21st out of 100 books
—
79 voters
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.
Paperback, Penguin classics, 312 pages
Published
September 22nd 2006
by Penguin Classics
(first published 1963)
There is a good chance some of your friends read this book. Sign in to see!
sign in »
Friend Reviews
To see what your friends thought of this book,
please sign up.
Community Reviews
(showing
1-30
of
3,156)
In order to pronounce judgment on this book, on Arendt, on the idea of "the banality of evil," you can't simply read reviews, summaries, excerpts, chunks, sentences. You have to read the entire book. You have to. Only by reading the entire book will you acclimate yourself to Arendt's tone, her idiosyncratic writing style, the way a word on p. 252 seems like an odd choice until you recall how she used the same word on p. 53.
In the wake of the book came a flood of criticis...more
In the wake of the book came a flood of criticis...more
it's hard not to come away from this book with conflicted feelings. we all take for granted that what the nazis did was evil, but it's not such an easy extension to say that the people these did these things were evil. arendt's central point is that eichmann is not evil so much as he is unremarkable. he is hardworking, efficient, and actually deeply normal. this is tough to swallow, since he was an integral part of the machinery of genocide that the nazis set up during world war II and was execu...more
Un golpe directo a la mandíbula. De más está de decir que estuvo a la altura de las expectativas, pero eso era de esperar. Lo más sorprendente es la pulsional combinación de emociones que despliega. Por un lado lo esperable, realizado con precisión: repaso jurídico sobre el proceso y evaluación de aquellas circunstancias históricas que podrían ayudar a esclarecer el propio proceso contra Adolf Eichmann. Pero además, el análisis de la genial Hannah Arendt (deformada y citada por impresentables re...more
This book, while sometimes a little hard to read, gave me such food for thought that I have re-read it many times just to grasp all that Arendt is trying to accomplish in this book. Her statements about the "banality of evil" and the "thoughtlessness" that creates evil acts without malevolent intent I think have a lot of relevance for Americans, who work in a world without thinking about how our place in society and in a greater machine affects other people - particularly ho...more
Joshua Nomen-Mutatio
marked it as to-read
The idea of the "banality of evil" as grafted onto the rise of Nazism and its subsequent genocidal rampage has some real importance. However, I hope that this book doesn't ignore the elements of evil that were clearly not just the product of thoughtlessness and bureaucratic impulses. Because, as Sam Harris has to say constantly to apologists for faith-based thinking, beliefs matter. There clearly was a motivating ideology that subsumed every dimension of social and private life (as ...more
Note: the following essay is not my work, but rather a thought provoking piece i wanted to share.
The Evil of Banality
Troubling new revelations about Arendt and Heidegger.
By Ron Rosenbaum
Will we ever be able to think of Hannah Arendt in the same way again? Two new and damning critiques, one of Arendt and one of her longtime Nazi-sycophant lover, the philosopher Martin Heidegger, were published within 10 days of each other last month. The pieces cast furth...more
The Evil of Banality
Troubling new revelations about Arendt and Heidegger.
By Ron Rosenbaum
Will we ever be able to think of Hannah Arendt in the same way again? Two new and damning critiques, one of Arendt and one of her longtime Nazi-sycophant lover, the philosopher Martin Heidegger, were published within 10 days of each other last month. The pieces cast furth...more
Objective analysis of ethically devastating periods in history often seems less popular than it should be. Surely this applies to the Holocaust more than any other commonly mentioned, or generally well known genocide. As if there were some sort of a priori understanding that these events were undoubtedly exercised by the minds and wills of evil men. There is much truth to that; people rarely argue that it's possible that these people are anything but evil, or at least devoid of any sort of mo...more
This should have made a wonderful book, both historically and philosophically. It is Arendt’s report on the famous trial in Israel of Adolf Eichmann, one of the leading figures in the Holocaust, sixteen years after the end of the Holocaust. And Hannah Arendt was supposed to deal with the question of punishment and mindlessness of evil. Well, she was supposed to…
But after finishing the book, I couldn't decide whether Arendt is a terrible historian or a typical philosopher with incomprehensi...more
But after finishing the book, I couldn't decide whether Arendt is a terrible historian or a typical philosopher with incomprehensi...more
During my reading of the book, I was almost convinced that the account of Eichmann's trial was unbiased, frank, and rational. However, I cannot fathom how lack of bias can truly exist. Perhaps, behind that non-bias was Hannah Arendt's attempt to give the other side of the story which no one was looking at, even though she may not be fully convinced of this aspect herself. Or perhaps she really saw Eichmann and other cogs in the holocaust wheel as banal bureaucrats rather than anti-semitic psycho...more
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...more
The latest method to...more
It's easy to see why this book was controversial. Arrendt's treatment of the holocaust is not delicate, and at times her sarcasm is straight up insensitive (as when she can't restrain herself from joking, after a passage about the deranged belief shared by many Germans that if the war was lost Hitler would mercifully gas them all, "And now all that good, expensive gas has been wasted on the Jews!").
