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.