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?
yep. germany was aching for a hitler after their stabbed in the back nonsense at the end of ww1. just look at how he got a slap on the wrist for attempting to overthrow the government in the beerhall putsch.
they would've glommed onto any charismatic speaker that was willing to turn european ideals of imperialism against the core (since germany was not in the position to do it to (enough) brown people)