Eichmann In Jerusalem Summary

Philosopher Hannah Arendt is well known for her work on totalitarianism and

Jewish affairs of World War II. One of her career highlights presents, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A

Report on the Banality of Evil, covering events leading to the trial of Adolf Eichmann. The purpose of her work gives the audience the opportunity to analyze Eichmann’s role in the massacre of many individuals, but primarily the report focuses on all who contributed in the death of Jewish citizens. Throughout her report, she notates key factors that unfold the contributions and true character of Adolf Eichmann.

Eichmann, born on March 19,1906, grew up as a middle class citizen in Germany with a rough start at life, as he was unable to finish high school and vocational school

From job to job he searched for the right opportunity to prevail. It wasn’t until he was introduced to N.S.D.A.P (Nazi Party) where he was most eager to rank up and earn a place in the higher circle. Growing up in a home of Christian worship, it was odd for Eichmann to express that he was a man of no faith and join a violent and anti-semitic party. Arendt distributes important facts in understanding Eichmann’s true character.

Eichmann now experienced with the N.S.D.A.P joins Security Services, with full knowledge of what his job entails. Competent in the Nazi Regime being openly totalitarian and criminal, he becomes expert in the matters of emmigration. Arendt analyzes his motives of having a conscience. Eichmann had knowledge that the process of emigration was codenamed for forced immigration of Jewish citizens, who were transitioned, tortured in a concentration camp, and murdered. Throughout Arendt’s coverage in trial, she notices how Eichmann contradicts his story. He indicates, being aware that he was a factor in the horrific slaughter of

Jews, but in contrast states he had no knowledge of the Jews final destination and was obedient

2

in following orders. Eichmann does in fact help a small percentage of Jews transition

Leading German historians such as Hans Mommsen coined nebulous phrases such as “cumulative radicalization” in order to describe a killing process that, like a Betriebsunfall (an industrial accident), seemed to have happened without anyone consciously willing it.” (Wilson, 2014) In following Arendt states how it seemed Germany lost its own conscience under the rule of Hitler. Of his legal framework, every order contrary in letter or spoken was by definition unlawful. Eichmann showed obedience to a man demanding the land's voice of conscience should be thou shalt kill.

In another perspective of Arendt’s report Malte Goebel states, “However,

Eichmann is just one man. His personality is stunning to the people who believe that monstrous deeds require a monstrous character. In fact, referring to this expression and the famous German love of restricting and ruling out everything, I would inappropriately say: Monstrous deeds require a monstrous bureaucracy. Eichmann was a simple man...” (Goebel, 1998) I would have to disagree on the terms that Eichmann had full knowledge of the death of the Jews and ultimately organized their transition in being murdered. Arendt points out key factors of