Comment

Eichmann in Jerusalem

a Report on the Banality of Evil
May 24, 2017Janice21383 rated this title 5 out of 5 stars
Hannah Arendt's incendiary classic. With all respect to Dorie (below), three points: Lippmann and Stangneth cite sources that Arendt did not have access to in 1961; IMO they trust too much to Eichmann's own assessment of himself (he was a boastful and syncophantic man, not prone to deep reflection); and to characterize Arendt's conclusion as "Eichmann was a bloodless, nearly mindless bureaucrat who “never realized what he was doing”' is an extreme oversimplification. I do agree that all three works should be read, not because Lippmann and Stangneth overturn Arendt's findings, but because they add to and improve the portrait of Eichmann. But however valid their findings about this particular man, they miss the larger point Arendt was making. There is much more to her book than Eichmann. It is also a philosophically rich and beautifully written assessment of human behaviour during the Holocaust. If Eichmann was a calculating villain, what about, say Heinz who moved into his Jewish neighbour's apartment? What about Lina who reported the communist couple for printing illegal leaflets? What about the SS officer, who claimed he was forced to commit atrocities in the East, or be killed himself? This is a book about all the people in the world who say they were only following orders, even just the order to remain silent.