What is the banality of evil? How can ordinary people commit extraordinary atrocities? What were Adolf Eichmann’s last words before he was hanged?
In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt explores the motivations behind Adolf Eichmann’s crimes in the Holocaust. She argues that his actions were driven by mundane factors rather than inherent wickedness.
Discover how a desire for success, a sense of duty, and social conformity led an unremarkable man to participate in one of history’s greatest horrors.
The Banality of Evil
Adolf Eichmann—the Nazi official who arranged the transportation of Jews to their systematic deaths in concentration camps—is often considered a sadistic mastermind. But, according to German-American historian and philosopher Hannah Arendt, Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem reveals otherwise. In Eichmann in Jerusalem, Arendt argues that Eichmann was an unremarkable evildoer whose atrocities reveal the banality of evil—evil driven not by sadism, but by mundane motives and aims.
(Shortform note: What is “the banality of evil” exactly? The phrase led to widespread debate following Eichmann in Jerusalem’s publication, as readers disagreed about how to interpret it and whether its portrayal of evil was accurate. But, in a lecture ten years after publication, Arendt tried to clear the air—she explained that the “banality of evil” meant that evil deeds don’t always stem from sheer malice, but rather from everyday foibles. In other words, she wasn’t offering a comprehensive account of evil, but rather observing how evil can sometimes manifest.)
Having shown that Eichmann wasn’t the evil genius that many portrayed him as, Arendt rebuts the popular view that he participated in the Holocaust because he was a sadistic monster. On the contrary, Arendt argues that Eichmann committed evil acts in the Holocaust for strikingly mundane reasons: He wanted to seem successful, felt obligated to fulfill his duty, and succumbed to social conformity that led him to abandon morality.
Motivation #1: Desire for Success
According to Arendt, one of the primary drivers of Eichmann’s evil acts was his desire to succeed within the Nazi Party. Eichmann made this clear in several interviews in which he frequently lamented his inability to join the highest echelon of Nazi members (such as Hitler, Himmler, and Müller), even attempting to garner sympathy from his interrogators. Further, Arendt points out that evidence from the trial shows that when Eichmann rose to an executive position as head of Jewish Emigration in 1939, this taste of power led him to begin exclusively pursuing more powerful positions.
(Shortform note: In everyday workplaces, performing immoral actions to become successful at work (like Eichmann) can lead to moral injury, a form of disillusionment that occurs when your job undermines your sense of morality. However, because moral injury often strikes at the core of your identity, evoking feelings like shame, guilt, and frustration, it seems unlikely that Eichmann suffered from it—after all, he showed no signs of internal conflict over the actions he was tasked with performing.)
Motivation #2: Obligation to Fulfill His Duty
Arent relates that beyond his desire to rise up the ranks, Eichmann was also driven by a sense of duty to follow orders. She explains that in the legal system of the Third Reich, anything that Hitler commanded became law. Consequently, in Eichmann’s testimony, he consistently maintained that he would never have disobeyed an order because such orders were laws and he felt obligated not to break them. Even when the prosecution cited examples of Nazi Party members who’d disobeyed orders and refused to partake in the horrors of the Holocaust, Eichmann steadfastly claimed that such disobedience was dishonorable.
(Shortform note: Eichmann’s unwavering sense of duty to Nazi law, as reported by Arendt, may have been influenced by his cultural context. According to experts, German culture puts an exceptionally high weight on rules and laws, meaning that Eichmann was likely sincere about feeling compelled to obey orders—even if he was, in fact, fully capable of saying “no.”)
Motivation #3: Social Conformity
Arendt reports that the final motivating factor for Eichmann was the fact that seemingly nobody was objecting to the Holocaust. Per Eichmann’s own testimony, during the 1942 Wannsee Conference in which the higher Nazi officials began planning the Final Solution, he “sensed a kind of Pontius Pilate feeling”—the sight of “great” Nazi leaders embracing the Final Solution wiped away any of his scruples. Indeed, Eichmann reportedly felt that he had no right to judge if these leaders were in agreement.
(Shortform note: In referring to Pontius Pilate, the governor of the Roman province Judaea who ordered that Jesus Christ be crucified, Eichmann likely had in mind Pilate’s quote in the Gospel of Matthew—after washing his hands before the crowd that wanted Jesus crucified, Pilate declared “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.”)
However, Arendt reports that the historical evidence reveals a more nuanced account than Eichmann recalls. In September 1941, when Eichmann was first ordered to begin deporting Jews to concentration camps where they’d immediately be killed, he disobeyed—instead, he sent them to a ghetto in Lódz, Poland, where they’d be temporarily safe from harm. But Arendt notes that this resistance was short-lived; after four weeks, Eichmann began deporting Jews to concentration camps as ordered, hastening their deaths. Thus, she concludes that Eichmann’s conscience functioned normally for about one month, after which he fully acquiesced to the Nazi plan.
(Shortform note: Although Eichmann’s resistance was transient, experts point out that some other Germans steadfastly resisted the Nazi regime throughout World War II. For example, the White Rose movement openly distributed anti-Nazi messages and leaflets in Munich from 1942 to 1943 until its leaders were caught and executed in February 1943. Similarly, a small group of upper-rank military officials attempted to assassinate Hitler in July 1944, though their bomb blast left him with only minor injuries; the entire group was brutally executed afterward.)
Eichmann’s Banal Last Words
In December 1961, Eichmann was found guilty of crimes against the Jewish people. Following an unsuccessful appeal in May 1962, Eichmann was hanged days later. According to Arendt, his last words were striking for how bland and uninspired they were: “After a short while, gentlemen, we shall all meet again. Such is the fate of all men. Long live Germany, long live Argentina, long live Austria. I shall not forget them.” Arendt argues that these tepid last words reinforce what was obvious throughout the trial—Eichmann’s evil nature was startlingly unremarkable and mundane, highlighting the banality of evil.
Exercise: Reflect on Arendt’s Arguments About the Nature of Evil
Arendt writes that Eichmann’s evil actions were driven by mundane, everyday motivations rather than the sadistic desires of a madman. In this exercise, reflect on her arguments and apply them to contemporary forms of evil.
- To what extent do you find Arendt’s arguments about the mundane nature of Eichmann’s atrocities convincing? Why?
- Think of a specific type of evil that pervades contemporary society (for example, racism, oppression, or violence). Then, think of a specific moment in history that exemplifies that evil. Do you think people’s behavior was characterized by banality? Explain your answer.
- What other cases can you think of in which evil actions were spurred on by everyday motives (for example, the desire for money or social approval)?
