The Banality of Evil
Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil recounts the 1961 trial of Nazi official Adolf Eichmann, who worked in the S.S.’s Gestapo division coordinating the trains that forcibly transported Jews to the Third Reich’s extermination camps in Eastern Europe. While it may be comfortable to believe that evil people are aberrations of human nature, the most troubling part of Eichmann’s story is that he did unspeakable, horrific…
read analysis of The Banality of EvilConscience, Authority, and Totalitarianism
Arendt argues that, paradoxically, Eichmann (like other seemingly “normal” Germans) facilitated genocide because, rather than in spite, of his conscience. This is because his superiors’ authority and approval structured this conscience; instead of relying on personal moral conviction, he placed absolute faith in his country’s leader. Arendt demonstrates that conscience is not a reliable basis for morality because it often hinges on ideas received from those that surround an individual—in Eichmann’s case, from his…
read analysis of Conscience, Authority, and TotalitarianismJustice and Legal Responsibility
Because the scale and form of its crimes were so unprecedented, the Holocaust posed enormous legal problems for the international community. The Jerusalem court was accordingly faced with difficult questions about the character of Eichmann and his Nazi collaborators’ crimes: first, in what respect, and to what degree, were the Holocaust’s perpetrators responsible; and secondly, whose job was it to hold them accountable? Arendt was deeply critical of virtually all the postwar trials of Nazi…
read analysis of Justice and Legal ResponsibilityZionism and Nazism
Arendt’s report on Eichmann’s trial obviously critiqued the nationalistic thinking that led Germans to endorse the Third Reich’s campaign of war and mass murder across Europe. But, more subtly and far more controversially, Eichmann in Jerusalem also rejected the Israeli state’s incorporation of Eichmann’s trial into a nationalist narrative: it portrayed Eichmann’s punishment as retribution for all Jews against all Nazis. The egregious lies on the part of the Israeli prosecutor and press—as…
read analysis of Zionism and NazismStorytelling and Resistance
During Eichmann’s trial, the prosecution continually emphasized the unfathomable suffering and desperation that European Jews faced during the Holocaust. Arendt (like the judges) agreed that these stories needed to be told but believed that Eichmann’s trial was the wrong forum—not only were these stories irrelevant to the question of Eichmann’s guilt, but they also reinforced the sense that there was nothing to be done in the face of Nazism’s unspeakable evil. Rather, Arendt preferred…
read analysis of Storytelling and Resistance