Eichmann, Bureaucracy and the Holocaust by Jonathan Stonehouse Page A
Authors: Jonathan Stonehouse
Ads: Link
technical exercise concerned with performance and standards. Finally, the issue of impersonality and generality will be discussed, with a view to re-examining a number of specific cases involving individuals, whose fate Eichmann seems to have sealed.
This is not to say that other issues are not vital to a full understanding of Eichmann's role. Undoubtedly, a more wide-ranging account would seek to analyse Eichmann from a psychological perspective and account for the nature of totalitarian regimes and role of ideology and propaganda. However, this work's primary concern is Eichmann's position within a bureaucratic organisation, although the influence of ideology will be addressed towards the end of Part One given that the very similar "glorifying myth" forms an integral part of Weber's understanding of the bureaucratic form. Prior to this, however, it seems important to offer an account of Eichmann's life, of how he came to be an S.S. officer, and to situate him within the organisation of which he was a part. In so doing, the intention is to discover the 'real' Eichmann, the extent to which his life and role are consistent with the myth, the credibility of his claim to have merely 'obeyed the law', and to challenge some commonly held beliefs as regards the nature of the S.S. and the Holocaust in general.
Part One:
Representation
and
Reality
"These people referred to me to whitewash themselves. But when such a thing goes on for years and everyone joins in, blaming me for the deeds of all, a legend is created in which exaggeration plays a large part."
-- Adolf Eichmann
I n a sense, the 'truth' about Eichmann was determined even before his infamous trial in Israel during 1961-2. Partly due to his own propensity to boast (a vice which fuelled the stories that emerged from the Nuremberg trials, where Nazis fell over themselves to blame one another), Eichmann was intimately identified with the Final Solution long before his arrest. Indeed, the extent to which his former colleagues attempted to absolve themselves is demonstrated by the fact that he is often referred to as one of the architects of the Final Solution itself. The damning testimony of, inter alios , his former subordinate Dieter Wisliceny, together with that of Auschwitz commandant Rudolph Höss, forms the basis of Eichmann's almost legendary reputation, creating an 'orthodox' historical perspective that remains largely unchallenged even today. Although the intention here is in no way to offer a whitewashed or sanitised version of his involvement or culpability, it does seem important to offer an account of Eichmann's actual documented role, to assess the validity and credibility of this mythical Eichmann within the framework of Weber's conceptualisation of bureaucracy and the bureaucrat. Who, then, is Adolf Eichmann? How is he portrayed? What are the historical "facts"? How can a sociological perspective help distinguish between the representation and the reality?
In a work published only eight years after the war, Frischauer (1953) offers a perspective on Eichmann drawn almost wholly from Wisliceny's testimony. Here, Eichmann is portrayed as a tall, blond, blue-eyed dream of a German, a Palestine-born scholar of Jewish history and literature, fluent in Hebrew, who made such an impression on Himmler that the latter personally appointed him to the Gestapo and remained a close confidant for the duration of the war. Although these factual inaccuracies are now largely recognised, the general tone of Frischauer's account is to be found in many contemporary works, despite the rather less formidable reality presented at the trial. Not least are those exaggerated accounts of his formal powers and alleged 'hypnotic' ability to exert influence over others, be they Jewish leaders or even Himmler himself (Levai cited by Hilberg, 1961, p.529). By way of example, Krausnick (1968, p.101) holds Eichmann responsible for the introduction of Zyklon-B, the poison
This is not to say that other issues are not vital to a full understanding of Eichmann's role. Undoubtedly, a more wide-ranging account would seek to analyse Eichmann from a psychological perspective and account for the nature of totalitarian regimes and role of ideology and propaganda. However, this work's primary concern is Eichmann's position within a bureaucratic organisation, although the influence of ideology will be addressed towards the end of Part One given that the very similar "glorifying myth" forms an integral part of Weber's understanding of the bureaucratic form. Prior to this, however, it seems important to offer an account of Eichmann's life, of how he came to be an S.S. officer, and to situate him within the organisation of which he was a part. In so doing, the intention is to discover the 'real' Eichmann, the extent to which his life and role are consistent with the myth, the credibility of his claim to have merely 'obeyed the law', and to challenge some commonly held beliefs as regards the nature of the S.S. and the Holocaust in general.
Part One:
Representation
and
Reality
"These people referred to me to whitewash themselves. But when such a thing goes on for years and everyone joins in, blaming me for the deeds of all, a legend is created in which exaggeration plays a large part."
-- Adolf Eichmann
I n a sense, the 'truth' about Eichmann was determined even before his infamous trial in Israel during 1961-2. Partly due to his own propensity to boast (a vice which fuelled the stories that emerged from the Nuremberg trials, where Nazis fell over themselves to blame one another), Eichmann was intimately identified with the Final Solution long before his arrest. Indeed, the extent to which his former colleagues attempted to absolve themselves is demonstrated by the fact that he is often referred to as one of the architects of the Final Solution itself. The damning testimony of, inter alios , his former subordinate Dieter Wisliceny, together with that of Auschwitz commandant Rudolph Höss, forms the basis of Eichmann's almost legendary reputation, creating an 'orthodox' historical perspective that remains largely unchallenged even today. Although the intention here is in no way to offer a whitewashed or sanitised version of his involvement or culpability, it does seem important to offer an account of Eichmann's actual documented role, to assess the validity and credibility of this mythical Eichmann within the framework of Weber's conceptualisation of bureaucracy and the bureaucrat. Who, then, is Adolf Eichmann? How is he portrayed? What are the historical "facts"? How can a sociological perspective help distinguish between the representation and the reality?
In a work published only eight years after the war, Frischauer (1953) offers a perspective on Eichmann drawn almost wholly from Wisliceny's testimony. Here, Eichmann is portrayed as a tall, blond, blue-eyed dream of a German, a Palestine-born scholar of Jewish history and literature, fluent in Hebrew, who made such an impression on Himmler that the latter personally appointed him to the Gestapo and remained a close confidant for the duration of the war. Although these factual inaccuracies are now largely recognised, the general tone of Frischauer's account is to be found in many contemporary works, despite the rather less formidable reality presented at the trial. Not least are those exaggerated accounts of his formal powers and alleged 'hypnotic' ability to exert influence over others, be they Jewish leaders or even Himmler himself (Levai cited by Hilberg, 1961, p.529). By way of example, Krausnick (1968, p.101) holds Eichmann responsible for the introduction of Zyklon-B, the poison
Similar Books
