One of the major gripes this site has with liberals at the moment is the "Putin is a crazy man" mindset in which they give themselves to all sorts of "does Putin have autism?? Photographic caliper evidence says yes" and similarly inane takes. In the site's view this sort of conception of individuals as acting on history/anthropomorphizing a state is unhelpful and equivalent to Great Man Theory, which is an antiquated concept.
My question here is to what degree is this the case with the man to whom Putin is so commonly compared, Adolf Hitler? The Western liberal understanding seems to be at odds with itself, both accepting the "banality of evil" (through Arendt's analysis of Eichmann) and branding the Nazi regime as "crazy." To what degree did the Reich's actions flow from banal measured-and-genocidal political calculus, retroactively Putinified, and to what degree was the state and its actions (not asking about its propagandized citizens) actually given to wild irrational paranoia?
Reposting my comment from one of the Ukraine megathreads:
The reason Americans keep comparing Hitler to Putin is because the average American’s sum total of historical knowledge is Hitler, moon landing, 9/11, and then pick 2 of Civil War, George Washington, Great Depression, ancient Rome, Pearl Harbor, Ronald Reagan, Mayflower, Martin Luther King Jr
According to my sources, sum total is "Columbus, then Indians taught us to grow corn so we won WW2".
deleted by creator
The real reason Stalingrad was won :corn-man-khrush: