Film Review of Der Untergang by Steve Hochstadt April 27, 2010

Question: write a summary of the critic’s argument, determine how successful the critic is in marshaling evidence to support his argument, and say whether you agree with the critic’s argument.

Answer: I literally think that if someone sat in our class on Monday and wrote a summary of the most important things we said, they would pretty much have composed a similar article to this critical article by Steve Hochstadt. The main thing that the article starts to discuss is the controversial portrayal of Hitler, which is what we talked about first in class yesterday. Hochstadt wrote about how Hitler had never been portrayed this way in a movie before; the excessive make-up making him look like clay, the gray and greasy hair, the bent over frail old man. Also, Hochstadt discusses how all of these tactics make Hitler into a human, which had never really been done before by other filmmakers.

Next the article talks about the fact that this movie is made to look like a documentary. By the use of Traudl Junge, the clips at the beginning and the end make this movie seem more like what happened exactly in Hitler’s bunker on the last days of the war. Hochstadt says that the use of characters like Junge makes the audience have an odd kind of sympathy.  But, it was dangerous for the filmmakers to portray Hitler and the other characters involved in the Holocaust in this manner because not only was it taboo in German films, but it was unthought of to make someone sympathize with Hitler.

Next, Hochstadt discussed the role of some of the other less important characters, still pulling on the sympathy string of the audience. Just like we discussed in class, Schenck was portrayed as a Nazi that actually had remorse for the German people. However, the filmmakers decided to leave out the fact that Schenck had previously experimented with concentration camp inmates. By leaving out some of these historic facts, the viewers feel even more sympathy for the downfall of this nation.

Also, Hochstadt brought up the Goebbels children which he quoted, “these innocents appear to me to symbolize here the broader sacrifice of ordinary Germans for the megalomania of Nazi fanatics, like Hitler and Goebbels, who are repeatedly quoted here as welcoming the collective Untergang of Germany which did not deserve them” (242). By showing these children, Hochstadt believes that once again the filmmakers use innocent figures like these doll-like children to show the entire suffering of Germany under few Nazi monsters. I find it ironic though that while Hochstadt makes the same connection we as a class did about the innocence of these children, in the following sentence he brings up the megalomania, like Goebbels and Hitler, Goebbels being these “innocent” children’s father.

Next, Hochstadt brings up yet another topic we discussed in class; the issue of believing Traudl when she says she didn’t know about what was going on in the war. Hochstadt said that the only reason that the documentary of the real Junge was added was to address that question, and since the answer seemed to be that she really didn’t know much about what was going on, she seemed even more innocent.

Finally to conclude this review of the movie, Hochstadt said that the movie was a “riveting portrayal of Hitler, but a sanitized version of Nazi Germany” (243). By saying this to close his review, he shows that the new portrayal of Hitler was extremely insightful, but the lack of historic accuracy with less important characters as well as the certain tactics that drew the audiences sympathy towards potential Holocaust perpetrators, was not a fair depiction of Nazi Germany.

Downfall Chapters 19-28 April 25, 2010

Question:In class Friday, I posed the question “Who is this movie about?” Answer that question for today. Is it primarily about Hitler, or primarily about someone else? What do the cover and the title of the film suggest, and is that who the film actually ends up being about? What are the implications of your answer for one of our main course themes, i.e. how representative Holocaust perpetrators (and other Nazis) were of normal Germans?

Answer: The line above the bold red “DOWNFALL” on the title of the DVD says “April 1945, a nation awaits its…” That line alone means that, without even watching the movie, it revolves around the downfall of a nation. While Hitler is the one person featured on the cover, it is not just his personal downfall, but “his” nation around him that crumbles as well. The photo of Hitler on the cover of the DVD shows him without his wrinkles, paleness, shakes, and disheveled hair. This shows Hitler at his strong point in the movie. While this may be representative of the Hitler portrayed in the beginning, it is definitely not the Hitler that suffered the downfall. When Hitler committed suicide, his face was never shown after. Even when he was being directed as to how to kill himself, the soldier told him that if his hand was shaking to much, he needed to bite down on the poison at the same time. This shows that his trembling was representative to the trembling downfall of a nation.

