Eichmann in Jerusalem : a report on the banality of evil

Hannah Arendt's authoritative report on the trial of Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann includes further factual material that came to light after the trial, as well as Arendt's postscript directly addressing the controversy that arose over her account.

Media reviews

http://www.bokklubben.no

Adolf Eichmann administrerte Nazi-Tysklands deportering av jøder til utryddelsesleirene, og sto i 1961 tiltalt for "forbrytelser mot det jødiske folk og mot menneskeheten". Filosofen og statsviteren Hannah Arendt, som selv hadde sittet i Gestapos fengsel, dekket rettssaken i Jerusalem som

reporter for magasinet The New Yorker. Det vår fornuft ikke kan fatte, hevdet hun, var at denne 55-årige, skallete, tynne, lutende og pregløse noksagt av en forhenværende SS-Obersturmbannführer, der han satt i glassburet i Jerusalem i 1961, kunne ha forvoldt så mye lidelse fra sitt skrivebord. Hannah Arendts bok reiser de ufravikelige og ubehagelige spørsmål om ondskapens vesen i vår tid: Er så mye lidelse bare mulig fordi offeret umenneskeliggjøres som "undermennesker" av altomfattende ideologier? Er slike forbrytelser bare mulig fordi de kan dirigeres av skrivebordsmordere langt fra ofrenes skrik og nedverdigelser? Er slike massive folkemord bare tenkelig i et byråkrati som pulveriserer det personlige ansvar? I dagens Europa er Adolf Eichmann en uhyggelig påminnelse om hvilke grusomheter et lydig menneske kan få seg til å begå, når ønsket om å tekkes sine overordnede overskygger alt. "Det er min dype overbevisning at ondskapen aldri er 'radikal', at ondskap bare er ekstremt, og at ondskapen verken besitter dybde eller en demonisk dimensjon. ... Der ligger dens 'banalitet'. Bare det gode har dybde og kan bli radikalt." Hannah Arendt i et brev til Gershom Scholem, 1963 "I Hannah Arendts person møtte jeg en hel epoke i europeisk politisk kultur. Hun er en personlighet som har fulgt meg siden, og som ingen kan unngå som ønsker å forstå 'vår tids byrde', de totalitære diktaturer." Professor Bernt Hagtvet i det innledende essayet til Eichmann i Jerusalem. En rapport om ondskapens banalitet.

Show Less

User reviews

LibraryThing member ALincolnNut

It is difficult to conceive what noted political theorist Hannah Arendt desired when she accepted an offer to cover the 1961 Israeli trial of the recently captured Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann. Her pieces for "The New Yorker" were expanded into "Eichmann in Jerusalem." Subtitled "A Report on the

Banality of Evil," the book offers a critical assessment of the trial and approaches the persistent question of "What is evil?"

Arendt, a German Jew who escaped to France and then the US during World War II, was already a prominent academic before the trial, noted for her work on totalitarianism and authority. While also working on a book considering the nature and impact of the American and French Revolutions, she detailed the Eichmann trial, publishing both works in 1963 (some months after Eichmann was executed by Israel following his final appeal).

In some respects, "Eichmann in Jerusalem" is an extensive description of the trial of the man often called "the architect of the Holocaust." Through the trial testimony, Arendt portrays Eichmann as a mid-level bureaucrat, whose efficiency and unquestioning -- perhaps even unthoughtful and/or unreflective -- obedience led to horrific numbers of deaths in concentration camps in many countries. At times the details are perversely ironic, as Eichmann appears a man who will follow the letter of the law without awareness of his spirit -- during the trial, he sometimes portrayed his actions as attempts to help Jews in any way he could.

Clearly Arendt became fascinated with Eichmann's apparent detachment from Nazi ideology, even as he carried out his gruesome job. Unlike the top Nazi leaders, who acted out of hatred and condescension, Eichmann acted out of obedience to the state. Although he helped to facilitate numerous atrocities, Eichmann displayed the lack of personality frequently associated with mid-level corporate executives, who slowly climb the corporate ladder by not making waves and performing their tasks efficiently, with little initiative or innovation.

Arendt famously titled this "the banality of evil." She recognized it as a pervasive evil, but not nearly as provocative as ideology, the perpetrating of terrible things under the guise -- or even ignorant delusion -- of citizen morality.

