Stay in the Loop
BSR publishes on a weekly schedule, with an email newsletter every Wednesday and Thursday morning. There’s no paywall, and subscribing is always free.
Hannah Arendt's verdict vs. mine: What Eichmann's judges should have said
The Eichmann verdict: Arendt's vs. mine
Dan Rottenberg
Thirty-eight years after her death, the political theorist Hannah Arendt is back in the news, thanks to the recent U.S. release of Margarethe Von Trotta's biographical film. For the opinions Arendt expressed in her coverage of Israel's 1961 trial of the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, she was widely condemned as a Nazi apologist and a victim-blamer, and just as widely defended as a serious thinker trying to discern the hidden causes of evil.
But Arendt's critics and defenders alike— everyone but me, apparently— have long agreed about one point: the brilliance of the final paragraph of Eichmann in Jerusalem, Arendt's 1963 book on the trial.
In that paragraph, Arendt wrote the address that, in her opinion, the Jerusalem judges should have delivered in sentencing Eichmann:
"Politics is not like the nursery; in politics obedience and support are the same. And just as you supported and carried out a policy of not wanting to share the earth with the Jewish people and the people of a number of other nations— as though you and your superiors had any right to determine who should and who should not inhabit the world— we find that no one, that is, no member of the human race can be expected to want to share the earth with you. This is the reason, and the only reason, you must hang."
Failure of imagination
Many people I respect have found this reasoning profound. Gresham Riley, in his recent review of the film for BSR, called it "among the most moving passages of her report." (Click here.) But notwithstanding my high regard for Arendt (click here, for example), that paragraph has always struck me as the flimsiest intellectual argument in her book.
Arendt's speech would have had the judges tell Eichmann, in effect:
"You tried to destroy us, so we're justified in destroying you. Your leader presumed to speak for the German people and even all Aryan people; we'll take Hitler's presumption one step further and presume to speak for the entire human race, even though we legally represent just one one-thousandth of the world's population. And in our opinion, the entire human race finds you despicable, so therefore we're justified in executing you, even though capital punishment is forbidden in Israel. We need to make a statement about the monstrous nature of your crime, and we lack the imagination to come up with anything better than hanging."
Yes, yes, Dan, you logically reply— but what would you have had the judges tell Eichmann? I thought you'd never ask.
Reason vs. emotion
Granted, I lack Hannah Arendt's advanced degrees (or even an ordinary degree) in philosophy, nor have I taught at the New School (or even an elementary school), nor have I ever slept with Martin Heidegger. So consider yourself forewarned.
Nevertheless, here's my take on what the Jerusalem judges should have told Eichmann:
"You are indeed fortunate to have been tried in a civilized courtroom that affords you all the legal protections that your own regime denied to its many victims. After careful deliberation, we find you guilty of the most heinous crime in human history: facilitating the deaths of millions of innocent people for no reason other than their ancestry.
"In the opinion of this court, you have violated— not just once, but millions of times— the principle that every human life is sacred. The question before us is how a civilized society— one based on reason rather than emotion— should respond to such barbaric behavior.
"If your death would restore your victims' lives, we would not hesitate to execute you. If it would deter future mass murderers, we would similarly order it. If any act of vindictive punishment visited upon you— flogging, say, or torture or dismemberment or castration or sex-change surgery or the slaughter of all your relatives— would bring closure to your victims' families or elevate humanity's moral tone, we would readily consider it. But in fact no evidence, either in history or social science, supports the efficacy of any of these responses.
Public burnings and boilings
"Your leader, Mr. Hitler, believed that the world could be improved by killing people. But legally constituted courts have been killing people for thousands of years without noticeably improving the species. On the contrary (as Clarence Darrow observed at the Leopold-Loeb trial in 1924), the history of the human justice system is one long litany of public burnings, boilings, drawings and quarterings and hangings of people at crossroads as examples for all to see, all to no effect other than to add fuel to the flames created by cruelty and hatred.