The film also centers around Traudl, but she never suffers the same downfall that the majority of Germany did. She escaped alive, and was shown at the end and the beginning of the film as an old woman. This shows that even before the audience was familiar with her character, that she survived this “downfall” of a nation. Even the short description on the back of the DVD case says that “seen through the eyes of Hitler’s infamous secretary Traudl Junge, optimism crumbled into grim realization and terror as it becomes clear that Germany’s defeat is inevitable”. This quote explains that Hitler was not the character that the film necessarily centered around. Since Traudl was the one that the audience followed, she is the character that demonstrated the main lead. However, if this is the case, it is ironic that the film is called Downfall with Hitler featured on the cover, because Traudl escaped the downfall of Germany. I think the cover of the DVD was designed this way because Hitler’s appearance is definitely attention grabbing. Also, for the majority, if not everyone, the fact that Hitler is shown in his last years, in his declining years, is appealing. Even if the film is shown through the eyes of a survivor, she still witnessed the downfall of Hitler and everyone else around her.

She says in the end that she did not know the extent of what was happening, but that is not a fair excuse since people her age (Scholl’s) knew what was happening. However, since the movie is focused on Traudl and her experience in the bunker leading up to Hitler’s suicide, she is a good character to show the ignorance and naivety of Germany as a whole. While people like young Peter’s family obviously knew their country was crumbling before their very eyes, Traudl and others were kept in the security of a bunker. Obviously she was watching everyone around her end their lives, but she did not want her life to end that way. She wanted to leave anyway she could. This shows that even if a nation is being destroyed, some hope of survival is always possible. This was shown extremely well in the character of Traudl, as well as Peter. Peter was an individual from the beginning, when everyone he knew was killed right in front of him. Even when he saw his family had killed themselves, he still made the effort to escape. I think Peter and Traudl can be parallel characters because they both show hope during a catastrophe. Traudl was naive like a child, but Peter was mature like an adult. These two characters exemplify the people that were able to escape their fate, their fate of a downfall, and escaped successfully. While Peter was a fictional character, he was definitely added to the plot for this specific reason. To show that while Traudl may have lost all hope in her friends and everyone else she knew the bunker, she still could find hope in a little blonde boy fighting to escape the downfall of a nation.

Downfall Chapters 10-18 April 22, 2010

 The most striking thing in this section of the film to me was all the children. While I’m sure that Goebbels did really have children, we know that Peter the young soldier boy is fictitious. Also, the physician might have been real as well as his children. The scene where the people at the well get bombed out shows more children. While the film makers may be showing accurate parts of this event with Goebbel’s children, he definitely added characters to make a point.

The Goebbel’s children seem like they are not even aware that a war is going on. When they get to the bunker, they shout and laugh when they get into their bunks, they have toys, and they are excited to meet and sing for Hitler. While the adults show extreme signs of stress, these children seem completely oblivious to whats happening outside the bunker. While the youngest ones might not understand, the older children should definitely be showing some signs of concern like everyone else in the bunk, save Eva Braun.