At times coldly gruesome, at times shockingly repetitive, her presentation of Eichmann's activities is heart-breaking. The subject matter is unsettling, which is Arendt's point. Although very dissatisfied with the Israeli methods, particularly in the prosecution's philosophy, she is convinced that Eichmann is in some ways a personification of a particular type of modern evil, though far-removed from the Faustian characters normally presented in history or in drama. Brilliantly written.

Show Less

15 more

LibraryThing member MeisterPfriem

The review refers to the 2006 Penguin edition.

This is a reprint of the 1964 revised and enlarged edition of its first publication in book-form in 1963. It was originally published in instalments in Feb. and March 1963 in The New Yorker.
Chapters I, II and XIV, XV describe the Jerusalem court

proceedings in 1961/62; they frame the background information on Eichmann: his life prior to becoming an expert on the “Jewish Question”, his involvement in the three stages of the “Solution to the Jewish Question”: Expulsion (formally prohibited in autumn 1941), Concentration in ghettos and camps, and Killing (the “final solution”), then Eichmann as a law-abiding citizen, and finally his involvement in the deportations broken down by region. The Epilogue is a dense discussion of the legal complexity of this trial without precedence and a critique of the shortcomings of the court procedure. In the Postscript, added 1964, Arendt discusses her sources, answers criticisms of her report and discusses moral questions that are brought up by the trial.
This edition is complemented by a Bibliography (up to 1963), an Index and an Introduction by Amos Elon written in 2006.

The book caused a ferocious controversy. Attacks were often accompanied by distortions. Amos Elon gives a sober résumé of the reaction from today’s perspective although the controversy has still not died down.

Her critique of the court procedures has been labelled ‘legally naïve’. But in a recent (2011) publication, Hannah Arendt as a Theorist of International Criminal Law , David Luban calls “Arendt’s ideas of great pertinence to students of international criminal law” and says that calling them legally naïve would be unfortunate. In his view, “no theorist has thought more perceptively than Arendt about the basis of international criminal liability in mass atrocities, when thousands of perpetrators commit acts that we label “manifestly unlawful,” without considering how thoroughly our label begs the question of why it wasn’t manifest to the perpetrators.”

The expression “banality of evil” of the subtitle has invaded every-day language; it has become a phrase open to misinterpretation. Worse, largely emptied of meaning it has become a cliché. Elon writes (p. xviii) that Arendt, in retrospect, regretted that she had used it. I find the word ‘evil’ inadequate and misleading: as noun it is a term steeped in myth and religion; it conjures up a devilish realm as if ‘evil’ exists independent of the human; as adjective it does not fare better here: one could call Iago and Hitler, also a Streicher spreading murderous poisonous bile, an ’evil’ character but Arendt resolutely excludes Eichmann. He cares for his family and would not dream of killing to advance his position. Psychologically he appears entirely normal. He is a law-abiding conformist who wants to be accepted by his social superiors, a ‘banal’ trite person: ‘Who am I to question the law as Hitler lays it down? who am I to question my social superiors who to a man, agree to cooperate in the ‘final solution’ (as he witnessed as a minor participant at the Wannsee Conference )’?
Nevertheless the term ‘banality’ creates also problems: are crimes against humanity really ‘banal’ in the sense of ‘trite’ or ’dull’? Arendt seems to want to express that a person who thinks in clichés, out of lack of imagination and thinking and careful in obeying the law can become instrumental in the execution of unimaginable “administrative massacres” (p.288). However, she seems (p.252) to want to go further and express a general truth. Yes, ordinary ‘normal’ humans can all too easily be made accomplices in inhuman brutalities. But atrocities cannot be called banal / trite. Neither can the instigators and perpetrators of atrocities be called banal (=common, normal) human beings. Or perhaps they can? Can we not name massacres committed by seemingly ‘normal’ persons with great enthusiasm throughout history and from all corners of the globe?
Essential reading for anybody interested in human nature. (XI-11) *****

Show Less

LibraryThing member Mikalina

The importance of this book cannot be reiterated often enough. Little work was done, before Arendt wrote this book, of analyzing why and how wwII with all its atrocities could happen. The silence after the second world war sounded like collective muteness, and since the Word is always the beginning

(of any human act) it also looked like collective numbness - And this loss of ability to act humanely is exactly what the book explains; The banality of the rise of evil is just this; non-doing.

Evil on a large scale is only possible when the individual looses his or her perspective - and the verbality of phrasing it, as a minimum, to himself - but also to his neighbour. Eichmann referred to himself as an administrator of a railway with no particular dislike for jews, or any other race. He did his work as a civil servant. And no mistake about it; The only possible way to construct two rails to hell, hung on the ability of a lot of people to shut out everything but the everyday engineering part of it.