But from the contemporary vantage point this quality reads more like a ri...more
But from the contemporary vantage point this quality reads more like a ri...more
probably a weird book to call an all-time favourite, but what can i say, i was warped at an early age by reading way too many survivors' stories and children's holocaust lit. i think what i most value about arendt in this book, which was originally written as a series of articles (she covered the trial as a reporter), is her insistence that the horror of the holocaust was and is no excuse to abandon our principles of justice. her revulsion at the desire in certain segments of the israeli gover...more
This was a hard book to read. It took me over two weeks to read this because I kept putting the book down over and over again to scowl and shake my head and continually make wtf faces. I suppose it's because Arendt goes far to illustrate how someone could absolve themselves of responsibility because they were only following orders, because following orders means the luxury of bypassing moral reasoning, or not being involved in wrong-doing because they were not making the decisions, or even being...more
Charlotte
added it
This was an excruciating read. I wanted to love it because Arendt's idea of 'the banality of evil' is so original, and because the book is contraversial and I was ready to side with her. The first impediment is her style, which is florid, old-style Germanic. A single sentence goes on for a paragraph, and a paragraph for a page or more. It feels as if footnotes are embedded in every sentence--i.e., I had to mentally delete chunks out of every sentence in order to make sense of it. Also off-pu...more
Arendt, Hannah. EICHMANN IN JERUSALEM: A Report on the Banality of Evil. (1963). ****. This is really a five-star book, but the tortuous porse of Arendt makes many of the sections almost impossible to read with any comfort. This account of the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem in 1961 and 1962 first appeared serially in The New Yorker magazine in a shorter form. The book appeared right after those articles were published. After the war, Eichmann escaped to Italy, where he was helped by a Franc...more
I wished I liked this more and certainly wanted to, after reading her enormously impressive 'Imperialism.' I couldn't latch on to a coherent narrative. There were so many details, and many of them related specifically to the actual trial itself (the prosecutors, judges, etc.) that a lot was lost on me. I thought she bogged down too much on these things given the gravity of her topic.
I don't want to detract from her essential insight, however, which remains powerful. Eichmann was tr...more
I don't want to detract from her essential insight, however, which remains powerful. Eichmann was tr...more
Hannah Arendt is devastatingly insightful in this book. It is no surprise she was such a controversial figure: here is a woman who is not afraid to think independently about the biggest issues of her time. I don't entirely agree with her: she conceives of genocide as a new crime, but that is not the case. However, she starts to get at the true unique nature of the Holocaust when she talks about "administrative massacres" in the postscript.
