One of the recurring hot topics in Ukrainian political discourse is the topic of Holodomor, a famine in Ukraine at the beginning of 30s in XX century that killed by some estimations as many as seven to ten millions of people. In 2006 the Ukrainian parliament passed a law under which the Holodmor is considered as an act of genocide. The critics to this ruling maintain that the case does not fit the definition of the term genocide, and argue that the deaths of millions was not the result of actions with a deliberate intention of destroying certain ethnic groups, but actually the unintended result of economic policies by Soviet authorities. Due to the lack of any sufficient evidences it is impossible to conclude definitively whether the head officials of Soviet regime in 30s had an intended plan to cause famine with its grave consequences. The task however gets more complicated when one shifts the focus from the planners to the executors of the policies. Disregarding whether it was a direct command to cause a famine and thus kill people, or a command to carry out incoherent, …show more content…
In essence, in her work Arendt, specifically referring to the case of one of the main Holocaust organizers Otto Adolf Eichmann, writes that people who are directly involved in carrying out terrible crimes are not necessarily fanatics, but could be mere average people who bureaucratize even the most unspeakable atrocities under the premise that it is their duties to obey the orders of the state or any other likewise authority. Those people may actually not feel any specific negative emotions towards people who affected by their actions at all. The main drivers of their motivation to work is belief in their duties, job etc. The implications of the work however cruel it may be are thus disregarded. Arendt uses the term “banality of evil” to describe her this