Nothing is more characteristic of the totalitarian movements

in general and of the quality of fame of their leaders in

particular than the startling swiftness with which they are
forgotten and the startling ease with which they can be
1
replaced.
During the years before the Second World War erupted, a man named Adolf Hitler rose through
the ranks of the German bureaucracy. He was born to a fairly simple Austrian couple in 1889 in a small
town near the German border. His political career started after the First World War when he joined a
small nationalist party. In 1924, he published his book entitled Mein Kampf (My Struggle), which
eventually became his blue print for the establishment of the Third Reich. In it, Hitler recited his racist
ideals.

People should have been alarmed by then.

Hitlers Mein Kampf contained radical racist-

extremist ideas that would normally have raised the eyebrows of prudent men.

Yet no one even

blinked. Maybe they liked what they read. Maybe they didnt, but they were much too scared to say
anything about it.

After all, Hitlers pronouncements were nationalisticalbeit in a fundamentalist-

extremist kind of way. Had anyone tried to castigate Hitlers pronouncements, that person would have
risked being called a traitor to his country or at the very least un-nationalistic.

In 1933, Hitler set up the Nazi regime in Germany. Mein Kampf was no longer just a book. It
became a reality. Eventually, Hitler was able to declare himself, the Fhrer. That was the beginning of
the nightmare of the Jews. The supreme goal of all totalitarian governments is not only the freely
admitted, long-range ambition to global rule but also the never-admitted and immediately realized
attempt at the total domination of man.

In less than a decade, Hitlers totalitarian regime spread

through Germany like wild-fire.

It really is astonishing how Hitler pulled it (the Genocide of the Jews) off. How could it be
3

possible for them to burn people, children, and for the world to keep silent? Hitler was smart, or mad,
or both. He knew he wouldnt be able to order the Germans to hurt the Jews just like thatespecially
because some of these people were friends. Some of them were each others neighbors.

Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of
totalitarianism itself; the masses have to be won by propaganda. Under
conditions of constitutional government and freedom of opinion, totalitarian
movements struggling for power can use terror to a limited extent only and
share with other parties the necessity of winning adherents and of appearing
1

Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Janovich, 1973), 305.
(Hereinafter Totalitariansim)

Hannah Arendt, Social Science Techniques and the Study of Concentration Camps in Echoes from
the Holocaust eds., Rosenberg and Myers, 372. (Hereinafter Rosenberg and Myers)
3

Elie Wiesel, Night (New York: Bantam Books Inc., 1982), 30. (Hereinafter Elie Wiesel)

plausible to a public which is not yet rigorously isolated from all other sources
4
of information (emphasis supplied).
He came up with propaganda that would turn the Germans against the Jews.
Since totalitarian movements exist in a world which itself is
nontotalitarian; they are forced to resort to what we commonly
regard as propaganda. But such propaganda always makes it
appeal to an external spherebe it the nontotalitarian strata of the
population at home or the nontotalitarian countries abroad. This
external sphere to which totalitarian propaganda makes it appeal
may vary greatly; even after the seizure of power totalitarian
propaganda may address itself to those segments of its own
population whose co-ordination was not followed by sufficient
indoctrination. In this respect, Hitlers speeches to his generals
during the war are veritable models of propaganda, characterized
mainly by monstrous lies with which the Feuhrer entertained his
5
guests in an attempt to win them over.
Propaganda became a necessary instrument in his movement. The people to whom Hitlers
propaganda was for were intelligent people. Hitler had to resort to lies so that his grand scheme of
annihilating the Jews and making the Aryan race rise in the world could materialize.

But, as history

would have it, not everyone believed those lies. There were still people who saw things as they really
were. This may have been due to insufficient indoctrination or it may have been due to the fact that the
members of the non-totalitarian strata that were also targets of his propaganda did not totally buy his
doctrines. This is why there was a German Resistance group, and people like Schindler back then.
Propaganda does not work very well when peoples eyes are open and their minds are alive and
thinking. When people see around themselves whats really going on, it is hard to ignore the possibility
that the propaganda being fed to them was wrong. This is why Hitlers propaganda was a continuing
event. He had to constantly remind his officers that their Aryan race was superior and that everyone
else on the planet was inferior to their race. Also, so as to keep them on track with the task at hand, he
had to continually remind the Nazis that the Jews were the enemy, and that it is a must to annihilate
them from the face of the earth.

