1 Brian Reager October 15, 2012 Professor Michael Mulcahy The Nature of Evil

Reflection on Arendts Eichmann in Jerusalem

Finding Hannah Arendts stance on Eichmann in her text Eichmann in Jerusalem is far from black and white. While the title itself gives the reader a clue Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evilher tongue in cheek remarks throughout the book may suggest a more spiteful connotation. Born into a family of Secular Jews in Linden, Germany, she studied at the University of Marburg, and in 1941 Arendtalong with her mother and husbandfled to the United States in order to avoid being deported to the concentrations camps. Eichmann undoubtedly felt the pinch of the Nazi regime throughout most of her life, yet in her novel, she does not seem to chastise Eichmann as blatantly as one would expect. Nonetheless, Hannah Arendt seems to attempts to destroy this idea of evil, while concurrently sliding her own sentiments of Eichmann in the text. Rather than condemning Eichmann of being evil, Arendt focuses on the very humanoid qualities that Eichmann possessed. For instance, Arendt suggests that Eichmann personally never had any sort of hatred towards Jews, contrary to his friends who he claimed were mostly raging Anti-Semites. Arendt then rather ironically follows up this notion: Alas nobody believed him. The prosecutor did not

2 believe him, because that was not his job...And the judges did not believe him, because they were too good, and perhaps also too conscious of the very foundations of their profession, to admit that an average, normal person, neither feebleminded nor indoctrinated nor cynical, could be perfectly incapable of telling right from wrong (Ardent, 26). Arendt seems to comment on the one-sided thinking of those involved in the trial. After all, Mossad operatives in Argentina captured Eichmann illegally, and he was brought to trial in the epicenter of the Jewish religion. Arendt, despite being tongue-in-cheek, never seems to chastise the judges. She says later that their current biased standing on Eichmann would never resolve nor escapean almost sympathetic view into how human tendencies affect our judgment (Arendt, 27). Eichmanns alibi changed drastically throughout the course of the trial. At first Eichmann claimed to have not killed any Jews himself: I never gave an order to kill either a Jew or a non-Jew; I just did not do it (Arendt, 22). Following this comment, he refers to the Holocaust as on of the greatest crimes in the history of Humanity (Arendt, 22). Arendt goes on to explain that his crime was only a crime in retrospect and admits to finding it hard to find concrete evidence against him, however she seems to be far less sympathetic towards Eichmann on page 25 when she says He remembered perfectly well that he would have had a bad conscience only if he had not done what he had been ordered to doto ship millions of men, women, and children to their death with great seal and the most meticulous care (Arendt, 25). Here is where Arendt seems to become less forgiving to the human aspects she had so graciously tried to preserve through most of the text.

3 Nonetheless Arendt continues to paint the picture of a seemingly innocent Eichmann, who was raised by a working-class family, struggled in school and had difficulty finding a suitable job. Describing Eichmanns initiation into the National Socialist Party by lawyer, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Arendt describes the interaction as such: Kaltenbrunner had said to him: Why not join the S.S.? And he had replied, Why not? That was how it had happened, and that was about all there was to it (Arendt, 33). Arendt also goes on to vocalize that one was entitled to be glad that the court was unfair in its proceedings, if not to see how long it takes an average person to overcome his or her repulsion toward crime (Arendt, 93). Once again, our author puts expresses her attitude on the proceedings in a generally negative connotation. Arendts concern for the Banality of Evil seems to contradict itself with some of her more opinionated views on the circumstances surrounding the trial. Eichmann could easily be viewed as evil for his actions, however the evil that is being commented on would be the acts of violence rooted in hatred and disdain for a group of people. In order to adequately paint a picture of a man that would break this notion of evilas her title would suggestit would seem unorthodox to indirectly chastise him with ironic and sardonic side notes; a seemingly valid precursor to the hate described above. Arendt could understandably be entitled to condemning him; after all it was her family and race that he was helping to annihilate. Arendts bitter documentation of the trial seems to mirror the trial itself: in that in searching for truth, all that was uncovered was more acrimony towards

4 each other. It would appear that Hannah Arendts idea of the banality of evil seems to be drowned out in the banality of her subtle biases.

5 Works Cited

Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in Jerusalem; a Report on the Banality of Evil. New York; Viking, 1963. Print.