We get the politicians we deserve; Shutting out part of reality does not qualify anyone to being called a psychopath - but it is when we let ourselves act like semi-blindfolded racehorses, that we open up the door to the room of power for the psychopath, the mad, the evil.

Show Less

LibraryThing member J.v.d.A.

One of the most important books you can read on the subject, very well written.

LibraryThing member FPdC

This is the portuguese translation of the famous "report" by Arendt of the trial of Adolf Eichmann. This is a classic and inclassifiable book, part journalistic reporting, part historical analysis, part philosophical essay, raising pointed questions about human behaviour and, as the notable

subtitle highlights, the "banality of evil."

Show Less

LibraryThing member neddludd

Philospher Arendt covered Eichmann's war crimes trial in 1961 for The New Yorker, and this is an extended version of that two-part article. For anyone interested in the Holocaust, this is an essential portrait, rich in Nazi leadership protocols and the methods used to implement the Final Solution

across Europe. There are some surprises for non-historians, the most controversial being that the Nazis cultivated Jewish leaders, especially in Eastern Europe, to assist them in keeping the population quiescent in the face of deportations. Also, that some nations, such as Italy, refused to cooperate with anti-Semitic policies, while Romania was even more savage in their repressive actions than Germany! (Hitler expressed surprise at this.). Eichmann himself emeges as a cyper, someone incapable of understanding the full implications of his actions. Also, there is an interesting section on the function of "law" in Germany, which during the Nazi era consisted of anything Hitler commanded. So in addition to only "following orders," virtually everyone in the government viewed their actions as "legal."

Show Less

LibraryThing member HadriantheBlind

Brilliant in analyses. 'Banality of evil' only occurs once or twice, and it seems to be misinterpreted - the banality of Eichman's thoughts and his blind devotion to fascism, not just the mere 'I was following orders' facade he put up.

LibraryThing member blake.rosser

Simply magnificent. Arendt uses the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem as a platform for examining the evil behind the Holocaust and the level of responsibility held by each faction of the conflict. She is absolutely uncompromising in her examination of the responsible parties, giving nobody, not

even the Jews themselves, a free pass. Her discussions of the situations in Denmark and Bulgaria are particularly revealing, and even inspiring. The skill Arendt possesses in ignoring all of the trivialities of a situation in order to penetrate to the deeper and profoundly relevant truths is astounding. Her portrait of Eichmann is shocking, not because she shows that his crimes were due to his inherent monstrosity but rather because she higlights the incredible thoughtlessness that allowed him to shirk any conceivable pangs of conscience.

Show Less

LibraryThing member ecw0647

I read this in college and it just blew me away. One of the more important books of the 20th century. Her idea that "banality" and thoughtlessness, relying on the routines of bureaucracy lie at the root of evil had a profound impact on my thinking. "It was sheer thoughtlessness that predisposed him

to become one of the greatest criminals of the period," she says of Eichmann. One can still see the basic truths of her book operating very day.

The latest method to avoid accountability seems to be to claim one is "too busy" to be brought to trial. This tactic, used by Bob Bennett, in an effort to keep Clinton from having to answer charges in the Paul Jones case, is now being used by members of the Bush administration to avoid having to face possible charges for ostensible war crimes.

That kind of thinking brings a whole new meaning to "banal".

Show Less

LibraryThing member AntT

I remember when Eichmann was apprehended and the trial. This criminal's banality of evil was, indeed, banal. Arendt chose her title well.

LibraryThing member AntT

I remember when Eichmann was apprehended and the trial. This criminal's banality of evil was, indeed, banal. Arendt chose her title well.

LibraryThing member MarcusBastos

The Quest for Justice
The Eichmann's trial posed multiple questions about human rights and justice. Hannah Arendt, considering the facts of the case and the circumstances of Eichmann capture, reflects about the judgment, its procedure, reasons and justification. Her knowledge of the facts about the

holocaust and the judaic nation during the Second World War, helps to provide a clear and insightful analysis. Her critic of the behavior of judaic leaders during the war, specially their omission in reacting to the mass murder, put some aspects of the judgment in perspective. Her observations about the role played by Eichmann in the mass extermination of the jews allowed to determine his proper responsibility. This is a valuable book that gives light about a decisive event of human history.