The next child that is focused on is Peter. He is always alone in this section of the movie. Everyone around him is dead. The only people that he was working with, the other child soldiers, are dead all around him. While in the previous scenes he was extremely courageous and ambitious, he now does not even have a gun or look for anyone to shoot. He hides when he can, and even fell asleep. It is interesting to compare Peter to the Goebbels children. He is probably the same age as at least one of them, and he is in the middle of the war. Meanwhile, kids his same age are frolicking around without a care in the world in a bunker. Peter finally runs home when he wakes up next to a half-buried dead girl. His father and mother are extremely happy that he came home. He has a fever, but they are just thankful he is alive like most parents would be, except Magda Goebbels who is planning to kill her children. Peter and his family probably have no way of escaping alive, while Magda was given a choice to leave by Speer, but refused and would rather kill herself and her children. The parallel between these two families is very significant, I think, because Peter’s family represents the emotions that a normal family would have in this situation, while the Goebbel’s family shows the side of a totalitarianism government. Magda acts all dramatic that her heart can’t take it, meanwhile she is choosing to put herself in that situation. She doesn’t want her children to have a future, which is the exact opposite of any other parent I’ve ever encountered. She exhibits similar traits to Hitler; extreme selfishness and failure to think about what is the best for anyone else. Peter’s family on the other hand is just praying that Peter will return every day/night and that they will make it through the war.

The next children shown are the physicians children at the dinner table. After the physician is denied by Hitler permission to leave Berlin, he goes to the dinner table, acts normal, and proceeds to kill his family. Right before he detonated the explosive, the film shows the little girl feeding her doll. Right after the explosion, all we see is smoke and the doll laying on the ground. This shows more human suffering and the fact that these children’s lives were taken prematurely. While they probably would not have a good fate in Berlin, their father made the decision to end their lives without their knowledge. The film makers show these types of scenes to show the parallels of all the families left in Berlin. The Nazi’s families seem to be destructive and selfish, while normal families like Peter’s show compassion and love in a time like this.

Finally, the scene where the people at the well getting water got hit with artillery, children are shown laying on the ground after the smoke clears. Their mothers and family members run to their side and cry when they see they are dead. This is another normal emotion of normal people affected by war. After the physician blew up his family, there was no following scene showing sympathy for this family or the children. However, when the children at the well died, the families showed extreme sadness and emotion. Showing that these families in Berlin are capable of normal emotions just emphasizes the fact that Nazi families are dehumanized and incapable of normalcy.

Downfall Chapters 1-9 April 20, 2010

Question: Pay attention to the portrayal of Hitler and one other character of your choosing. Describe how they are portrayed, with emphasis on the how: in other words, describe not only the final effect of their portrayal, but the things the filmmakers do in order to create that portrayal, such as lighting, camera angles and shot selection, background/setting, clothing, color choices, sound effects and music, and so on.

In addition to narrative elements (plot and dialogue), films have visual and auditory elements that lend to the overall impression. You don’t need to be a professional film critic in order to talk about them; you just need to reflect on what impressions they create in you, the viewer.

Answer: In the first nine chapters of the movie Downfall, the beginning of the end of the war starts. There is no narrator, but we see a lot of the story from the point of view of Traudl Humps Junge, who became Hitler’s youngest secretary. By the end of the ninth chapter, Hitler and other important personnel are taking shelter in an underground bunker. Hitler starts off the movie as a confident authoritative figure, but ends this first section by exploding on his army officials and admitting that the war is lost.

Hitler is first seen when he is “interviewing” Traudl Humps Junge to be his secretary. He seems very collected at this point. When Traudl is about to take the typewriting test, he admits to her that he makes many mistakes when ruling, so she doesn’t need to worry about making a few mistakes. This was interesting to me, because the way that everyone regarded Hitler, and how he presented himself, he seemed to be one that never made mistakes, let alone admitted to them. I think the director of the movie made an interesting point by including this scene, maybe it is a part of the film that has no historical fact since I find it hard to believe Hitler would “make mistakes” in his own mind.

