This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: RLG220 - Monday, September 20, 2010 • Hannah Ardent questioned the motives of the trials - this trial was only 16 years after the closing of the death camps - the tone and the way she wrote this book, including the fact that she said that Jews cooperated with the Holocaust, really caused the fresh wounds to deepen- she wrote for the New Yorker magazine - she was accused of self-hate, that was am accusation made of German-Jews when they consider themselves part of the German community - they hated the fact that they were born Jews • how do you respond to the holocaust, when you have on trial a person that is a perpetuator (a nature player), that has to accept personal responsibility - how is this done in a way that makes a rational argument (in a way that we can tell it is correct and incorrect) • two factors in terms of guilt (1) did the person actually do what they are charged with doing (2) did this person violate the law that they are charged with violating (no punishment without a law - you can’t punish someone if they did not violate any law in the books) • she thought the prime minister of Israel was looking for a ‘show trial’ - what is a show trial? trials that we conducted by Joseph Stalin from 1937-38, you put people on a trial that are enemies of the state, and they are convicted once they walk into the court room, there is no way that they will be acquitted - “this is what is going to happen to you, if you are one of our enemies” - when she uses this term, is she implying that the Israelis are doing what Stalin was doing - they don’t care about the guilt of this man, but they want to show what will happen to people who committed war crimes ( after this, many war criminals were happened) - is a show trial really a trial at all?...
View Full Document
- Fall '10