Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: History
Adolf Eichmann was a high-ranking German officer who was one of a few top-ranking officials responsible for the "legal work" of the extermination of millions of Jews. He was a wanted Nazi war criminal because he escaped just before the end of World War II. He was not immediately captured and thus evaded the Nuremberg Trials as he fled to the country of Argentina where he attempted to fade into history. Israeli secret service agents somehow managed to track Eichmann down, kidnap him, and bring him back to Israel to face the consequences of his past. Throughout the trial, Eichmann's defense was simply that he was basically a puppet of Nazi Germany saying that he was "a tool in the hands of superior powers and authorities." Despite the overwhelming evidence against Eichmann, he remained concrete in his defense of himself. He played off his responsibility as something he was merely told to do and that he "condemn[s] and regret[s] the act of extermination of the Jews." A far cry in a distant world, falling on dead ears. While the basic argument will be "well no one held a gun to your head, Mr. Eichmann," this is most likely not true. Nazi Germany was known for its ruthless and aggressive leadership, immediately eliminating those vehemently opposed and simply passing it off as "treason." Even if Eichmann truly did not want to sign each of these orders, he still did so out of fear for his own life. But is that justified? What makes him think that his life is far more valued than any single Jew? This in and of itself proves that Eichmann was, at the very least, a selfish man. Eichmann voluntarily signed order after order to terminate the lives of tens of thousands of Jews with ease and without objection - and yet in his short time from capture to death in 1960-62, he tried to give the sense that he never wanted to do it all along! A member of an organization is representative of that organization as a whole. It's not like the hints of genocide, terror ruling, and dictatorship weren't ominously present from the beginning, anyway. Adolf Eichmann acts as if he just obliviously became a part of a terror party and was just under as much persecution as anyone else to do whatever that respective governing body said.
Adolf Hitler, born in 1889, is an Austrian born man who is known for his instigation and participation in the Nazi Political movement, or genocide, known as the Holocaust. Throughout his later life, Hitler spent the majority of his time organizing discriminatory laws that prevented Jewish citizens’ basic rights and ultimately their demise. However, before he advanced such laws and politics, he served as the Head of State, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, until he became the Fuhrer of Germany’s Third Reich which began in 1933 and ended in 1945 (Jewish Virtual Library). His actions were fueled by an unrelenting and strict hate for the Jewish community, better known as anti-Semitism, much like the vast majority of Eastern countries. Both
Speer’s well structured and thought out defence shaped historical interpretation for years to come. At Nuremberg he presented himself as a pure technician and not involved in the politics or ideology of the party. He also claimed collective responsibility for crimes against Jews but also his ignorance of the Nazi intentions. As he stated at a later time: “I just stood aside and said to myself that as long as I did not personally participate it had nothing to do with me. My toleration for the anti Semitic campaign made me responsible for it.” This admission of guilt won a fair amount of sympathy from the court. The reasons he gave for being with the Nazi party was that he was taken by Hitler’s personality and also realised that if he was to achieve his dream as an architect he will have to sell his soul to the party. This image of Speer was to be accepted for a while by most historians and was given little attention. This was probably because Speer was a little less ‘spectacular’ than Hitler’s other henchmen. There were however some suspicions. John Galbraith, a member of the US team that debriefed Speer before the Nuremberg trial, said in Life magazine 1945 that Speer’s claims contained “elements of fantasy”. He also believed that Speer’s confession was a part of his “well developed strategy of self vindication and survival.”
The arguments of Christopher Browning and Daniel John Goldhagen contrast greatly based on the underlining meaning of the Holocaust to ordinary Germans. Why did ordinary citizens participate in the process of mass murder? Christopher Browning examines the history of a battalion of the Order Police who participated in mass shootings and deportations. He debunks the idea that these ordinary men were simply coerced to kill but stops short of Goldhagen's simplistic thesis. Browning uncovers the fact that Major Trapp offered at one time to excuse anyone from the task of killing who was "not up to it." Despite this offer, most of the men chose to kill anyway. Browning's traces how these murderers gradually became less "squeamish" about the killing process and delves into explanations of how and why people could behave in such a manner.
"While fighting for victory the German soldier will observe the rules for chivalrous warfare. Cruelties and senseless destruction are below his standard" , or so the commandment printed in every German Soldiers paybook would have us believe. Yet during the Second World War thousands of Jews were victims of war crimes committed by Nazi's, whose actions subverted the code of conduct they claimed to uphold and contravened legislation outlined in the Geneva Convention. It is this legislature that has paved the way for the Jewish community and political leaders to attempt to redress the Nazi's violation, by prosecuting individuals allegedly responsible. Convicting Nazi criminals is an implicit declaration by post-World War II society that the Nazi regime's extermination of over five million Jews won't go unnoticed.