Propaganda thus goes hand in hand with ideology, the actual attempt to construct a false
6

world. He brainwashed them into thinking that the Jews were the scum of the Earth. He re-educated
them. He used videos (called film clips then) depicting the Jews as ratspests infesting their country,
taking what was rightfully theirs. The relationship between propaganda and indoctrination usually
depends upon the size of the movements on one hand, and upon outside pressure on the other. The
4

Totalitarianism, 341.

Ibid., 342.

Philip Hansen, Hannah Arendt: Politics, History and Citizenship- Ch. 4 Totalitarianism, 143. (Hereinafter
Philip Hansen)

smaller the movement, the more energy it will expend in mere propaganda; the greater the pressure on
totalitarian regimes from the outside worlda pressure that even behind iron curtains cannot be
ignored entirelythe more actively will totalitarian dictators engage in propaganda.

The Nazi

movement was not only a nationwide movement. It was a movement that Hitler envisioned as one that
would spread to every member of the Aryan race across the globe. It is obvious that Hitler spent a lot
of money on his propaganda. The use of film clips was rare back then since it was quite expensive to
do so, and yet this characterized most of the indoctrination assemblies that were held during those
times.

Hitler sowed fear in the hearts of the Germans. He made them think that the Jews were taking
away what they were entitled to as a right. He told them that the Jews were getting the higher-paying
jobs, owning the large companies, and living in the large houses.

He compared the Jewish race to

almost everything that was considered vile and dirty. He did not sugar coat his words, and yet (or
maybe because of this) people in large masses listened to him.

What was unusual about the whole thing was that the propaganda was so blatant. Hitler did
not just insinuate things. He didnt use euphemisms--for the propaganda of totalitarian movements
8

which precede and accompany totalitarian regimes is invariably as frank as it is mendacious. One
would think that at least a few good men would have raised their voices against such ludicrous
babbling, or at the very least inquired into the state of sanity of Hitler. The good man will necessarily
query any command to murder or effect the murder of an individual or groupmurder means the killing of
9

the innocent. In politics it is not the good man but the citizen who takes part as ruler or as subject.

There must have been a scarcity of good men in those days, because no one stood upin time to save
the world from a madman. A man in his right faculties would have instantly scoffed at Hitlers doctrines.

But the Germans were no longer in their right faculties. Germany was experiencing economic
difficulties back then. A lot of Germans were poor and hungry or in danger of becoming poor and
hungry. Poverty is abject because it puts men under the absolute dictate of their bodies, that is, under
the absolute dictate of necessity as all men know it from their most intimate experience and outside all
10

speculations.

People think that the concentration camps degraded the Jews into animal-like

creatures, but the Germans, as well, were reduced to such. Like dogs in training waiting for their
rewards, the Germans were given orders and if they followed they were given rewards. People who
are poor and hungry are the easiest kind of people to manipulate. They act upon the animal instinct of
7

Totalitarianism, 343.

Philip Hansen, 307.

___. The Public Realm and the Public Self (Ch. 5 Morality and Politics), 133. (Hereinafter Public Realm)

10

Hannah Arendt, On Revolution, (New York: Penguin, 1977), 60. (Hereinafter On Revolution)

survival. Propaganda and terror, the most visible elements of totalitarianism are not just by-products
of totalitarianism; they are central to the very character of it.

11

The anti-semitism cast upon the

population must have been so overwhelming for it to have caused the most atrocious event in the
history of man.

The Second World War opened the eyes of man to the potentials of evil. Never in history has
anything been committed that is as heinous and as tragic as the Genocide of the Jews. Sure, there are
a number of genocides in human history, but none as monstrously committed as that of the Genocide
of the Jews during the Second World War.

The Nazis killed over six million European Jews in the Holocaust. They were not just simply
killed. They were inhumanely and brutally killed. They were very slowly done to have the maximum
impact on the victim. Spiritual destruction became an end in itself, quite apart from the requirements
of mass murder. The death of the soul was aimed at. Everyone hates death, fears death. But only
those, the believers who know the the life after death and the reward after death would be the ones
who will be seeking death.

