| Eichmann In Jerusalem |
Website Links For Eichmann |
Information AboutEichmann In Jerusalem |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT EICHMANN IN JERUSALEM | |
| 1963 books | |
| eichmann in jerusalem | |
| political books | |
|
''Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil'' is a book written by political theorist Hannah Arendt , originally published in 1963. Arendt, a Jew who fled Germany during Hitler 's rise to power, reported on Adolf Eichmann 's trial for '' The New Yorker ''. Arendt states that aside from a desire for improving his career, Eichmann showed no trace of Anti-Semitism or psychological damage. Her subtitle famously referred to the " Banality Of Evil ," and that phrase is used quite abruptly as the final words of the final chapter. In part, at least, the phrase refers to Eichmann's deportment at the trial, displaying neither guilt nor hatred, claiming he bore no Responsibility because he was simply "doing his job" ("He did his ''duty''...; he not only obeyed ''orders'', he also obeyed the ''law''." p. 135). Arendt takes Eichmann's court testimony and the historical evidence available, and makes several observations about Eichmann:
Arendt suggested that this most strikingly discredits the idea that the Nazi criminals were manifestly psychopathic and different from common people. From this document, many concluded that situations such as the Holocaust can make even the most ordinary of people commit horrendous crimes with the proper incentives, but Arendt adamantly disagreed with this interpretation, as Eichmann was Voluntarily following the '' Führerprinzip ''. Arendt insisted that moral choice remains even under totalitarianism, and that this choice has political consequences even when the chooser is politically powerless: : {Link without Title} nder conditions of terror most people will comply but ''some people will not'', just as the lesson of the countries to which the Final Solution was proposed is that “it could happen” in most places but ''it did not happen everywhere''. Humanly speaking, no more is required, and no more can reasonably be asked, for this planet to remain a place fit for human habitation. Arendt mentions, as a case in point, Denmark : :One is tempted to recommend the story as required reading in political science for all students who wish to learn something about the enormous power potential inherent in Non-violent Action and in resistance to an opponent possessing vastly superior means of violence. It was not just that the people of Denmark refused to assist in implementing the Final Solution, as the peoples of so many other conquered nations had been persuaded to do (or had been eager to do) — but also, that when the Reich cracked down and decided to do the job itself it found that its own personnel in Denmark had been infected by this and were unable to overcome their human aversion with the appropriate ruthlessness, as their peers in more cooperative areas had. CRITICISM Arendt presented Eichmann's situation during World War II from his perspective, even sympathetically, and went to great lengths to put Eichmann's actions within an understandable and rational framework. This, along with a generally unsympathetic attitude toward Jewish collaborators with the Nazis and an occasionally sarcastic tone, made the book a target for criticism when it was first published. Sociologist , Jackall concluded that the ambition to further one's career (the only unusual trait Arendt listed Eichmann as having) was in itself a highly amoral pursuit that led individuals (including the corporate managers he studied) to take extremely questionable and immoral actions. In his 2006 book, ''Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes and Trial of a "Desk Murderer"'', noted Holocaust-researcher David Cesarani has questioned Arendt's portrait of Eichmann on several grounds. According to his findings, Arendt attended only part of the trial, witnessing the prosecution's presentation. She did not witness Eichmann's testimony and defense of himself. This may have skewed her opinion of him, since it was in the parts of the trial that she missed that the more forceful and less colorless aspects of his character appeared. Cesarani, David, ''Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes and Trial of a "Desk Murderer"'', Da Capo Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006, pages 197, 347 Second, Cesarani presents extensive evidence suggesting that Eichmann was in fact highly anti-Semitic and that these feelings were important motivators of his genocidal actions. Thus, he alleges that Arendt’s claims that his motives were "banal" and non-ideological and that he had abdicated his autonomy of choice by obeying Hitler's orders without question may stand on weak foundations. Cesarani, ''Becoming Eichmann'', page 346. Finally, and most controversially, Cesarani suggests that Arendt's own prejudices influenced the opinions she expressed during the trial. He claims that like many Jews of German origin, she held '' Ostjuden '' (Jews from Eastern Europe) in great disdain. This led her to attack the conduct and efficacy of the chief prosecutor, Gideon Hausner , who was of Polish origin. In a letter to the noted German philosopher Karl Jaspers she stated that Hausner was "a typical Galician Jew. . . constantly making mistakes. Probably one of those people who doesn't know any language." Cesarani, ''Becoming Eichmann'', page 345 Her dislike of Zionism affected her view of the trial also. Cesarini claims that some of her opinions of Jews of Middle Eastern origin verged on racism. She described the Israeli crowds as an "Oriental mob, as if one were in Istanbul or some other half-Asiatic country." ''Ibid''. The Israeli police force, she states "gives me the creeps, speaks only Hebrew and looks Arabic." ''Ibid''. Despite these criticisms, Arendt's view of Eichmann, with its universal significance to our understanding of human behavior, is likely to remain the dominant narrative on this topic. SEE ALSO NOTES |
|
|