The book Eichmann Jerusalem authored by Hannah Arendt portrays a man who seems to be the normal and common type of a person. As his trials proceed further, the deep inside thoughts of this monstrous, banal man are exposed. Evil always does not have any “resemblance,” at times evil hides inside individual who is simple and has cliché lifestyle and a hallmark of consent from half-a-dozen psychiatrists. The author tries to use the life and trial of Adolf Eichmann to reconnoiter the man’s accountability for tribulations committed under orders or as a result of the law that is in place. The author had her own opinion in regards to Eichmann, she did not believe he was guilty of the crime he was accused to have been committed. The author believes that Eichmann was neither a psychopath nor anti-Semitic. As a result, the author has been heavily criticized for being sympathetic to a person who committed murder. However, Arendt’s work on Eichmann trial is amongst the utmost esteemed works on the subject to date. Eichmann defends himself during the trial by arguing that he was not to be blamed for what he did since he worked under order and accordance with the law that governed people on that time. The paper will analyze the reason why the author vehemently was against the prosecution of Eichmann, my point of view on the author's arguments and if the authors augment is right according to the laws.
Eichmann mostly portrayed his character in the book as that of a notable person who is unaware of his traits and actions especially his criminal actions for the most part of her story. According to Arendt, the book character believed that he was “’Not guilty, in the sense of the indictment” [12] as portrayed by Eichmann the author. This notion presented by Eichmann was questioned by the Israel people on the ex facto principle of the book. In fact, Eichmann believed that Hitler’s orders should be taken as good laws. Afterward, Eichmann drew situations that strictly follow Germany’s Nazi laws since the author was well aware of them. However, the Israelites felt otherwise of the prosecution and were made to believe that Eichmann adherence to Arendt observed that Nazi laws to be an ex-post facto crime against humanity and the Jewish people making the trial to have claims that “make no ethnic distinction” (100). The issue was to prove the extent to which Eichmann committed that crime. When the character in Eichmann’s novel got examined, Arendt established that he was mean to act more of a machine rather than being human. The court’s prosecutor failed to establish that Eichmann is a “monster” during the court proceedings thus it became a problem for Arendt.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Additionally, Eichmann proved himself thoughtless while going against Arendt since he failed to make vital decisions by himself and he never really wanted in his simple mind. Eichmann became a perfect person for his role which was to complete all his jobs given effectively without questioning his boss although the effects could be severe as a result of his simple-mindedness, it was easy to trust him to complete a certain job. His thoughtlessness comes out clearly after Arendt asking him about all his activities in the past. He clearly cannot recall any of the events which led to the death of many Jewish people. In the book, the author notes that “His memory proved to be quite unreliable about what had actually happened…Eichmann remembered the turning points in his own career …[but not] the turning points in the story of Jewish extermination…”[19] Eichmann’s criminal behavior is difficult to establish since he remembers almost nothing about of what he did previously hence the prosecutor had a difficult time proving Eichmann as an executioner of the Jewish community hence his involvement is not seemingly to be depicted.
Arendt tried to tie Eichmann to his criminal acts by explaining the expanded canvas in the trial to succeed in inducing sentiment of gravity which is a holocaust to Toto and the Jewish people. By going forward with it, the already existing picture of Eichmann actions becomes tainted through an opinion given by Arendt hence affecting the validity of the trial. Numerous witnesses were put on the stand by the prosecutor to narrate their inconceivable horror stories. Afterward, Arendt tries so hard to re-connect all the events of the witnesses’ stories and tried to tie Eichmann to it, but it failed. The author clearly stated the clichés mentioned by Arendt which were “immaterial” and the witnesses account were impossible to tie down Eichmann. On the contrary, all the accounts tied the Jewish cooperation to the execution processes. The guilt of Eichmann and his involvement reversed to the Jewish people indirectly hence causing a huge problem on the trial and affecting the context that Arendt tried to create about Eichmann. After the situation turned against Arendt, the author explains further by revealing some other dramatic conclusion because it [offered] the most striking insight into the totality of the moral collapse the Nazis caused in respectable European Society – not only in Germany but in almost all countries, not only among the persecutors but also among the victims.”[23] In a technical sense, the criminality basis of nulla poena sine lege and nullum crimen might be loose hence affecting the firmness of the trial basing on the legal precedence of convicting a person. Eventually, the criminal prosecution took place very well since the moral basis was rightfully depicted.
In my opinion, Eichmann’s crucial trait of thoughtlessness contradicted the evidence that was given in courts. According to Kelly (141) Eichmann depicted two characters: when he was executing the Jews he did it with Zeal and Happiness and when he was on the dock Eichmann was sorry for the action he had done and was not happy with. Eichmann depicts that he viewed Hitler’s law as Universal Law and the law was to be applied universally, therefore, he executed the Jews as per the law of that time. Moravcsik (98) observed that Eichmann enjoyed persecuting the Jews and at one point he defied Hitler’s command to deport the Jews via Sweden to Palestine instead he persecuted them by taking them to gas chambers for execution. Eichmann had the guts to defy Hitler’s command despite knowing the wrath he will face by doing so. This means that he enjoyed killing Jews and his argument of being innocent is unfounded. Therefore Arendt’s diagnosis of Eichmann’s crucial trait of thoughtlessness contradicts the evidence that Eichmann during the trial ( Browning, 217) . Also, Arendt’s diagnosis of Eichmann’s crucial trait of thoughtlessness contradicts the evidence that Eichmann gave when he acknowledges that holocaust is the worst ever crime against humanity. Eichmann accepted that what happened in Germany was not good to humanity implying that he acknowledges what he did was wrong since he was part of the Holocaust ( Browning , 217). Eichmann thought that when he gave the whole account of the holocaust he will be accorded a truce but that was not the case since he had to pay for the crimes that he committed.
Eichmann and his deeds mirror what is happening in the world apparently. For instance in Syria, atrocities against humanity are a prevalent issue. People are persecuted and touched based on their relation to certain sects of the community who feel that they and their community or religion are superior to others. Similar to the holocaust execution of civilian is done by the people who are in power the senior member order for the execution and the junior members implement the execution orders ( Kelly , 141). In Syria, for instance, people who are executed are innocent and they are not armed. The rebel groups Syria feel that they are equally fit to rule the country whereas the government does not budge to meet the rebels demand as a result people are killed due to a power struggle. Despite all the crimes against humanity committed by the rebels and the government no one has paid for what the crime that they have committed.
Also, Forceful eviction and mass transfer of human population are one of the evil deeds that Arendt depicts through Eichmann and his deeds. In Africa, for instance, this kind of evil is committed in the majority of the countries especially where there is power struggle; people are evicted from their homes based on which side they support ( Browning, 217) . The based example of forceful eviction and mass transfer happened in Rwanda during the genocide. Many people were evicted from their home and flee to neighboring countries like Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania. In Rwanda, the leaders of Hutus who are the majority population in Rwanda encouraged their tribes to kill the minority people who hail from Tutsis in order to fulfill their hunger for power. Close to 800000 people were killed as a result and that lead to people fleeing from their homes to the neighboring countries which were peaceful. Those Hutus who live amongst the Tutsis were forcefully evicted from their home and vice-versa ( Mack, 23) .
Arendt relied to justify her own verdict about a just punishment for Eichmann basing on Kant’s law. Eichmann insisted when he was being tried that his actions were based on Kant's theory of imperative, Eichmann depicted that he envisioned the extermination of the Jews as a universal law that was required to be followed universally. Enthusiasts of other strains will similarly wrap themselves around Kant’s principle of formal imperatives. Kant’s theory of formal ethics does not any particular guidance in regards to humanistic superlative which he backed ( Mack, 16) . The notable characteristic of Eichmann which Ardent depicts in her book, for the majority of the parts is his unawareness that he was committing a crime through his actions. In fact, Eichmann had the notion that he was innocent in the sense of indictment ( Moravcsik, 118) . Basing on Kant’s principle Ardent believed that Eichmann was innocent since Hitler was a dictator and everything he uttered was a law. Ardent believed that what Eichmann did was adherence to Nazi Germany Law as he comprehended it. Ardent fully concur with Eichmann in regards to his reason that his action was based on Kant’s theory and that he was just a puppet during the Holocaust period. Also, Ardent argue that most of the evidence that was collected by the court is based on stories rather than facts that are provable. Therefore Ardent based her augment on principle of facts that are used in many courts all over the world. Arendt argument relies on common law or on established international accords to reach her recommended verdict ( Mack, 16) . Based on common law or on established international accords for a person to be convicted for a crime they have committed there must be sufficient evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed against humanity. Arendt believes that conclusions were made based on justice for the Jewish who were killed rather than based on the facts.
References
Arendt Hannah . Eichmann in Jerusalem. Penguin Books Limited, 7 Dec 2006. 336 Pages.
Browning, Christopher R. "Bettina Stangneth, Eichmann before Jerusalem: The Unexamined Life of a Mass Murderer." (2015): 271-274.
Kelly, Michael. "Eichmann Before Jerusalem: The Unexamined Life of a Mass Murderer." (2016): 141-143.
Mack, Michael. "Hannah Arendt’s philosophy of plurality: Thinking and understanding and Eichmann in Jerusalem." Power, judgment and political evil . Routledge, 2016. 13-26.
Moravcsik, A. Eichmann Before Jerusalem: The Unexamined Life of a Mass Murderer. Foreign Affairs , 94 (1), 188. (2015).
