As far as I know, Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were indeed unusually incorruptible, and I do hate them for this trait.
Why? Because when your goal is mass murder, corruption saves lives. Corruption leads you to take the easy way out, to compromise, to go along to get along. Corruption isn’t a poison that makes everything worse. It’s a diluting agent like water. Corruption makes good policies less good, and evil policies less evil.
I’ve read thousands of pages about Hitler. I can’t recall the slightest hint of “corruption” on his record. Like Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, Hitler was a sincerely murderous fanatic. The same goes for many of history’s leading villains—see Eric Hoffer’s classic The True Believer. Sincerity is so overrated. If only these self-righteous monsters had been corrupt hypocrites, millions of their victims could have bargained and bribed their way out of hell.
Hitler was at least a hypocrite—he got his Jewish friends to safety, and accepted same-sex relationships in himself and people he didn’t want to kill yet. The kind of corruption Caplan is pointing at is a willingness to compromise with anyone who makes offers, not any kind of ignoring your principles. And Nazis were definitely against that—see the Duke in Jud Süß.
Ernst Hess, his unit commander in WWI, protected until 1942 then sent to a labor (not extermination) camp
Eduard Bloch, his and his mother’s doctor, allowed to emigrate out of Austria with more money than normally allowed
I’ve heard things about fellow artists (a commenter on Caplan’s post mentions an art gallery owner) but I don’t have a source.
There are claims about his cook, Marlene(?) Kunde, but he seems to have fired her when Himmler complained. Anyone has Musmanno’s book or some other non-Stormfronty source?
Whether Hitler batted for both teams is hotly debated. There are suspected relationships (August Kubizek, Emil Maurice) but any evidence could as well have been faked to smear him.
Hitler clearly knew that Ernst Röhm and Edmund Heines were gay and didn’t care until it was Long Knives time. I’m less sure he knew about Karl Ernst’s sexuality.
Wittgenstein paid a huge bribe to allow his family to leave Germany. Somewhere I read that this particular agreement was approve personally be Hitler (or someone very senior in the hierarchy).
That doesn’t contradict the general point that Nazi Germany was generally willing to kill and steal from its victims (especially during the war) rather than accept bribes for escape.
Nazi Germany was generally willing to kill and steal from its victims (especially during the war) rather than accept bribes for escape.
This may have happened some of the time, but everything I read suggests it was the exception and not the rule.
The reason Jews did not emigrate out of Germany during the 30s was that Germany had a big foreign balance problem, and managed tight government control over allocation of foreign currency. Jews (and Germans) could not convert their Reichsmarks to any other currency, either in Germany or out of it, and so they were less willing to leave. And no other country was willing to take them in in large numbers (since they would be poor refugees). This continued during the war in the West European countries conquered by Germany. (Ref: Wages of Destruction, Adam Tooze)
Later, all Jewish property was expropriated and the Jews sent to camps, so there was no more room for bribes—the Jews had nothing to offer since the Nazis took what they wanted by force.
Bargains and bribes seem of questionable use when a power is willing and able to kill you and seize all your assets anyway. I suppose there’s the odd Swiss bank account or successful smuggling case to deal with, or people willing to destroy their possessions rather than let them fall into the hands of a murderous authority, but I’d be surprised if any of these weren’t fairly small minorities in the face of the total. We’re certainly not talking millions.
Corruption at lower levels could have reduced the death toll of many famous genocides (in fact, I’d imagine it did), but at the level of Hitler or Pol Pot I can only see it helping if the bribes or bargains being offered are quite large and originate outside of the regions where the repression’s taking place. Much like the present situation with North Korea, come to think of it.
-- Bryan Caplan
Hitler was at least a hypocrite—he got his Jewish friends to safety, and accepted same-sex relationships in himself and people he didn’t want to kill yet. The kind of corruption Caplan is pointing at is a willingness to compromise with anyone who makes offers, not any kind of ignoring your principles. And Nazis were definitely against that—see the Duke in Jud Süß.
?
Please provide evidence for this bizarre claim?
Spared Jews:
Ernst Hess, his unit commander in WWI, protected until 1942 then sent to a labor (not extermination) camp
Eduard Bloch, his and his mother’s doctor, allowed to emigrate out of Austria with more money than normally allowed
I’ve heard things about fellow artists (a commenter on Caplan’s post mentions an art gallery owner) but I don’t have a source.
There are claims about his cook, Marlene(?) Kunde, but he seems to have fired her when Himmler complained. Anyone has Musmanno’s book or some other non-Stormfronty source?
Whether Hitler batted for both teams is hotly debated. There are suspected relationships (August Kubizek, Emil Maurice) but any evidence could as well have been faked to smear him.
Hitler clearly knew that Ernst Röhm and Edmund Heines were gay and didn’t care until it was Long Knives time. I’m less sure he knew about Karl Ernst’s sexuality.
Wittgenstein paid a huge bribe to allow his family to leave Germany. Somewhere I read that this particular agreement was approve personally be Hitler (or someone very senior in the hierarchy).
That doesn’t contradict the general point that Nazi Germany was generally willing to kill and steal from its victims (especially during the war) rather than accept bribes for escape.
This may have happened some of the time, but everything I read suggests it was the exception and not the rule.
The reason Jews did not emigrate out of Germany during the 30s was that Germany had a big foreign balance problem, and managed tight government control over allocation of foreign currency. Jews (and Germans) could not convert their Reichsmarks to any other currency, either in Germany or out of it, and so they were less willing to leave. And no other country was willing to take them in in large numbers (since they would be poor refugees). This continued during the war in the West European countries conquered by Germany. (Ref: Wages of Destruction, Adam Tooze)
Later, all Jewish property was expropriated and the Jews sent to camps, so there was no more room for bribes—the Jews had nothing to offer since the Nazis took what they wanted by force.
The last bit is most famously true of Rohm, though of course there’s a dozen different things going on there.
That sums it up.
Bargains and bribes seem of questionable use when a power is willing and able to kill you and seize all your assets anyway. I suppose there’s the odd Swiss bank account or successful smuggling case to deal with, or people willing to destroy their possessions rather than let them fall into the hands of a murderous authority, but I’d be surprised if any of these weren’t fairly small minorities in the face of the total. We’re certainly not talking millions.
Corruption at lower levels could have reduced the death toll of many famous genocides (in fact, I’d imagine it did), but at the level of Hitler or Pol Pot I can only see it helping if the bribes or bargains being offered are quite large and originate outside of the regions where the repression’s taking place. Much like the present situation with North Korea, come to think of it.