| Title | : | Eichmann and the Holocaust |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0143037609 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780143037606 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 129 |
| Publication | : | First published August 25, 2005 |
Eichmann and the Holocaust Reviews
-
Rarely have you met such balanced a reporter considering she supposedly before leaving for Jerusalem to report from the trial of Adolf Eichmann said "I need to see the man who almost got me".
There is no doubt about the involvement in orchestrating the finer logistical details of the Holocaust. The interesting part which Hannah Arendt touches upon is, if it was evil just for the sake of evil or Eichmann, as he claimed, was an overzealous bureaucrat, proud of his achievements and just taking orders.
The many hours of interrogation before the trial clearly pointed to that - but also to a person willing to deposit any piece of conscience with the devil he may had left.
While never questioning the blame, Hanna Arendt points a lot of contributing factors.
A country misled and kept in fear for the consequences of not joining the party, socioeconomic factors and the slow upbuilding of an us-versus-them atmosphere.
Hanna Arendt wants to draw a full circle and she wants justice done, but justice based on the purest of principles as humanity cannot afford to fall into the same trap as Eichmann, distributing life and death bureaucratically.
Thus she also argues that an international court would have been preferable as the Jewish state as the offended part would never be able to administer justice upon the defendant.
Not surprisingly her philosophical thoughts did create furore - some claimed that she actually defended Eichmann by declaring him a "scapegoat" and some accused her for abandoning and neglecting her Jewish roots.
Nevertheless she managed to put the spotlight on what later would be known as "The Banality of Evil".
It took great courage to dig so deeply into human nature, trying to analyse the crime as well as the aftermath and I tip my hat to Hannah Arendt for not letting hate and anger be the only feelings governing her report from the trial in Jerusalem. -
I learned a lot about The Holocaust by reading this book. There were so many times I thought 'I never knew that'. Eichmann's insistence that he be absolved of all guilt because he was 'only following orders' is examined in detail and derided at length. It's a pity there's no index in my version of this book as I could then use it as a reference book. With a book like this it's difficult to know what would count as a spoiler in this review.
-
Interesting book about the trial of adolf eichmann who was responsible for the jettison of Jews from Austria if i Understood correctly and then for the mass movement of Jews to concentration camps in the east especially. The book touches on his trail near the end although it's a short book. He was hung but claimed to have been following orders at all times. The Most remarkable thIng I learnt was the involvement of higher ranking and common jews in the ghettos and the concentration camps themselves. One line says that if the common Jews hadn't blindly trusted leaders in the ghettos then maybe the number of deaths would not have been as high. Gets very philosophical at times as well. Challenging but I enjoyed it.
-
For me the most surprising thing to come out of this little volume was the admission that the Jews had cooperated and participated in their own destruction. The the Jewish Councils (Judenrat)registered and selected the victims for deportation and the Jewish police rounded up the reluctant victims.
As for Eichmann himself what can you say that has not already been said?
Hannah Arendt addresses the other issue, namely what sort of crime is this? "Genocide" is the term that was coined at Nürnberg, but I am inclined to agree that "administrative massacre" is closer to the truth.
Its not often that such a small volume provokes such interest. Excellent. -
"Nothing's as hot when you're eating it as when it's cooking." The failure of that piece of conventional wisdom to predict the Holocaust, to predict the way history would unfold, cuts to the awful core of what those average men - bad men, but not monsters rather mediocre, because that lets us all off the hook (terrifying is to speculate that many of them would have been regarded as good men) - acted in form to the way that Eichmann, the cliche-spouter, the bureaucrat, the banal evildoer, does. This happened because of our ability to keep going - to filter out, to disregard in order to overcome and faithfully triumph. It happened because millions of regular Germans kept their heads down and focused on what they could comprehend, day in and day out, not the enormity before which words and action seem to fail. The capacity to reduce existence to the commonplace-"just doing my job", "there's a war on", "Elders of Zion", "it's worse in Russia"-is the only way to reconcile a faith in the human drive toward benevolence and cooperation with the "Final Solution." Arendt's words show us just how culpable we all are, that none are truly innocent before such travesty - this is vital even today. This is a collection of excerpts from the complete Eichmann in Jerusalem: The Banality of Evil, and I may just have to read the whole thing.
