Customer Reviews

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil

5 star:		(32)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I first read this book 20+ years ago in my senior year of college, in a political theory seminar on Arendt, and have re-read it from time to time ever since. The seminar professor offered a keg of beer to anyone who could find the phrase "banality of evil" in the text of the book (NOT the cover, in Arendt's text). No one won the keg because Arendt NEVER USES the phrase banality of evil anywhere in the book, and she was NOT saying evil is banal. What she was trying to drive at is that you don't need a raver like Hitler, or an obvious monster with long fangs, to do evil -- that ordinary people, the kind you live next door to or pass on the street every day without a second thought -- can do tremendous evil. it's a conclusion that I agree with in my brain but still grapple with emotionally.

I'm also grateful to her because this book is the first place where she recounted the story of the Danish Jews, who were protected by just about the entire population of Denmark when the Nazis tried to round them up.

Before there was the O.J. Simpson double homicide trial there was the Eichmann trial. Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil provides insight into one of the most publicized "show trials" ever. After the Nuremberg trial hundreds of Nazis were still in hiding or had taken assumed identities outside of Europe. Adolph Eichmann was one of these individuals. The Israeli Mossad kidnapped him and brought him back to Israel to stand trial for "crimes against humanity" for his role in the Holocaust. Eichmann was abducted in Argentina where he was struggling with his anonymity. Eichmann hated losing his identity as a powerful Nazi. After being kidnapped, but before being flown to Israel Eichmann was asked to consent to being brought up on charges against humanity, which he did. Eichmann may have had a difficult time living without his former social standing and identity.

Arendt's book is a landmark in the workings of the Nazi machine that tortured, raped, and killed over 11 million Europeans for their religion, sexual orientation, political ideas, and nationality. However, the Eichmann trial centers more on the role Eichmann had in the "Final Solution" to the Jewish Question. Eichmann was charged with being a key player in the destruction and eradication of European Jewry.

The book and Arendt's theory regarding "the banality of evil" has created controversy since its inception in 1963. In 1963 Arendt was sent to Jerusalem to follow the Eichmann trial for The New Yorker. She published a series of articles over the course of the trial. It is often remarked by critics of the book that Arendt was not present for even half of the trial, yet the book is considered one of the principal books on the trial, if not the primary.

Arendt's basic theory is that Eichmann was a moral eunuch. He was a cog, in a large killing machine that never contemplated his role or developed a conscious to answer questions for himself. He simply followed orders and happened to have an instrumental job in the destruction of world Jewry. Arendt argues that even if Eichmann had not had the job there were hundreds of other German Nazis that would have fulfilled the obligations of his job without a conscience. Throughout the book Arendt patronizes Eichmann as a man incapable of his own thoughts; so prone to using clichés inappropriately, repeating himself, contradicting his previous statements, and utterly incompetent of original thought or judgment. Arendt portrays Eichmann as an automaton only interested in advancing his own career. Arendt does not even fault Eichmann for completing his job, because she thought he was simply following the orders that were given to him.

This was one of the three major controversies that arose with the printing of Arendt's insight on the trial. Arendt also heavily criticized David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minster of Israel, the chief Prosecutor Gideon Hausner, and the European Jewish community.

Arendt believed that the Jewish Community in Europe had meticulous organizational abilities and was instrumental in the destruction of European Jewry. The organizations that the Jews created were able to document and provide comprehensive statistics and efficiency in rounding up Jews and aiding the Nazis. Arendt believed the Jewish bureaucracy was impeccable in its carrying out of these duties. This argument of Arendt's is flawed for a number of reasons. If the Jewish communal leaders assigned these tasks did not fulfill them then other Jews may have, and if not them, then other European citizens might have, which does not completely discredit Arendt. But the fact that does debunk Arendt's theory, that is often described as "blaming the victims not the criminals," is the fact that the Russian Jews were systematically murdered and killed much the same way as much of Central and Eastern Europe's Jews were. What stands to reason is there were no Jewish organizations to augment the efficiency of the Nazis in Russia. The Nazis were able to comprehend this task without the help of any Jewish bureaucracy. The Jewish organizations could not have been much more helpful to the Jews of Europe, Arendt really overplays this theory. Jews were not leading their brethren to their funerals, or simply following orders like Eichmann and other cogs, but were probably trying to alleviate Jewish suffering.

Arendt's criticism of Ben-Gurion's treatment of the trial is precise. There were journalists from all over the world hanging on each and every word of the trial; it was truly a "show trial." Even though Arendt would probably agree that Eichmann was a cog and an automaton, Israel's Premier was able to gain great publicity for the trial.

