It is easy to put all the evil and blame on one figure, because one would badly have wanted to say exactly the same thing about hundreds of Hitlers. It always takes a bad guy so that the contributors and supporters of whatever effects it had don't need to think any further about their own responsibilities.

I'm surprised that anyone actually dares to write on the subject and admit to having read Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" and share that you can't demonise all the content because, if you didn't know the lines were written by Hitler, you would read them with less bias.

Of course, there is a lot of hypocrisy in the story. One can ask oneself whether those who carried out the orders were not carrying just as much, if not worse, guilt, and one can also ask oneself how it is possible that a man can have so much power if others do not also grant it to him, push it towards him, persuade him and convince him on their side. Because they have an interest and it can be assumed that he himself was stupid enough to be impressed by the fact that other government officials from abroad helped him to power.

The Nuremberg trials, which have gone down in history as glorious, seem to have been show courts to give the people (and the spectators outside Germany) something they took to be justice. However, it must also be said that it was precisely this people who liked to see a few evildoers led to the pillory so that they would not have to look at themselves.

When one sees the almost unbelievable pictures of the overwhelming crowds that were there cheering in the heyday of the Nazis, one has to doubt the sanity of these many who allowed themselves to be carried away in such a way. There, in retrospect, we can see the stark difference between the book content and the actual feeling that moved the masses of people to gather. It would be difficult for someone who does not want to harm anyone to describe himself as neutral or kind-hearted, who as an individual made it possible to take his place in the totality of this mass phenomenon.

One can speculate from the low number of convictions in relation to the crimes that took place that sentencing people to death or putting them in prison was not really wanted. Guilt, shame and punishment never seem to satisfy anyone, it seems. (I assume, the trials would have gone endlessly)

For if it were the case that the criminal felt remorse, went from being Saul to Paul, in the short time of his imprisonment and conviction, he would probably not have committed a crime in the first place. So I suppose that those who wanted to see the evildoers judged and killed believed in the concept of revenge and then called it "justice" in order to be able to say that the murdered had been atoned for. While their own responsibility could be suppressed and kept quiet, since the "real culprits" had now been found and condemned.

All this thrives from the human emotions, from a form of mass hypnosis which is being presented from up to down as something, the average folks have to feel fear. Once, you can fear the masses, you can argue every step for setting aside normality.

There is a saying: Don't make yourself common with anything, not even with a benevolent thing.
Meaning that, before you know it, the benevolent thing can turn into tyranny.