Hannah Arendt 's Interpretation Of The Eichmann Trial

‘Is Eichmann a rotten, soiled and evil man, and were his motivations boring, mundane and obvious?’ Why did Eichmann kill so many Jews if he ‘supposedly’ no real hate or motivation to do it?

The first chapter of Lying About Hitler examines the challenges to objectivity that surfaces in the court case between David Irving and Debra Lipstadt. Evans was requested to participate due to his objectivity, however, impartiality within the field of History comes under scrutiny. Evans examines what it means to history and its importance to the court case. The trial transforms into a study of whether the Holocaust had been depicted truthfully or had objectivity created our modern notion. Irving’s belief of preconceived notions and opinions corrupting studies in the field, if true, would discredit many historians’ works. Lipstadt believes that Irving’s anti-Semite sentiments are the cause of him misrepresenting and falsifying sources. Evans

“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.

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

Synopsis – Hitler’s Willing Executioners is a work that may change our understanding of the Holocaust and of Germany during the Nazi period. Daniel Goldhagen has revisited a question that history has come to treat as settled, and his researches have led him to the inescapable conclusion that none of the established answers holds true. Drawing on materials either unexplored or neglected by previous scholars, Goldhagen presents new evidence to show that many beliefs about the killers are fallacies. They were not primarily SS men or Nazi Party members, but perfectly ordinary Germans from all walks of life, men who brutalized and murdered Jews both willingly and zealously. “They acted as they did because of

The Eichmann trial reveals a lot about the strengths and limitations of the “the trial” to achieve justice in such cases. The reason of a trial is to render justice; even the ethical of underlying motives, as mentioned in the novel, “the making of a record of the Hitler regime which the withstand the test of history… Nuremburg Trials, can only detract the laws main business: to weigh the charges brought against the accused, to render judgement, and to mete out due punishment” (253). The judgement in the Eichmann case, whose first two sections had been written in respond to the better cause idea as it was changed into expanded both inside and outside the out room, could not have been clearer in this respect. As proven in the novel, it states

The Holocaust took place during the late 1930s to the early 1940s, a time when many external and internal factors were affecting Germany and its people (Hill 1). Nevertheless Nazi leaders and common Germans killed almost two thirds of an estimated nine million Jewish people (Hill 2). One of the most puzzling questions about the Holocaust is why did common Germans take part? It is difficult to formulate an exact answer to the question because it deals with a whole nation, but many historians have hypothesized explanations related to the German’s unwilling and willing participation (Goldhagen 375).

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

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.

obligated the soldier “not to steal, not to plunder, and not to buy without paying.”

The web publications of Simply Psychology and Psychology Today have both featured similarly analyzed accounts of the Eichmann trial, titled “Obedience to Authority” and “Obedience: The Lesson of Eichmann” respectively. In “Obedience: The Lesson of Eichmann” by Michael Kaplan, Kaplan explores how a simple and seemingly innocuous act of obeying the given commands of superiors could eventually lead to fatal consequences, as exemplified by Eichmann’s execution in 1962. Both “Obedience to Authority” and “Obedience: The Lesson of Eichmann” make a reference to Eichmann’s surprise at being the recipient of Jewish ire, admitting that he held no personal resentment towards the Jews, and that he was simply “one of those men who carry out orders without reservation, according to my oath of loyalty” (Psychology Today). S.A. McLeod, the essayist of “Obedience to Authority” imparts further evidence that proves the adverse outcome in adhering to the directions of authoritative representatives, disclosing that Eichmann had been declared sane by a handful of psychiatrists whom inspected him for any manifestations of mental instabilities he might have had, as a form of explanation for Eichmann’s amenableness in aiding

Hannah Arendt’s essay suggests she believes that the motives steered by Adolf Eichmann to commit monstrous acts, where “once banal to all human” ( Arendt, Cp). Eichmann was viewed as a demonic monster for his immoral and corrupted mind. Banal evil shares similarities with Radical evil, such that they can both result in extraordinary evil. Unlike radical evil, banal evil can be committed by ordinary people. Eichmann lacked the ability to reflect and he seemed to think in terms of clichés as his goal was to follow Hitler’s orders to undo God’s creation and complete his job successfully and

Hannah Arendt is a German Jewish philosopher, born in 1906 and died in 1975. She studied philosophy with Martin Heidegger as Professor. Her works deal with the nature of power and political subjects such as democracy, authority, and totalitarianism. She flew away to France in 1933, when Adolf Hitler became Chancellor in Germany. She flew away from Europe to the United States after escaping from the concentration camp of Gurs. She became a Professor in New York city, in which she became an active member of the German Jewish community. In 1963, she was sent to Jerusalem to report on Eichmann’s trial by The New Yorker. Hannah Arendt’s thoughts on Eichmann’s trial were expected to be harsh, considering the philosopher’s roots. However, her

In “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” Hannah Arendt analyzes Adolph Eichmann while he is on trial in Jerusalem for the crimes that he committed while being a Lieutenant Colonel in the SS during the Nazi Regime. In the book Arendt talks about how Eichmann’s actions were “banal” in the sense that he seemed to be an ordinary person who just committed acts that were evil. Italian-Jewish Writer Primo Levi, a Holocaust Survivor, states that SS officers like Eichmann lived in their own self-deception that made them believe that their actions were caused by just following their orders in the SS. In this paper, I will analyze the views that both Arendt and Levi had about the Eichmann trial and then compare and state the differences of their views. I will then explain the reasons why both Hannah Arendt’s and Primo Levi’s analysis of Adolph Eichmann that show that the actions that he committed were all truly evil actions.

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.