Hannah Arendt on Banality of Evil 1 Hannah Arendt on Banality of Evil Mab Huang * Ⅰ. The Trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem Ⅱ. The Reactions of Jewish Communities Ⅲ. Hannah Arendt on Banality of Evil Ⅳ. Banality of Evil in South Africa and Taiwan Ⅴ. A Rejection of Radical Evil Ⅵ. Arendt as a Pariah This paper is primarily concerned with the controversy over the concept of “banality of evil” provoked by Hannah Arendt’s report from Jerlusalem on Eichmann’s trial. It will briefly describe Eichmann the man, the background to his trial and Arendt’s first impression of him. Then it will take up the criticisms of Arendt’s position and her explanation why she came to think of Eichmann and judge him as she did and how did she give up her commitment to the concept of “radical evil”. To support Arendt in her arguments, brief descriptions of torture and murder and their perpetrators from two different situations are cited. Finally, the paper will end with a brief reference to Arendt as a pariah. Never is this paper intended as a comprehensive study of Adrent’s political philosophy, which is obviously a different project. Key words: Hannah Arendt, radical evil, banality of evil, Eichmann’s trial, transitional justice * Professor, Department of Political Science, Soochow University. E-mail: [email protected] Received: Augst 30, 2005; Accepted: December 15, 2005. SOOCHOW JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE /2006/No.23/pp.1-23. 2 東吳政治學報/2006/第二十三期 As soon as the first installment of Arendt’s five part series on the trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem appeared in the New Yorker in February 1963, the reactions from the Jewish communities were emotional and vicious; she had few defenders. Arendt was accused of many things, from being soulless to not caring for her own people to exonerating Eichmann. She was anti- Israel, anti-Zoinist, a legal purist, a Kantian moralist, and ultimately, a Jewish-self-hater. The “Eichmann Controversy” focused on three main topics: Arendt’s judgement of Eichmann the man; her analysis of the European Jewish councils and their role in the Nazi’s Final Solution; and her discussion of the conduct of the trial, the legal questions posed by the trial and the political purposes pursued by the Israeli government. In this paper, only the controversy on the banality of evil will be dealt with. It will briefly describe the Eichmann the man, the background to his trial and Arendt’s first impression of him. Then it will take up the criticisms of Arendt’s position and her explanation why she came to think of Eichmann and judge him as she did. To support Arendt in her argument, brief descriptions of torture and murder from two different situations are cited. Finally, this paper will end with a reference to Arendt as a pariah. I. The Trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem Adolf Eichmann was kidnapped by Israeli agents in Argentina on May 24, 1960 and brought back to Israel, provoking a diplomatic dispute between the two countries. Upon hearing that he would be put on trial in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt decided that she must be present. She proposed to William Shawn of the New Yorker that she be appointed the trial reporter. In rearranging her 1961 schedule, she wrote to the Rockefeller Foundation with a sense of urgency: “You will understand I think why I should cover this trial; I missed the Hannah Arendt on Banality of Evil 3 Nuremberg Trials, I never saw these people in the flesh, and this is probably my only chance.” (cited in Young-Bruehl, 1982: 329).1 Again in her letter to Vasser College: “To attend this trial is somehow, I feel, an obligation I owe my past.” (Young-Breuhl, 1982: 329).2 Plainly, reporting on the trial was what Arendt had set her mind on, and indeed it turned out to be a momentous decision in her life. Arendt was startled by her first impression of the man she would be writing about; she described him as “nicht einmal unhemlich” (cited in Young-Bruehl, 1982: 329),3 “not even sinister,” not inhuman or beyond comprehension. From this first impression, a great controversy was soon to engulf the reporter and the Jewish communities in all parts of the world. Eichmann was born on March 19, 1906 to Karl Adolf Eichmann and Maria nee Schefferling in Solingen, a German town in the Rhineland. Coming from a middle class family, Eichmann did poorly in school, was unable to finish high school, or to graduate from the vocational school for engineering. Eichmann’s mother died when he was ten; and his father remarried. After working as a salesman for the Austrian Elektrobau Company for two years from 1925-27, he obtained a job with the Vacuum Oil Company of Vienna. As Arendt describes it, “the five and a half years with the Vacuum Oil Company must have been the happier ones in Eichmann’s life. He made a good living during a time of severe unemployment, and he was still living with his parents, except when he was out on the road.” (Arendt, 1977: 31). Yet this good life was brought to a close abruptly in 1932 when he was transferred from Linz to Salzburg, much against his inclinations. He was deeply depressed. “I lost all joy in my work, I no longer liked to sell, to make calls.” (Arendt, 1977: 31). 