He argues that the ideas of Hitler’s Nazi regime was just as ethical as Mother Teresa’s sermons on peace. This is where his argument begins to fall apart. He argues that Hitler 's Nazi regime was morally correct for his time, but only regards importance of moralistic qualities to the people in
During World War 2, the Allies were determined that both Hitler and the men around him should be punished for starting the war. Not long after Hitler became Chancellor, in 1933, he and his Nazi Government began giving policies to subject Jewish people. After lots of debate, it was decided that the fairest way to proceed was the public trial of the men who committed the crimes. Hitler was one of the Nazi officials who was going to be put on trial. Himmler and Goebbels were also going to be put on trial, but they committed suicide at the end of the war. At the trials, 22 individual Nazi officials and seven groups that had carried out the Nazi programs, were placed on trial for their crimes. “The Allies charged the individuals with four types of crimes: conspiracy against peace, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.” If Hitler would have been at the trials, he would have been charged because he was a Nazi leader. In the trials, 24 Nazi leaders were put on trial, 18
The thoughtlessness in which Eichmann embodied in the courtroom, along with the normalcy he possesses, aids in the development of the enigmatic structure of the trial. Arendt's battle to find middle-ground between the idea of Eichmann as a common man attempting to fulfill objectives and his connection to the Nazi regime is what defies original theories on evil. The guilt Eichmann carries is clearly much larger than the man himself, especially one so simplistic and thoughtless. Therefore, the evil presented in Eichma...
Elie Wiesel, when he was a child, witnessed horrible actions of the Gestapo. Some of those actions where infants were used as targets for the machine guns, forced Jews to dig up huge trenches while the Gestapo were killing them. And the Gestapo would put the Jews into these specific groups and call the Jews out one by one to see if anyone was able to work. If one wasn’t, it was not a choice that they had to kill them. In other words, no matter what somebody did, one was going to get killed anyway. All of their hard work was for
At the beginning Speer was held separately and he depicted himself as a technocrat who was willing to give information to his captors regarding German weapons and economic performance. Speer was not only forthcoming with information, but he also was the first to step forward, pleading a collective guilt and responsibility for the crimes committed by the Third Reich. Similar to his consolidation of power, this move is very different to the actions of Goering, who was the other member of Hitler’s inner circle who was on trial. While Goering, an ideologue who defended Hitler, and Nazi Germany’s war policy rather than admitting the criminality of his and the entire actions of the entire nation. This displays Speer’s realization of his only chance of survival, showing how he was not ruled by ideology like Goering but only out of self interest. This is further seen in his life following his release from Spandau, where he carefully creates the image of himself as the ‘Good Nazi’ through his writings. One of the constant themes within his writing is his claimed ignorance towards the systematic killing of Jews. One piece of historical evidence used by many historians such as Erich Goldhagen (Goldhagen, 1971) is Speer’s attendance at the Posen Conference, where Heinrich Himmler gave an explicit speech on the extermination of Europe’s Jews, where Speer is even mentioned. However, Speer continually denied that he was there at that time, claiming he left the conference prior to Speech. One of the leading historians on Speer, Gitta Sereny maintains that whether he was there or not, it was impossible for Speer to not know about this key Nazi policy (Sereny, 1995). This denial on the part of Speer displays how he cared simply about himself. Therefore, Speer did not work out of the machinations of an overarching ideology, showing
Although he did not actually kill people himself, he had other people under his command do it for him just like the major SS officers do. He did more planning for attacks on different countries then he did killing people. He would have the officers under him focus more on the killing of Jewish people. Even though he did not actually kill someone himself, he still authorized the officers to command and allow the soldiers to kill the Jewish people. Since he was the dictator of Germany at the time, he did not have the time to focus on just killing people. He had the people under him do
Herman showed no empathy towards the innocent people he was killing, or were dying under his watch. He considered himself an exemplary example of an SS officer and was proud to be one. He thought extermination of Jewish people was probably unnecessary and his superiors gave him no reasons, but he never questioned his orders.
... up in the wave of “moral collapse” that struck all of European society. (Arendt 125) From the perspective of the existentialist, and indeed that of anyone with a shred of commonsensical morality, Adolf Eichmann acted irrationally and in a condemnable manner. The truth is, however, that it is easier than most would like to admit to understand the temptation of renouncing freedom and responsibility, and the demands of individuality and morality that accompany it. Arendt's work forces us to confront not the ugly chapters of human history or particular examples of ugly humans, but the tantalizing potentiality for ugliness and evil that can be found in us all.
The process of demeaning, vicious, and horrifying acts becomes routine in life and are accepted as the way things are done with the thoughtlessness of the evildoer conscience past actions. Arendt wrote “their ability to tell right from wrong…never suffered a crisis of conscience… they were neither heroes nor saints, and they remain completely silent (Arendt page 104).” Usually it begins with the division of labor to rationalizing the inconceivable deed of dehumanizing and slaughtering done by one set of individuals. In maintaining the mechanism of death as collateral damages, intellectuals and other experts normalize the banality of evil for the general public with their inability to repudiate bad judgment as normalized. Arendt present Eichmann’s life as normalize...
In 1933, the Chancellor of Germany, Adolf Hitler alongside the defendants consisting of a bracket of Nazi officials, doctors and lawyers, military officers, and German industrialists, were impeached for crimes against mortality and human nature. The Nuremberg trials brought Nazi criminals to their justice (Harvard University, Nuremberg Trials Project). The Nazi superior, Adolf Hitler, had committed suicide and was never conducted in these trials. The legal rationale of the cases at the time, were contentious. These trials were known as the benchmark of the creation of a permanent international court, and are today recognized as the catalyst of later instances of genocide and other crimes against humanity. Due to the effects of the trials, it is accurate to say that the sickening persecutions of the trials lack the characteristics of civility and democracy.
It is clear from all points of view that one man alone cannot defeat a whole regime but collaboration to Nazism has to be punished and collaboration to clarify the facts should be rewarded. As martyr Gerstein had to die, as Nazi member he had to be punished.