12

It was to be accomplished by terror and privation, but first of all by a

relentless assault on the survivors sense of purity and worth.

13

Some people thought that they should

have fought back. Its actually easier said than done.

Theirs was a very slow death. This is because the Nazi purpose of the total domination of man
is a long process. It is achieved when the human person, who somehow is always a specific mixture
of spontaneity and being conditioned, has been transformed into a completely conditioned being whose
reactions can be calculated even when he is led to certain death.

14

Hitler knew that before total

domination of the Jews may be attained, he had to be patient and wait. The Nazis had to begin with
the lengthy process of disintegrating the personality of each Jew they wanted to eliminateand there
were millions of these Jews. The process is as follows:

This disintegration of personality is carried through in different stages,

the first being the moment of arbitrary arrest when the judicial person is
being destroyed, not because of the injustice of the arrest but because
the arrest stands in no connection whatsoever with the actions or
opinions of the person. The second stage of destruction concerns the
moral personality and is achieved through the separation of
concentration camps from the rest of the world, a separation which
11

Philip Hansen, 144.

12

Telos, Symposium on Terror, 134.(Hereinafter Telos)

13

Terrence Des Pres, Excremental Assault in Holocaust, Roth and Berenbaum, Eds, 210. (Hereinafter
Terrence Des Pres)

14

Rosenberg and Myers, 372.

makes martyrdom senseless, empty and ridiculous. The last stage is

the destruction of individuality itself and is brought about through the
permanence and institutionalizing of torture. The end result is the
reduction of human beings to the lowest possible denominator of
15
identical reactions.
It started with the little thingsthe prohibition from working in professions related to the arts
and culture, the yellow star sewn on their clothes, the number tattooed on their left arm, depriving them
of their nationality and their right to vote, then the ghettos. Before they even got to Auschwitz or
Treblinka, or the other concentration camps, they were already stripped of their dignity. The Nazis
knew that the Jews were a strong lot; they have, after all, a history of hardships. Their faith was
indefatigable. But, Hitler knew which buttons to press. He knew how to kill in the most effective way.
Jewish deaths were caused in three main ways: (1) through starvation and the diseases that came in its
wake in the ghettos; (2) at the hands of the Einsatzgruppen (murder squads); (3) workings of the death
16

campsthe most preferred method of murder was gas.

Also excremental attack, the physical

inducement of disgust and self-loathing, was a principal weapon.

17

In the concentration camps, the gross-despicable-unthinkable was not only possiblethey

were actually done. The most disgusting and despicable acts were committed against the Jews.
When conditions of filth are enforced, befoulment of the body is experienced as befoulment of the
soul.

18

Their spirits shattered, they walked to their deaths willingly. They longed for death. The fact

that they wanted to die more than they wanted to live was in itself a victory for the Nazis. Each soul
that they crushed was a triumph in their favor. They did not even have to physically kill them.

The

Jews who not only looked different from the members of the Aryan race, also had a different faith.
They were known to be very faithful people. And yet, during this grotesque event in history a number of
them asked, Where is God? Where is He?

19

And because, this question remains unanswered, most

turned their backs on their faith. One can just imagine the intensity of the events back then. For
extremely religious people to turn their backs on the being that they have perpetually believed in, the
events must have been so spirit-shattering.

The discussion topic mentions Primo Levi who tells of a fellow prisoner who wrote do not try to
understand. Arendt argues that to give up making sense of the world is to give up being human. But
what the prisoner might have been saying is that one should accept the trials and tests that God has
15

Ibid.

16

Steven Katz, Technology and Genocide: Technology as a Form of Life, 262-263. (Hereinafter Steven
Katz)
17
Terrence Des Pres, 210.
18

Ibid., 213.

19

Elie Wiesel, 61

given, which is what faith is all about. Primo Levi may be likened to the Biblical Job. Most of the time,
men ask the question, why do bad things happen to good people? Thomas Hobbes wrote that the
20

answer is so that the works of God might be made manifest in him.

The key to understanding is

acceptance. Sometimes the answers do not lie in this lifetime. Man questions God and God answers.
But we dont understand His answers. We cant understand them. Because they come from the depths
of the soul, and they stay there until death. You will find the true answers only within yourself.