As the movie continues, the destruction of Berlin worsens. Hitler tries to find a way to make all of his ranks defeat the Russians as they close in, but the officials he speaks to constantly try to tell him there is no way. At this point, we see that Hitler is becoming completely disillusioned. In a previous scene, we see Hitler talking with Speer in a room with a huge model of Germany after the war. Obviously, Hitler still thought victory was a possibility at this point. Soon after however, he learns that he has no way to keep the Russians out of Berlin. He explodes on specific officials in a small room, showing his complete loss of control. You can see all the officials sweating furiously with looks of absolute terror on their faces. Once they see that their master has lost control and admitted defeat, they know they have no hope. One official even puts his hand over his chest/heart when Hitler says out loud that the war is lost. This shows that even if the officials subconsciously thought the war was lost, they did not admit it until Hitler confirmed it. Hitler appeared old and stressed from the beginning of the film, but as he realizes that he has lost the war, his shaking becomes uncontrollable, he sweats constantly, his hair is disheveled, and he only talks by yelling erratically. The director does a fantastic job of portraying Hitler’s personal downfall, not just the downfall of the Third Reich. It was obvious in the beginning of the movie that he was cool, calm and collected. Once the film skips two and a half years ahead, Hitler has aged considerably and is teetering on the edge of absolute insanity. He thinks his officials have been deceiving him the whole war, just because one flank lost too many men and could not follow his order. He thinks he does not need to evacuate the city because the people do not “have the right” to live if the war is lost. He thinks his model of Germany after the war is won will be possible, particularly that it will be an intellectual city, which obviously is a complete vision in his head. The officials even start to question all of his orders and commands because they know that he has lost all sight of reality.

A second character that interested me in the first nine chapters of the film was Ernst-Günther Schenck. He is first shown when soldiers are throwing all of the books and records out the windows to burn them. His first concern is feeding the people if everyone leaves. When the rest of the officials are evacuating, he demands to be allowed to stay in Berlin. When he is left with one other man, he thinks about going somewhere else, somewhere that he could be of use. Along the way to offer help, he sees soldiers beating up two elderly men that were deserters. He tried to stop the men, but the soldier in charge shot both of the elders. This scene showed that Schenck still had some regard for human life and still had a sense of right from wrong. When he gets a call to come help wounded soldiers and civilians, he is dismayed at the sight he encounters. Even when he was warned not to enter an area that was newly claimed Russian territory, he does it anyway to see if he can help anyone inside. All he sees is a pile of dead people and a room filled with elderly women. While the movie doesn’t elaborate about what he does, you can see the worry and fear in his face. He is one of the only characters, probably the only one besides Hermann Fegelein, that shows remorse and sympathy for what has happened. When he gets to an underground bunker where a ton of people are seeking shelter, he sees children crying, wounded people, old people, dead people, people with bandaged stubs, and finally a person getting a limb cut off. This scene shows the terror in everyone’s faces as they pretty much are just awaiting their death. It shows how worried Schenck is, he is profusely sweating, wide-eyed, and speechless at the sight he is witnessing. Many people are covering their mouths, which could be because of germs, but more likely because of the stench that is overtaking the room they are in. It is certain that there are dead people in that room, and people bleeding out everywhere, so it probably smelled terrible. Schenck goes to cover his mouth, but doesn’t really try that hard because he is so shocked by this scene. While this would be a normal reaction for most people, it was an interesting reaction for a Nazi. He was so concerned and overwhelmed by everything that was going on, he seemed lost. While other officials probably would have acted like nothing was wrong, since they were the architects of concentrations camps they had seen worse, Schenck actually showed emotion. I am interested to see how his character develops throughout the rest of the film.

Eichmann in Jerusalem Epilogue April 8, 2010

Question:  Based on the quality of class discussions, it seems clear to me that your understanding of Arendt has developed significantly. Please reflect on the development of your views by choosing one of the following journal topics. Option 1 is straightforward: explain how your perception of Eichmann (or better: of Arendt’s view of Eichmann) has changed since the beginning of the book. It probably makes sense to refer and/or link to one of your early posts. Option 2: Comment on a post written by one of your peers, preferably a recent one (within the last week or two). Try to point out how that person’s post demonstrates the class’s well-developed understanding of Eichmann in Jerusalem, and/or how it highlights problems we still have with the book. Option 3: State what you don’t understand or find problematic in Eichmann in Jerusalem, and explain why.

