Genocide is never an easy thing to discuss. Emotions run high as one side seeks justice and the other acquittal. Genocide is never justified, yet due to its complexity, it is difficult to place accountability on a single party. Hannah Arendt, in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, addresses the issues in placing culpability on a single individual or party. Her analysis of the trial of Adolf Eichmann, an SS Lieutenant Colonel responsible for the deportation of Jews to ghettos and concentration camps during the Second World War, indicates strong sentiments about the nature of evil itself. It is Arendt’s ultimate conclusion that there is a banality of evil; wickedness is commonplace, making guilt easier to …show more content…
Arendt portrayed him as not a monster as the media of the era did, but empathized with him and nearly justified his behavior as a result of the pressures put on him by his environment and his willingness to succeed in an established organization. Her contention of the fact that Jews themselves participated in their own extermination was another source of controversy. Arendt indicates that a lack of Jewish resistance as well as partnership with Nazi officials proves that the Nazis were not the only “monsters” involved in the holocaust. Although a valid point, talking about an uprising, and staging an uprising are two completely different things. It is difficult to put this in hindsight when one probably could not even imagine the pressures the law and law enforcers put on people at the time. Hannah Arendt’s fascinating interpretation of Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem answers the question of how an individual could be driven to perform such heinous acts. Eichmann’s personality can be considered a microcosm for the reason why the Holocaust occurred in the first place. Essentially it can be concluded that conformity and a fear to speak