21

However, Arendts point cannot be ignored. When the Jews gave up on life in the concentration camps,
they were, as most authors described them reduced to animal-like existence. It was as if they were
walking zombies. They worked everyday, not even caring that they might not live till the next day. In fact,
most of them wished that they didnt. The atrocities that happened to them made them almost
inanimatelike they were no longer humans. In fact, they were a lot like worker ants who just worked
and worked. But, they were actually worse, because the ants at least still had the instinct for survival.
Most of the Jews no longer wanted to live.

For some of the survivors of the Holocaust, the worst thing that the Nazis did was to let them
survive. Even the survivors seem dead. Their souls no longer seemed to care how they survived.
After the war, the survivors were reduced to animal-like existence. In Night, Elie Wiesel recounts, Our
first act as free men was to throw ourselves onto the provisions. We thought only of that. Not of
revenge, not of our families. Nothing but bread.

22

The primary Nazi actors in the Genocide of the Jews could have been just pawns of Hitler in his
mad game. But they were men. They had to have known the difference between right and wrong.
They must have had an inkling that what they did was despicable and completely horrific. How is it
possible that full-grown, intelligent men would blindingly follow extremely unreasonable orders from a
madman? Hannah Arendt explains this phenomenon by stressing the idea of a political and public self
contradistinguished from a private self.

She, in fact, has a chapter entitled The Public and Private Realm in one of her great
masterpieces, The Human Condition. In it, she seems to have a higher regard towards the public self
in the public realm than the private self in the private realm. This is evidenced by the meaning that she
associates with the private realm:
To live an entirely private life means above all to be deprived of things
essential to a truly human life: to be deprived of the reality that comes
from being seen and heard by others, to be deprived of an objective
20

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1958), 280.

21

Elie Wiesel., 2.

22

Ibid., 109.

relationship with them that comes from being related to and separated
from them through the intermediary of a common world of things, to be
deprived of the possibility of achieving something more permanent than
life itself. The privation of privacy lies in the absence of others; as far
as they are concerned, private man does not appear, and therefore it is
as though he did not exist. Whatever he does remains without
significance and consequence to others, and what matters to him is
23
without interest to other people (emphasis supplied).
On the other hand, Arendt associates the public realm with two closely interrelated but not
altogether identical phenomena: first, that everything that appears in public can be seen and heard by
others as well as by ourselves and has the widest possible publicityJsecond, the term public signifies
the world itself, insofar as it is common to all of us and distinguished from our privately owned place in
it.

24

Also, for Arendt:

From her public and external point of view, a vigorous

attachment to Kantian and classical morality is not only incompatible
with, but destructive of, freedom and action and therefore of the
public realm and the public self. In either version, this is the internal
morality of man in the singular:, it is the ideal of man preoccupied
with saving his soul. Such a man can never be concerned with
25
politics as intrinsically worthy in itself.
The distinction made by Arendt is important, because it seems that what shes saying is that
conventional morality has no place in her public realm.

26

A person acting in the public realm should

only show his public self. His private self should in no way affect the actions of his public self. The
private self should not even have an influence on the decisions of his public self. This is because in the
private realm is where ones conscience resides. Contrary to such a nature, goodnessJ is not only
impossible within the confines of the public realm, it is even destructive of it.

27

Also, the public realm is

where the public self is exhibited. The world of politics is a public realm wherein the public self
operates. In politics the appeal to conscience cannot be accepted as justifiable ground for refusal to
obey orders, simply because the claims of conscience can be as varied and subjective as the number of
individuals in society.

28

Furthermore, in politics, it is a disadvantage to let morals affect the actions and

decisions one makes. Verily, Arendt is intent on severing the established link between conventional
morality and politics because she believes such morality to be fatally dangerous to human beings,
23

Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 58.(Hereinafter
Human Condition)

24

Ibid., 50-51.

25

Public Realm, 114.

26

Ibid., 115-116.

27

The Human Condition, 77.

28

Public Realm, 133.

especially in times of crises.

