Reply #12: It's the "Hitler Phenomenon" and is not all that uncommon historically [View All]

[DivinBreuvage]

It isn't all that difficult for brilliant, ruthless people with powerful resources to take advantage of weak and divided enemies. They have been doing it since the days of the Mespotamian kings. One could just as easily call this the "Julius Caesar Phenomenon" or the "Napoleon Phenomenon" or the "Robert E. Lee Phenomenon". But I'll use Hitler as the example, since that's the one everyone always wants to hear about.

Despite having a smaller army than the British or French, Hitler sensed the political disarray and lack of resolve in their governments and took advantage of this to reoccupy the Rhineland, annex Austria, and force the cession of the Sudetenland and then the absorption of "Rump Czechoslovakia".

Hitler himself later admitted that if the French had had the moxie to slap him down when he went into the Rhineland -- which they could easliy have done -- it would have been the end of his political career. But they didn't do it, and they continued not to do it, so he became stronger and won a greater aura of invincibility for himself with each victory while at the same time making his enemies look even more feeble and incompetent.

German agression and speed secured the initiative and all his hapless enemies could do was react, usually too late and in too ineffective a fashion. By the time France fell many people had come to despair and believe that Hitler just couldn't be beaten. And indeed some historians have worked out "alternative scenarios" where this might have proven to be true.

But Hitler ended up biting off more for Germany than it could chew, and it gradually became clear that Hitler really wasn't all that hot a player once he stopped holding the winning hand.

The usual (although, alas, not the inevitable) demise of the great conqueror is that he eventually becomes a little too cocky, a little too confident, a little too sure of his own invincibility, and makes a misstep (I actually think it goes deeper than that, that psychologically he either begins with or develops a pathology which eventually compels him to overreach). The spell of his invincibility is now broken. And depending on the egregiousness of his misstep, or the resolve, strength, and unity of his enemies, or his tendency to learn from mistakes or persist in them, his downfall can be envisioned.

Caesar overreached. Napoleon overreached. Robert E. Lee overreached. Hitler overreached. And it would now appear that perhaps Karl Rove has finally managed to overreach. Is he brilliant? Yes. Is he bold? Yes. Is he invincible? Not at all. His ruin is by no means yet certain, but at least his downfall can be envisioned; and my feeling is that, even if he does recover, he will never again be able to wield quite the same degree of power as hitherto.