1. A letter from Arendt to Thompson, Rockefeller Foundation, December 20, 1960, Library of Congress. 2. A letter from Arendt to Vasser College, January 2, 1961, Library of Congress. 3. A letter from Arendt to Blucher, April 15, 1961, Library of Congress. 4 東吳政治學報/2006/第二十三期 Nevertheless, in April of that year, Eichmann joined the National Socialist Party and entered the S.S.; a year later, Eichmann left for Germany, and after fourteen months as a soldier, he applied for a job with the Security Service of the reichsfuhre S.S. Soon, he emerged as an expert on the Jewish Question and worked in planning and coordinating the transportation of the Jews to their death camps. If his testimony can be taken seriously, when Eichmann was told that Hilter had ordered the “final solution,” the physical extermination of the Jews, Eichmann did not expect it. He said he had never thought of…such a solution through violence...I now lost everything, all joy in my work, all initiative, all interest; I was, so to speak, blown out.” (Arendt, 1977: 31). Eichmann was promoted to the rank of S.S. Obersturmbannfuhrer, a rank equivalent to lieutenant colonel, by the time Germany surrendered in 1945. Eichmann was indicted in the District Court in Jerusalem on fifteen counts. “Together with others” he was accused of having committed crimes against the Jewish people, crimes against humanity, and war crimes during the whole period of the Nazi regime and especially during the period of the Second World War. To each count Eichmann pleaded “Not guilty in the sense of the indictment.” But in what sense was Eichmann guilty? To the astonishment of Arendt, “in the long cross examination of the accused…neither the defense nor the prosecution nor, finally, any of the three judges ever bothered to ask him this obvious question.” (Arendt, 1977: 21).If his defense lawyer were to be believed, “Eichmann feels guilty before God, not before the law.” Yet this was never confirmed from the accused himself (Arendt, 1977: 21). Arendt’s first reaction to the “man in the glass booth” in Jerusalem, as referred to above, was that he was nicht einmal unheimlich, “not even sinister.” She was startled: “That the man would gladly have himself hanged in public, you have probably read (in the new papers). I am flabbergasted (cited in Hannah Arendt on Banality of Evil 5 Young-Bruehl, 1982: 330).4 Yet after initial discouragement with the trial, her interest revived, and Arendt began to understand the man she was reporting. As she describes it (Arendt, 1977: 33): A leaf in the whirlwind of time, he was blown from Schlaraffia, the Never-Never Land of tables set by magic…into the marching column of the Thousand year Reich…At any rate, he did not enter the Party out of conviction, nor was he ever convinced by it…as he pointed out in court, “it was like being swallowed up by the Party against all expectations and without previous decision. It happened so quickly and suddenly.” He had no time and less desire to be properly informed, he did not even know the Party program, he never read Mein Kampf. Kaltenbrunner had said to him: Why not join the S.S.? And he had replied, Why not? That was how it had happened, and that was about all there was to it. The fact that Eichmann was swept into the Party and the S.S. without making a decision, however, did mean he was now part of History, of “a Movement that always kept moving and in which somebody like him-already a failure in the eyes of his social class, of his family, and hence in his own eyes as well-could start from the scratch and still make a career…And if he did not like what he had to do…He might still have preferred-if anyone had asked him-to be hanged as Obersturmbannfuhrer a. D. (in retirement) rather than living out his life quietly and normally as a traveling salesman for the Vacuum Oil Company.” (Arendt, 1977: 33-34). The defeat of Germany in 1945, it should not be difficult to understand, was significant for Eichmann “mainly because it then dawned upon him that thenceforward he would have to live without being a member of something or other. ‘I sensed I would have to live a leaderless and difficult individual life, I would receive no directives from anybody, no orders and commands would any longer be issued to me, no pertinent ordinances would be there to consult-in 4. A letter from Arendt to Blucher, April 20, 1961, Library of Congress. 