29

She is implying that the public realm be devoid of any personal

sentiments that may affect the rational decision-making process that is required in politics. The author
of the article, The Public Realm and the Public Self discusses Arendts views on three personalities,
namely Billy Budd, Robespierre and General Adolf Eichmann. The author of the said article argues
that:
J the capacity to commit evil is intimately related to the nature of
shared public life, that is, to politics in the ancient sense. Public life
characterized by an excessive and almost exclusive concern for the
private self and its interests is a precondition of evil: it is a
necessary though not a sufficient condition. Such public life is, in
substance, private family life carried on in and through the public
30
realm.
If and when a person in the public realm lets a bit of his private self influence his public self, then
the very likely result would be that such a person would be more inclined to commit evil acts. This is
because the private selfs interests could most probably clash with the interests of the public which ones
public self needs to address. She thus maintains that the famous reference to the pursuit of happiness
by no means simply meant that each citizen was to be free to pursue his/ her own private happiness. 31
Mans personal interests, if allowed to interfere with the workings of the public self may indeed inspire a
man to give his best in accomplishing an endeavor. Self-interest is without a doubt a legitimate motive
for human actionJ not until the advent of the modern age did the doctrine of self-interest in its own right
receive a philosophical defense and justification as it did in the theory of Thomas Hobbes

32

Arendt,

along with Hobbes recognizes this as a fact. This is why she believes that the private self and the public
self should be mutually exclusive. Self-interest is too strong a motivator. While it may cause a person
act, it may also cause a person to not think about the effects of ones acts on others. Self-interests are
usually completely focused on ones self. There are no others in self-interests.

The author of the said article further mentions that such an argument is implied by Arendt in her
analysis of Eichmann. Arendt depicts Eichmann within her explanation on the public self. Eichmann did
what he did, because that was exactly what he was ordered to do. He didnt question the rightness or the
wrongness of the orders, he just did everything that they told him to do. It seems that he was a perfect
soldierone who obeyed his commands with swiftness and efficiency. He did not question the decisions
of his superiors. He understood the hierarchy of the army for which he was a part of. He gave no

29

Ibid., 116.

30

Ibid., 127.

31

Helmut Dubiel, Hannah Arendt and the Theory of Democracy: A Critical Reconstruction, 24.
(Hereinafter Helmut Dubiel)

32

Public Realm, p. 130.

thought to the moral consequences of the appalling acts that his superiors ordered him to do. In politics
33

obedience and support are the same.

This Arendt explains, is because conscience is a private

matter. In the public realm, reactions normally associated with the private self, like being bothered by
ones conscience, should be unwelcome. The private self and the public self should have a definite
delineation. Also, such should be mutually exclusive of one another.

While that may seem contradictory to the argument of the author (of public) earlier, that if a
person in the public realm lets a bit of his private self influence his public self, then the result would be
that such a person would be more inclined to commit evil acts. The Eichmann example may seem
contradictory to it, because Eichmann did not let his conscience affect the execution of his orders, and yet
evil was not prevented, but it really is not contradictory. It was not Eichmanns conscience per se which
failed him, it was the conscience of the good and respectable society around himJ This collective fault of
34

conscience points to a political problem of the first order.

Interestingly, in the said article it seems that she was excusing Adolf Eichmann for the
atrocities that he helped commit against humanity during the Second World War. But in the end, she
did not let him completely off the hook. Arendt rightly says that when the normal world has fallen apart,
we still have the right to expect the individual to think for himself and freely resist evil against all odds.

35

After everything that has been said, Arendt still believes that every person is an individual. Every
man has been given the free will and the faculties to ultimately make the right decisions. In the end, each
person has a choice, and it is up to that person to choose between good and evil. It may not look like the
hardest choice to make, but its not the easiest one either. Despite her pronouncements on the nature of
man, and man in politics, she has faith in the good in a person. She believes that there must be a
perfectly logical explanation that would make clear how such evilness could be possible.

The complete absence of even rudimentary regret on the side of the

persecutors, on the other side, after the close of the war when some
gesture of self-accusation might have been helpful in court, together
with the ever-repeated assurances that responsibility for the crimes
rested with some superior authorities, seem to indicate that fear of
responsibility is not only stronger than conscience but even stronger,
36
under certain circumstances, than fear of death.

33

Ibid., p. 137.

34

Ibid., p. 134.

35

Ibid., p. 137.

36

Rosenberg and Myers, 374.

