Introduction
Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem, a report on Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem in 1961, portrays the Holocaust unexpectedly and controversially. The book has become a symbol of a conceptual change in global perceiving the phenomenon of the Holocaust. The banality of evil as an integral part of its psychology is emphasized and discussed in Eichmann in Jerusalem.
How does dehumanizing criminality that reflects the greatest evil in the world become outspread, and what is the approach to denormalize and defeat it?
The thesis presented suggests a reflection of the author’s interpretation of good and evil in the case of Eichmann and her thoughts on the absurdity of perception of crime while it is presented not negatively. The ways of normalizing such largescale crime and the reasons for both criminals’ and victims’ consciousness to assume it this way are also explained as part of the book’s analysis. In order to describe and reveal the interpretations of the idea, I will refer to Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem, chapters I, II, III, VI.
The Overview of Genocide Criminality and its Historical Image
The phenomenon of the Holocaust’s existence still evokes numerous questions. They mainly concern the probability of genocide-inspired ideas becoming the national idea of a country that desired to rebuild the world. However, the most significant problems are still unavailable for understanding: “How could the Jews through their leaders cooperate in their destruction?” and why did they accept their death “like lambs”? (1:3). The scourge of the War with the extermination of particular nations is meant to frighten and repel because any average person claims those things have no right to exist in human society. it
Moreover, we tend to think the same of the War’s contemporaries and violently blame them for the period’s events because people cannot bear the thought of Holocaust normality for those who organized it. The aims of those people were inhuman, leaving no space for any good to confront this evil. For instance, David Rousset described the S.S.’s fundamental ideas: the aim was that “the tortured victim renounce and abandon himself to the point of ceasing to affirm his identity” (1:7). Interestingly, Rousset’s opinion on the Holocaust horrors differs a lot from Eichmann’s, as he claims nothing is worse than “processions of human beings going like dummies to their deaths” (1:7). In this case, Rousset’s attitude seems more normal to modern society, meaning that he has at least understood the immorality of his actions.
The Main Reason for Maintaining Silence
One more issue that is inevitable in discussing antisemitism and the extent it was brought to during WWII is the unwillingness of any involved persons to speak about the period’s events. If they did, it could have saved many lives and prevented further horrors from occurring. However, the reason why so many people who must have known, for
instance, the record of the chief prosecutor had kept silent, was simple – “because they themselves felt incriminated.” (1:14). This fact appears to be one of the most significant contributions to spreading antisemitism ideas and the vast-scaled normalization of genocide among the Nazis. Furthermore, these issues intervened in injustice even during Eichmann’s trial. In particular, the prosecution avoided mentioning “this highly explosive matter – upon the almost ubiquitous complicity, which had stretched far beyond the ranks of Party membership” (1:14).
Therefore, the interconnection of the participants of the events of that period limited their ability and desire to make changes and, combined with fear of being punished or socially condemned, kept them silent.
The New Normality
Although from a historical perspective, antisemitism, the Holocaust, and German Nazi politics look like a total embodiment of all the evil stigmas and stereotypes, they undoubtedly had a domestic side. This aspect of any phenomenon, according to Arendt, is the key to understanding the causes of the evil nationalistic ideas’ vast extension among the Germans. Propaganda, fear, the uncertainty of the future, War, and the desire to live in a prosperous country have together led to the inescapable chaos and pervasive confusion.
Concerning Eichmann, who was accused on fifteen counts, including committing crimes against Jewish people and humanity, he is a vivid example of altering the self-perception of crime by emphasizing the routine. There are numerous examples of Eichmann joking about his deeds in Arendt’s book and the ones of him feeling childish emotions concerning his success or failure at work. Being tried, he repeatedly claimed that he was “not guilty in the sense of the indictment” (2:1), which is not at all a sign of a repentant person.
On the other hand, Arendt described a few moments when his behavior could be perceived as a person who understands his guilt and admits it, regretting his previous actions and decisions. For example, when he first saw what had happened to Jewish people in concentration camps, he was deeply shocked by this sight. Eichmann said he “hardly looked” and “had had enough” (6:6). In other words, he was not ready to face the horrors he was causing and organizing. Thus, the impressive extent of escapism of involved people allowed them to refer to their actions as something normal, being a stage of their career path or a task to be completed.
Escapism: Ways of Avoiding the Truth
Surprisingly enough, though the image of all the Nazi’s actions and programs could easily be interpreted as well-organized, detailed, and connected as a part of a bigger plan, it was not the truth. The ideology was, to a great extent, dependent on the ability of the government to hide and interpret particular aspects of their actions. Maintaining such a significant number of people involved in a plan that implies the extermination of whole nations requires powerful propaganda. The most remarkable thing about antisemitism, Eichmann’s case, and the attitude of German Nazis to their deeds are that they chose to refer to it as part of their work, blindly avoiding the truth. The nature of the crime was rethought and rebuilt, allowing Eichmann and many others to exonerate their actions and feel innocent.
