In Episode 17 of Attack on Titan: The Final Season, Part 2 (titled “Judgement”), Armin Arlert wasn’t just talking – he was planting seeds of doubt and hope in the hearts of his comrades. He was, primarily, arguing for a diplomatic solution with the outside world, even in the face of Eren’s genocidal Rumbling.
Understanding Armin’s Stance
Armin’s argument stemmed from his deep understanding of history, gained through his possession of Bertholdt’s memories and his own innate strategic thinking. He recognized that Eren’s path, while seemingly offering immediate safety for Paradis Island, was a scorched-earth policy that would ultimately lead to the island’s destruction in the long run. This episode marked a crucial turning point, forcing other characters to confront the implications of Eren’s actions and consider the possibility of alternatives.
The Core Argument: Diplomacy over Destruction
The crux of Armin’s reasoning was the belief that even with Eren’s immense power, complete annihilation of the outside world was impossible and morally reprehensible. Furthermore, he believed that such an action would only create a cycle of hatred and violence, ensuring that Paradis Island would eventually face retribution, even generations later. He advocated for negotiating with representatives from the remaining nations, offering a chance, however slim, for peaceful coexistence.
The Influence of Bertholdt’s Memories
It’s impossible to separate Armin’s perspective from the memories he inherited when he consumed Bertholdt Hoover and became the Colossal Titan. Bertholdt’s experiences, his guilt over the destruction of Wall Maria, and his understanding of the complexities of the world beyond the walls heavily influenced Armin. He saw the nuanced humanity in the “enemies” that Eren sought to eliminate, making him hesitant to endorse complete genocide.
The Repercussions of Armin’s Speech
Armin’s words didn’t fall on deaf ears. They sowed seeds of doubt and dissent among the Survey Corps, particularly Mikasa and Hange. While many were initially hesitant to betray Eren, Armin’s logic presented a compelling counterpoint to the blind faith in Eren’s destructive path. This internal conflict became a central theme in the subsequent episodes, driving the narrative towards a desperate attempt to stop Eren and find a less violent solution. The episode showcases the internal struggle between loyalty, survival, and morality, a struggle that becomes increasingly difficult as Eren’s actions become more extreme.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Here are some common questions that readers might have about Armin’s position in Episode 17:
Q1: What specific arguments did Armin use to support diplomacy?
Armin argued that complete eradication of humanity outside Paradis was not only impractical but morally wrong. He highlighted the likelihood of a future backlash, even if Eren succeeded in destroying the initial threat. He stressed the importance of understanding the “enemy” and finding common ground, even if it seemed impossible. He also subtly pointed out Eren’s increasing isolation and potential manipulation by forces beyond his control.
Q2: How did Mikasa react to Armin’s speech?
Mikasa’s reaction was complex. While fiercely loyal to Eren, she was visibly troubled by Armin’s argument. Her bond with Eren made it difficult for her to accept the possibility that he was wrong, but Armin’s words planted a seed of doubt that ultimately contributed to her decision to confront Eren. Her internal conflict is palpable throughout the episode.
Q3: Did anyone explicitly support Armin’s position in Episode 17?
While no one overtly supported Armin in that specific moment, Hange showed clear signs of agreement and understanding. She had already expressed reservations about Eren’s plan, and Armin’s speech reinforced her belief in seeking alternative solutions. Her actions in the following episodes confirmed her alignment with Armin’s perspective.
Q4: What was the general mood of the Survey Corps before Armin spoke?
Before Armin’s speech, the Survey Corps was largely united behind Eren’s plan, albeit with underlying anxieties. The desperate situation and the perceived threat from the outside world had created a sense of urgency and resignation to Eren’s methods. Armin’s speech was the first significant challenge to that unified front.
Q5: What long-term consequences did Armin’s speech have on the story?
Armin’s speech was a catalyst for the formation of a coalition dedicated to stopping Eren. It galvanized characters like Mikasa, Hange, Levi, and even former enemies like Reiner and Annie to join forces in an attempt to prevent the complete destruction of humanity. It fundamentally changed the trajectory of the final arc.
Q6: How did Armin’s perspective differ from Eren’s at this point?
Eren believed that the only way to secure the safety of Paradis Island was through the complete elimination of its enemies. He viewed the outside world as inherently hostile and incapable of peaceful coexistence. Armin, on the other hand, held onto the hope of diplomacy and understanding, even in the face of overwhelming odds. This difference in perspective became the central conflict of the final season.
Q7: What role did Zeke play in influencing Eren’s actions?
While not directly addressed in Episode 17, the influence of Zeke Yeager on Eren’s actions is crucial to understanding the context. Zeke’s plan for Eldian euthanasia likely played a significant role in shaping Eren’s initial motivations, although Eren ultimately diverged from Zeke’s specific goals.
Q8: Was Armin’s perspective entirely altruistic, or did he have personal motivations?
While Armin genuinely sought a peaceful solution for the sake of humanity, his desire to see the world described in his grandfather’s book likely played a subconscious role. He longed for exploration and understanding, which were impossible under Eren’s plan. This personal desire, combined with his moral compass, fueled his drive to find a better path.
Q9: How did the memories of the previous Colossal Titan affect Armin’s judgment?
The memories of Bertholdt Hoover deeply impacted Armin’s judgment. He witnessed the human cost of the Titan’s actions and gained a deeper understanding of the motivations and fears of the people beyond the walls. These memories contributed to his reluctance to endorse Eren’s genocidal plan and his conviction that diplomacy was a viable alternative.
Q10: What are some real-world parallels to the situation in Attack on Titan?
The conflict between Paradis Island and the outside world resonates with real-world historical and contemporary conflicts fueled by fear, prejudice, and the pursuit of security. The debate over violence versus diplomacy, and the consequences of both, reflects ongoing discussions about international relations and the ethical dilemmas of warfare.
Q11: Why did Eren choose the path of the Rumbling, knowing the consequences?
Eren’s motivations are complex and multifaceted. While he claimed to be acting in the best interests of Paradis Island, his actions were also driven by a desire to be free from the constraints of fate and to shape the world according to his own will. He was seemingly convinced that there was no other option to protect his people, a conviction that was deeply flawed.
Q12: What ultimately became of Armin’s vision for peaceful coexistence?
While Armin’s initial vision of complete peaceful coexistence was not fully realized, he played a crucial role in negotiating a fragile truce between Paradis Island and the remaining nations. The ending of Attack on Titan is bittersweet, acknowledging the enduring scars of war and the challenges of building a lasting peace, but also highlighting the possibility of progress through understanding and dialogue. The future remained uncertain, but the seeds of hope that Armin planted did eventually bear fruit. The world he eventually helped to build was born out of the ashes of a brutal conflict, demonstrating the power of dialogue and compromise, even in the face of overwhelming adversity.