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.