Scan barcode
alanffm's review against another edition
4.0
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).
ericfheiman's review against another edition
5.0
A interesting treatise on the banality of evil through the lens of the Adolf Eichmann trial in Jerusalem.
ellafaereads's review against another edition
3.0
Quite interesting! Hannah Urendt explains Eichmann's role in WW2, the Holocaust, the world after the war (also the Nuremberg trials) and what the war meant and did to the remaining jewish people and the rest of the world. Absolutely recommended if you'd like to know more than Wikipedia tells you, lol.
rosekk's review against another edition
5.0
Having read other bits of Arendt's writing, and plenty else that references her, I thought I was already fairly familiar with the contents of this book. While there were ideas I'd come across elsewhere, there was so much more to read this book for. The parts relating to the banality of evil were fascinating, but I was surprised to find I got much more about of the book than that. Though it never professes to be a history book, it did teach me a fair amount of history that I was either completely unaware of it, or had only dimly considered. It also made me think much more about the law, how international law can/should work, and morality in relation to those things. Similarly there was a lot to consider about both individual psychology, community psychology, and the nature of guilt. This book doesn't contain everything Arendt wrote on the trial (it's extracts rather than everything), so I'd like to read the unabridged version. I could probably have also done with an introduction, just to give some more background, because although I have some passing knowledge on what happened, I felt a bit more detail would have served me well.
irina_maria's review
informative
reflective
4.5
A powerful study of Adolf Eichmann, which manages to enrich one's picture of the inner workings of the Holocaust (for instance, I was unaware of the key role the Jewish leadership played in it) and of the Jerusalem trials, grappling with the notions of crime against humanity and genocide (and the difference in scope from other inhuman acts, together with the issue of intent and the nature of guilt in the law). I will surely pick up Eichman in Jerusalem as soon as possible.
Here's a lengthy, but essential excerpt from the postscript:
Here's a lengthy, but essential excerpt from the postscript:
Eichmann was not Iago and not Macbeth, and nothing would have been farther from his mind than to determine with Richard III 'to prove a villain'. Except for an extraordinary diligence in looking out for his personal advancement, he had no motives at all. And this diligence in itself is in no way criminal. [...] He merely, to put it colloquially, never realized what he was doing. [...] He was not stupid. It was sheer thoughtlessness - something by no means identical with stupidity - that predisposed him to become one of the greatest criminals of that period. [...] That such remoteness from reality and such thoughtlessness can wreak more havoc than all the evil instincts taken together which, perhaps, are inherent in man - that was, in fact, the lesson one could learn in Jerusalem. But it was a lesson, neither an explanation of the phenomenon nor a theory about it.