Comparison of Eichmann as Portrayed by Arendt with Other Nazi War Criminals - Essay Example

Comparison of Eichmann as Portrayed by Arendt with Other Nazi War Criminals During normal circumstances, various people are compelled to take part in certain activities that they do not intend. These can either be towards the right or wrong direction. An example is during war or Holocaust as was witnessed in the genocide against the Jews in Europe before and after the Second World War; an execution of Adolf Hitler. At such times as most people conclude, the offering of incentives may lead even the ordinary people to commit unexpected atrocious crimes. A lot of people have therefore tried to analyze the behavior and attitudes that led the Nazi criminals to commit crimes against the Jews in order to get the correct understanding. With this respect the various judgments and analysis employed to understand the intentions and motivation of the Nazi surrogates to commit heinous crimes. These include Hannah Arendt’s portrait of Eichmann compared to the interviews conducted in Nuremberg on the other criminals of the Nazi war. One of the analyses is provided by Hannah Arendt who was a German and Jewish politically based theorist and who before she moved to the United States had ran away from German and France in the course of World War Two. She does this in her book titled “Eichmann and the Holocaust” which she wrote having been requested to analyze the trial of Adolf Eichmann. For that reason, she archetypes Adolf Eichmann; one of the Nazi Criminals to provide her comments on the Holocaust which she has been said to interpret as a challenge to the existence of human beings. Arendt, as a way to interpret the Holocaust decided to use and analyze only one of the individuals who took part. Her choice of Adolf Eichmann ‘s court testimony to give her judgment by making certain statements about him eludes a lot of controversy which results in the comparison of Eichmann to other criminals of the Nazi war. Certain people argue that she did not attend all sessions of Eichmann’s trial missing those where his actual character was exposed as well as those where he provided adequate evidence. On the other hand, most of her readers describe the book as lacking in taste and tact with her comments and judgments being related to her attitude towards the German-Jewish leaders in the community and her view on Zionism most of the time. Contrary to the model employed by Arendt to analyze the Nazi war criminals, other people used different ways to find answers and provide judgment to the Holocaust and its defendants. An example is Leon Goldensohn; a military psychiatrist who took part in the trials. He was a son to the Jews who were emigrants from Lithuania. His task therefore involved conducting interviews on the lives of most defendants in Nuremberg. They included Hermann Goring, Rudolf Hoss; Luftwaffe’s commander –in-chief and Joachim von Ribbentrop among the other thirty three. A number of witnesses took part in the interviews as well. So as to ensure that the defendants were able to fully express themselves fully and openly, he conducted the interviews in English though with the help of a translator. His main intention was to understand their personality and the mentality which lay behind the immense destruction and suffering inflicted upon humans. The responses as well as judgments obtained from the interview reveal both similar and different opinions as those exhibited by Arendt on Eichmann. It is because most of her ideas are in dispute with the interpretations of most people arguing instead that Eichmann acted by voluntarily following the leader’s principle that her ideas exhibit a lot of controversy. She reasons that moral choice is dictated by totalitarian rule which politically has consequences that as well affect the individual who chooses to act politically regardless of his lack of power. This as depicted by Goering during the trials can stimulate the acceptance of even the very passionate members of society to take part in evil. She uses several issues to prove her concept that the Nazi criminals manifested their psychopathic nature hence display of characters that were different from the normal. This compares to Goldensohn’s note in which he describes Streicher as an old man with a psychopathic personality made of conflicts related to sexuality and inadequacy and which “have filled the narrow stream in his life for the past twenty years ( (Arendt & Eichmann, 54). The court session she makes use of was meant to give a judgment on Eichmann with regards to his deeds during World War II so as to enable them determine how responsible he was for the genocide against the Jewish people residing in Europe. In her description of Eichmann, she supports his motives as driven by his desire to improve his career hence he was not involved in any kind of anti-Semitism or damage psychologically. This contrasts the character of a number of of the other Nazi criminals and especially that of Julius Streicher who was an editor for the striking hate sheet “Der Stuermer”. According to Goldensohn, he may have been in the direction towards attaining a severe personality disorder due to “anti-Semitic and pornographic obsession” (McLee, 3), a unique and favourite topic of his, from which requires no stimulation to talk about (Goldensohn and Gellately, 54). She also defends him by claiming his possession of a relaxed moral responsibility during his performance of the final solution having witnessed members of a community deemed respectable participating in mass murder. This was during his work at the conference in Wannsee where he saw the German civil service accepted the program by Reinhard Heydrich in Europe on the Jewish Question Final Solution. In addition, she finds him neither guilty nor full of hate according to her phrase ‘banality of evil” as the subtitle which she uses to refer to the deportation