-
Me ha resultado inquietante lo actual de sus planteamientos en materia jurídica, política y moral. La existencia de la culpabilidad y la inocencia colectivas, el análisis de los clichés en los que se basan ciertas emisiones de juicios, las competencias de los tribunales internacionales de justicia, los límites legales y morales de las leyes... Son todos conceptos que debemos tratar de comprender si queremos vivir y participar de un mundo más justo. Que por cierto, nos queda un poco lejos, dadas las circunstancias actuales.
Un libro interesantísimo. -
A very good and important book, a shorter version of Arend't "Eichmann in Jerusalem". It shows how dangerous non-thinking can be!
-
As I read this book I could not help but think of Robert "Bob" Marley and his song - Who the Cap Fits
Man to man is so unjust, children:
Ya don't know who to trust.
Your worst enemy could be your best friend,
And your best friend your worse enemy.
This short work focuses on the trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1962. It attempts to provide both the case of the prosecution and the defense. Unfortunately this only becomes clear in this book, based on excerpts from the New Yorker series of articles, in the final section. After it summarized key points of the trial we have an interpretation of the legal, philosophical questions that arose. This book highlights that the Holocaust was both a genocide and a crime against humanity. Concepts that were new and unprecedented at the time but are part of our everyday thinking. Because of this, the judicial system was imperfect to deal with the full ramifications and the philosophical questions that arose. Mistakes were made and I agree with the author's view on how the judgement should have been delivered, found on pages 105-107. This worded judgment would have clarified the difficulties with the nature of this trial but maintained a sound judgement. And that brings me to my final point. Judgement, these days seems to be an evil word. Everyone feels that to be judged is intolerant. And yet society wishes to enforce its own judgement on how we should think. This quote on page 127 sums up our current predicament : What public opinion permits us to judge and even to condemn are trends, or whole groups of people- the larger the better- in short, something so general that distinctions can no longer be made, names no longer be named.
Sadly, this way of living allows the horror and precedent of genocide, refugee status to persist. I know that this will happen again, and we will all seem horrified as to how it could have happened. Yet we fail to have the nuanced and uncomfortable conversations now.
This is not an easy book to read. It stirs up emotion and makes you think about individual responsibility, how we communicate and asks the difficult questions of any society. What is justice? Who gets to decide? What are the responsibilities of the individual and the society at large? How do nations treat those nations that are run on criminal basis? What are our responsibilities to the disenfranchised? Questions that we think we have resolved until............ -
Eichmann y el holocausto.- Con gran pericia Arendt pone en discusión el juicio al que fue sometido Eichmann en Jerusalén. Una de las cuestiones que más controversia ha causado fue el hecho de que no fuera juzgado en Derecho y la poca finura en el hilar del tribunal. Nunca antes se había visto comprometido el género humano como lo estuvo en el holocausto. Tampoco se había tomado en cuenta hasta dónde cabía la obediencia debida y si en realidad era válida la noción burocrática de que cada quien era un engranaje más dentro de una maquinaria de lo que no había escape posible. Ese reduccionismo puso en contra de Arendt a mucha gente que había apoyado los tribunales israelíes. Excelente libro. Muy propicio para analizar temas como la Solución final, el mal radical, los crímenes contra la humanidad y su naturaleza extranacional, la responsabilidad por omisión, etc.
-
Hard to escape a sort of double vision with this one, reading it with a vague half-knowledge of the "banality of evil" argument and a vague half-knowledge that Eichmann might have been a lot less banal and a lot more evil than Arendt apparently thought he was... Because Arendt doesn't directly advance a philosophical argument, she's at pains to state she is just covering one trial of one man, it makes it harder to draw conclusions of whether there's a deeper meaning to her character study of one man and one trial if the author was mistaken as to the character of the man... It's a compelling read though, and I think this element of doubt enhances rather than undermines the interest in reading it.