If we accept the original definition ...more
If we accept the original definition ...more
I had to read this for a History class on research and analysis, it was one of my favorite reads. It would be useful to read some background on the author before reading the book, that would explain some of the controversy surrounding it. (Maybe even the court transcript) That said, the book itself is very well written and informative. The way that Arendt writes it, you can really understand both sides (the court and Eichmann) and the reasoning /lack of reasoning behind them. I like how Arendt p...more
Michael
rated it
·
review of another edition
Recommends it for:
German Historians, Political Scientists, International Relations Students
Recommended to Michael by:
Serendipity
This book's current relevance may hinge largely on the question of a state's right to violate the territorial sanctity of another in order to impose justice on a criminal. Of course, the state of Israel merely extradited Eichmann (or kidnapped him - depending on your point of view) in order to try him, as opposed to the recent action by the US to assassinate an individual without trial. Still, Arendt, who is entirely sympathetic to the Israeli cause, finds the case troubling in that aspect, and ...more
Read this on Lacey's recommendation. I was amazed by how little I actually knew about the Holocaust. I had this idea from what I'd learned (school, movies) that there was basically one monolithic system, the Nazis had control in all their conquered (or allied) countries, and the killings proceeded smoothly everywhere - masterminded by Eichmann. Turns out, a couple of those ideas are dead wrong.
- The outcome to Jews (and other targeted peoples) differed enormously by country. Some count...more
- The outcome to Jews (and other targeted peoples) differed enormously by country. Some count...more
Psychoanalyst Dr David Bell has chosen to discuss Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt on FiveBooks as one of the top five on his subject - Psychoanalysis, saying that:
“…She was not a psychoanalyst at all but she shared Freud’s basically tragic view of man divided against himself and of suffering that cannot be transcended. I find her writing totally consonant with a psychoanalytic understanding of the world. She reported on the Eichmann trial in Jer...more
“…She was not a psychoanalyst at all but she shared Freud’s basically tragic view of man divided against himself and of suffering that cannot be transcended. I find her writing totally consonant with a psychoanalytic understanding of the world. She reported on the Eichmann trial in Jer...more
I finally read this, almost 50 years after publication, and, in many ways, it is everything you need to know about how such great evil could have happened as it did. It's a tough read. I had to read other, lighter material in between and put it down a lot. I can understand why the book was controversial. Basically, what we learn from this is that: resistance is NOT futile. Those who did resist and fight back (like the Bulgarians; who knew?) saved at least half of their Jews and sometimes more; t...more
I expected this book to be a philosophical and psychological exploration on the nature of evil, but it turned out to be more about the trial of Karl Eichmann in Jerusalem and a historical overview of his rise to power and his orchestration of Jewish deportation in each of the German-occupied nations. The book reads tediously at points, but other sections are fascinating—the Denmark resistance to Nazi orders, the significance of Eichmann’s kidnapping from Argentina by the Israeli Mossad, the desi...more
I picked this up because many of the other books I read about WW II mentioned it, usually referinig to the "debate" surronding the book. I'm also aware of Arendt's reputation in Europe.
Forgive me, if I ask, what am I missing?
Yes, I know Arendt either outright or comes close to blaming the victimns. She isn't, however, posing questions that students of my generation and younger pose. Does that mean we're evil or insensative? Perhaps naive, but how do we know ...more
Forgive me, if I ask, what am I missing?
Yes, I know Arendt either outright or comes close to blaming the victimns. She isn't, however, posing questions that students of my generation and younger pose. Does that mean we're evil or insensative? Perhaps naive, but how do we know ...more
The title says it all...Arendt, who covered Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem for the New Yorker following his kidnapping by Mossad in Argentina, explores how this unremarkable, sane and otherwise normal individual became a Nazi bureaucrat whose mission was maximizing the efficiency of the Holocaust. She poignantly illustrates how it doesn't take a monster to carry out the most evil deeds, only an ordinary person in the right circumstances and with the right incentives.