of Eichmann during the trial. This as opposed to Han’s response which confirms that he had some element of guilt towards his actions depicts a difference in opinion. Additionally, unlike Streicher, all the other men do not reveal any traits of being monsters or fanatics being easily described as decent. From these accounts, most of the Nazi participants thought that their actions had been outrageously exaggerated hence a similar form of banality as described by Arendt. According to her, she states in, “He did his duty….; he not only obeyed orders, he also obeyed the law, (Arendt, 135) that he was not in any way responsible for this deeds as he was performing his task. Her views are similar to those expressed during the interviews conducted in Nuremberg that led the defendants to plead “Not guilty “during the court cases. Similarly, from the narrative format of the defendants’ details in Goldensohn’s notes each of them was not ready to take responsibility of the acts they committed during the Holocaust. This is because of the reasoning that they committed the crimes due to the fact that they were following orders hence the denial. All the defendants consequently placed the entire blame on Hitler and also Himmler. From the interview conducted on Ohlendorf as illustrated by Goldensohn in “Q: Were the children shot? A: Yes Q: did you feel you were doing the right thing A: I myself didn’t have to do it Q: Didn’t you direct it? A: Yes. But…all I had to do was to see to it that it was done as humanely as possible” ( (Goldensohn & Gellately, 389-392), this argument is made clear with Ohlendorf’s stating that he gave commands for the execution to be conducted. Additionally, since he also received orders from a superior he admits that despite his knowledge about making a mistake by killing the Jews, he conducted his tasks zealously. Both accounts present a similar way of actions being justified yet not taking responsibility. From her discussion on (135-137), she provides an argument to support Eichmann’s claim that he always endeavored to obey through the very important uncompromising philosopher of enlightenment (Swift, 55) Emmanuel Kant. She defends him by suggesting that he took Kant’s wrong lessons as he had not realized the “Golden rule” as well as the reciprocity principle but only the idea of a single man’s actions in the effort to follow the general law portraying him as a middle-level bureaucrat. With this regards he always tried to act according to the spirit of law being unaware of his own spirit so as to make the legislator whom he considered to be Hitler to approve similarly to the way some of the others viewed him as both a military and political genius. However, it factors are a contrast of what influenced the top leaders of the Nazi whose actions were driven by hatred, lack of empathy and arrogance as is witnessed in the lack of remorse in some of them like Ohlendorf (390). In addition, the statement “in the child, we see the grown up” by the SS lieutenant general in response to the question as to whether they also killed infants is a clear indication of this character. On the contrary however Kant thought the moral self to be the legislator. As a result as is depicted by Arendt, (136 ) when Eichmann was charged for implementing the final solution he changed this view as he had finally stopped living according to the principles of Kant and having known this, he consoled himself realizing that he was no longer in charge over his own actions and was not able to change anything. The proclamation “What horrible system we had. How blind we were!” made by Hans Frank; Poland’s governor general to Goldensohn in the same light reflects his realization of the intensity of the issue after the crimes had been committed and when he had nothing to do about them. This is also reflected in Doenitz’s confession that he knew very little about the plans of Hitler and Himmer despite being in leadership. Arendt reflects the inability of Eichmann to reason out on his own which was demonstrated by his continuous use of “stock phrases” and cliché’s that were self invented such as those in the face of death “….such as is the fate of all men…...” . It illustrates his lack of proper communication skills coupled with his unrealistic view of the world. By also relying on officialese it made the implementation of policies made by Hitler easy. Despite his lack of capacity or skills to take these steps, Arendt confirms certain statements where Eichmann admits to committing certain atrocities. She supports her claims by declaring that “Bragging was the vice that was Eichmann’s undoing” (46) having realized the kind of destruction it would have on his defense. This is why he also according to Arendt chose to be put to death as a war criminal than continue living his life like a nobody. She emphasizes this in the conclusion of her book (Arendt & Eichmann, 1963) where she describes the judge’s final sentence to Eichmann stating that “this is the reason and only reason you must hang.” The same feeling that Eichmann had of the desire to hang himself in public was echoed by a majority of the other defendants who opted to be hung so as to take the blame bore by the entire German population. The understanding of Eichmann as a joiner who lived most of his life joining organizations such as the YMCA, Wandervogel and also the Jungfrontkampferverband in order to define himself is important as it provides the reason as to why he joined SS. His action was influenced by a family friend; Ernst Kaltenbrunner who was later to become a war criminal. This according to Arendt is because it followed his failure to join a branch of Freemasonry known as the Schlraffenland leading to his realization of the fact that he did not have to be a member of one thing or the other in order to live (32-33). From the interviews by Goldensohn, it is also clear that the rest of the Nazi criminals had various past reasons