Comments by "Bruce Tucker" (@brucetucker4847) on "Why I reject the ‘MADMAN HITLER’ myth" video.

  1. I think it's dangerous to overlook the distinction between "insane" and "irrational". Hitler's decision to declare war on the US may have involved rational calculations, but it was also premised in part on his irrational beliefs: mainly, the notion that a racially impure society run by Jews and socialists couldn't possibly defeat the pure, Aryan German nation led by National Socialism. Hitler assumed that because he saw the US as a contemptible, corrupt society, its own citizens (at least the ones who counted, the Aryan ones) must see it the same way, and would never fight for it. This is even more true of the Japanese decision to go to war with the US and UK. Yes, I fully understand the strategic considerations that went into this decision, but there were numerous rational voices in the Japanese leadership (most notably Yamamoto) who understood how hopeless such a war would be against countries that had industrial economies literally dozens of times larger than Japan's. (Of course it is possible for a poorer nation to win a limited defensive war against much stronger powers, particular if it has covert support from another superpower - Vietnam being a good example - but that wasn't the sort of war Japan was starting). The decision can only be understood in light of the fundamentally irrational belief that the superior martial and spiritual virtues of the Japanese race would make up for the massive industrial and technological superiority of the Allies. Of course, we can all see how this turned out in practice. This may be easier to understand in the southern US when we look at our own past folly in this regard - thinking that the superior virtue of an agrarian society led by genteel aristocrats would make up for the large population advantage and fantastic industrial advantage of the northern states. Of course, the Confederates at least had the more rational possibility that the northerners wouldn't be willing to fight to keep other states in the Union against their will. The crowning folly of the Japanese leaders was failing to understand that beginning the war the way they did would certainly galvanize the American public to fight the war to its bitter ultimate end.
    1
  2. Hitler (like Charles Manson) would never have allowed it. And if he had, he would have lost, at least under US and, as I understand it, UK law. (Stalin, of course, didn't even want the top Nazis to get trials, he wanted them shot out of hand. And under Soviet law, the fact that the Party was prosecuting you to begin with was irrefutable proof of your guilt because the Party would never prosecute innocent people.)
    1
  3. Being insane and following an irrational ideology are not at all the same thing, although they may sometimes produce similar practical results. But irrationality is a powerful force in the human consciousness and it will always hold an attraction for people who do not believe that post-Enlightenment rationality has not produced an ideal society. And let's face it, post-Enlightenment rationality has not produced a perfect society, far from it. I do think a case can be made that after the July 20 plot Hitler suffered a significant mental decline and had increasingly bad judgment. This doesn't excuse any of crimes before or after that event, but it did affect his ability to manage the war competently. Not that it made much difference, and if anything it was probably a blessing since he might have been able to drag the war out even longer had he not been so impaired.
    1
  4. Followup question: was Stalin insane? I think to answer that we need to carefully define what we mean by "insane". I think many experts would agree that Stalin had a paranoid personality and could probably be diagnosed with a personality disorder under the DSM-4 (I haven't had a chance to look at the 5th edition yet). But a having a personality disorder isn't the same as being raving lunatic with no control over your thoughts and actions. And as a legal matter, at least in the US and UK (I know almost nothing of continental European or other laws on this), it is not a defense to a criminal prosecution.
    1
  5. What did they think Hitler was, an alien? A literal demon from Hell? No, the human race doesn't get off that easily, he was one of us. How can we possibly prevent future Hitlers from gaining power and following a similar path if we don't try to understand what it is about human beings that makes us able to do such terrible things?
    1
  6. For the same reason, they always blame the almost atrocities universally committed by communist regimes on the particular foibles of the individual leaders. Communism itself couldn't possibly responsible, it just got hijacked by bad leaders - in every society where it's ever been tried. They also love the No True Scotsman defense: Stalin, Pol Pot, et al weren't really communists, because no true communist would ever do the things they did.
    1