Who Was Responsible After The Trial Of Eichmann's

Obedience to people in authority is a deep-rooted trait that we all possess by virtue of our upbringing, and as Milgram put it, “it is only the person dwelling in isolation who is not forced to respond, with defiance or submission, to the commands of others” (Milgram 1974). This trait is exhibited every day in family circles, workplace and school. People are most likely to obey instructions from people they perceive their authority to be legal or moral. We see people obeying their pastors, leaders in various societies and other people they see as higher to them; and they obey anything they are being told even if it involves killing another human being. They justify their actions, however wrong, on obedience to authority.

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

On March 19th, 1944, Lieutenant Colonel Karl Adolf Eichmann, stood at the head of one-hundred and forty military vehicles. It was his twenty-eighth birthday. On this day, he was doing no other than finding Hungary’s 750,000 Jewish individuals; deciding if anyone was physically fit to be transferred to labor camps or to be executed on the spot. Contrary to popular belief, Karl Adolf Eichmann was the enforcer of the Holocaust because militarily he was executing The Final Solution.

Throughout thousands of years, anti-semitic propaganda has increased hatred for Jews through influential figures like Martin Luther, Wilhelm Marr, and Adolf Hitler. It has been proven that the average person will most likely do something wrong if an authority figure tells them to do it or tells them that it is the right thing to do. The Milgram Shock Experiment was an experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram in 1961. The experiment tested the average person’s ability to do harm to a stranger if an authority figure told them to do so. It proved that “The ordinary person who shocked the victim did so out of a sense of obligation-...

Is Milgram justified in detailing a possible connection between his experiment and the Holocaust shortly after it happened? Diana Baumrind inclines towards disagreeing with him; however, she is not immediately discernible on whether she agrees with him which detracts from her overall effectivity. Baumrind believes Milgram’s subjects were concerned about their victims thus breaking the parallel between his experiment and the genocide in the Holocaust (Baumrind 93). A recollection of chronological events of the Holocaust created by the University of South Florida effectually refutes Baumrind’s belief by stating the “death camps proved to be a less personal method for killing Jews” (Florida Center for Instructional Technology). If the Nazis were making the death camps less personal, then Milgram is justified in providing the Nazis as examples in his experiment report because if his subjects continued to obey when they were concerned with the victims, then why would they reverse their decision to obey if the victim was made less personal? Milgram could have been slightly more effective and fair by acknowledging the difference between his experiment and Nazi Germany in that in his experiment the subject had no interaction with the experimenter beforehand while the Nazi Party built obedience towards them for almost a decade before they started to systematically abuse the power of

The Holocaust invokes a great many emotions based on the scale of the atrocities committed and the degree of hatred that both allowed them to occur and that remained embedded in world culture thereafter. This is why the trial of Adolph Eichmann, which laid out the extent of crimes committed by the Nazis and which levied them against the alleged architect of the Final Solution, would promote so much debate. In spite of the obviation that the Jewish people had a right to seek justice for the roughly six million that perished in European concentration camps, the use of Eichmann as an avatar and the nature of the trials themselves would invoke criticism. The most noted of this criticism is that offered by Hannah Arendt's 1963 examination, Eichmann in Jerusalem: The Banality of Evil.

Shows us much about the dull side of human brain research. the straightforwardness with which we go under the influence of an authority, and the readiness of many individuals to suspend normal guidelines of profound quality and heart when requested to do as such and hand over the obligation regarding their activities to another. Even the most ordinary Person who in most possible conditions could never dream of harming another person, appear to be exasperatingly vulnerable to this imperfection. This experiment relates to Adolf Eichmann who played a role in executing Jews in the Holocaust In his execution he states he was only following orders given by Hitler and was being obedient to authority. The most surprising thing in the Experiment would

Post war, Eichmann was captured by the U.S., but escaped to Argentina in 1946. There, he proceeded to live his life with his family for around 10 years until he was abducted by the Israeli Security Service and brought to stand trial in Israel. The evidence that was shared throughout the trial gained international attention and gave the public a close-up view of the horrors of the Holocaust. Eichmann's trial was the first ever to be shown on television[BK1] . Throughout the trial, Eichmann was behind bulletproof glass to make sure he was not harmed.

