I wonder if this kind of argument was more or less convincing in an era when beating your kids was a universal constant and if they weren't beaten at home they would be beaten at school
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0145213491900226
Think there's plenty more ways (other than being beaten as a kid) to produce people 1) desperate for approval 2) thinking primarily in a "with us or against us" binary, and getting others to think that way 3) unwilling to own up to their failures and VERY willing to make others take the fall. That's what being "a psychopath dictator" or "the worst tyrant" means in practice. They're traits we all have to watch out for within ourselves, and might really be widely present-- it's just that most other people 1) aren't the absolute rulers of big countries, don't really have the opportunity to cause harm on that scale (but hey, never underestimate an American mass shooter) 2) do have power and use it to harm as many as they reasonably can, but hide behind the organization of which they are supposedly only the agent, transferring all guilt and liabilities onto them and retiring in peace.
Returning to the "big three." There's their lives as young men to consider, and also their careers-- and here there's a notable difference between Hitler and the other two in that while Nazism was the former's personal brand pretty much from the moment the party had more than a hundred followers, the other two had a slower ascent within the horrifically cliquey environment of the respective Communist parties-- which might have inculcated several uniquely bad habits. Hitler had a certain routine for when he felt his status in the party was at threat (make a speech, shake hands, authorize a limited campaign of violence (Long Knives, Kristallnacht) meant to be wrapped up in a timely manner with all loot directed to the state treasury), after which he'd go back to the meth house. The other two never really felt safe from the cliques, and purging became a much more regular occurrence, an art form even.
Say whatever you want about these people, they're dead. Rest in piss. But if you think corporal punishment going out of style means a world of people who are less desperate for approval, more considerate about the impact of their actions on others, and more willing to face their mistakes... I think that would be a very incorrect assumption. Factors that could conceivably lead to these traits are present in every ideology, every profession, every historical era and setting-- they are the unavoidable flip-side of leadership, which cannot exclusively be thought of in terms of its advantages.