Answer (kind of option 3): I only became clear on most of what Eichmann in Jerusalem was about during class discussion, reading the critical article by Amos Elon, and through part of the epilogue. Most the time when I read the chapter the day before class, I did not get much out of it. Class discussions helped clarify a lot of it, but mostly just where Arendt stood after each chapter. A lot of the actual information she talks about still is not clear to me because we mainly discussed her view of Eichmann. However, these are not problems with the trial, but more problems with me understanding Arendt.

Because of reading the article by Amos Elon, I understand a lot of the misconceptions I had about Arent and her views. Also, she summed up pretty well what she thought should have been the outcome of the trial with the last pages of the epilogue. If she spoke that clearly throughout the whole book, for one it would be a lot shorter, but more importantly it would be a lot easier to understand. But, even though the last passage in the epilogue is telling, she still falls into contradictions. She addresses degrees of guilt, even though she says earlier those cannot be of concern. Even in her little tangent here, she still digressed from Eichmann by mentioning the Bible. Even though it was an example that may have pertained to Eichmann, it still was not really necessary. Also, a main thing that Arendt focused on in the book that she wanted everyone to understand was that of the issue of knowing that Eichmann was not a monster. While she finally flat-out says this in the epilogue on page 276, she does not really talk about that in her final passage of how the judges could have addressed Eichmann. If that was such an important part in understanding the whole trial, she should have made that clear in her final statement of how the trial should have ended.

Overall, I do think my opinion changed about Arendt’s view of Eichmann and Eichmann himself throughout the book . In the beginning I thought she was disgusted by him in all regards and did see him as a monster and was anxious for him to be hung. However, I now realize that she thought he was guilty in some respects but not the way the prosecution made him out to be, like the green fanged monster. While she did want him to be hung so justice was reached, she thought the way the trial was carried out was wrong in many respects. Also, I thought Eichmann was going to be a lot more guilty than he turned out to be. While he did pretty much order millions to their deaths, he did only sit behind a desk. While he was aware of the results of his actions when he went to visit the camps, he did get sick about it and showed some signs of guilt. Also, someone that was capable of such a huge task, that of expulsion of an entire race, was surprisingly stupid on the surface. He was depicted to have no original thought and just as a ditzy man stuck in a child-like state, but that seems inconsistent with his contributions to the Final Solution. However, he did it somehow, and with great success. Overall, my opinions changed a lot. From thinking Arent was on the side of the prosecution and seeing Eichmann as a monster, to realizing Arendt was really showing that Eichmann was very human and very much like me and you.

The Excommunication of Hannah Arendt by Amos Elon April 5, 2010

Question: briefly summarize the article and show how well (or not well!) the author uses evidence from the text to support her/his argument. Elon, Amos. The Excommunication of Hannah Arendt. World Policy Journal Winter 2006, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p. 93 ff. Abstract: The article presents a discussion regarding the political views of Hannah Arendt, adapted from her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Database: Academic Search Premier.

Answer: Amos Elon wrote this article and it is included in Eichmann in Jerusalem as the introduction. The main point of it is to explain the various reactions to Arendt’s book on Eichmann’s trial and to explain the misconceptions. Elon writes about the fact that “No book within living memory had elicited similar passions” (vii) referring to the fact the book was still in heavy debate years after its release. Elon focuses on the fact that many of the harsh reactions and criticisms of the book were because of Arendt’s wording when talking specifically about the Jewish Councils, or Judenräte. Elon poses questions such as “would her argument been less shocking if…?” or “what might they could have done differently?” (xv) After reading the book, I agree with a lot of the things that Elon proposed Arendt could have changed to make the book less alarming. But, part of me believes Arendt chose to write the book that way to elicit the exact response she received.

Also, Elon did a great job explaining a lot of the misconceptions about Eichmann in Jerusalem. While we talked about some of this controversial passages in class, Elon did a good job explaining exactly what Arendt meant to say. After reading this introduction, most of the confusion I had while reading the book has been cleared up. 