Arendt, like most of the victims of the Holocaust, was a Jew. Her pronouncements on the public
and private self may have been a way of rationalizing the evils that she and her people have suffered at
the hands of the Nazis. Rationalizing makes things easier to accept. If there was an explanation for all
the madness that happened, it would be easier to accept. Sometimes however inane the explanation
may be, it helps ease the pain. It is easier to forgive, if there is even a remote possibility that the person
youre angry at is not completely to blame. This may be the reason why shes optimistic for the future.

Arendt believes that the possibility of human action and thus human decency is renewed with
the birth of every child.37 But the birth of every child is not the only thing that can make possible
human action and human decency. Awareness is the key. Parents should teach their children history.
They should teach them values. They should develop in their children critical-thinking, so that they may
grow up to know what is good and to choose what is good. The birth of a child would mean nothing if
the child never grows up to know the difference between what is right and wrong, love and hate, and
good and bad. Their parents need to teach them these things at the earliest age possible. Every
parent is duty-bound to teach their children the basic rudiments of morality.

Also, it is not enough to teach just one child, or only ones children. A parent should make it
his/her duty to parent other kids, especially those who hang-out with his/her children. Their peers are
more often than not more influential than their parents or any other person in their environment.
Each person should see to it that each kid goes through the straight path. As Hillary Clinton would
say, it takes a village. It takes cooperation to make a phenomenon this big work. A parent is not the
only one parenting his/her child. The whole world is the childs parent. A child does not learn things
only from his parents. He learns from everything he sees around him. Each person has the power to
mold another. Each person can change the person beside him. The power comes into being only if
and when men join themselves together for the purpose of action and it will disappear when, for whatever
38

reason, they disperse and desert one another.

Cooperation is universally-recognized as a

strengthening implement. Cooperation may be a clich, and for others it may be a little hackneyed and
over-used. But, the value of cooperation in mans quest for peace cannot be over-stressed. Peace
cannot be attained through one persons effort only. Each individual must unite with one another to make
steps towards mankinds attainment for peace. Such a goal may seem impossible to achieve at this point
in time. But men should not be discouraged with the current peace and order situation (or the lack of it) in
the international community. One should always have a tinge of hope for mankind.

Changing the world into the one that Hannah Arendt envisions with hope may need a revolution
to happena 360 degree turn from this war-riddled, discrimination-infested international community that
37

Discussion Topic on Arendt given by Fr. Luis David, S.J.

38

On Revolution, 175.

mankind is living in. Teaching every new born child all about goodness is a step, but it is not the only
step that man must make towards a peaceful world. Change should come from within. Children copy
what they see from adults. Children could only learn so much theories. What is in practice is what is more
important, because this is what they actually see. This has more impact on them.

It is actually possible to create a future for all of mankind that is bright and peaceful. If people
build a future not on forgiveness but on past wrongs, there will be no hope of a peace that can embrace
religious pluralism.

39

A peace that does not embrace religious pluralism, is not real peace. If people

refuse to accept the fact that there exists among men differencesin beliefs, religion, ideology, etc.
then peace is impossible. In fact, culture war rests at the core of 9.11.01.

40

Men will always

differences among them. The earlier men recognize these differences, the earlier it is for them to
understand one another. Recognition is the first step to acceptance. Each person should recognize
the divergence of culture that exists among men, because after recognition comes acceptance. When
each one is able to accept whole-heartedly this fact, then peace is not far behind.

Understanding the whats, the hows and the whys of the Holocaust is essential, if men are to
prevent its recurrence. When people make the effort to try to begin to understand the phenomenon of
the Holocaust, then it is a sign that people still desire peace. Men will not learn to recognize the
differences between each others culturewhich is necessary for peace, until men fully desire peace
for one another. The stories from the Holocaust are important not only because they are part of mans
history, but also because we need to make an effort to know the pain of the victims of the Holocaust so
that we may understand what it is like to be in their shoes even for just a while. It is the only way that
we can even begin to understand the destruction that the Holocaust caused. Because when other
people finally begin to understand their pain, its the only time we will be able to teach other people
(especially children) effectively about the consequences of evil on the world. Well never know what it
was like for them until it happens to us, but we cannot wait for that to take place. What we can do is to
empathize and sympathize with their plight now. They have known hatred. They have seen its face.
They have felt its wrath. People should listen to their stories and learn from them. And then realize that
it wasnt supposed to happen then, and it never has to happen again.

