I don't think this is a Godwin situation. The question about personal responsibility is at the forefront of this discussion, which happens to also have been applied at the end of WW2, as a matter of moral continuity. When you then go on to detail how this a facet of western law, you belie the Godwin claim, you brought up for no reason.

> there is no nuanced or intelligent position that defends the assertion that you aren't responsible for your own actions

Such a position is a longstanding feature of law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

I get that some people don't want these principles to exist and would prefer personal liability in everything, but I would suggest that these people be very careful what they wish for.

I get that a lot of people want to substitute law for morality because are incapable or unwilling to understand the critical distinction between the two.

The only distinction is that with law, you can actually hold people responsible for their actions in a way that matters.