Throughout the course of the book Arendt restates the arguments made against Eichmann by the prosecution, when they are adequate she leaves them as is. However, when the arguments fall short of Arendt's standards she takes the liberty of showing the flaw of the procedure, the argument, and its role in the trial. At most points this commentary is a necessity, but at others Arendt seems to be showing her mental muscle and belittling the prosecution.

These are the major reasons Arendt's work was poorly received in Israel. Her criticism of European Jewry's role in the Holocaust is rather short-sighted, but her indictment of the prosecutors and Ben-Gurion is profound.

Eichmann in Jerusalem is a classic in the study of human nature, totalitarian politics, and political theory, deservingly. The book has its flaws, but the insightful commentary on one's man adventure inside the totalitarian Nazi destructing machine is a true tour de force.

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt is one of the most disturbing books that I have read in a long while. Along with Gita Sereny's interviews with Stangle and Speer, they demonstrate the true horror of the Third Reich. This horror is not the inherent evil of Hitler or Himmler or the sadistic camp guards. The holocaust presented these already morally bankrupt men with the opportunity to commit the evil which their consciences allowed. Of greater horror are the individuals, such as Eichmann, who were not evil per se, but who were willing to put conscience aside in order to advance within an evil system.

As Arendt moves through the holocaust in the different countries in Western Europe and the Balkans, it becomes evident that the difference in degrees of the destruction of Jewry was not defined by the presence of potentially evil wrongdoers, but by the existence of individuals who would not put their conscience aside in order to further short-term goals. The contrast between the destruction of German Jews and the survival of the Jews of Bulgaria and Denmark can be directly traced to a commitment by the Bulgarians and Danes to save their fellow countrymen. The German Jews did not survive as the Danish and Bulgarian Jews did because Germany lacked such men of conscience.

It is easier to think of the chief architects and perpetrators of the attempted destruction of a whole people as madmen, the madder the better. Their acts can be rightfully condemned, but also understood, as evil things done by evil people. Furthermore, if the holocaust can be blamed on the acts of evil madmen, then it is also easier to believe that it could not have been prevented. Arendt destroys each of these rationalizations and raises questions that frankly kept me up at night. If, as she demonstrates, the success of the holocaust was determined by those who put their consciences aside, then it also seems agonizingly true that the deaths of six million were not predetermined. Had more people acted on their consciences, perhaps those deaths need not have been integral to the Nazi conquest of Europe.

The fact that she does not treat Eichmann as a mad sadist, and instead explains why the prosecutions portrayal of him was incorrect, does not mean that Arendt is an apologist for Eichmann - far from it. Unlike Hitler, Eichmann was under no illusion that the Jews were responsible for all of the world's problems. His prior relations with Jews had been friendly. However, he was willing able to put this aside and play a vital role in the Final Solution. His excuse was that he was ordered to do so. But the reality was that he was more worried about his failure to get the promotions that he believed he deserved. This made Eichmann, like most of the perpetrators of the holocaust, the paradigm of the "banality of evil." However, such a rational led Arendt not to condemn the Jerusalem Court's death verdict but to condone it.

Arendt does an amazing job of delving into the mind of Eichmann as well as the reasons why the Final Solution was successful in some countries and not others. This is not a book for one who desires light reading. However, if one is seeking to understand the Final Solution, then this book is a must.

I am astonished by the comments Amazon.com includes under *Eichmann in Jerusalem*: to characterize Arendt's book as a "defense" of Eichmann is either a deliberate falsehood or a comment written by someone who has never read the book. I assume the comment was written on the basis of Michael Musmanno's incompetent review of *Eichmann* for the *New York Times*. Musmanno's review blatantly misrepresented Arendt's work, and I would expect Amazon.com to be able to do better. Far from "defending" Eichmann, Arendt portrays him as a willing participant in mass murder, and, in her Epilogue, she strongly agrees with the death sentence that he received. The myth of Arendt's "defense" of Eichmann is a result of her belief that Eichmann was motivated more by immersion in the totalitarian "system" of Nazi Germany than by hatred of Jews. In no way does she excuse him or the Germans, and, indeed, she argues that complicity in the Holocaust was ubiquitous in Germany. Her thesis is certainly open to debate, but to suggest that this brave and decent thinker sought for a moment to defend Eichmann or the Nazis is outrageous. Her book remains one of the most thought-provoking studies of the perpetrators of the Holocaust ever written.

