The trial of the Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann and Hannah Ardent's 'Banality of Evil

The trial of the Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann and Hannah Ardent’s ‘Banality of Evil
The trial of the Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann and whether you agree with Hannah Ardent’s ‘Banality of Evil’ as an explanation for what he did (and possibly why the holocaust happened)
Hannah Ardent’s “Eichmann is Jerusalem”. The book is about the trial of Adolph Eichmann who was a Nazi in charge of organizing the transport Jews throughout Europe to killing and concentration camps during WWII. He was captured by mossad agents (isreali CIA) in Argentina in the 60s and taken to Jerusalem where he was tried and hanged. The book contains Ardent’s observations while attending the trial, with the goal of seeing what type of man Eichmann is (monster or normal), what led him to do what he did and the driving force of why he did it in hopes of an explanation of how men can do things like this. In the end she concludes that the only explanation is the ‘banality of evil’. Not the evil itself is banal but that the presence of evil in the world is banal and is why he did what he did and why the holocaust occurred and was allowed to happen in Europe. The task of this paper is to state whether or not you agree with Ardent’s conclusion and why. Whether the ‘banality of evil’ explains the events or whether or not you have a problem with this explanation and why. I have listed wanting 3 sources. Three would be nice but two can suffice, with one obviously being Ardent’s book. These sources must be quoted in the paper. Not that it really matters but I tend to think that banality is valid but not a complete explanation for the events, and that self preservation, lack of will to fight back, and Germany’s forced banding together from the atrocities (following many years of propaganda, as well as the acts not being in sight most of the time)also allowed for these things to happen. The prompt is copy and pasted below. Please read it as it gives you a clearer perspective of what the teacher is looking for.

THE QUESTION:

Arendt concludes that the whole trial (and maybe the whole horrible history of the events that made the trial necessary) was a long course in the word and thought defying banality of evil. What do you think she meant by this? In what way or ways might evil be banal? Does “banality of evil” seem to you to be a plausible explanation of how crimes against humanity are perpetrated? Are you drawn toward Arendt’s point of view or do you have problems with it?
To what extent (if any) does Arendt’s “banality of evil” thesis explain Eichmann’s role in the Holocaust or how he came to be a perpetrator of mass murder and crimes against humanity?
To what extent (if any) does Arendt’s “banality of evil” thesis explain the complicity and cooperation of ordinary people not only in Germany but also in occupied countries with Nazi mass murder and crimes against humanity?

To what extent (if any) does Arendt’s “banality of evil” thesis explain the behavior of victims and especially the leaders of victim communities?

There are also examples in Arendt’s book of times, places and people whose behavior broke with the general pattern of complicity with Nazi crimes. To what extent (if any) might Arendt’s “banality of evil” thesis be contradicted or supported by acts of resistance?

In what way or ways is Arendt critical of the Eichmann trial and/or policies of the Israeli government? To what extent (if any) does she seem to suggest that banal (everyday, ordinary, bureaucratic, political) evil can appear among any people, even those who have been victims?

To what extent (if any) does Arendt think the “banality of evil” thesis relates to the current moral position of the Germans?
ORDER THIS ESSA HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

You can place an order similar to this with us. You are assured of an authentic custom paper delivered within the given deadline besides our 24/7 customer support all through.