6 東吳政治學報/2006/第二十三期 brief, a life never known before lay before me.’” (Arendt, 1977: 32). Arendt’s judgment of Eichmann was by now clear. As she wrote to Jaspers in 1963: “He was eigentlich dumm,” “but also somehow not.” (cited in Young-Bruehl, 1982: 330).5 He was simply unable to think: “He was not stupid. It was sheer thoughtlessness-something by no means identical with stupidity-that predisposed him to become one of the greatest criminals of that period. And if this is ‘banal’ and even funny, if with the best will in the world one cannot extract any diabolical or demonic profundity from Eichmann, that is still far from calling it commonplace.” (Arendt, 1977: 287-288). Ⅱ. The Reactions of Jewish Communities The reactions to the report were emotional and acrimonious. And it raged for three years and has hardly died down ever since. Arendt was accused of all kinds of offenses, many of which could not in fairness attributed to her. She was, for example, criticized for having said things like that Jews were incapable of resistance, that victims were as responsible as their executioners, etc. Of course, her judgment and how she presents her arguments must have convinced many people that she was arrogant and sarcastic. And she made errors in facts. She could not have been so knowledgable in European Jewish history. It should not be surprising that she would be taken to task by experts pertaining to the choices made by the leaders of the Jewish Councils in specific situations. But it was obvious that she had threatened the self-identity and valued beliefs of the Jewish people and for that she was attacked. The criticism and attacks began with a scathing review in the New York 5. A letter from Arendt to Jaspers, December 29, 1963, Marbach. Hannah Arendt on Banality of Evil 7 Times on May 19, 1963. The reviewer Judge Michael Musmanno was formerly the American prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials and served as a prosecution witness in Jerusalum. Entitled “Man with an Unspotted Conscience”, Judge Musmanno launched an all-out assault. He not only refuted Arendt on facts, defending the State of Israel and its leaders; he was angry with what he saw as Arendt’s reading of Eichmann the man. To quote: There will be those who will wonder how Miss Arendt, after attending the Eichmann trial and studying the record and pertinent material, could announce, as she solemnly does in this book, that Eichmann was not really a Nazi at heart, that he did not know Hitler’s program when he joined the Nazi party,…all in all, Eichmann was really a modest man. Again: Miss Arendt devotes considerable space to Eichmann’s conscience and informs us that one of Eichmann’s points in his own defense was “that there were no voices from the outside to arouse his conscience.” How abysmally asleep is a conscience when it must be aroused to be told there is something morally wrong about pressing candy upon a little boy to induce him to enter a gas chamber of death? The author believes that Eichmann was misjudged in Jerusalem and quotes, with astonishing credulity, his statement: “I myself had no hatred for the Jews.” Sympathizing with Eichmann, she laments: “Alas, nobody believe him.” (Musmanno, 1963). Indeed, before the trial, The World Jewish Congress had already distributed a pamphlet in 1961 designed to show that Eichmann had been the person responsible for carrying out the Final Solution. The booklet, entitled Eichmann: Master-Mind of the Nazi Murder-Machine was introduced by Nehemiah Robinson, who was later to play a part in the controversy. In it, Eichmann was portrayed as inhuman and monstrous (cited in Young-Bruehl, 1982: 342).6 This 6. “Eichmann: Master- Mind of the Nazi Murder-Machine.” 8 東吳政治學報/2006/第二十三期 claim the Court in Jerusalem completely rejected. In 1963 Jacob Robinson helped the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith prepare a six-page summary of Arendt’s “errors” for its journal, Facts. Then he set to work on a book length manuscript which was later published under the title The Crooked Shall be Made Straight. It provided the information widely cited in attacking Arendt’s scholarship (Young-Bruehl, 1982: 342；348). In his first draft summary chapter, the fear of future anti-Semitism and concern for the State of Israel was discernable. To quote: The advice of Hannah Arendt to consider the past rather in sorrow than in anger is followed by reserving sorrow for Eichmann but expansively meting out anger to the Jews….Our enemies have for years been engaged in a campaign of whitewashing the culprits and blaming the victims. The latter, brutally murdered not so long ago, are