Who was Eichmann after all?

Book Review of Marina Efimova

Alexander Genis: In a serious American press, a new book dedicated to the personality, the misconceptions and sins of one of the most ominous characters Nazi Germany - Eichmann is now hotly discussing. In addition to the fact that the author introduced new facts and invaluable documents, the book raises an ever -relevant question about the nature of evil and its origins in the bowels of the soul and in society.

The microphone has the leading book review of the American hour Marina Efimova.

Marina Efimova: The German philosopher Bettina Stangnet called her book “Eichmann to Jerusalem” - as a reaction to another book about Eichmann - which was called “The banality of evil. Eichmann in Jerusalem. " She was also written by a German, or rather, a German Jewish - a journalist and the famous political philosopher Hannah Arendt - in the wake of the trial of Eichmann, who took place in Israel in Jerusalem in 1961. The court, as you know, ended with the death sentence, carried out. Otto Adolf Aichman - Obersturmbanfuhrer SS, a man who introduced Himmler in 1944 a report on the destruction in the concentration camps of Eastern Europe, under his, Eichmann, the direct leadership of 4 million Jews, is presented in the book of Hannah Arendt with an insignificant military bureaucrat, thoughtlessly, but kindly fulfilled orders of the authorities.

The very idea of the “banality” of evil, which is not going on by monsters, but ordinary people under the pressure of the villainous ideology, so fascinated in the 60s of readers-intellectuals that many were ready to let Eichmann’s sinister figure and the ominous figure. It is curious that Hannah Arendt received the main impressions that led to such decisive conclusions, during the trial, from Eichmann himself - from his edited and attached memoirs and from his testimony. It was the “honest servant” that he tried to imagine himself to the world public, who followed the process.

And so, after 40 years, Bettina Stangnet, who completely shared the views of Hannah Arendt, looking through the materials that have surfaced in recent years, came across a recording of Eichmann himself, who refuted the moral criteria in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. “I could not believe my eyes,” recalls Stangnet, “reasoning about Kant's philosophy?! .. From the mouth of the“ insignificant bureaucrat ”, which, by definition,“ was not able to think ”?!”.

And the Stangnet decided on a new investigation, starting with the "Argentine notes":

The announcer: “The Argentine notes of Eichmann are 1300 pages of memoirs and notes, as well as the transcriptions of the secret interviews that the Dutch journalist took from him in 1957, also the Nazi, Villem Sassen, who lived after the war, like Eichmann, in Buenos Airos. These materials have long been known to historians, but only in parts, since they were scattered in 30 archives. In the trial in Jerusalem, only excerpts appeared. The significance of his interview with Sassen Eichmann resolutely rejected, calling them "chatter in the bar", and they were not attached to the matter. "

Marina Efimova: Meanwhile, Stangnet, having examined all the archives, found hundreds of previously unknown records and transcripts of conversations, lost in folders and boxes without names. And here is what she discovered:

Announcer: “The circle of Sassen journalist in Buenos Aires was much wider than before historians seemed. Former Nazis organized something like a club, meeting weekly in the house of Sassen. At these meetings, they studied books and articles about the Holocaust, including those that they said, were written by “enemies” - i.e., Jews. The task of the group was to collect materials on a book about the purity of the ideas of National Socialism. They tried to blame all cruelty only on the Gestapo (not on the SS), claimed that Hitler did not know anything, and represented the Holocaust with an exaggeration. They called this "lies about six million."

Marina Efimova: But Eichmann, as it soon became clear, had a completely different goal than his like -minded people - he wanted to establish his place in history. He proudly signed his photos: “Obersturmbanfuhrer SS”, modestly adding retired. What he did during the war, he called "creative work." Once, describing the successful deportation of 400 thousand Hungarian Jews from Budapest to Auschwitz, he called this action a "masterpiece of ingenuity." “No one,” he said, “neither before nor after he managed to do anything like that.” But he was proud not only with his effectiveness. He was proud of his devotion to the German nation. The destruction of people of the mutual, sick and mentally retarded he intended to mechanically “improve” his nation; Slavs, gypsies, dark -skinned people were second -rate people for him; But his attitude towards Jews is something else:

Announcer: “In Eichmann’s records, the recognition of some inferiority of the German nation itself is amazing. He writes, for example: “The desire for self -preservation of the nation is stronger than all the so -called moral requirements. We Germans are dealing with the enemy that surpasses us in intellect. Therefore, the destruction of the Jewish enemy is necessary to fulfill our duty to our blood and our people.”

Marina Efimova: These statements by Eichmann are in no way combined with the confident statement of Hannah Arendt that he "was not able to understand what he was doing." Feeling like a free man in Argentina, Eichman not only confirmed that the terrifying massacres had had places, but also emphasized his decisive role in their performance. He insisted that he was the main engine of “Jewish politics” and that she created to a large extent the mystical fear that surrounded him. That is why he did his job with such zeal, calling him “without a drop of irony,” as Stangnet assures, “deadly hard work”. Stangnet writes:

The announcer: “Eichmann frightened his Argentine like -minded people, once saying:“ If 10 million 300 thousand of these enemies were killed, we could have considered that our duty had fulfilled. ” Seeing the reaction of the audience, Eichmann said: “Is it true. Why will I deny her?” Former Nazis recoiled from Eichmann, but for him their conversations were a good practice that he used in court, giving all their arguments and arguments to defend his subordinate position and naive patriotism. ”

Marina Efimova: The subtitles of Bettina Stangnet’s book are “The unforgettable life of the organizer of mass killings”. And, indeed, the author gives details in the book, sometimes previously unknown, and sometimes known, but shut -up. For example, a shamelessly open correspondence of the 50s between the Nazis who had covered themselves in Argentina, who planned to restore their power in Germany, and their like-minded people among representatives of the Roman Catholic Church. In addition, it became known that since 1952, German intelligence knew about Eichmann, but did nothing - presumably for political reasons. There was even a draft of Eichmann to Chancellor Adenauer, in which he, insisting on his personal innocence, expressed the hope that he could return to Germany and appear before an understanding German court.

It is difficult to say whether Stangman's book “Eichmann to Jerusalem” will change the philosophical attitude to Adolf Eichmann in the West. Stangnet herself writes about this:

Announcer: “Too often, Eichmann himself dissolves in circumstances, against which such a figure appeared like him. Discussions are carried out only about abstract evil and the banality of its manifestations in the everyday life of society; Only about the mechanics of the bureaucracy of the genocide and the riddle of subordination of entire nations with the requirements of inhuman ideologies. ”

Marina Efimova: Do we, Russians, do not know the severity of the pressure of inhuman ideologies! But even under their weight, a person has a free choice: not to become an executioner.