Rating: 
Summary: HOW COULD IT HAPPEN ?
Review: A lot has been written and said about the Holocaust. This small book by a respected philosopher about the trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem is the largest and most thought provoking of them all. Why? Because it analizes through the personal experience of an "employee" of the killing machine, the intimate aspect of evil, how banally can it stem out of the most ordinary persons. Rosseau wrote that "homo homini lupus" and Arendt clearly follows up. It also provides factual historical insight about how the Nazi solution to the jewish problem evolved from expatriation or relocation to physical annihilation. From another perspective, that of the victims, answers the question that many other authors ignore or circumvent. How so few (in the R.S.H.A. and S.S.) could find, control and deport so many ? In almost all the countries the hearding of the victims and their shipment could not have happened without the active participation of the Jewish Councils and other jewish authorities which were empowered by the Nazis for that purpose. The self delusion of the leaders of the jewish communities is clearly recorded by Arendt up to the appalling and pathetic case of Dr. Kastner in Hungary who saved 1,684 people at a cost of 476,000 victims. From a juridical standpoint, Arendt valiantly raises certain doubts about the fairness of the trial. It also analizes the political impact of Eichmann's veredict and its influence upon future trials (in Germany) of Nazi war criminals. THIS CONTROVERSIAL BOOK IS A MUST FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN THE TRAGEDY OF THE HUMAN CONDITION,THE POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT LED TO EICHMANN'S ABDUCTION AND TRIAL AND THE REAL WORKINGS OF THE HOLOCAUST.
Rating:
Summary: Oh, really.
Review: Amazon.com: in the future, please be sure that your reviewers read more than the back of the book before posting a review; the incompetence of this one was inexcuseable. Arendt, whose ideas have influenced our entire notion of evil and malevolence, writes a thoughtful thesis on the distinction between evil in its mythic and actual forms. An essential read for students of human nature in general and the Holocaust in particular.
Rating:
Summary: Did Amazon.com read the wrong book?
Review: Arendt EXCUSING Eichmann?! That did not occur in the version of this book I read. Shocking misrepresentation by our otherwise gracious host.
Rating:
Summary: True, all too true
Review: Arendt explores the man who superficially seems to be the mastermind of the death of countless Jews and other undesireables. However, Arendt examines the "banality" of evil, thus concluding that neither Eichmann nor the Germans were entirely responsible for these attrocities, instead, she spreads the guilt to others as well (including the Jewish communities that cooperated with the Nazi authorities, much to the disgust of many Jews). Her intelligent argument points out that the Holocaust was not a phenomenon that can only be ascribed to the immensely evil Eichmann or German people because they were passive sheep who either pretended not to notice the attrocities or actively cooperated and shed their guilt by believing the huge lies from the Nazi state and propaganda machine. This may lead the reader to the conclusion that many other societies are not immune to the stupefaction that the Germans underwent during the Third Reich. Third Reich Germany may seem to many an ethereal and ghoulish nightmare, seperated from our world by eons but it is not. How do you like them apples mate?
Rating:
Summary: True, all too true
Review: Arendt explores the man who superficially seems to be the mastermind of the death of countless Jews and other undesireables. However, Arendt examines the "banality" of evil, thus concluding that neither Eichmann nor the Germans were entirely responsible for these attrocities, instead, she spreads the guilt to others as well (including the Jewish communities that cooperated with the Nazi authorities, much to the disgust of many Jews). Her intelligent argument points out that the Holocaust was not a phenomenon that can only be ascribed to the immensely evil Eichmann or German people because they were passive sheep who either pretended not to notice the attrocities or actively cooperated and shed their guilt by believing the huge lies from the Nazi state and propaganda machine. This may lead the reader to the conclusion that many other societies are not immune to the stupefaction that the Germans underwent during the Third Reich. Third Reich Germany may seem to many an ethereal and ghoulish nightmare, seperated from our world by eons but it is not. How do you like them apples mate?
Rating: 
Summary: Report on the Ridiculous Trial of a Pathetic Nazi
Review: Arendt provides an in-depth examination of the trial of Adolf Eichmann, and leads one to believe that although he is responsible for the death of millions of jews during World War II, he is not the criminal mastermind nor the sociopath he was suspected to be. Arendt's account paint's Eichmann as a bumbling fool who is willing to sacrifice lives in order to please his superiors and experience the pleasure one derives from being obedient. By the end of the book I could see him as nothing but a sickening buffoon, one who is aware of morality but defies it so that he may ascend through the ranks of the Third Reich. However, Arendt also poses interesting questions in regards to the legality of this highly peculiar trial. By the end, I came to the conclusion that although Eichmann was guilty of heinous acts of carnage, he was not fairly tried. I would feel more comfortable with his execution if I believed he had received a trial more conducive to the defence's needs and less irregular.
Rating:
Summary: The same book... different story ?
Review: Arendt wrote the original version in the mid-sixties, based on her press coverage for the trial. Back then it was a controversial and it took tens of years for WW2 researches to take a wide look as she did 30 years ago.
I wonder where Amazon.com find a "defense of Eichmann" in her words. She presents various original and incisive arguments... non of them advocating his innocense. I think that the main feature is how Eichmann and his trial is put in context with perspective, and this makes the book an excellent history work.
The subtitle of the book summarizes it all: it is indeed a case of "evil" but it was banalized during the trial.
Rating:
Summary: A Book Which Will And Should Disturb You
Review: As a world looking back at the last century while facing into the next this piece of work should be read and re-read as a text which challenges us to face the potential excess's of human kind in terms of its treatment of itself. Hannah Arendt describes not just the trial but the mind of a man who on one level convinced himself that before 1942 he was assisting in saving many Jewish people in Europe from racial inequality and exclusion through deportation. Following the Wannsee conference in 1942 where the final solution was ordained he reversed his apparent will to seek a new refuge for the Jewish people of Europe in favour of mass extermination using all his organisational skills which were considerable. In her text she challenges us to try and understand the mind of one who could so blandly explain mass murderess action with the assertion that he was merely following orders. Her description of his efforts and absolute resolve to eliminate all the remaining Jewish Communities in Hungry despite the fact that it was late 1944 and the tide of war was against the Nazi's is utterly shocking as an event in history. This book should disturb you and should force you to question more deeply your understanding of humanity as we face into a new century.
Rating:
Summary: Worthy of Its Popularity
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Worthy of Its Popularity
Review: 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.
| 
