This book was recommended to me by the lecturer in a course I am currently taking at Victoria University: POLS238/PUBL206 Power and Bureaucracy.
This book was first published in 1962, following the much publicised trial of Adolf Eichmann for crimes against the Jewish people in relation to World War II. The book is by no means set out as a documentary of the easiness of evil in bureaucratic organisations, but rather an account of firstly the trial and various parts of The Final Solution and Eichmann's contribution. It only really explains the idea of "the banality of evil" nearer the end of the book.
There has always been an expectation or even a hope among society that anyone involved in atrocities such as the Holocaust must be psychopathic, sociopathic or generally without any sort of conscience. Truthfully, this is often not the case. Bureaucracy is structured in such a way that it is often possible for someone to direct the killing of millions of people by replacing moral responsibility with technical. In the case of Eichmann, although he admitted to his position within the bureaucracy of the Third Reich, he pleaded that he had never murdered anyone or given orders for anyone to be murdered. While he organised the transport of many European Jews to the death camps of the 'final solution', he claimed that he had never ordered the murder of anyone.
Arendt's account of the trial in this book was released to widespread controversy, I feel this is mainly due to the subtitle "A Report on the Banality of Evil", the idea that anyone could think this man just normal was unbelievable to too many people. After reading this however, I think much of the body of the book was not about his normality, or rather lack of craziness. It accounted historical facts of the different solutions adopted by the top-level bureaucrats and the initial introduction and implementation of "The Final Solution".
The main complaint I would have about this account is that it has become such an important historical work, but to the layman is very difficult to understand. At times Arendt goes into depth over historical contexts which had no bearing or Eichmann, while also using Latin, German and French terminology which to the unskilled historian is impossible to understand or translate, there was no index either from which to understand these terms, in particular the Latin legal terms. If this book had firstly stayed a little more on topic and a little more explanatory on the terms which were used in the trial. It is possible however that this was at first intended as a work from a scholar aimed at scholars who would probably understand this terminology more. The title of the book ensure however that it would be of interest and controversy to the general public.
The subtitle was really not addressed whatsoever in the main body of the book. It covered the first 'solution' of forced emigration followed by deportations in firstly Germany and then following in Italy, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, France, Slovakia, Serbia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece and Rumania. It outlined the involvements Eichmann had in each of these deportations to the main death camps. It also dealt with his reactions to see the violence directed at Jews close-up (a sickness and disgust followed by a refusal to view such things again). Contrary to Arendt's belief in apparent normality, I believe the fact that he was faced with the outcomes of his bureaucratic organisation meant he either knew exactly what he was doing and dealt forever afterward with his conscience, or that he was unable to fuse the technical and moral parts of his personality, possibly the most dangerous part of being a member of a bureaucratic organisation. Especially one as horrific as the Third Reich.
The afterword, added after first publication goes into more depth on the idea of normality and banality in the face of what seemed to the public such uncomparable evilness helped Arendt's argument to no end. However, if I had read the book without the afterword I would have been confused at to the subtitle.
This is by no stretch of the imagination an easy book to read, it holds an interesting historical perspective, but is not like the non-fiction books of today which promote interest through easy terminology. This book, as I said before seems aimed at the scholarly population which was why I thought perhaps the title was a bit controversial to remain just for that segment of the population. It is definitely interesting, providing a lot more about the fate of all European Jews rather than just German Jews, it provided me with a lot more information than I previously had. It also gave insight into how much involvement Eichmann had, it is by no measure undermining anything he did but promoting the awful truth that one does not have tobe crazy to participate in this.
It is definitely an interesting read and I would recommend it, if just to say, it is not simple in terminology and prompting a lot of googling of certain terms by me.
Next up: Healing Our History: The Challenge of the Treaty of Waitangi by Robert Consedine and Joanna Consedine
No comments:
Post a Comment