Finally, Elon obviously used plenty of evidence from the text to explain his argument. He cited multiple passages from the book, and consistently talked about different parts that were of debate. While some of the article spoke directly of the reactions of different groups of people, Elon tied in various parts of the book to explain those same reactions. He concludes with saying that although a lot of the criticism was extremely crude and harsh, she got most of it right and for that “she deserves to be remembered” (xxii).

Eichmann in Jerusalem Chapter 15 April 1, 2010

Question: You have three options for today.

Option 1. From the middle of p. 246 to the top of p. 247, Arendt summarizes and quotes the judgment, with which she largely agrees. In what way does the judgment (as Arendt reports it) validate or contradict her portrayal of Eichmann throughout the book? OR: Does this passage change your understanding of how Arendt views Eichmann? OR: What stands out to you in this passage, and why?

Option 2. From the bottom of p. 247 (second full paragraph) to the top of p. 248, Arendt summarizes and quotes Eichmann’s reaction to the judgment. To what extent is Eichmann in Jerusalem a validation or contradiction of Eichmann’s statement here? Does Arendt agree with Eichmann?

Option 3. In the final sentence of the main portion of the book, on p. 252, Arendt uses the phrase “banality of evil.” It appears nowhere else in the book, save the subtitle. In what way does this phrase summarize Arendt’s portrayal of Eichmann? Is it an accurate phrase?

Answer: (option 2) I believe that the main ideas in Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem are very well validated in Eichmann’s reaction to his judgment. I have come to the conclusion that I agree with Arendt somewhat, but I believe she sees him guilty in a different sense than I do. I agree that her goal is to make the audience understand that Eichmann is not a monster, but rather just a man that could represent all of humanity. Arendt started to seemingly defend him, or downplay his faults, by pointing out his stupidity (for lack of a better word). Then she starts to sympathize with him even more when she describes that he is just the perfect victim of totalitarianism. While that does not mean she finds him innocent, she does make it seem as though Eichmann can be understood. By using this strategy of understanding the accused, she makes the reader see him as a human with flaws, not a monster.

Two of the main points in Eichmann’s reaction to his judgement involve him mentioning that he never hated Jews and he was only a victim of the Nazi’s, therefore, he reiterates Arendt’s previous convictions. Arendt intentionally mentioned Eichmann saying many times throughout the novel that he did not hate Jews, therefore she seemingly agrees with him. Secondly, she also made it clear that he was the perfect totalitarian citizen, making him appear to be a victim. I think Arendt completely agrees with everything that Eichmann says in this passage, therefore validating Eichmann in Jerusalem.

However, this brings up the issue of Arendt avoiding degrees of guilt. If she obviously decided from the beginning he was guilty, than what was the point of writing the book? Clearly she is interested in degrees of guilt because she wanted to dissect Eichmann’s trial and decide exactly for what he is to blame. Her goal may have been just to show that he was really not the monster he was made out to be, but in the process of showing that, she created degrees of guilt. Since the issue of the Holocaust is so complex with all the rankings of officials and the hierarchy of the chief orchestrators, degrees of guilt are a necessity. Everyone had such an individualized role that the blame cannot be pinned in one place. To justly execute all the people involved may be an impossible task, but it is important to only persecute each individual for his specific crimes, not the crimes of everyone else around him.

Eichmann in Jerusalem Chapters 13 and 14 March 30, 2010

Question:React to one of the following quotes. In your analysis, tie the quote to themes that have emerged in our discussion of Arendt, explaining how the quote you select illustrates one of her principal ideas. If you prefer, you may select a quote other than the ones I’ve posted below.

First choice: “If the judges had cleared Eichmann completely on these counts connected with the hair-raising stories told over and over by witnesses at the trial, they would not have arrived at a different judgment of guilt, and Eichmann would not have escaped capital punishment. The result would have been the same. But they would have destroyed utterly, and without compromise, the case as the prosecution presented it” (219).