People should not forget the Second World War or any other war for that matter.
because a man should use the past to think about the possibilities of the present.

39

Discussion Topic on Arendt given by Fr. Luis David, SJ

40

Telos, 137.

41

41

This is

History is a

James Miller, The Pathos of Novelty: Hannah Arendts Image of Freedom in the Modern World in
Hannah Arendt: The Recovery of the Public World, Melvyn Hill ed. (New York: St. Martins Press,__ ),
203.

teacheroften ignored by people when making decisions. This may be why it is often said that the only
thing men ever learn from history is that men never learn. We cannot afford to not learn anymore.

These times are not like what they used to. In the past, the only weapons men had could kill only
a several hundred. But with the advent of the nuclear age during the Second World War, the
development of weapons which has a similar death toll that an atomic bomb may meet is growing in
number. Unfortunately for mankind, the war freak countries have the monopoly on the research and
development of such weapons.

A new term has actually been born in the world of warfare: weapons of

mass destruction. They are no longer just nuclear in nature; there are also chemical and biological
weaponswhich are more far-reaching and can kill more people much faster.

We should not forget, but we should forgive. Alexander Pope once said, to err is human, to
forgive divine. Its difficult to forgive, because we cannot forget. Unfortunately for most people, life does
not come with a selective memory. But, people do not have to forget. They just have to forgive. If
people forget, its like they didnt really forgive. This is because forgiving is about knowingly accepting
another persons faults, shortcomings and mistakes. Forgiving is necessary in order to make possible
for life to go on by constantly releasing men from what they have done unknowingly. Only through this
constant mutual release from what they do can men remain free agents, only by constant willingness to
change their minds and start again can they be trusted with so great a power as that to begin something
new.

42

Until one forgives, he will be holding on to all the pain and hurt and anger that he felt starting

from the day that he was wronged. If he does not let go of all that hurt, the next time he feels pain again,
it would no longer be because of the person who did him wrong. It would be his fault. The pain would be
because he would not let go. Sometimes people find it hard to forgive others for fear of seeming like they
tolerated other peoples wrongdoings. But people need to understand that what other people think should
not be the basis for their actions. What they feel they should do must be the basis for doing something.
The alternative to forgiveness, but by no means its opposite, is punishment, and both have in common
that they attempt to put an end to something that without interference could go on endlessly.

43

While

punishment is an option, it is not favored. This is because such could be a basis for revenge and defeat
the purpose of putting an end to a sour situation.

After forgiveness comes the promisesusually its a promise that the bad things will never
happen again. Promises are necessary for new action, for making secure a future which is by its nature
unpredictable, though because we cannot foresee the effects of our actions promises must be made and
44

remade.

People need to fully understand why promises have to be made. Promises have to be made

42

Human Condition, 240.

43

Ibid., 241.

44

Discussion topic on Arendt from Father Luis David, SJ.

because too many people have sacrificed their lives in wars all over mans history. Mankind must honor
their deaths, not by taking up arms again and continue fighting for the cause that they fought for. We can
honor their deaths by saying its over, because it should be over. Before we decide to do an act which
may endanger not only ourselves, but the lives of other people as well, we should commit to memory the
question, How many deaths will it take for us to realize that too many people have died for causes that
the dead may not have thought to be worth their lives?

It is not enough that we make these promises to each other. What is more important is that we
actually honor the promises that we make with each other.

The future will always be filled with uncertainty. That is a given. No one really knows what will
happen in the future. But most people already know what they want to happen. They want peace to
overcome this era of turmoil and chaos in the history of man. Men will only be able to do that by making
promisesby reassuring other men that they wouldnt do anything that will cause danger to their social
environment. The promises that each one makes with another is a promise in itself that the future might
not be so bleak after all.

Hannah Arendt envisioned a future completely different from her past. She hoped for a future
where the Holocaust was impossible, where genocide would be taboo, and where forgiveness prevailed.
Some may say that she is unrealistically optimistic. But optimism is exactly that. Optimism makes you
think that ultimately the good prevails over evil.

There should not be such a thing as killing without guilt

especially not mass killings without guilt. When people kill without
remorse, we call them insane. We call them maniacs, serial
45
murderers.

45

Lance Morrow, A Moment of the Dead, TIME Magazine, April 1, 1991 at p. 82.