How Could so Many People Support Hitler
How Could so Many People Support Hitler
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 him 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.
1961年4月11日，阿道夫·艾希曼在耶路撒冷因反人类罪受审。
艾希曼曾是一名纳粹官员，负责组织将150多万欧洲犹太人运往犹太人聚居区和集中营。
他被普遍描述为一个邪恶的主谋，在德国舒适的办公室里策划了种种暴行，许多人急切地想看到这个所谓的“办公桌凶手”为其罪行受审。
但站在证人席上的这个神经质的男人，看起来更像一个乏味的官僚，而不是一个虐待狂杀手。
艾希曼的本性与他的行为之间的差异让许多观众感到不安，但对哲学家汉娜·阿伦特来说，这种矛盾引发了一个令人不安的启示。
阿伦特是一名德国犹太人，1933年她被德国秘密警察短暂监禁后逃离了祖国。
作为一名在法国和后来美国的难民，她致力于理解纳粹政权是如何掌权的，更具体地说，它是如何引发如此多暴行的。
当时的一种普遍观点是，第三帝国是一个历史怪胎：由一战战败后寻求复仇的德国公民支持的极端邪恶领导人的完美风暴。
但阿伦特认为，这种极权主义前所未有的崛起背后的真正情况并非德国所特有。
在整个20世纪50年代，阿伦特发展了一种关于人类状况的理论，将生活分为三个方面：劳动——在其中我们满足物质需求和欲望；工作——在其中我们构建世界的物质和文化基础设施；行动——在其中我们公开表达自己的价值观，以集体塑造我们周围的世界。
正是这最后一个方面，即行动的生活，阿伦特认为在德国和许多其他工业化社会中受到了攻击。
她将现代性视为一个由劳动统治的时代，在这个时代，个人主要在社会世界中出现是为了生产和消费商品及服务，而不是分享想法和塑造社区。
阿伦特认为，这催生了这样的社会和意识形态，在其中个人仅仅因其经济价值而被看待，而不是因其道德和政治能力。
她认为这使人们与邻居和自我意识隔绝。
在她1951年的著作《极权主义的起源》中，阿伦特认为这些情况为极权主义政权提供了肥沃的土壤，极权主义政权利用恐惧和暴力来加剧孤立，并使作为自由思考的政治主体公开参与变得危险。
在这种孤独的状态下，参与政权成为恢复身份感和社区感的唯一途径。
阿伦特认为，正是在这种环境下艾希曼犯下了他的罪行。
大多数人期望这位犹太裔德国哲学家严厉地评判这位前纳粹分子。
但尽管她谴责了他的暴行，阿伦特没有看到证据表明艾希曼本人是独特的邪恶。
她认为他是一个非常普通的人，认为勤奋服从是公民责任的最高形式。
对阿伦特来说，正是这种平凡最令人恐惧。
她的观点不仅仅是任何人都可能做出艾希曼所做的事情，而是他的故事表明普通人可以心甘情愿地接受他们在社会中的角色——即使这导致了种族灭绝。
阿伦特将这种现象称为“恶的平庸性”，并警告说，每当社会抑制我们思考的能力时，或者更具体地说，抑制我们在自我反思的内心对话中质疑自己的信仰和行为的能力时，这种现象就可能出现。
阿伦特认为这种思考是面对道德问题的唯一途径，并且当独立思考受到威胁时，我们进行自我反思的责任尤为重要。
她承认在压迫性环境中的批判性思考是一种需要个人勇气的反抗行为。
但无论如何都必须这样做，这就是为什么阿伦特仍然认为艾希曼负有责任。
这条线索贯穿阿伦特的作品，她在其中不断坚持认为思考是我们对抗现代性威胁的最强大武器。
也就是说，对经济和技术发展的不懈追求会加剧社会疏离并抑制人类自由。
为了培养这种至关重要的价值观，阿伦特认为我们需要创建正式和非正式的论坛，允许就塑造我们的集体未来进行公开对话。
这些可能包括市政厅会议、自治的工作场所或学生会。
但无论它们采取何种形式，对阿伦特来说最重要的是它们重视公开对话和批判性的自我反思。
Vocabulary, Phrases and Sentences
| Word | Chinese Definition | Phonetic Symbol |
|---|---|---|
| stand trial | 受审判 | |
| task | 拍给某人（工作） | |
| ghetto | 贫民窟 | /ˈgɛtoʊz/ |
| concentration camp | 集中营 | |
| mastermind | 策划者 | |
| orchestrate | 策划 | |
| atrocity | 暴行 | |
| cushy | 安逸的 | |
| squeamish | 诚实谨慎的 | /ˈskwiːmɪʃ/ |
| dull | 迟钝的 | |
| bureaucrat | 官僚主义 | |
| sadistic | 虐待狂的 | |
| disparity | 差距 | |
| contradiction | 矛盾 | |
| disturbing revelation | 令人不安的其实 | |
| fled | 逃走 | |
| the third reich | 第三帝国 | |
| defeat | 失败 | |
| totalitarianism | 极权主义 | /toʊˌtæləˈteriənɪzəm/ |
| articulate | 表达 | |
| modernity | 现代性 | |
| fertile ground | 肥沃的土壤 | |
| engage as | 作为 | |
| freethinking | 自由思考 | |
| political agent | 政治代理人 | |
| monstrous | 野兽的 | |
| a distinctly ordinary man | 一个非常普通的人 | |
| obedience | 服从 | |
| societal | 社会的 | |
| genocide | 种族灭绝的 | |
| banality | 平庸 | |
| inhibit | 抑制 | |
| oppressive | 压迫的 | |
| defiant | 挑衅的 | |
| relentless | 坚韧的 | |
| alienation | 疏远 | |
| townhall | 市政厅 | |
| Jerusalem | 耶路撒冷 |