HUMA 1825 Chapter Notes - Chapter 1: Abeyance, Rudderless, Nazi Party
20 Sep 2020
School
Department
Course
Professor
A Report on the Banality of Evil (PART 1)
1. Explain how the prosecution and the judges differed in their approaches to the
Eichmann trial. What is Arendt’s view of them, and what, in her view, is the correct
way to approach the trial? See ch.I.
The prosecution wanted to take a more theatrical approach whilst the judges made sure that
this did not happen. The meaning of theatrical approach is that they were more concerned with
using emotion or presenting a story about the victims during trial. For instance, the prosecutors
approach was to make the holocaust and the injustice towards jews the focal point of their
argument. In this case, Eichman was not at trial for war crimes but rather to prove that he was a
highest ranking nazi with a vocation to exterminate Jews. Not only that, the prosecution wanted
to lay out philosophical thought provoking questions against the holocaust to build their
narrative. Questions like: “ Why the Jews?” (i:3). However, the judges were opposed to this idea
and did not want the entire trial to revolve around the narrative of the victimized state of Jews
but rather the crimes of the defendant himself. Arendt mentions that “Justice demands that the
accused be prosecuted, defended and judged and all other questions be… left in abeyance” (i
:3). Arendt argues that approaching a trial with the intention of proposing a narrative or asking
open ended questions to impose the narrative is wrong. She thinks the trial is odd because of
how much it focuses on the victims rather than the perpetrators. Trials should be more inclined
to establish the crimes of the perpetrator and how to punish him for it. She even goes to say that
even if the trial was presented with an intent to be a show trial, it still failed. According to her, “ it
was precisely the play aspect of the trial that collapsed under the weight of the hair- raising
atrocities”(i:8). According to Arendt, the lack of focus on the actual perpetrators' crimes was
wrong because it takes away from the weight of the argument. This is because their trial
focused more on declaring more and more accusations instead of working with the accusations
that the perpetrator went to court for . Arendt also says that the perpetrator “must suffer for what
he has done, not for what he has caused others to suffer”(i:8). This means that the crime at
hand needs to be looked at from an objective perspective with the punishment being
proportional to the crime and not the amount of damage it caused ( in this case the damage
being the death of 6 million Jews).
2. How does Arendt describe Eichmann’s “conscience” (i.e., how he defined right and
wrong, what he understood to be his moral responsibility)? See ch. II, VIII and VII:16
Eichmann pleaded not guilty to the charges but apart from pleading, there is evidence that he
did not feel guilty about them either. The defense's position was that he technically did not do
anything illegal under the law. However, Eichmann’s own position on that matter differs from the
defense because he thinks he did not actually kill anyone. Arendt writes that he says “‘With the
killing of Jews I had nothing to do. I never killed a Jew, or a non-Jew, for that matter —I never
killed any human being. I never gave an order to kill either a Jew or a non-Jew; I just did not do
it,’”(II:3). The way he is insistent on the fact that he did not kill anyone shows that he genuinely
believes he did not do anything. Furthermore, he believes that if he was actually charged for
being an accessory to murder, he may have plead guilty. For instance, Arendt states “he could
be accused only of ‘aiding and abetting’ the annihilation of Jews”(II:3). Eichmann also believes
that his actions were not the result of base motives and did not feel guilty for what he has done
but would have felt guilty if he did not fulfill his duty. This duty being that he led millions of Jews
to their death. Eichmann also claims to not follow anti Semitist sentiments and his mental
normality can be backed up by psychologist examinations. In addition, Arendt points out the fact
that Eichmann uses the justification of duty towards the law to describe what he did. Eichmann
also claims to have lived his life using the values of Kant’s philosophies. Eichmann emphasizes
the idea that he was fulfilling his lawful duty, however Kant’s moral philosophy stresses the
notion that moral duty differs from blind obedience. Which is why, after the implementation of
the new laws against Jews, Eichmann claims he was conflicted between following Kant’s
principles or the laws that made him go against them. Eichmann admits to being led to a state of
moral dilemma or a “crisis of conscience”(VIII:4).
3. What view did Eichmann have of his career and of the purpose of his work? How did
he speak about and remember his career? What is Arendt’s view of this? See II:17 to
III:12, and ch. IV.
Eichmann worked to impose the “Final Solution” and work with other nazis and his task was
“forced expulsion”. When he was reassigned to Vienna, his job consisted of forcing Jews to
leave Germany against their will. Eichmann considered this period of his life to be productive
and found happiness in doing it. His job also consisted of extracting assets from Jews,
especially the rich that were emigrating. The system that was set in place is said to be “‘ At one
end you put in a Jew who still has some property, a factory, or a shop, or a bank account, and
he goes through the building ...and comes out at the other end without any money, without any
rights ’”(III: 10).Eichmann was involved in stripping away Jewish leaders’ savings and property
and reflected proudly on it. Arendt states that his obedience to his duties and how much he had
achieved “had bestowed so much unexpected “fame” upon him” (III:12). The word fame here is
used as a mockery of his willingness to boast about his actions and not wanting to remain
anonymous for what he was doing. Furthermore, he seemed to be very proud of how many
Jewish people he had killed and also for inventing the Ghetto system. Arendt points out that
Eichmann did not think he was doing anything wrong but rather he expressed pride for what he
had done. Arendt also notes that Eichmann was under the impression that he treated Jews
humanely but only to make the system run smoothly. Eichmann fails to see the faults in his
actions because according to him, he is following orders and doing a job like any other when in
actuality his actions resulted in the death of millions.
4. How did antisemitic policy and the “Final Solution” develop in Nazi Germany? What
role did language and propaganda play? What is the story of Eichmann’s interactions
with Mr. Storfer? See III, IV:1-7, VI:26, VII:2-7.
During 1935 when Germany broke the treaty of Versailles and when Germany was planning to
reoccupy Rhineland was the peak time for Hitler who was well respected at that time.
Furthermore, he was considered a master statesman because he restored Germany’s economic
stability again after the disturbances caused by the Weimar Republic. Reich’s attacks were not
