Arendt Eichmann and Anti-Semitism

in this paper i argue the opposing views of Daniel Goldhagen 's book Hitler 's Willing Executioners and Christopher Browning 's book ordinary Men. These books deal with the question of whether or not the average German soldiers and civilians were responsible for the holocaust. My research paper argues in favor of Goldhagen 's book, the average German was responsible for the participation of he holocaust. At the end of world war ll the Jewish community and the the rest of the world were crying for justice because of the devastation of there homes. The crimes committed by the Germans were cruel and someone had to pay. Several Nazi leaders were held accountable for the actions of the Germans. Were the Nazi leaders the ones responsible for

Studies of the Holocaust have provoked passionate debates. Increasingly, they have become a central topic of concern for historians particularly since the early 1970s, as the Holocaust studies were generally limited. However, one of the most intense debates surrounding the role played by Hitler in the ’Final Solution’. That is, whether and when Hitler took a decision to initiate the extermination process. Of course, this issue has caused incredible controversy and naturally such a contentious topic of debate has radically produced large amounts of new data and literature. Conflicting, an interpretation has caused further disparities between historians over Hitler’s role in the Holocaust. For this

“Was German ‘Eliminationist Anti-Semitism” Responsible for the Holocaust?” is a fascinating and somewhat discouraging debate that explores the question of whether German anti-Semitism, instilled within citizens outside of the Nazi Party, played a vast role in the extermination of Jews during the Holocaust . Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, author of “The Paradigm Challenged,” believes that it did; and argues quite convincingly that ordinary German citizens were duplicitous either by their actions or inactions due to the deep-seeded nature of anti-Semitic sentiment in the country. On the other hand, Christopher R. Browning, who has extensively researched the Holocaust, argues that the arguments of Goldhagen leaves out significant dynamics which were prevalent throughout most of Western and Eastern Europe during this period of history.

Karl Schleunes published his book titled The Twisted Road to Auschwitz in 1970. The title of the book has a symbolic meaning that pertains to the Holocaust. The Holocaust, taking place between 1933 and 1945, was characterized by the death of millions of European Jews in the hands of Nazi Germany led by Adolf Hitler and nations that collaborated with the Nazis (Dwork & Pelt 2). After crumpling of the Nazi regime, historians began to examine and come up with constructs leading up to the Holocaust. From the mid-1960s to the 1980s, historians established two metanarrative schools of thought emerged explaining the period and circumstances leading up to the Holocaust. These schools of were labeled ‘Intentionalists’ and ‘Functionalists.’ These schools present

The events which have become to be known as The Holocaust have caused much debate and dispute among historians. Central to this varied dispute is the intentions and motives of the perpetrators, with a wide range of theories as to why such horrific events took place. The publication of Jonah Goldhagen’s controversial but bestselling book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust” in many ways saw the reigniting of the debate and a flurry of scholarly and public interest. Central to Goldhagen’s disputed argument is the presentation of the perpetrators of the Holocaust as ordinary Germans who largely, willingly took part in the atrocities because of deeply held and violently strong anti-Semitic beliefs. This in many

The efforts the Nazi party expended on carrying out their ‘final solution to the Jewish question in Europe’ involved changing the structure of a whole country’s economic, social, and military sectors; a mobilisation completed by many various competing and collating departments and agencies, all of which were expected by their superiors to show initiative in their operations. This mode of command lends plausibility to the theory that the ‘final solution’ of the holocaust was not necessarily a result of a direct command by the Führer (No records of any such order exist) but rather the culmination of the departments of the Nazi state vying for approval from their superiors by following the ideology to its ‘logical conclusion’ with Hitler’s approval. This could be seen to support Berghahn, as it was the confusion and rush to meet growing needs that drove the party to extermination over deportation. It also supports Kershaw, who

In the last few years, some publications have appeared that treats one group or another, yet the state of our knowledge about the perpetrators remains incomplete. We know little about many of the institutions of killing, little about many aspects of the perpetration of the genocide, and still less about the perpetrators themselves. As a consequence, popular and scholarly myths and misconceptions about the perpetrators abound, including the following. It is commonly believed that the Germans slaughtered Jews by and large in the gas chambers, and that without gas chambers, modern means of transportation, and efficient bureaucracies, the Germans would have been unable to kill millions of Jews. The belief persists that somehow only technology made horror on this scale possible. It is generally believed that gas chambers, because of their efficiency, were a necessary instrument for the genocidal slaughter, and that the Germans chose to construct the gas chambers in the first place because they needed more efficient means of killing the Jews. It has been generally believed that the perpetrators were primarily, overwhelmingly SS men, the most devoted and brutal Nazis. It has been held that had a German refused to kill Jews, then he himself would have been killed, sent to a concentration camp, or severely punished. All of these views, views that fundamentally shape people's understanding of the Holocaust, have been believed as though they were

