Machiavelli's Permitted Brutality in Contrast to the Methods of Nazi Germany

In Total Domination, Arendt argues that the atrocities of the Nazi concentration camps are neither practical nor justified by the philosophy that cruelty may be necessary to achieve the greatest good. According to Arendt, when utilitarianists like Machiavelli permit a ruler to achieve power and a stable state through any means necessary, they fail to realize what level of cruelty men in power are capable of, or how difficult such cruelty is for the average person to comprehend. It's true that Machiavelli approves and encourages the murder of individuals by the Prince when it is necessary for the greater good. But the Nazis' goal in slaughtering millions of Jews went beyond just maintaining power and stability. They were convinced by brilliant propagandist and absolute madman Adolf Hitler their race could only be freed by the entire elimination of another. Machiavelli embraces fear as a necessary tool, while Hitler created fear to hold both the Jews and his own people in chains.

In The Qualities of the Prince, it is clear that Machiavelli believes fear is crucial for a prince to maintain his power. In fact, this is the main reason he believes brutality may be necessary. He states, "the prince must not worry about the reproach of cruelty when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and loyal." But Machiavelli's views on brutality differ from the Nazis in two key areas. First, he believes that brutality is only to be used to maintain stability and to remove threats and opposition. The Nazis, however, practiced "total terror" even when the Jews no longer posed a threat. Second, Machiavelli believes all men under rule have rights that must not be taken away. He says a prince should keep his hands off the women and property of his subjects. "Men forget more quickly the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony." In other words, a prince for his own sake should sooner take a man's life than his land or wife.

Though controversial, Machiavelli's ideas contain a harsh expediency. They are ultimately meant for the benefit of the prince and his subjects. What drove the Nazis to act as they did at very least defies Machiavellian logic. In no way was the Nazis' plan for Jewish extermination practical. As Arendt mentions, the cost of running the camps diverted supplies and soldiers away from where they were needed on the battlefield. After amassing an enormous army and capturing many primarily Jewish nations in Eastern Europe, the Nazis had little reason to fear the Jews at all. Thus, only the inscrutable inner workings of history's greatest villain can explain the horrors that followed.

Arendt states that "there is a great temptation to explain away the intrinsically incredible by means of liberal rationalizations." Hitler knew that mass murder on the most grandiose and horrific scale would not incite the appropriate outrage. In fact, he openly proclaimed his actions and no one stopped him because no one could believe such incredible, horrific stories to be true. It simply surpassed the typical person's perception of what evil truly could entail. The Nazis believed any act of cruelty was acceptable in accomplishing their goal. And they were capable of it, and proved it. Machiavelli in his essay never addressed the fact that when anything is permitted, anything is possible.

When one ruler has total control over a state, he is free and capable to do whatever is necessary to satisfy his will. Machiavelli is addressing this very power in his essay as he encourages the Prince to freely use it for his good and the good of the state. He sees totalitarianism as an opportunity to bring prosperity, through admittedly harsh means, to both a ruler and his subjects. But Machiavelli fails to realize the possibility that a totalitarian ruler may very well forsake his duty to his land, or develop such a perverse set of ideals that could bring his land to ruin. This is exactly what happened to Nazi Germany under Hitler. The Nazis' use of concentration camps brought no good to themselves or anyone else; there was no way it could have. The idea came from a distorted view of Darwinism and their belief that Jews were an inferior race. To Machiavelli, a ruler's use of brutality was the means to the end. To Hitler, brutality was the end.

Therefore, it is obvious that Machiavelli's views on necessary evil do not accommodate the actions taken by the Nazis. The totalitarian government Machiavelli describes is essentially idealism that considers the weaknesses of men and the necessary means to quell them. The extreme terror and violence of a concentration camp could certainly instill fear into a ruler's subjects, but it is highly unnecessary. If it were possible to use concentration camps to bring order to a society, in the way Machiavelli describes, an arbitrary line between excessive and acceptable brutality would have to be drawn. But Machiavelli in no way condones violence for its own sake as the Nazis did. The question is not whether violence is permitted, but to what end it may be used. Without considering the greatest good for the greatest number, violence is nothing more than animalism, and thus, the first step to chaos and ruin.