Abstract:
Nazi Germany gave the history of human the dark period from their crimes against humanity, the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were murdered. To provide justice for victims after Nazi Germany’s defeat in World War II, Nazi officials were brought to the International Courts of Justice (ICJ), such as the Nuremberg Trials, which lasted from 1945 to 1946, and the Eichmann Trial in 1961. The Eichmann trial provided a fertile ground for the concept called the Banality of Evil developed by Hannah Arendt. The concept shows that one’s inability to think and blind obedience to duty can lead to be part of crimes in a gigantic scale without their evil intention. This paper aims to answer two crucial questions: Does the chosen case of the Nuremberg trials defendant Wilhelm Keitel resemble Eichmann in aspects of attitudes analyzed from their testimony, and does the Banality of Evil concept can explain the case. The result shows that despite the fact that Keitel and Eichmann were different because of their life background and career ambitions, their attitudes were similar as both of them were obedient officials, loyal to their duty, and thought they must prioritize their duty first before the pain of the victims.