Second choice: “For the lesson of such stories is simple and within everybody’s grasp. Politically speaking, it is that under conditions of terror most people will comply but some people will not, just as the lesson of the countries to which the Final Solution was proposed is that ‘it could happen’ in most places but it did not happen everywhere” (233).

Third choice: in place of the above quotes, analyze one of your own choosing from these two chapters.

Answer: (option 2) Arendt closes the 14th chapter of Eichmann in Jerusalem with this quote. I think this quote ties largely into the discussion in class on Monday, that resistance and rebellion did work. Arendt’s main idea that we extracted from chapters 10 through 12 was that when people in countries resisted the proposal of the Final Solution, the outcome was not as severe. Arendt says in the above quote that “under the conditions of terror most people will comply but some people will not” (233). I think this is the most important part of the quote because it encompasses the idea that resistance does yield some successful result. We saw that in some countries, namely Bulgaria and Denmark, noncompliance was key to saving the majority of their people. While fear was what the Nazi’s wanted to instill in their victims, some people realized that the Nazi’s lacked manpower over their victims. While tons of Germans/Jews participated in rounding up and deporting Jews, still more Jews were being victimized. What I am saying is that the one thing the Jews had to their advantage was power in numbers. Luckily, some Jews realized this and came together to resist the notion of the Final Solution. While it seems that the extermination of 6 million people was a huge undertaking, many more could have been killed in surrounding countries if no rebellion was met.

While Arendt focused in earlier chapters that she could not understand why more people did not rebel, she later shows that some rebellion was present. She attributed a lot of the success of the perpetrators in the Holocaust to the compliance of the Jews and even the help of the Jewish Council. While she pointed out her anger towards those people that did not put up a fight, she devotes three chapters to explaining that resistance did work in some countries. I believe her main point, as reflected in the quote above, is that when an idea is proposed to a large group of people, some will comply without question, but not everyone will give in so easily.

Eichmann in Jerusalem Chapters 8 and 9 March 18, 2010

Question: In these two chapters, do you agree that Arendt focuses on the Germans more than on Eichmann? Is it valid for her to do that?

Answer: These two chapters actually talk more about Eichmann than I feel the last two chapters did. However, these chapters were more concerned with what other people/superiors Eichmann was involved with and his relations with them. Also, it talks a considerable amount about his “law abiding citizen” idea, but I didn’t think the chapter focused on that enough to title it as such. I was surprised, however, how much Eichmann was talked about during these two chapters, as I was expecting Arendt’s usual digression from that topic.

While Eichmann was discussed in these two chapters, I feel like his trial was scarcely mentioned. While I do want to read more about Eichmann, not other Germans or Nazis or Jews, I also was expecting to be reading about his trial. I feel like at this point in the book I have no idea what part of the trial these chapters pertain to and I have no idea what point the trial is.

It is not that Arendt talked about Germans more, but she talked a lot about Jews and Hungary. The chapterscover what and when the rules were instated for Jews as well as Hungary’s involvement in the war. The laws had nothing to do with Eichmann whatsoever, or even the fact that he was law abiding, because the laws mentioned were strictly for the Jews. Also, the whole discussion about Hungary and it’s involvement in the war seemed irrelevant. Yes, Eichmann had to deal with some of their difficulties, but Arendt only quickly mentioned that, but dwelled on Himmler and Becher. These chapters might have talked about Eichmann, but they talked about his conscience and his emotions, not his crimes or trial.

I am still frustrated with Arendt. These chapters were easier to get through than the last  two because I felt like she stayed on topic a little better (except in the beginning when she brought up Eichmann’s last crisis of conscience 3 times before actually explaining it). However, I know nothing more about Eichmann, I know that he was incompetent, irrational, and weird in general, but that’s nothing new. Also, I realize I have no idea what is going on with the trial or what anything we have talked/read about recently has to do with it.