"We refuse to sink to Hitler's level; we decline to buy into his game. Your case provides us with a historic opportunity to assert that even the lowest, most loathsome human life— specifically, yours— possesses some value. You wasted millions of potentially useful lives; we will not waste yours. For that reason we will spare your life.
"We sentence you instead to a lifetime of service to the humanity you sought to destroy. We will use you to help us understand the roots of hatred so that the future may deal with it better than the past has done.
Meet your therapist
"Don't misunderstand. Your life from this point forward will not be pleasant, except perhaps by comparison to Auschwitz. You will be incarcerated and your days closely regimented. Your service to humanity will begin by cleaning toilets and mopping floors, 40 hours a week— vital if menial tasks that many people perform voluntarily. At night you will be subjected to repeated recordings of your führer's speeches.
"But you will enjoy moments of respite. The high point of your week will be a one-hour session with a psychiatrist— Jewish, of course— who will ask you, "'How do you feel about the Holocaust?' and 'Can you tell me something about your parents?'
"If you refuse to cooperate, this tedious routine will continue for the rest of your life. But if you're willing and able to dig inside yourself— to help us figure out what makes you and people like you tick— then you'll have the opportunity to engage in more creative pursuits.
Ray of hope
"Perhaps you'll spend less time cleaning toilets and more time with therapists. Perhaps we'll pipe Beethoven into your cell instead of the Horst Wessel Lied. You might even be given the time and tools to write your memoirs.
"As your own beloved SS interrogators would have put it, we have ways of making you talk. But our incentives, for the most part, will be positive rather than negative.
"What we offer you, in short, are the commodities you denied to your victims: life and hope.
"If no sinner is beyond redemption, then here is your opportunity to redeem yourself. You can't erase your horrific crimes, but you can help prevent them from recurring in the future. That— not mere vindictive punishment— is this court's ultimate purpose.
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Let us take that first step now. And throughout this journey of discovery, let us constantly repeat to ourselves: Never again!"♦
To read Dan Rottenberg's review of Hannah Arendt, click here.
To read Gresham Riley's review of Hannah Arendt, click here.
To read Victor Schermer's review of Hannah Arendt, click here.
To read Victor Schermer's response to the column above, click here.
To read another response to this column by Gresham Riley, click here.
To read a response by Robert Zaller, click here.
To read a follow-up by Victor L. Schermer, click here.
But Arendt's critics and defenders alike— everyone but me, apparently— have long agreed about one point: the brilliance of the final paragraph of Eichmann in Jerusalem, Arendt's 1963 book on the trial.
In that paragraph, Arendt wrote the address that, in her opinion, the Jerusalem judges should have delivered in sentencing Eichmann:
"Politics is not like the nursery; in politics obedience and support are the same. And just as you supported and carried out a policy of not wanting to share the earth with the Jewish people and the people of a number of other nations— as though you and your superiors had any right to determine who should and who should not inhabit the world— we find that no one, that is, no member of the human race can be expected to want to share the earth with you. This is the reason, and the only reason, you must hang."
Failure of imagination
Many people I respect have found this reasoning profound. Gresham Riley, in his recent review of the film for BSR, called it "among the most moving passages of her report." (Click here.) But notwithstanding my high regard for Arendt (click here, for example), that paragraph has always struck me as the flimsiest intellectual argument in her book.
Arendt's speech would have had the judges tell Eichmann, in effect:
"You tried to destroy us, so we're justified in destroying you. Your leader presumed to speak for the German people and even all Aryan people; we'll take Hitler's presumption one step further and presume to speak for the entire human race, even though we legally represent just one one-thousandth of the world's population. And in our opinion, the entire human race finds you despicable, so therefore we're justified in executing you, even though capital punishment is forbidden in Israel. We need to make a statement about the monstrous nature of your crime, and we lack the imagination to come up with anything better than hanging."
Yes, yes, Dan, you logically reply— but what would you have had the judges tell Eichmann? I thought you'd never ask.
Reason vs. emotion
Granted, I lack Hannah Arendt's advanced degrees (or even an ordinary degree) in philosophy, nor have I taught at the New School (or even an elementary school), nor have I ever slept with Martin Heidegger. So consider yourself forewarned.