-
This is a fascinating account of the trial of Eichmann and his apparent motivations in enabling the Holocaust, but I don't recommend it as an introduction to the topic. Arendt references a lot of other books, articles, and events, and without a solid understanding of the Holocaust and related arguments of its causes and history, this book can be tough to understand. At least it was for me.
But it's still a troubling story of how, under the right circumstances, a person can be utterly blind to the unspeakable evils they are committing. -
«Desde el punto de vista de nuestras instituiciones jurídicas y de nuestros criterios morales, esta normalidad resultaba mucho más terrorífica que todas las atrocidades juntas, por cuanto implicaba que este nuevo tipo de delincuente —tal como los acusados y sus defensores dijeron hasta la saciedad en Nuremberg—, que en realidad merece la calificación de hostis humani generis, comete sus delitos en circunstancias que casi le impiden saber o intuir que realiza actos de maldad».
-
The fact that I base most of my political philosophy off of her says something about the quality of her writing, I think. Remember kids: never become complacent, but above all never become thoughtless - “It was sheer thoughtlessness that drove [Eichmann] to become one of the greatest criminals of the period”. I’ve never seen the causes of the Holocaust put so well.
-
Read this while listening to The Atlantic’s The Collaborators by Anne Applebaum (for modern context and more historic examples of banal evil) followed by a glass of scotch so you can still sleep at night.
-
"Eichmann and the Holocaust" is an important read, if only because the book, assembled from Arendt's "Reporter at Large: A five-part article commissioned by "The New Yorker," and excerpted from her more comprehensive: "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil," reminds us that we have not in half a century, come to terms with the nature of war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Arendt offers a combination of reportage and critical analysis of her subject, Adolf Eichmann, and the context in which he performed his diabolical work. It is a story that we all assume we know, if only because the phrases and words:"banality of evil," holocaust, genocide and crimes against humanity, have become such commonplace descriptions in a world that has grown too familiar and, so, too indifference to horrible acts committed to advance one ideology or political party or another.
It's always important to return to the source to understand an author's thesis and this slender book enables us to look closely at the man and the Officer, as well as those who gave and who followed his orders. In this context it's also important to understand the evolution of the Nazi's "Final Solution."
Anti-Semitism may have been at the center of the Nazi ideology, but genocide was not a given, nor was a machine put in motion in 1933 when Hitler took power. There were precedents to the mass murder of Jews and it's important to keep in mind that Jews were neither the first put to death, nor sent to concentration camps.
Arendt's story and analysis is a helpful corrective to the sentimental fairytale told by Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List." Evil was far less pervasive and considerably more seductive and complex than the usual representations of the perpetrators of Shoah.
If I understand Arendt correctly, the Nazi's discovered, more through trial and error than analytics, the means to accomplish their ends. But the famous "machine" metaphor is less apt than I previously thought. The whole spectrum of human attributes and qualities were necessary, put into place by 1,000s of people—across the political, social and religious spectrum—made Eichmann the committed and successful bureaucrat he proved to be.
Which is to say that Eichmann could not have famously been just a "cog" in the machine, if the machine, however Rube Goldbergesque, was not in place and maintained, in a surprisingly slipshod manner. And, maintained, ironically, as much by the victims as by the perpetrators of the Holocaust, as Arendt, without blaming the victims, makes clear. She suggests that perhaps as many of half the victims of Shoah would have survived had they not participated in their own extermination.
Another important element of the book, which still resonates today, involves the controversy of the Trial itself. It is a legitimate question to ask: Did the State of Israel have the right to try and judge, sentence and execute Eichmann?
