Rating: 
Summary: A long respect
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A must read for a provoking analysis of morality
Review: I have to agree with the storm of criticism your
reviewer has received. I read Eichman in
order to understand how a civilized society
could descend in barbarism so quickly. The
value of this book is that it is a cautionary
tale about what it is possible in any society that values obedience and
conformity above the higher values of human
life, honesty in dealings with others and
justice.
Rating: 
Summary: "Banality of Evil"- found in book
Review: Just a correction to anniecat45:
The phrase "banality of evil" can be found on pg. 252 of "Eichmann in Jerusalem". It is integral to Ms. Arendt's thesis and purpose, and was of course included in the book. Arendt's argument was that the banal evil demonstrated by Eichmann can wreck far more havoc than any diabolical motives.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating and revealing
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating and revealing
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: What a mix.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: monsters and clowns
Review: This book should be read by every highschool student, but unfortunately even our most celebrated members of society (congressmen, presidents, newscasters, opinion makers) have probably never read it. If they did they might see a little (or a lot) of themselves in Eichmann. But probably not because one of Eichmann's fatal flaws was a complete lack of introspection; a huge blind spot which is no doubt shared by many of our present day pundits.
When Arendt first saw Eichmann he struck her more as a clown than a monster. He thought in cliches, seemingly unable to have an original thought outside what was programed in him from party indoctrination (remind you of any of todays pols?). He was able to do his job good (coordinating trains and working with local officials) but he was unable to really think clearly or with any depth (though he did quote Kant which is no doubt more than what todays Bozos can do). He was just a career cog going thru his pathetic, self-absorbed motions - In the 90's he'd have been a real shining star at Enron.
These days we're constantly exposed to all the dogmatic posturing about "how it'll never happen again" (especially not in Europe) and yet it DID happen again between 91 and 95 in Bosnia (quarter of a million murders) while the Western world stood blindly by and the leader of the western world occupied himself with oval office "cigar parties"
And if you don't think morality can be relative consider this: Iran was the only country to act with resolve by shipping the Bosnians arms during those years. Now Iran is part of the "Evil axis"
In our lifelong quest to reconcile with evil, be it banal or absolute, and to understand the human condition, this book is a must...
Best of luck
Rating:
Summary: Deserves Re-Reading
Review: This excellent work stands the test of time and deserves to be read more than once...
Rating:
Summary: Where do you start with this book?
Review: This is philosophically speaking one of the most important books of all time.... regarding political affairs and ethics.... First, you have Hannah Arendt. Her book on totalitarianism is a classic: she was THE mid-century philosopher/historian/sociologist. She had a brilliant mind and brilliant contemporaries to work with. She was an able writer and stylistically good. And she had an assignment to write about Adolph Eichmann, Nazi bureaucrat. And Eichmann was more troubling than anyone figured. Rather than deny his actions, he embraced them, using the Kantian notion of duty dervied from a consequential imperative. He was just doing his job-- hence the banality of evil.... what does a person do when the accomplishment of the normal-- in his case, getting trains from one place to another-- encompasses the extinction wholesale of a group of people? Thus comes this book. It is an accounting of the trial in Jerusalem in 1961 (I believe....) A great read, although, as is anything regarding the Holocaust, a little bit dark.... I'd read it if I were you.
Rating:
Summary: Worthy High Reviews
Review: 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.
| 
