhausted troops Meth to stay awake and stay alive does not rank with his most grievous transgressions.
When American soldiers landed in North Africa in 1942, they were also operating under the influence of speed; half a million Benzedrine tablets were supplied on the orders of Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, according to PBS.
So, I'm not seeing the moral equivalence any more than Americans and Germans used tanks. .... because they worked.
Dead soldiers don't do you any good, not a deal for them either. So you give them tanks, air cover, any advantage you can... including drugs. The soldier's lives, and your country's fate hangs in the balance.
That is the nature of war.
War is hell.