Eichmann in Jerusalem Chapter 6 March 14, 2010

Question: This is a crucial chapter in the book. What is Arendt’s stance on Eichmann’s guilt in this chapter? Back up your claim with specific evidence from the text. As I mentioned in class, you are welcome to modify this topic… or even, once in a while, come up with your own topic in its place. If you do so, make clear that’s what you’re doing.

Answer: While this chapter was exceedingly long, I was surprised how much Arendt talked about other things than Eichmann or his trial. The last pages of the chapter hardly mentioned Eichmann at all, and only discussed Germany as a whole or other individuals involved in the war.

However, the beginning of the chapter started by explaining Eichmann’s recollection of the day he was informed of the Final Solution by  Heydrich. I found it odd how well Eichmann remembered this, even though Arendt said there were a couple points he forgot to mention. However, while this moment definitely would be engrained in most people’s minds forever, I was surprised Eichmann remembered it so clearly because it was not particularly pertaining to his career. Aside from the aspect of his memory, Eichmann retold this instance with more emotion than he had previously showed. He told how he was so shocked and speechless because he “had never thought of such a thing, such a solution through violence” (84).

Next Arendt talks about “language rules” which were lies essentially. They were the codes used to say things like “the Final Solution” instead of “killing”. I think a clear point of Arendt’s judgment on Eichmann was when she said “Eichmann’s great susceptibility to catch words and stock phrases, combined with his incapacity for ordinary speech, made him, of course, an ideal subject for ‘language rules’” (86). I think this is one of the points in the chapter that shows that these people (Eichmann and other perpetrators) were brainwashed in a sense. The whole idea of “language rules” was to prevent people from equating what they were doing with killing. Arendt is really sarcastic in this chapter, and I think it has to do with the fact that she doesn’t understand how all these people actually fell for it. “It” being the justification for what they were participating in. I know the concept of brainwashing perfectly intelligent people is really hard to grasp, so I think maybe Arendt is struggling with that possibility since she is such a smart individual herself. Another instance in the text that had to do with this brainwashing theory was when Arendt was discussing how Germany as a whole reacted. While she talks about the attempted movement of conspirators and rebels of that nature, she talks largely about how they did nothing. While some of them deep down knew what they had turned a blind eye , they still thought it was reasonable to “have a right to negotiate with their enemies ‘as equals’ for a ‘just peace’” (101). What I got out of this section was that the majority of the people may have known what was going on, but they convinced themselves that it was not wrong. That in a sense is brainwashing.

When it comes to Arendt portraying Eichmann’s guilt, I think she mostly talked about it when she discussed his conscience. This part was interesting because it talked about how Eichmann made a “choice”, the only one he ever had the chance to make, to redirect a group of Jews, away from immediate extermination. After Eichmann had been to some of the death camps and saw such terrible things, he might have made a little connection that he was somewhat responsible for this because he decided who got sent/transported where. Arendt argues how before Eichmann actually saw all of the killings in the camps, he knew about them. I think here is where she is trying to illustrate a kind of “out of sight, out of mind” thing with Eichmann. He really didn’t attempt to do anything to save the Jews until he saw the fate he was choosing for them when he sent them to the death camps. Once Eichmann did see these atrocities, he made his “choice” to spare just one shipment of Jews to a less severe camp. Then Arendt discusses how it might have been that Eichmann was not really guilty about the murders in general, but just the murders of German Jews. While this is a form of a conscience, it doesn’t justify anything that Eichmann did regardless of this notion. Then Arendt becomes sarcastic (quoting someone else) again proposing that maybe it would not be such an atrocity if the group of people they murdered didn’t have a culture.

I think the rest of the chapter deals more with the guilt/conscience of others, or for Germany as a whole, more than Eichmann. Overall, I think Arendt pretty much thinks Eichmanns faulty memory, lack of ability to formulate his own sentences/thoughts, and lack of action after he witnessed the death camps makes him guilty as charged.