Normalizing Thoughtlessness Essay

“To what extent is Adolf Eichmann just a bureaucratic businessman doing his job, or were his motivations composed of pure evil and murderous intent?”

Adolf Eichmann was a remorseless perpetrator who conducted the death of an innumerable amount of Jewish people. The information provided in quote one explains what unethical actions Eichmann pursued. Eichmann did his part during the Holocaust by going to different locations in order to massacre them. “Eichmann played his central role in the deportation of over 1.5 million Jews from all over Europe killing centers and killings cities in occupied Poland and in parts of the occupied Soviet Union” (“Adolf Eichmann” ushmm.org.) This quotation from Eichmann’s biography explains what he did to the Jews while serving as a Nazi soldier. He went to the extent of hunting them in different locations like wild animals. Eichmann was aware of his wrong doings, yet he still pursued with all of the Jews’ execution. Therefore, he is nonetheless a

In The Perils of Obedience, Stanley Milgram introduces us to his experimental studies on the conflict between one’s own conscience and obedience to authority. From these experiments, Milgram discovered that a lot of people will obey a figure in authority; irrespective of the task given - even if it goes against their own moral belief and values. Milgram’s decision to conduct these experiments was to investigate the role of Adolf Eichmann (who played a major part in the Holocaust) and ascertain if his actions were based on the fact that he was just following orders; as most Germans accused of being guilty for war crimes commonly explained that they were only being obedient to persons in higher authority.

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

Victor Frankl once said, “Any person, regardless of the circumstances, can decide what shall become of them – mentally and spiritually.” This is true for Oskar Schindler and Amon Goeth, who both had very different reactions to World War II. Human goodness is when one sees the truth, accepts it, and makes rational decisions based on the truth. Human evil is irrational decision-making, and when a person sees and understands the truth but choses to defy it. In Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List, philosophers Kant and Rahner would agree that Schindler is a representation of human goodness, and Goeth represents human evil.

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

Arendt explains that the ultimate power of a totalitarian government is the acceptance of the ideology being propagated. The laws that are put into place in totalitarian government are not to empower the people and protect their rights. Instead, the laws tell the people what they must do, not what they must not do. Arendt tells how the law of nature is the foundation for Hitler's Nazis, and the law of history for Russia's communist regimes. According to Arendt, both the Nazi and communist regimes maintained that those laws gave them justification for their cruelty. These laws of nature and history are not permanent or stable. They are in motion to keep history and nature moving, so that it progresses without ever stopping. <p>Arendt claims that these laws of motion sustain the terror fueling the totalitarian government. Arendt says that terror is the realization and execution of these laws with nothing standing in its way. Throughout the selection, Arendt speaks of terror. Terror is essential for the state to keep its power, or else it will fall. According to Arendt, in a totalitarian state terror terminates individuality among the people. Individual men become a mass of humankind, in the eyes of the state. "Terror exists neither for nor against men", claims Arendt, "it substitutes for the boundaries and channels of communication between individual men a band of iron which holds them so tightly

Thesis: A key concept to understanding Hannah Arendt’s “Total Domination” is the essence of terror and the importance of concentration camps in maintaining the Nazi totalitarian state.

The main sources for this book consist of archival documents and court records of the Holocaust. The specific testimony, court records, investigation records, and prosecution documents of members of the Reserve Police Battalion 101 members are used as sources. In this book, Christopher Browning shows in minute detail the sequence of events and individual reactions that turn ordinary men into killers. His arguments make sense. He makes no unwarranted assumptions. The cause and effect statements made and arguments presented are logical and well developed. Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning accounts for the actions of the German Order Police (more specifically the actions of Reserve Police Battalion 101 in Poland) and the role they played in the Second World War during the Jewish Holocaust. Police Battalion 101 was composed of veterans from World War One and men too old to be

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.

The Holocaust revealed the extreme evil in human nature on both a grand and small scale. Hitler, a strong supporter of antisemitism, had an agenda to create a dominant Aryan race and would stop at nothing to diminish the Jewish population. This meant forcing innocent Jewish people into death and labor camps, where conditions were brutal and treatment was atrociously inhumane. Overtime, this grand scale oppression sparked anger and violence within the victims. Instead of supporting one another in times of trouble, they began to commit senseless acts of violence towards one another in response to the cruelty they faced. Survival became their highest value, at any cost. Elie Wiesel witnesses this first hand on many accounts and spends his life striving to educate the world about the horrors of the Holocaust. In his Holocaust memoir, Night, he uses the motifs: night, silence, and flames, to develop the idea that evil is part of human nature.

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

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

The “Truth in Politics” expands upon Arendt’s “history of thought and politics and in her situation less between Europe Totalitarianism and post-war American democracy” (qtd. in Rosenfeld 221). Moreover, Arendt resolves politics and deception link together in some way. Furthermore, not all lying past to present are identical in form or effect. In “Truth and Politics” Arendt stands firm on the position of “total totalitarian regime in all reality become phony and boundaries between truth and lies blurred” (qtd. in Arendt 221).

"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.