How could so many people support Hitler? - Joseph Lacey
In Jerusalem, on April 11th, 1961,
Adolf Eichmann stood trial
for crimes against humanity.
Eichmann had been a Nazi official
tasked with organizing the transport
of over 1.5 million European Jews
to ghettos and concentration camps.
He was popularly described
as an evil mastermind
who orchestrated atrocities
from a cushy German office,
and many were eager to see the so-called
“desk murderer” tried for his crimes.
But the squeamish man who took the stand
seemed more like a dull bureaucrat
than a sadistic killer.
The disparity between Eichmann’s nature
and his actions
was unsettling for many viewers,
but for philosopher Hannah Arendt,
this contradiction inspired
a disturbing revelation.
Arendt was a German Jew who fled
her homeland in 1933
after being briefly imprisoned
by the German secret police.
As a refugee in France
and then the United States,
she dedicated herself to understanding
how the Nazi regime came to power,
and more specifically,
how it inspired so many atrocities.
A common opinion at the time was that
the Third Reich was a historical oddity;
a perfect storm of uniquely evil leaders
supported by German citizens
looking for revenge
after their defeat in World War I.
But Arendt believed the true conditions
behind this unprecedented rise
of totalitarianism
weren’t specific to Germany.
Throughout the 1950s, Arendt developed
a theory of the human condition
that divided life into three facets:
labor— in which we satisfy
our material needs and desires;
work— in which we build the world’s
physical and cultural infrastructure;
and action— in which we publicly
articulate our values
to collectively shape the world around us.
It was this last facet,
the life of action,
that Arendt believed was under attack,
both in Germany and many other
industrialized societies.
She saw modernity as an age
ruled by labor,
where individuals mainly appear
in the social world
to produce and consume goods and services
rather than share ideas
and shape communities.
Arendt believed this had fostered
societies and ideologies
where individuals were seen only
for their economic value,
rather than their moral
and political capacities.
She believed this isolated people from
their neighbors and their sense of self.
And in her 1951 book,
“The Origins of Totalitarianism,”
Arendt argued these conditions provided
fertile ground for totalitarian regimes,
which use fear and violence
to increase isolation
and make it dangerous to publicly engage
as freethinking political agents.
In this lonely state,
participating in the regime
becomes the only way to recover
a sense of identity and community.
Arendt believed it was this
kind of environment
where Eichmann committed his crimes.
Most people expected
the Jewish German philosopher
to judge the ex-Nazi harshly.
But while she condemned
his monstrous actions,
Arendt saw no evidence that Eichmann
himself was uniquely evil.
She saw him as a distinctly ordinary man
who considered diligent obedience
the highest form of civic duty.
And for Arendt, it was exactly this
ordinariness that was most terrifying.
Her point wasn't just that anyone
could do what Eichmann did,
but that his story suggested
ordinary people
could willingly accept
their societal role—
even when it contributed to genocide.
Arendt called this phenomenon
“the banality of evil,”
and warned that it can emerge whenever
society inhibits our ability to think;
or more specifically,
to question our beliefs and actions
in a self-reflective internal dialogue.
Arendt believed this kind of thinking is
the only way to confront moral problems,
and that our responsibility
to self-reflect is especially important
when independent thought is threatened.
She acknowledged that critical thinking
in oppressive spaces
is a defiant act that requires
personal courage.
But it must be done regardless,
which is why Arendt still held
Eichmann accountable.
This thread runs throughout Arendt's work,
where she continually insisted
that thinking was our greatest weapon
against the threats of modernity.
Namely, a relentless drive for economic
and technological development
which would increase social alienation
and inhibit human freedom.
To foster this essential value,
Arendt believed we need to create
formal and informal forums
that allowed for open conversations
about shaping our collective future.
These might include townhall meetings,
self-governing workplaces,
or student unions.
But whatever shape they take,
what’s most important to Arendt
is that they value open dialogue
and critical self-reflection.