In the book Ordinary Men, Christopher Browning tackles the question of why German citizens engaged in nefarious behavior that led to the deaths of millions of Jewish and other minorities throughout Europe. The question of what drove Germans to commit acts of genocide has been investigated by numerous historians, but unfortunately, no overarching answer for the crimes has yet been decided upon. However, certain theories are more popular than others. Daniel Goldhagen in his book, Hitler’s Willing Executioners, has expounded that the nature of the German culture before the Second World War was deeply embedded in anti-Semitic fervor, which in turn, acted as the catalyst for the events that would unfold into the Holocaust. It is at this

The Final Solution is the most controversial topic of German History as its origination is not clean cut, whilst it would be simple to place emphasis on Hitler and his World View for the destruction of all Jewry there are other factors such as WW2 which must be taken into consideration in analysis of the Final Solution. Other factors include the polarised view of a lack of formal mechanisms and coherent policy, both of which were fuelled by an honest desire to pursue the will of the Fuhrer to commit, as described by Layton ‘The darkest deed of the Third Reich.’ Throughout this essay it will be

The Holocaust is widely known as one of the most horrendous and disturbing events in history that the world has seen; over six million lives were lost, in fact the total number of deceased during the Holocaust has never been determined. The footage of concentration camps and gas chambers left the world in utter shock, but photos and retellings of the events cannot compare to being a victim of the Holocaust and living through the horror that the rest of the world regarded in the safety of their homes. Elie Wiesel recognized the indifference that the

In her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt uses the life and trial of Adolf Eichmann to explore man's responsibility for evils committed under orders or as a result of the law. Due to the fact that she believed that Eichmann was neither anti-Semitic, nor a psychopath, Arendt was widely criticized for treating Eichmann too sympathetically. Still, her work on the Eichmann trial is among the most respected works on the issue to date.

In truth however, Hitler’s Final Solution was something peculiar in the fact that few people believed that in the 20th Century, when society had reached its intellectual and ethical peak, such genocide was conceivable. Public consensus, along with the media, reassured us that we could no longer return to the Middle Ages. However, the philosophers and prophets of Berlin, with their fine manners and high society, turned into the world’s greatest murderers. The world was silent. One may add, not only silent but in whole passive, sometimes comfortable with what

Lets take for example Hannah Arendt’s situation when she was listening in on Eichmann’s testimony and wrote her essay: Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. One thing Arendt certainly did not mean was that evil had become ordinary, or that Eichmann and his Nazi cohorts had committed an unexceptional crime. She thought the crime was exceptional, if not

"The sort of person that Eichmann appeared to be did not square either with the deeds for which he was being tried or with the traditional preconceptions about the kind of person who does evil" (Geddes). Throughout the trial, Arendt is conflicted by what she wants to seen when she analyzes Eichmann, and struggles greatly when she finds he does not embody the crude and inhumane thoughts she associated with the history of the Holocaust. It is this absence of the profound hatred of Jews, along with the normalcy he possesses, that creates the emblematic role of banal evil for Adolf Eichmann.

According to Hannah Arendt, the author of Eichmann in Jerusalem, the ability to think for oneself is having internal dialogue about one’s actions(contemplation). Now, in my opinion, being able to think for oneself is a moral requirement, and actions should not be judged immoral if free thought is absent. Moreover, I analyze the case of Eichmann with the interpretation that moral requirement may relate to good or bad actions. Furthermore, there are many difficult situations in which someone may not have the option to think for themselves. For example, in the case of someone who is cognitively impaired, or possesses a low IQ, the law tends to be lenient with punishments, and most are placed into rehabilitation instead of facing severe consequences. Thus, if a person is mentally ill, or cognitively not present to understand what they did was wrong, then society does not consider them as immoral beings. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that a person must be able to effectively control their own thoughts, or even actions, in order for them to be deemed moral or immoral. Restrictions on someone’s ability to maintain their own thoughts include indoctrination, a commanding moral authority(God), and/or an intense circumstances. An example that includes two of those three is the Biblical story of Abraham’s binding of his son Isaac. In the story, Abraham manifests an inability to think for himself due to the overpowering command of God to sacrifice his son, Isaac, as an offering.