Show Less

LibraryThing member jwhenderson

Hannah Arendt captures the character of Adolph Eichmann in this reportage on his trial in Jerusalem. She notes that he had an "almost total inability ever to look at anything from the other fellow's point of view."

LibraryThing member stillatim

It's very hard to see, at this point, what on earth in this book made everyone so angry, and, apparently, still does make everyone so angry. Arendt's argument here (though note that in other places she insists, disingenuously, that she made no argument and just presented the facts) is that ordinary

people do evil things ('banality of evil'), that this is best understood in the context of modern bureaucracy, and that the Eichmann trials bear more than a little resemblance to Soviet show trials--with the key difference being that Eichmann deserved to be put on show.

Perhaps what angers people is Arendt's general slipperiness. She extols the impersonality of justice over the personal nature of power, but never seems to worry that bureaucratic impersonality and judicial impersonality are uncomfortably similar. She criticizes the Eichmann court for admitting so much irrelevant 'evidence,' in the form of holocaust survivor's testimony--the court, she says, can only judge the moral guilt of a person for their actions, the court is not the place for social theory or wider considerations. And she's right... but her book is not a court, and she uses the "in court we can only judge one person, not a society" argument to avoid dealing with larger historical and social questions (*why* in Germany?)

She has a good reason for this: claiming that 'all are guilty' erases important distinctions between, e.g., Eichmann, and a Hausfrau just trying not to get imprisoned by the SS. Analyzing societies tends to suggest that everyone in the society is guilty to some degree. Therefore analyzing societies would erase the distinction between Eichmann and our Hausfrau.

Arendt wants to think and write about human freedom; she wants to stand against the social-engineering of totalitarian societies; she wants to do this so badly that she simply refuses to engage with the *actually existing* social engineering that goes on even in democratic societies (see: mass media); she refuses to engage with the actually occurring structural forces that shape our world (see: global capitalism).

So although Arendt is, on the one hand, the smartest person in the room (particularly when that is a court-room), she also comes across as stunningly obtuse. She seems to be caught halfway between traditional philosophy (she remained close to and impressed by Karl Jaspers), political theory (obsessed as it is with political freedoms and giving short shrift, all too often, to social issues), and social theory. She seems to have realized that one can't analyze the modern world without social theory, but also to fear it, as if the analysis of social determination was itself social determination, and not a necessary step towards recognizing and overcoming the forces that shape our world.

I don't think this is the only way to hold on to a sense of human freedom, and it's tremendously frustrating to read this brilliant woman--head and shoulders above almost all twentieth century theorists--not engage with the most important intellectual tradition of her time.

Show Less

LibraryThing member ms_rowse

It's slow starting, and Arendt can be dense at times. But the picture she paints of Eichmann is oddly ordinary, not what you'd think a Nazi criminal would be like. Her take on the whole idea of Eichmann's trial is also interesting...overall, not a book I'd have picked up on my own had it not been

an assignment, but it's not too bad.

Show Less

LibraryThing member scottjpearson

Banal means lacking in originality or boring. It is a fitting description of the Nazis’ imaginations behind the Holocaust. This crime against humanity was so hideous that international laws were created to try those culpable. Adolf Eichmann was among the planners of the “Final Solution” and

fled to Argentina. The new state of Israel had to kidnap him in order to bring him to justice in Israeli courts. He never denied the charges against him and was eventually hanged as punishment. In this book, Hannah Arendt analyzes his trial to show how even an “enlightened” country like Germany could fall to such evil.

This report is not an exciting work. Though crimes and wars are often glamorized, she shows how utterly boring they are. She further demonstrates how an entire culture can fall prey to hideous evils through pride and an excuse that everybody’s doing it. When humans become only self-interested and driven only by self-promotion, we are capable of ignoring our consciences and our own humanity. In the modern world, individuals must learn to say, “no” and “never again,” instead of just passing the buck to the next person.

I appreciate this book’s insights about how Nazi Germany took shape. Before World War I, Germany was considered to have the leading culture in the world – educationally, ethically, scientifically, and artistically. Yet they fell prey to a nationalism that denied the humanity of those not of the “Aryan race,” whatever that means. If they can fall, anyone can fall.

This account, though heavy throughout, reminds me of the seriousness of national politics. It’s easy in a democracy to look upon our political class as entertainers, not leaders. Often, that entertainment leads to beating up on and “othering” someone else. This story shows how that mistake can happen even to the best and the brightest. It shows how only care and conscience can bring justice and love into the world.

Show Less

Fewer