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
In the 20th century totalitarian governments had come to power in Italy, Germany, and the Soviet Union. These governments had forced their political authority and centralized control over all aspects of life (Document 3 and 6). The government had imposed public gatherings to invade people’s lives and indoctrination of totalitarian ideas had influenced youth organizations and literature to help the government gain authority over one’s country (Document 2). One method used by totalitarian dictatorship is having mass rallies and speeches. The totalitarian government that used these method leaders was Benito Mussolini of Italy and Adolf Hitler of Germany.
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
Although the world continues to face tragedy, little compares to that of the horrors millions of innocent Jews like Elie Wiesel faced, as they were deported from their homes, separated from their families and pushed around into different concentration camps where they were brutally tortured, killed, and discarded of by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany Army beginning in 1941. It wasn’t until April of 1945 that Elie along with the limited number of other survivors were finally liberated. This mid 20th century atrocity has come to be known as the Holocaust, a tragic part of history that will never be forgotten. It was because of that experience, that Elie Wiesel extensively depicted the events he faced through written and verbal accounts including the speech he gave entitled “The Perils of Indifference” on April 12, 1999. The speech was given at the 7th Millennium Evening at the White House, with an intent to create a kairotic moment with the public including the audiences it was broadcasted to, as an opportunity to explain a darker side of history, while also hopefully enlightening them for the future.
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.
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.
An example of this is the depiction of the trials of the generals and those involved in the execution of the Dirty War during which Martin recalls “Hannah Arendt’s pronouncement...the perfect horror of her response, ‘the banality of evil’...” (212) These words, “the banality of evil,” express Arendt’s thesis that evils in history, particularly those of the Holocaust, were not solely caused by those who directly had a hand in them but also by those who stood by and allowed them to happen; those
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 mocking tone of Hannah Arendt, which she was condemned for, encompasses not a lack of sympathy for the events but instead a commentary on the people that took part on the events. Such phrases as "but, God knows…", "must have been tempted not to…", and "which most people recognize…" demonstrate the mocking tone, that Arendt takes on for most of the book. As in the rest of the book she uses a mocking tone to display the stupidity of Eichmann, here she uses it to paint the perpetrators not as monsters but lesser beings. Mocking their decisions to follow the plans of the Third Reich, serves to emphasize the stupidity. On the contrary a somber tone criticizing the people and society, would portray these people as monsters.
Hannah Arendt’s begins the chapter with the first part of after the fall of the First World War stating the condition of the stateless people clarified the catastrophe of the nation-state model and the failure of human rights. When the nation-system was created, the people in power in Europe separated the people into 3 major groups which are the state people, the nationalities like the Slovaks in Czechoslovakia, and the minorities like the Germans, being the strongest officially economically and in number. The “Minority Treaties” were created by the League of Nations to seek security to the minority groups in the new states. The “real significance of the Minority Treaties” (pg.274) was that currently millions of people were known by the international law since by the nation-states, they have the power to strip down the citizens of that state by banishment or other worse factors. Only nationals could be citizens and
George Orwell’s key objective throughout his novel, 1984, was to convey to his readers the imminent threat of the severe danger that totalitarianism could mean for the world. Orwell takes great measures to display the horrifying effects that come along with complete and dominant control that actually comes along with totalitarian government. In Orwell’s novel, personal liberties and individual freedoms that are protected and granted to many Americans today, are taken away and ripped from the citizen’s lives. The government takes away freedom and rights from the people so that the ruling class (which makes up the government), while reign with complete supremacy and possess all power.
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).
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
"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.
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.