Jewish author Hannah Arendt has provided a wealth of information that goes far beyond the trial of the German war criminal Adolf Eichmann. This review focuses primarily on matters that have scarcely been discussed in previous reviews, it at all.

Arendt (p. 39) gives the readers a taste of the scale of the Kristallnacht (November 1938): 7,500 Jewish shop windows broken, all synagogues burned, and 20,000 Jewish men incarcerated in concentration camps. In common with many others who wrote during the first two decades after WWII, Arendt (p. 5, 11-12) addresses the issue of Jewish passivity in the face of death during the later roundups and transports to the death camps.

Arendt briefly discusses the fate of Jews of some individual European nations. She mentions the conniving of the Bulgarians (with, of course, the implied freedom to do so) performed in order to avoid sending their Jews to the death camps, and the fact that Finland, Germany's ally, was never seriously pressured to turn over her 2,000 Jews to be murdered (p. 170). Clearly, the latter part of the oft-repeated statement, "Not all of the victims of the Nazis were Jews, but all Jews were victims of the Nazis" is incorrect.

Throughout this work, Arendt gives various biographical details of Adolf Eichmann. For example, she mentions that he was a Gottglaubiger (p. 27), a Nazi term for those who had broken with Christianity, and which Eichmann maintained right up to the very moment of his hanging, having refused the solace and Bible reading of a Protestant minister (p. 252).

Arendt briefly discusses Hitler's flouting of the Versailles treaty and his rise to power. While Jan Thomas Gross has asserted that there were Poles who praised Hitler in the 1930's, Arendt makes it clear that this was far from limited to Poland during that time: "...Hitler was admired everywhere as a great national statesman." (p. 37).

While most Holocaust materials focus on the real or imagined collaboration of locals in the sending of Jews to their deaths, Arendt is unsparing in her criticism of Jewish collaborators in this regard: "Without Jewish help in administrative and police work--the final roundup of Jews in Berlin was, as I have mentioned, done entirely by Jewish police--there would have been either complete chaos or an impossibly severe drain on German manpower. (p. 117). She adds that, because of this collaboration, only a few thousand Germans, most of whom furthermore only did office work, were able to send hundreds of thousands of Jews to their deaths (p. 117). Finally, Arendt concludes that: "Wherever Jews lived, there were recognized Jewish leaders, and this leadership, almost without exception, cooperated in one way or another, for one reason or another, with the Nazis. The whole truth was that if the Jewish people had been unorganized and leaderless, there would have been chaos and plenty of misery but the total number of victims would hardly have been between four and a half and six million. (According to Freudiger's calculations about half of them could have saved themselves if they had not followed the instructions of the Jewish councils..." (p. 125).

Arendt (p. 42, 118, etc.) elaborates on the actions of a Jew, Rudolf Kastner. He made a deal with Eichmann in which 1,684 Jews were allowed to go to Palestine in exchange for Kastner's silence before and during which 476,000 Hungarian Jews were sent to the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

Jan Thomas Gross, who has gotten a great deal of publicity for his books (NEIGHBORS and FEAR), has stated that the 2-3 million Poles who died in the hands of the Germans were primarily the collateral victims of military action. Arendt knows better: "...Eichmann knew that right behind the front lines all Russian functionaries ("Communists"), all Polish members of the professional classes, and all native Jews were being killed in mass shootings." (p. 95). "At no point, however, either in the proceedings or the judgment, did the Jerusalem trial mention even the possibility that extermination of whole ethnic groups--the Jews, or the Poles, or the Gypsies--might be more than a crime against the Jewish or the Polish or the Gypsy people, that the international order, and mankind in its entirety, might have been grievously hurt and endangered." (pp. 275-276). Arendt realizes the alternative future: "The measures against Eastern Jews were not only the result of anti-Semitism, they were part and parcel of an all-embracing demographic policy, in the course of which, had the Germans won the war, the Poles would have suffered the same fate as the Jews--genocide. This is no mere conjecture: the Poles in Germany were already being forced to wear a distinguishing badge in which the "P" replaced the Jewish star, and this, which we have seen, was always the first measure to be taken by the police in instituting the process of destruction)." (pp. 217-218).

Arendt praises the Danes for saving Jews during WWII and then, without mentioning the incomparably more difficult conditions under which Polish rescuers of Jews labored, nevertheless gives the Poles their due. After listing some individual examples of Polish assistance to Jews, Arendt adds the following: "One witness claimed that the Polish underground had supplied many Jews with weapons and had saved thousands of Jewish children by placing them with Polish families. The risks were prohibitive; there was the story of an entire Polish family who had been executed in the most brutal manner because they had adopted a six-year-old Jewish girl." (p. 231).