Nevertheless, here's my take on what the Jerusalem judges should have told Eichmann:
"You are indeed fortunate to have been tried in a civilized courtroom that affords you all the legal protections that your own regime denied to its many victims. After careful deliberation, we find you guilty of the most heinous crime in human history: facilitating the deaths of millions of innocent people for no reason other than their ancestry.
"In the opinion of this court, you have violated— not just once, but millions of times— the principle that every human life is sacred. The question before us is how a civilized society— one based on reason rather than emotion— should respond to such barbaric behavior.
"If your death would restore your victims' lives, we would not hesitate to execute you. If it would deter future mass murderers, we would similarly order it. If any act of vindictive punishment visited upon you— flogging, say, or torture or dismemberment or castration or sex-change surgery or the slaughter of all your relatives— would bring closure to your victims' families or elevate humanity's moral tone, we would readily consider it. But in fact no evidence, either in history or social science, supports the efficacy of any of these responses.
Public burnings and boilings
"Your leader, Mr. Hitler, believed that the world could be improved by killing people. But legally constituted courts have been killing people for thousands of years without noticeably improving the species. On the contrary (as Clarence Darrow observed at the Leopold-Loeb trial in 1924), the history of the human justice system is one long litany of public burnings, boilings, drawings and quarterings and hangings of people at crossroads as examples for all to see, all to no effect other than to add fuel to the flames created by cruelty and hatred.
"We refuse to sink to Hitler's level; we decline to buy into his game. Your case provides us with a historic opportunity to assert that even the lowest, most loathsome human life— specifically, yours— possesses some value. You wasted millions of potentially useful lives; we will not waste yours. For that reason we will spare your life.
"We sentence you instead to a lifetime of service to the humanity you sought to destroy. We will use you to help us understand the roots of hatred so that the future may deal with it better than the past has done.
Meet your therapist
"Don't misunderstand. Your life from this point forward will not be pleasant, except perhaps by comparison to Auschwitz. You will be incarcerated and your days closely regimented. Your service to humanity will begin by cleaning toilets and mopping floors, 40 hours a week— vital if menial tasks that many people perform voluntarily. At night you will be subjected to repeated recordings of your führer's speeches.
"But you will enjoy moments of respite. The high point of your week will be a one-hour session with a psychiatrist— Jewish, of course— who will ask you, "'How do you feel about the Holocaust?' and 'Can you tell me something about your parents?'
"If you refuse to cooperate, this tedious routine will continue for the rest of your life. But if you're willing and able to dig inside yourself— to help us figure out what makes you and people like you tick— then you'll have the opportunity to engage in more creative pursuits.
Ray of hope
"Perhaps you'll spend less time cleaning toilets and more time with therapists. Perhaps we'll pipe Beethoven into your cell instead of the Horst Wessel Lied. You might even be given the time and tools to write your memoirs.
"As your own beloved SS interrogators would have put it, we have ways of making you talk. But our incentives, for the most part, will be positive rather than negative.
"What we offer you, in short, are the commodities you denied to your victims: life and hope.
"If no sinner is beyond redemption, then here is your opportunity to redeem yourself. You can't erase your horrific crimes, but you can help prevent them from recurring in the future. That— not mere vindictive punishment— is this court's ultimate purpose.
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Let us take that first step now. And throughout this journey of discovery, let us constantly repeat to ourselves: Never again!"♦
To read Dan Rottenberg's review of Hannah Arendt, click here.
To read Gresham Riley's review of Hannah Arendt, click here.
To read Victor Schermer's review of Hannah Arendt, click here.
To read Victor Schermer's response to the column above, click here.
To read another response to this column by Gresham Riley, click here.
To read a response by Robert Zaller, click here.
To read a follow-up by Victor L. Schermer, click here.
Sign up for our newsletter
All of the week's new articles, all in one place. Sign up for the free weekly BSR newsletters, and don't miss a conversation.