While acknowledging the man was a criminal and guilty of terrible crimes, she asks us to contemplate what were the natures of Eichmann's crimes: Crimes against the Jews, or crimes against humanity, or crimes against his conscience? Yes, she concludes the "court in Jerusalem succeeded in in fulfilling the demands of justice," but it did so without providing an unambiguous process that would help us to seek and deliver justice in the future. The proof of this is how we find ourselves today, limited to metaphors such as "regime change" to eliminate uncooperative or failed states, or to firing missiles from drones, to kill those deemed by those in power a threat to our way of life. -
Un libro tan brillante como polémico. Es bien sabido que la tarea de los filósofos es preguntar, no responder. Filosofar es preguntar, refinar preguntas. Este libro formado por textos encargados por la revista The New Yorker a Hannah Arendt sobre el juicio en Jerusalén al genocida Adolf Eichmann presenta una importante colección de observaciones, comentarios y reflexiones -derivadas de preguntas filosóficas de Arendt-. Eichmann fue un teniente coronel nazi que luego de ser descubierto en Argentina durante la segunda postguerra tuvo un juicio en Israel que concluyó con la pena capital. Arendt tiene una visión crítica de todo el proceso, sobre todo respecto de problemas propiamente legales. En su mayoría, pareciera que estas críticas están bien fundamentadas. Sin embargo, el núcleo duro del libro es una teoría del mal que propone Arendt para interpretar el caso específico de Eichmann y advertir al futuro para prevenir casos similares. Esta teoría se conoce como la banalidad del mal. No es tan sencillo el planteo. Su teoría afirma que existe una variedad peligrosa del mal que surge de la irreflexión, de la mediocridad, de la torpeza, de la estrechez intelectual de un burócrata situado en circunstancias históricas, sociales y políticas particulares. A esto le llama Arendt la banalidad del mal. Las notas en The New Yorker y luego el libro tuvieron muchas críticas desfavorables de las que Arendt intenta defenderse en un Epílogo de ediciones posteriores. Estas críticas, en mi opinión, están justificadas. Si bien creo posible que exista algo así como una variedad banal del mal, no me parece aceptable que se pueda aplicar al caso de Eichmann. Su gestión administrativa, sus decisiones, sus invenciones, su firma, su trabajo cotidiano durante muchos meses llevó a millones de personas a campos de concentración y a la cámara de gas. Opino que ni la más cerrada de las ideologías pueda deshumanizar tanto a un ser humano como para dejar de percibir el mal perpetrado a otro ser humano. Al menos en algún sector de la conciencia pienso que habría un registro del mal como algo grave, no como banalidad. Creo que la definición del mal podría intentarse por allí: una persona destruye premeditadamente a otra persona. La investigación de este problema, sin embargo, es infinita. En síntesis, creo que se trata de un libro muy recomendable porque presenta argumentos inteligentes, pero deja abierta la discusión, casi como una provocación. Según mi parecer, la banalidad del mal, en caso de ser una tesis revisada y posiblemente aceptada, no puede aplicarse al caso de Eichmann.
-
Eichmann and the Holocaust is a book based on excerpts from a five-part article Hannah Arendt wrote for "The New Yorker" in 1963. She reported on the trial of the German Nazi, Adolf Eichmann, in Israel. He was found guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes, leading to his execution in 1962.
Eichmann was one of the chief organizers of the Holocaust. He was involved first with the forced emigration or expulsion of the Jews from Austria. Later, he organized the deportation of the Jews to Poland where they were shot, or sent to concentration camps to await the gas chambers in Poland and Hungary. His reason for doing this seemed to be a desire to raise in rank in the Nazi organization, a career move as a transportation administrator of extermination. He said he was following orders.
Eichmann lived in Argentina under a false identity after World War II. He was eventually captured by Israeli agents in 1960, and tried in Jerusalem. There were questions about the legality of his capture by kidnapping, and about his trial which was not in an international court.
The material presented in this book about the trial was good, and thought-provoking. But more background information was really needed, especially about his time in Argentina, and a few pages of biographical information on Eichmann would have made it a better book. I found myself getting more details from the Internet. Perhaps that information was in the author's longer book,
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. -
This is a history, politics, ethics, and jurisprudence melange that makes a lot of sense. The account is centred on Arendt's reporting of the trial of Eichmann, one of the prominent actors in the Third Reich's "Final Solution" in Israel.