This book contained an incredible mix of philosophy, journalism, sociology and psychology. How many writers would have had the skill, let alone the knowledge to pull off a work like this...not many. Regarding its content, the book almost requires its reader to prepare to read it by reading philosophy and history beforehand. I don't know that one could truly appreciate the book without having done that. A couple of the more memorable segments of the book are when Eichmann tries to invoke the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant to justify his actions and those of his comrades and when (on more than one occasion) Arendt poses the haunting question of how the jews could have let themselves be led off to their deaths like lambs to the slaughter. This book warrants more than being read once; multiple readings would be worth the time and effort.

Trial of the Century

Before there was the O.J. Simpson double homicide trial there was the Eichmann trial. Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil provides insight into one of the most publicized "show trials" ever. After the Nuremberg trial hundreds of Nazis were still in hiding or had taken assumed identities outside of Europe. Adolph Eichmann was one of these individuals. The Israeli Mossad kidnapped him and brought him back to Israel to stand trial for "crimes against humanity" for his role in the Holocaust. Eichmann was abducted in Argentina where he was struggling with his anonymity. Eichmann hated losing his identity as a powerful Nazi. After being kidnapped, but before being flown to Israel Eichmann was asked to consent to being brought up on charges against humanity, which he did. Eichmann may have had a difficult time living without his former social standing and identity.

Arendt's book is a landmark in the workings of the Nazi machine that tortured, raped, and killed over 11 million Europeans for their religion, sexual orientation, political ideas, and nationality. However, the Eichmann trial centers more on the role Eichmann had in the "Final Solution" to the Jewish Question. Eichmann was charged with being a key player in the destruction and eradication of European Jewry.

The book and Arendt's theory regarding "the banality of evil" has created controversy since its inception in 1963. In 1963 Arendt was sent to Jerusalem to follow the Eichmann trial for The New Yorker. She published a series of articles over the course of the trial. It is often remarked by critics of the book that Arendt was not present for even half of the trial, yet the book is considered one of the principal books on the trial, if not the primary.

Arendt's basic theory is that Eichmann was a moral eunuch. He was a cog, in a large killing machine that never contemplated his role or developed a conscious to answer questions for himself. He simply followed orders and happened to have an instrumental job in the destruction of world Jewry. Arendt argues that even if Eichmann had not had the job there were hundreds of other German Nazis that would have fulfilled the obligations of his job without a conscience. Throughout the book Arendt patronizes Eichmann as a man incapable of his own thoughts; so prone to using clichés inappropriately, repeating himself, contradicting his previous statements, and utterly incompetent of original thought or judgment. Arendt portrays Eichmann as an automaton only interested in advancing his own career. Arendt does not even fault Eichmann for completing his job, because she thought he was simply following the orders that were given to him.

This was one of the three major controversies that arose with the printing of Arendt's insight on the trial. Arendt also heavily criticized David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minster of Israel, the chief Prosecutor Gideon Hausner, and the European Jewish community.

Arendt believed that the Jewish Community in Europe had meticulous organizational abilities and was instrumental in the destruction of European Jewry. The organizations that the Jews created were able to document and provide comprehensive statistics and efficiency in rounding up Jews and aiding the Nazis. Arendt believed the Jewish bureaucracy was impeccable in its carrying out of these duties. This argument of Arendt's is flawed for a number of reasons. If the Jewish communal leaders assigned these tasks did not fulfill them then other Jews may have, and if not them, then other European citizens might have, which does not completely discredit Arendt. But the fact that does debunk Arendt's theory, that is often described as "blaming the victims not the criminals," is the fact that the Russian Jews were systematically murdered and killed much the same way as much of Central and Eastern Europe's Jews were. What stands to reason is there were no Jewish organizations to augment the efficiency of the Nazis in Russia. The Nazis were able to comprehend this task without the help of any Jewish bureaucracy. The Jewish organizations could not have been much more helpful to the Jews of Europe, Arendt really overplays this theory. Jews were not leading their brethren to their funerals, or simply following orders like Eichmann and other cogs, but were probably trying to alleviate Jewish suffering.

Arendt's criticism of Ben-Gurion's treatment of the trial is precise. There were journalists from all over the world hanging on each and every word of the trial; it was truly a "show trial." Even though Arendt would probably agree that Eichmann was a cog and an automaton, Israel's Premier was able to gain great publicity for the trial.