From a personal point of view, it is difficult to fathom the atrocities that the Nazis put their prisoners through, just because of their lineage. From a psychological point of view, however, it is easier to see why German soldiers carried out the murders of millions of innocent people without batting an eye. There is a phenomenon in psychology that explains their actions. In this phenomenon, it states that it is easier for someone to commit a crime, or anything else, for that matter, if they are not directly responsible for their actions. For example, there were many commands to kill passed from German

Hanna Arendt witnessed the end trial of Adolf Eichmann, who was part of the Nazi party. Overlaying the trial, Arendt used the phrase “the banality of evil”, a phrase that has been used quite frequently. On the other hand, Eichmann has been a poor student and an unsuccessful worker before joining the Nazi party. He was known for killing many Jews. However, Eichmann showed no evidence of being psychologically unstable or disturbed. He was so inclined and secure to be pinnacle of an organization that shipped millions of people of their death, but many people did not understand why. However, he did display neither guilt nor hatred, claiming he had no responsibility due to the fact he was clearly doing his job. Eichmann always wanted to be a part of a larger group and being something good at. Given that this was his opportunity to be recognized as a leader, he stood his ground and followed orders, which he ends up being recognized by Nazis as one of the best. His orders and selfishness were the cause of millions of lost lives.

There were over 1.3 million victims at Auschwitz. And about 1.1 million of them were killed. Auschwitz is the largest mass murder of human history. Febuary 21, 1940- Auschwitz was selected to be a concentration camp. November 22, 1940- First execution at the camp took place; 40 Polish prisoners were shot, then cremated in Crematorium 1. March 1942- First gas chamber goes into operation. May 1943- Dr. Josef Mengele arrives at Auschwitz where he conducts inhumane experiments on prisoners. January 18, 1945- Nazis evacuate the camp, forcing many prisoners on a “death march.” (no.2 (March 2001) : 119-132. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, EBSCO host.)

In the Nuremberg trials, Nazi leaders attempted to implicate this excuse as an appropriate defense for what they did in the many concentration camps spread all over Germany. In 1961, Yale University psychologist Stanly Milgram conducted a series of experiments to attempt to explain if the Nazi’s who took the orders shared the belief of anti-Semitism with their superior officers or were they truly just “following orders.”

Stanley Milgram conducted one of the most controversial psychological experiments of all time: the Milgram Experiment. Milgram was born in a New York hospital to parents that immigrated from Germany. The Holocaust sparked his interest for most of his young life because as he stated, he should have been born into a “German-speaking Jewish community” and “died in a gas chamber.” Milgram soon realized that the only way the “inhumane policies” of the Holocaust could occur, was if a large amount of people “obeyed orders” (Romm, 2015). This influenced the hypothesis of the experiment. How much pain would someone be willing to inflict on another just because an authority figure urged them to do so? The experiment involved a teacher who would ask questions to a concealed learner and a shock system. If the learner answered incorrectly, he would receive a shock. Milgram conducted the experiment many times over the course of 2 years, but the most well-known trial included 65% of participants who were willing to continue until they reached the fatal shock of 450 volts (Romm, 2015). The results of his experiment were so shocking that many people called Milgram’s experiment “unethical.”

When individuals are being instructed, when the instructions come from someone of a higher authority they are usually acted upon. In the study of the trial of Adolf Eichmann one can clearly see this concept being demonstarated. Since Hitler was an authority figure over Adolf , he therefore listened to everything he was told to do. Adolf listened to Hitler whether what he was instructed to do was morally wrong or went against his better judgement. When it came to taking instructions Eichmann simply followed through because he was being told to do it from a person of authority. Eichmann was thoughtless in his actions, which is said to lead to evil because it does not allow is to see things from others perspectives ( ). In relation to the trial

Homogenizing the death camps at a distance from execution helps render Eichmann’s boundaries to be blurred. His understanding of responsibility “was to give justice to both parties (Arendt page 45).” For him, it was clear who set the policies. His role was to implement and his job was not to kill anyone besides following standardizing guidelines. Eichmann clearly follow his duties in the allocated of resources on the basis of effective contribution of a larger system, workers derive support from interactions with others in the mutual effort, and complicity is masked by the routineness of the work, interdependence, and distance from the results. He found ways to define and scrutinize away the infliction of suffering and death as a consequence is to realize fear and a sense for us to defense ourselves.