from family relations to other conflicts which led them into politics and as a result the involvement in the holocaust. Contrary to the depictions on Eichmann by Arendt about his extraordinary diligence, he lacked much intelligence. This is proved by his inability to complete both high school and vocational training landing his first important job only through connections by the family. However as Arendt notes he tried to conceal this lack of skills and proper education throughout his career in SS and the Jerusalem trial while he felt embarrassed at any particular time that this fact was recognized. Similarly, as Goldensohn describes Streicher, as a “…caricature of a lecher posing as a man of wisdom” (Arendt, 252), it would appear like he was not very intelligent although he tried so much to hide it. On the other hand, most of the defendants interviewed by Goldensohn had had a proper education as there was a large number among them with knowledge on law hence lawyers, a political scientist and also an opera singer. However they expressed similarity to Arendt’s argument in support of Eichmann as they also claimed to have acted without reflection despite the military, political and economical harm the war would have to the Jews. This is well illustrated just as in the case of Eichmann where they reveal their lack of knowledge on the extermination camps and the criminal nature of their top leaders. In her conclusion, Arendt presents her view that it was obvious that Eichmann was not a monster although it was also evident to suspect that he was a clown. Despite this fact, his nature of being a clown received very little notice as it was hardly reported on as the suspicion was difficult to defend due to the sufferings the Nazi criminals inflicted on a large number of people in addition to it being detrimental to his trial (Arendt & Eichmann, 55) In addition to the discussion she provides on Eichmann, Arendt goes further to analyze a number of aspects related to the trial and it s context and the Holocaust in general. This she does by highlighting the kidnapping of Eichmann by the agents from Israel in Argentina and his transportation to Israel which was termed as an illegal act as he was also tried in Israel despite having not committed any crimes there. She also claims that his proceedings in court which she refers to as a “show trial” was arranged by the Prime Minister Ben Gurion who particularly wanted to put emphasis not on the actions of Eichmann but on the sufferings that had been endured by the Jews during the Holocaust. This she says that is different from the trials of the war criminals at Nuremberg who were charged for the crimes they committed against members of many nations without the special mention of the genocide against Jews. She argues that if the trials had been conducted in a more impartial state it would have led to a better final judgment. This as she claims was only done as he had been found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt when he appeared in Jerusalem. An indication of this is the numerous psychologists who were supposed to examine him before his trial who found neither any traces of mental illness nor any trait evidenced by abnormal personality. This could be evidenced as unfair trial as is depicted in the interviews where Eichmann does not participate since he is the only defendant who was tried in Israel in a civilian court. Instead, some of the doctors expressed a “highly desirable” characteristic of Eichmann towards his friends and family. This point is supported by the clinical notes of Leon Goldensohn who interviewed most of the Nazi defendants. According to him their actions would be considered more of evil than they are crazy. Besides her controversial view point on Jewish leaders, the central idea of Arendt’s work was based on lack of a positive law to deal with the degree of justice required to tackle exceptional crimes involving administrative massacre. In this respect she considers Eichmann a representation of modern evil. Many critics however still argue that the book depicted a soft attitude towards Eichmann whereas it remained hard towards the Jews. Nevertheless, he suggests exaggerated prosecution with regards to the intentions and rationality of the Nazi planning. As a conclusion, it can be noted that the involvement of destructive practices as found in wars is as a result of numerous factors. This is portrayed by the responses during the Nuremberg interviews where the defendants provide a wide range of reasons ranging from political to social that led them and motivated them to commit the crime. Both the trial and writing of Arendt are significant as they bring out certain discussions and the awareness regarding the Holocaust raising questions on the correct legal procedures for genocide perpetrators. The bottom line as evidenced by both Arendt and Goldensohn is that those involved committed crimes which called for the punishment. By a number of the defendants wishing that they had not got involved in politics which led them to commit the crimes it shows the lack of realization and pull by a strong force at the time when the crimes were committed. The only difference was in the method of implementation conducted on specific defendants. People should therefore take charge of their actions and not accept to be swayed by enticement as the defendants of the Holocaust allowed Hitler to dazzle them with his charisma. Works Cited Arendt, H and A Eichmann. Eichmann in Jerusalem. New York: New Yorker Magazine, 1963. Arendt, H. Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil. New York: Penguin books, 2006. Goldensohn, L and R Gellately. The Nuremberg interviews: an American psychiatrist's conversations with the defendants. New York: Vintage Press, 2005. McLee, S. "The Nuremberg Interviews." Newsday 3 October 2004: 3. Swift, S. Judging: From Kant to Eichmann. London, UK: Taylor & Francis, 2008. Read More