now being killed for a second time by the defilers. Among these enemies Hannah Arendt now places herself (cited 7 in Young-Bruehl, 1982: 356). As the controversy was gathering momentum in the U.S., Siggfried Moses, spokesman for the Council of Jews from Germany flew from Israel to meet with Arendt in Switzerland and asked her to stop the publication as a book so as to calm down the controversy. She refused, and warned Moses that her Jewish critics were going to make the book into a cause celebre and do more damage to the Jewish community than any thing she had said could possibly do (Young-Bruehl, 1982: 348-349). And New York City Arendt’s good friend Hans Morgenthau reported on a meeting in which he and Bruno Bettelheim attended and Beetelheim, defending Arendt, attempted to calm an angry audience. Morgenthau wrote: “The Jewish community is up in arms.” Apparently, “Reality has protruded into the protective armor of illusion and the result is psychological havoc. (Hillel House, 7. From a copy of Robinson’s 1963 draft in the Yad Vashem Library, Jerusalem. Hannah Arendt on Banality of Evil 9 City College of New York) has had a meeting, with Bettelheim. After ten minutes, everyone was screaming, calling each other liar and threatening libel suits. It was a kind of collective psychoanalysis.” (Young-Bruehl, 1982: 348-349). In an article in the Commentary in September 1963, Norman Podhoretz summed up the objections quite neatly which did not, however, fairly reflect the deepest concerns of Arendt in writing the book: “In the place of the monstrous Nazi, she gives us the ‘banal’ Nazi; in the place of the Jew as a virtuous martyr, she gives us the Jew as accomplice of evil; and in the place of the confrontation of guilt and innocence, she gives us the ‘collaboration’ of criminal and victim (cited in Young-Bruehl, 1982: 347).8 Ⅲ. Hannah Arendt on Banality of Evil Arendt faced the attack with few defenders and many friendships of long years were broken up. Her husband Heinrich Blucher, Karl Jaspers, Mary McCarthy, J.Glenn Gray, Hans Morgenthau and a few others supported her. The termination of friendship with Kurt Blumenfeld had deeply hurt her, and her efforts to make up with him before his death in 1963 without success must be terribly painful to her. She knew quite well that the subtitle of the book-the banality of evil-had angered so many people and gave her grief, yet she did not give in. How and why did she settle on the subtitle? And what did she intend to convey? Long before Arendt signed up as a reporter for the New Yorker, she had discussed with Jaspers the complex legal issues regarding the trial of Eichmann 8. “Hannah Arendt on Eichmann” (Podhoretz, 1963). 10 東吳政治學報/2006/第二十三期 in Jerusalem. Jaspers had felt that instead of trying Eichmann, the Israelis should have turned him over to an international tribunal, perhaps under the aegis of the United Nations. Nevertheless, Jaspers was persuaded by Arendt that Israel could speak for the Jews, if not in a legal sense, surely “in a political sense,” with the majority of European Jews who had survived the Holocaust now living in Israel. Arendt also did not think that Eichmann could be made into a martyr, yet she conceded “it would be a different case if we had a law against hostes humani generis (enemies if mankind) and not only against murder and crimes considered analogous to murder (cited in Young-Bruehl, 1982: 330).9 When Arendt reported her first impression of Eichmann to Jaspers, however, she did not persuade Jaspers at all. For Jaspers, Eichmann was less than a person, a monster. And reading newspaper accounts of Eichmann’s activities in Hungary, Jaspers was skeptical that Arendt’s first impression was correct. “You are now back in Israel (after a visit to Basal). In the meantime, Eichmann has shown another aspect, also personal brutal. Ultimately, can such a functionary for bureaucratic murder be, personally, without inhuman characteristics…? You will not have an easy time coming to a truly adequate portrait of the man.” (cited in Young-Bruehl, 1982: 520).10 Blumenfeld was not convinced either. Arendt did not back away from her judgment. It would appear her husband Blucher had much to do with her adopting the Banality of Evil as the subtitle of the book. Perhaps, the concept was referred to in a letter from Jaspers to Arendt some twenty five years before the report: “You say that what the Nazis did can not be comprehended as ‘crime’- I am not altogether comfortable with your view, because a guilt that goes beyond all criminal guilt inevitably takes on a streak of 9. Exercepts from Arendt to Jaspers, December 23, 1960 and Jaspers to Arend, December 12, December 16, December 30, 1960, Marbach. 10. A letter from Jaspers to Arendt, June 8, 1961, Marbach.