Throughout the course of the book Arendt restates the arguments made against Eichmann by the prosecution, when they are adequate she leaves them as is. However, when the arguments fall short of Arendt's standards she takes the liberty of showing the flaw of the procedure, the argument, and its role in the trial. At most points this commentary is a necessity, but at others Arendt seems to be showing her mental muscle and belittling the prosecution.

These are the major reasons Arendt's work was poorly received in Israel. Her criticism of European Jewry's role in the Holocaust is rather short-sighted, but her indictment of the prosecutors and Ben-Gurion is profound.

Eichmann in Jerusalem is a classic in the study of human nature, totalitarian politics, and political theory, deservingly. The book has its flaws, but the insightful commentary on one's man adventure inside the totalitarian Nazi destructing machine is a true tour de force.

Hannah Arendt is probable one of the most astute political and moral thinkers of the previous century.

The book approaches Eichmann as a competent but morally vacant burueacrat who sinks into the 'banality of evil' not out of a malicious hatred of the Jews but rather out of a perverted sense of duty and respect for authority. He perverts the Kantian categorical imperative to read - you have the duty to do what society instructs of you - instead of - you have the duty to act in yourself as you would expect society to act towards you. Some reviewers have misread this moral emphasis of Arendt as a defence of Eichmann This is completely false and a basic misunderstanding of her moral argument.

Her brave mentioning of the fact that the Eichmann Trial was probable not in truth a trial but a show to justify retribution as well as the illegality of his kidnapping deserves praise. The fact that Eichmanns council never used this in his defence as well as the fact that technically Eichmann contravened no law in Germany whilst exercising his duties ,gave me the idea that if there was someone in Israel that could saved him from the gallows it would have been Hannah Arendt. Ironic as I have not read a better condemnation of the man from any other author.Then again she also paints the picture of a man making no real effort to avoid his fate but being without the moral fibre to actively seek it out made no effort to hide his identity from anyone. Eichmann wanted to get caught and seeked in his trial and sentence final recognition for his contorted sense of remorse Although the sincerity of his remorse is not doubted it is the nature of his remorse that remains highly questionable. And that is Hannah Arendts exclamation mark behind the banality of this mans' evil.

Her synopsis of the fate of the Jews in various countries during the holocaust is also very valuable to casual students of the Shoah.

Hannah Arendt's book is a powerful and disturbing account of the trial of Adolf Eichmann, and the subtitle, A Report on the Banality of Evil, couldn't be more apt. According to Ms. Arendt, Eichmann wasn't an evil fanatic but just an unquestioning bureaucrat who felt very proud of his achievements, a person who thought his professional advancement was more important than the lives of millions of people. Without shifting any responsiblity from the Nazi leadership, Ms. Arendt argues that if society at large hadn't consented and in many cases cooperated, the extermination of human beings in such an enormous scale could have never been accomplished. Eichmann always maintained that he didn't agree with his superiors' policy, but he didn't disobey or even question his orders and eventually became one of the key figures in the deportation of millions of people from the occupied countries to the extermination camps in Eastern Europe.

The book also includes a lot of information about the reactions to the deportations in different countries, ranging from the zealous cooperation of the Poles to the admirable refusal of the Danes who eventually managed to save all their Jews by transporting them to neighbouring Sweden. Ms. Arendt has a very clear, analytic and eminently readable style and her book is an essential work that should be read by anyone who wants to know more about the implementation of the Final Solution and the personality and ideas of one of the individuals that made it possible.

Over the last 15 years, I have often come across references to Hannah Arendt when reading about the Holocaust, but only recently did I read "Eichmann in Jerusalem". As someone born after Eichmann was brought to justice, I had little knowledge of the facts surrounding the case.

The book gives interesting detail, not only about Eichmann, but about the bureaucracy that allowed the Holocaust to take place. In fact, the book is not so much about Eichmann, who seems to have admitted his essential guilt from the time he was caught, but about the systematic destruction of the Jews, for which he was a bureaucratic (middle) manager.

It gives you reason for hope, in the description of how the (well-known) story of how the people of Denmark reacted to the possible deportation of the Jews, and reason for despair, in how the people of several other European countries behaved. There is also a great deal of insight into the ethnic problems now affecting the Balkins and much of Eastern Europe.

Despite all I have read suggesting the opposite, Arendt very clearly believes Eichmann is guilty and was rightly executed for it. Yet she also makes it clear that he had help, and the help was not only from other Nazis. Without this help, the killings simply could not have occurred. It is a very compelling story, and a great lesson should be learned from it.

The only negative comment I have is petty: the sentence structure and language of the book is sometimes difficult to follow, and that does detract slightly from the text. With that qualification, I highly recommend this book.