The issues touched include many quite important ones that can hardly fit in such a small volume. Going from the telling of many of the details of how the trial went, to the personality and behaviour of Eichmann who appears to be inconsistent and lacking in any accurate memory as well as forthcoming and clear about his role, to the collaboration and facilitation of the deportation to death camps that was extensively done by the Jewish leaders, to the relevance and appropriateness of holding the trial in Israel.
In the process, I find it quite intriguing how well argued she is, especially on parts that relate to nature of the crimes committed by a state, the guilt that can be assigned to people "following orders", the sovereignty the state "deserves" when it is committing crimes against humanity, statelessness, and the need for an international criminal tribunal. Much of those arguments are accepted as a norm today but I suppose they were still quite controversial in her time. -
No matter how many years pass, the topic of the Holocaust will never cease to be anything short of affective. From the foundation of the Final Solution to the morality behind war,
Eichmann and the Holocaust is an insightful volume that sheds light on the psychology of Eichmann and the genocide of WWII.
Arendt has pieced together a fantastic little book that made me look at history in an alternative perspective. I've never given much thought to the psychology behind the Schutzstaffel's motives, they've always just been heartless monsters to me, but the psychology behind the why of their motives is by far the most interesting thing about this documentation. Arendt illustrating their moral blindness makes you question your own. Thought-provoking and hauntingly honest; this is a minuscule but mighty must read for history and psychology lovers, and general readers alike. -
A very important book. An overview of the trial, the man and the circumstances of such trial of such crime.
Who's to blame , who's the responsible , who's to trial and who has to bear the guilt ?
These questions are not only related to Auschwitz but to every genocide that happened and may happen in the future.
There is also the controversy of "blaming the victim" , the role of the Jew police and Jew community in this genocide.
The question of "obeying/defying the authority" when it comes to inhuman orders.
I loved this book. It triggers your brain to think about morality , question your values, your respect of the community boundaries, challenging your limit and most importantly the notion of "humanity" in our world. What's the limit of nation "values", "vision" and "laws" faced to the global human rights.
When to intervene and take responsibility as human in favor and to help other human from different country , religion . Immigration crisis as example nowadays. -
This is the abridged version of Eichmann in Jerusalem. This is a great read offering insight into Eichmann's trial and the philosophical claim on the banality of evil. Having already read up and having reflected on Arendt's philosophical claim before delving in, I can't say I learned much from this book. It was, however, surprising to read about the relationship between Eichmann, the Nazi's and the Jews before the Final Solution was proposed. Still, this is an incredibly important book. Everyone interested in philosophy, sociology or Holocaust/Israeli history should read this (if not the unabridged version).
-
so interesting that arendt says explicitly in her postscript that the book was not "a theoretical treatise on the nature of evil" (112), and yet penguin describes it in the synopsis as a "radical work on the banality of evil," and the full work from which this text is excerpted is titled
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil in fact, most of the work deals with issues of justice and legality. -
...a very incisive rendering of the facts surrounding the trial of Adolf Eichmann. I wanted to read this book after seeing the 2012 film Hannah Arendt. This is not actually a book but the collection of controversial articles Hannah wrote for the New Yorker after the trial in which Hannah famously coined the term "banality of evil". I think the epilogue should be read by students everywhere as a cautionary to the evils of ideological/dogmatic thinking.
-
It was truly fascinating to see the psychological idiosyncrasies of Eichmanns mind. The twisted way in which he tried to explain his role in the Holocaust. Hannah is always wonderful at speaking clearly on this topic and I learned so much I had not known. I hope to read the full version one day.
-
A interesting treatise on the banality of evil through the lens of the Adolf Eichmann trial in Jerusalem.
-
an outstanding work of perceptive clarity and erudition.
-
Holy, this was great
-
A sobering, monumental trial report that deconstructs both the concept of evil and those that perpetrate it.
