Eichman and the Holocaust, Hannah

¶ … Eichman and the Holocaust, Hannah Arendt grapples with the role that Nazis, especially Eichman, played in carrying out this human nightmare. In particular, she focuses on the psychology of the holocaust from the perspective of its perpetrators. Arendt focuses on two common arguments to why individual Nazi perpetrators should not be blamed for the Holocaust. First is the claim that "they were just following orders" handed down form their superiors is at the heart of many accused Nazi defenses for their actions.

In fact, this was the essence of Eichmann's defense to his criminal charges. Another defense is that the actions of a state cannot, or should not, be judged by other states. According to Arendt, neither argument is legit as they fail to account for human individuality and responsibility. In essence, Arendt's article is a review of human action, inaction, and indifference during the horrors of the Holocaust. She analyzes the Holocaust in terms of its human perpetrators: the Nazis not as a political group but as individual actors.

In a sense, Arendt argues that individual Nazis who claim they had no choice over their individual roles are arguing that they are "innocent bystanders" and thus cannot be chastised because they did not commit any act themselves. Yet at the same time they failed to prevent others from doing evil acts and are therefore criticized for their indifference. In a sense the bystander is in a state of purgatory; caught somewhere between being evil and good. (Arendt, 2006: et.

al.) Under such an argument, there is no perpetrator as nobody is at fault. Instead of humans, during the Holocaust there existed a place devoid of humanity and made of only victims and bystanders. Further more, as Arendt properly points out, such an argument made by the likes of Eichman turns the table and argues that the individual Nazis themselves were (and are) victims of the state. (Arendt, 2006: p. 37).

However, Arendt successfully breaks down this argument by breaking down the Nazi atrocity into four distinct players: the victims, the bystanders, the murderers and the heroes. When the situation is viewed in this sense, it becomes easy for each group to be properly placed. The victims are those who were killed and thus the Jews. Individual Nazis cannot fit into this category for the simple fact that their actions created the victims. Likewise, the heroes are those who took actions to prevent the amassing of victims.

Clearly, the individual Nazis do not fit into this category. (Arendt, 2006: p. 74). Thus, Arendt leaves the question as to whether the individual Nazis were bystanders or murderers. To be a bystander, Arendt argues that the Nazi soldiers would have to be completely free of any act that perpetuated the actions.

However, because the Nazis made numerous choices, from joining the party, from giving up their individuality and morals, and for following the theory of the final solution, it would seem that one would conclude that they are not innocent bystanders, as would be community members who did nothing in the face of their neighbors being taken away to their deaths. (Arendt, 2006: p. 57).

Based on this thinking, one would think that Arendt would conclude that all Nazis were guilty of crimes against humanity due to their direct role in carrying out the final solution and murder of the one and only victims of the Holocaust- the Jews and others persecuted by the Nazi regime. However, this in fact is not the conclusion reached by Arendt, at least as to the Nazi leader Eichmann. Arendt was actually present at Eichmann's trial held in Jerusalem. According to her account of the trial.