Eichmann’s case is not similar to ordinary crimes, not only because of the number of victims globally. One more important peculiarity is that the ‘decorations’ built around the German government system and politics of that period have made the system’s participants almost blind to the natural effects of their actions. Arendt emphasizes that “German society had been shielded against … factuality by … the same self-deception, lies, and stupidity that had now become ingrained in Eichmann’s mentality” (3:12). The German ideology and national ideas were based on lies from the beginning to the end. Changing from one year to another, these lies frequently contradicted each other. Thus, Germans gradually learned to avoid seeing things that cause negative emotions and feelings. This mendacity has even been considered “an integral part of the German national character” by Arendt (3:12). Such alteration of the mindset and behavioral patterns have led to the central tragedy of the XX century.
To describe how strongly the willingness to avoid seeing the negative consequences of undertaken measures can affect the consciousness and performance, I will give some more examples based on Eichmann’s actions or words. An essential part of the Third Reich’s atmosphere was the hypocrisy in the governmental structures and people’s actions. For instance, Eichmann willingly confessed to committing crimes while being in Argentina and Jerusalem because of the desire to “find peace with [his] former enemies” (3:3). This kind of aspiration to get a positive result at the end of a tremendously frightening campaign on killing thousands of people is, no doubt, inadequate and naïve. However, this characterizes the way of thinking of those who made decisions in the Third Reich and other German Nazi structures. Simply hiding the truth, hoping that everything can be positive for them in the end, portrays them as not able to reason and be responsible for their actions.
One more example of Eichmann’s escapism is that at the beginning of his relation to the genocide of the Jews, he firmly believed that he is doing something for the better. In particular, the “political solution”, which implied expulsion of Jewish people to other countries, seemed to him a step towards providing “some firm ground under the feet of the Jews” (3:5). What is more, at the trial Eichmann claimed that he “had nothing to do with the killing of Jews,” “never killed a Jew, or a non-Jew… [or] any human being” (2:4). Hence, even though all the facts were against him, Eichmann found it unbearably hard to accept that he had made thousands of people suffer because of his decisions and suggestions. Meanwhile, he assumed those suggestions as helpful and successful ones.
The Approach to Defeating Crime against Humanity
Considering all the above said, there is no doubt that nothing can prevent spreading the ideas, even the most revolting ones. It is best confirmed with Eichmann’s words answering how he had united his personal feelings about Jews with the antisemitism of the Party: “Nothing’s as hot when you eat it as when it’s being cooked” (3:12). This example describes the attitude of all the Nazis and people related to the Holocaust organization towards their actions. They did not have (and could not reach) a complete understanding of what was waiting for Germany and the world. That is why the trials held on the consequences of WWII were not entirely successful. Guilt was not the feeling they were experiencing through the War and Holocaust. They probably felt the satisfaction of their achievements, enjoyed the rapid promotions, were proud of their nation’s success on the front lines. Perhaps, they even dreamed of a bright future, but they did not consider the wrecking effect the genocide has had on the world.
Thus, the most rational approach, which could make contradicting such evil forces possible, would be one of the simplest – plain common sense. It is vital to understand and bear in mind the inevitable absurdity of crimes against humanity. It may be difficult to distinguish the truth and its interpretations, but there is an example that highlights the madness on which the ideology is built regarding Eichmann’s case. In particular, the Nazis called God an “Höheren Sinnesträger,” which linguistically meant giving him a place in the military hierarchy (2:6). After the Nazis had altered the military “recipient of orders” to “bearer of orders,” the responsibility and importance weighed upon those who had to execute orders. This way, genocide has turned into a combination of objectives, a mission, which could be reached by making certain decisions. Thus, the Nazis and all of the people related to them were constantly affected by self-deception and lived in a reality that differed a lot from the actual one.
Conclusion
To conclude, Hannah Arendt’s approach to reviewing antisemitism and the genocide of Jewish people through Eichmann’s trial was examined in this essay. Contrary to the common perception of this global crime commitment by Germans, Arendt also portrayed the other side of horrific events during WWII – the change in the consciousness caused by Nazi ideology. She showed that when people face something they cannot explain and understand, the new realities affect them strongly, and they can no longer realize the nature of their actions. Moreover, people are likely to avoid thinking about the occurring events on a deeper level, preferring to complete tasks given to them by the authorities. In the case of Eichmann, the impotence of people to confront the official ideology and the absence of desire to do this caused by uncertainty is presented in Arendt’s book. Eichmann’s story is an example of a weak person finding himself in absolutely inhuman conditions of the ideology that supported crimes against humanity and deciding to adapt to them to reach success. Being controversial and debatable, Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem has demonstrated how frightening and hideous crime truly can be.
Work Cited
Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. The Viking Press Inc., 1964.