When "Eichmann in Jerusalem" was published in 1963, it was met with a firestorm of controversy. Perhaps that wasn't surprising- it was only 18 years after the war, and the wounds were still very fresh in the minds of the victims. What I did find surprising is how incendiary the book still feels today, almost fifty years after it was written. This is doubly odd because Arendt's storytelling style is far from exciting- she refuses to dramatize the parts that are undoubtably dramatic ...more
From Jean Amery's essay on torture in the collection At the Mind's Limits,
describing the first moments of his arrest by the Gestapo:
I knew what was coming and they could count on my consent to it. But does one really know? Only in part. "Rien n'arrive ni comme on l'espere, ni comme on le craint," Proust writes somewhere. Nothing really happens as we hope it will, nor as we fear it will. But not because the occurrence, as one says, perhaps "goes beyond the imagina...more
describing the first moments of his arrest by the Gestapo:
I knew what was coming and they could count on my consent to it. But does one really know? Only in part. "Rien n'arrive ni comme on l'espere, ni comme on le craint," Proust writes somewhere. Nothing really happens as we hope it will, nor as we fear it will. But not because the occurrence, as one says, perhaps "goes beyond the imagina...more
From the Postscript:
Justice, but not mercy, is a matter of judgment,and about nothing does public opinion everywhere seem to be in happier agreement than that no one has the right to judge somebody else. 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. Needless to add,this taboo applies doubly when the deeds or word...more
Do not be fooled by the title of this book. It is not a philosophical text about the nature of evil.
This book is about the politics of the trial of Eichmann and more particularly the real politic of the Holocaust. In fact out of the many books I have read about Nazism it is the most insightful about how the Holocaust worked politically in the nuts and bolts sense.
This book is not about the horror of the Holocaust. If it was I would have put it down.
The most interesting part of...more
This book is about the politics of the trial of Eichmann and more particularly the real politic of the Holocaust. In fact out of the many books I have read about Nazism it is the most insightful about how the Holocaust worked politically in the nuts and bolts sense.
This book is not about the horror of the Holocaust. If it was I would have put it down.
The most interesting part of...more
rachel
rated it
This book is terrifying, in the sense that I believed, before reading, in the ability of people to commit horrible acts in the name of "just following procedure" and Eichmann in Jerusalem gives convincing evidence of that.
Arendt's most compelling support for the banality of evil comes in the biography of the accused: Eichmann was an ambitious man who enjoyed bragging and who joined the Third Reich because he was bored of being a salesman. He was in charge of coordinatin...more
Arendt's most compelling support for the banality of evil comes in the biography of the accused: Eichmann was an ambitious man who enjoyed bragging and who joined the Third Reich because he was bored of being a salesman. He was in charge of coordinatin...more
There are no discussion topics on this book yet.
Be the first to start one »
Hannah Arendt was an influential German-Jewish political theorist. She has often been described as a philosopher, although she always refused that label on the grounds that philosophy is concerned with "man in the singular." She described herself instead as a political theorist because her work centers on the fact that "men, not Man, live on the earth and inhabit the world."
...more
More about Hannah Arendt...
...more
Share This Book
7 trivia questions
More quizzes & trivia...
“For politics is not like the nursery; in politics obedience and Support are the same.”
—
2 people liked it
“Adolf Eichmann went to the gallows with great dignity. He had asked for a bottle of red wine and had drunk half of it. He refused the help of the Protestant minister the Reverend William Hull who offered to read the Bible with him: he had only two more hours to live and therefore no “time to waste.” He walked the fifty yards from his cell to the execution chamber calm and erect with his hands bound behind him. When the guards tied his ankles and knees he asked them to loosen the bonds so that he could stand straight. “I don’t need that ” he said when the black hood was offered him. He was in complete command of himself nay he was more: he was completely himself. Nothing could have demonstrated this more convincingly than the grotesque silliness of his last words. He began by stating emphatically that he was a Gottgläubiger to express in common Nazi fashion that he was no Christian and did not believe in life after death. He then proceeded: “After a short while gentlemen we shall all meet again. Such is the fate of all men. Long live Germany long live Argentina long live Austria. I shall not forget them.” In the face of death he had found the cliché used in funeral oratory. Under the gallows his memory played him the last trick he was “elated” and he forgot that this was his own funeral.
It was as though in those last minutes he was summing up the lesson that this long course in human wickedness had taught us-the lesson of the fearsome word-and-thought-defying banality of evil.”
—
1 person liked it
More quotes…

Loading...










view all 6 comments











































