The Banalty of Evil - How Valid is That?

Soundgarden

Banned
According to wikipedia....

"Banality of evil is a phrase coined by Hannah Arendt in the title of her 1963 work Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.[1] Her thesis is that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.
Explaining this phenomenon, Edward S. Herman has emphasized the importance of "normalizing the unthinkable." According to him, "doing terrible things in an organized and systematic way rests on 'normalization.' This is the process whereby ugly, degrading, murderous, and unspeakable acts become routine and are accepted as 'the way things are done."

While it is possible for perfectly normal people to commit heinous acts, some things go beyond following orders(the Nuremberg Defense). There is no way the top ranking nazis could've gotten to where they were without questionable judgement, thuggery, and heartless brutality.

It is possible that they influenced others on their way, but their has to be a limit between blind obedience and pure evil. If Eichmann didn't agree with the Nazi Ethics and just wanted to make a career out of it, he wouldn't have done what he did, especially with the deportations.

Just wondering however if there was any credence to the phrase "Benalty of Evil?" Were there any Nazis he really were just following orders without any questioning?

Your thoughts?
 

Japhy

Banned
I'd say so, Hitler's Willing Executioners and the book it counters Ordinary Men both for all of their arguments back and forth make a clear picture of what it took to partake in the Killings and its not just straitforward evil of the psychopathic or bigoted racist kind. The men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 weren't fanatics, they did it because they viewed killing Jews as their job, and the things they did socially (Men killed Jews because it was a burden, and it would be bad to punish their comrades by making them have to kill more people and thus carry a heavier burden...) show the disturbing face of Banal evil.
 
It comforts people to think that only people with something wrong with them (screwy opinions or a dysfunctional brain) can do Bad Things, but lies can be comforting.

Anyone ever remember the expression "but for the grace of God go I"?
 
It comforts people to think that only people with something wrong with them (screwy opinions or a dysfunctional brain) can do Bad Things, but lies can be comforting.

Anyone ever remember the expression "but for the grace of God go I"?

I've noticed that even in how people talk about criminals and the like. Very rarely do words like "evil" or "wicked" or "sinful" come up. However, you'll hear how they're "crazy", "sick", or "psychotic".

It's not popular to suggest these days, but people can choose to do evil things out of their own accord. I think it is a valid theory.
 
I've noticed that even in how people talk about criminals and the like. Very rarely do words like "evil" or "wicked" or "sinful" come up. However, you'll hear how they're "crazy", "sick", or "psychotic".

It's not popular to suggest these days, but people can choose to do evil things out of their own accord. I think it is a valid theory.

There's that too.

There are legitimate personality disorders (Jeffrey Dahmer comes off as a sociopath to me) and mental problems (the guy who shot Rep. Giffords), but that doesn't mean every criminal--especially every really sicko criminal--has them.

Madoff would be a stereotypical "corporate psychopath"--except he explicitly took on all responsibility for his actions, something psychopaths are known for NOT doing.
 
The Milgram experiments were designed with this exact case in mind, and seem to indicate most people will just do what they're told.

And honestly, "doing terrible things in an organized and systematic way" sounds like war in general to me.
 
It's conforming to think such cruelty is done by 'madmen', 'psychos' et all. That means whoever thinks that considers himself above that. The truth is, common people can do them. Worse, we even have the potential to enjoy the suffering of fellow human beings. Most people don't do it, which is great. But the potential it's still inside everyone of us.
I'd say that even people who consider themselves good, fair and law abiding would have turned nazis had they been born in Germany in the early 1920s
 
It's conforming to think such cruelty is done by 'madmen', 'psychos' et all. That means whoever thinks that considers himself above that. The truth is, common people can do them. Worse, we even have the potential to enjoy the suffering of fellow human beings. Most people don't do it, which is great. But the potential it's still inside everyone of us.

I'd say that even people who consider themselves good, fair and law abiding would have turned nazis had they been born in Germany in the early 1920s

It depends on your defination of Nazi... only 10-15% of the public at the high point in 1942 was actually a member of the party, as for helping the war effort in some way the vast majority of German society was if that is your definition of it.

As for those who were a part or involved in the Final Solution you have to go down to less then 1%.

The thing the Nazis did successfully is they sized up and placed individuals from the military to every other branch in society in roles based in no small part on their moral limits. There is a reason why some German commanders were never sent to the East and some spent most of their time there. There is a reason why one part of the SS was sent to the camps, another to their roaming death squads and another to their military arm.

The Nazis didn't have time to make all of German society or even a majority genocidal Nazis, but they didn't have to by the way they subdivided German society, controlled the media and put a gun to everyones head.
 
Last edited:

Soundgarden

Banned
It depends on your defination of Nazi... only 10-15% of the public at the high point in 1942 was actually a member of the party, as for helping the war effort in some way the vast majority of German society was if that is your definition of it.

As for those who were a part or involved in the Final Solution you have to go down to less then 1%.

The thing the Nazis did successfully is they sized up and placed individuals from the military to every other branch in society in roles based in no small part on their moral limits. There is a reason why some German commanders were never sent to the East and some spent most of their time there. There is a reason why one part of the SS was sent to the camps, another to their roaming death squads and another to their military arm.

The Nazis didn't have time to make all of German society or even a majority genocidal Nazis, but they didn't have to by the way they subdivided German society, controlled the media and put a gun to everyones head.

So you're saying only a tiny percent of them would fit the stereotype of a blood thristy savage? I'm sure alot of them were only Nazis by party affliation, but how many actually knew/shared their homicidal views, even without taking part in the Final Solution?
 
So you're saying only a tiny percent of them would fit the stereotype of a blood thristy savage? I'm sure alot of them were only Nazis by party affliation, but how many actually knew/shared their homicidal views, even without taking part in the Final Solution?

Most people preferred to bury their heads in the sand and prefer that nothing untoward was happening - either by rationalization or by willful ignorance. This, far more than any bloodthirsty savagery, made the Nazi crimes possible.
 
all that is required for evil to triumph ...

Although the origin of the saying appears to be a matter of debate, the warning that "all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" is usually associated with Edmund Burk. And it sadly seems appropriate here. It doesn't take active particpation by the majority to wage genocide or similar atrocities, it just takes a compliant majority. History has plenty of examples of horrific events that we shake our heads at but occurred because the perpetrators found they could get away with it.

And are we any smarter or better? I doubt it. Do people here think they would have taken a stand if they'd been an average German in the 1930s? Or an average Serb in Tuzla, or a Hutu villager in 1994? Time and again, normal, otherwise decent people have tended to close their eyes and hope it all just goes away.
 
Top