Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.16 AVERAGE
4.16 AVERAGE
Interesting points:
(a) the participation of the Jews in the expulsion and extermination of their fellow Jews;
(b) the illegality of Eichmann’s arrest;
(c) obedience to a superior’s order as either an exempting or mitigating circumstance;
(d) retroactivity of penal laws (esp. on genocide and crime against humanity) and the violation of the principle nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege;
(e) infringement of the doctrine of territoriality of penal laws;
(f) objections on the applicability of the principles of passive personality and universal jurisdiction; and
(g) the religious psyche of the Jews that made them receptive to persecution and suffering in general.
(a) the participation of the Jews in the expulsion and extermination of their fellow Jews;
(b) the illegality of Eichmann’s arrest;
(c) obedience to a superior’s order as either an exempting or mitigating circumstance;
(d) retroactivity of penal laws (esp. on genocide and crime against humanity) and the violation of the principle nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege;
(e) infringement of the doctrine of territoriality of penal laws;
(f) objections on the applicability of the principles of passive personality and universal jurisdiction; and
(g) the religious psyche of the Jews that made them receptive to persecution and suffering in general.
La descrizione del processo è resa molto lenta e difficile da seguire dall'alto numero di digressioni fatte dalla Arendt, e che personalmente mi ha reso faticosa la lettura. Ciononostante non nego l'importanza storica di questo testo e le conseguenze che ne derivarono. Spero di poterlo presto rileggere con calma e gustarmelo più di quanto non abbia fatto in preparazione alla maturità.
challenging
dark
reflective
I understand why these articles/this book has faced so much criticism, but also believe that is why it is deeply important.
I have several thoughts.
I have several thoughts.
- I think the portrait we get of Adolf Eichmann, his sanity, regularity, and rationality is terrifying and was criticized as sympathetic. I don't believe that it is sympathetic, but attempting to display how easy and rational it was for an individual to participate in and perpetrate genocide and other crimes against humanity simply because it was convenient, popular, and he was doing what he was told. While I know that later in life Arendt regrets the use of the term "Banality", but in hindsight and watching the current rise of totalitarianism, fascism, and autocracy there is not a better word I could find to describe its followers.
- I strongly agree with Arendt's point that every victim of the Third Reich deserves their day in court and to get justice, I also agree that these testimonies did not seem to serve the purpose of trying and sentencing Eichmann. When I think of this in a modern sense I don't know if there was enough specific evidence presented in the trial to convict Eichmann for the crimes he was accused of beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Victims and survivors are in no way responsible for crimes committed against them, regardless of the crime or their behavior. The comments that Arendt presents concerning the lack of resistance from Jewish victims and the cooperation of Jewish leaders are presented callously. But there is some evidence she presents that there could have been fewer victims without so much early cooperation and appeasement by individuals and officials. She makes compelling point specifically around non-violent, administrative resistance (i.e not answering the door, not providing addresses, not showing up at the train station, not relocating, not signing over property). While no one is at fault, it provides good instructions to not comply with the demands of tyrants or their governments.
Overall I think this is an essential read to understand, contextualize, and combat the current rise of the far right.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
reflective
slow-paced
What a tremendously intelligent, well presented, insightful, and deeply relevant book. Arendt provides a lot of super interesting historical contexts, and deeply relevant legal properties or rulings as she follows the entire trial, and the comments she makes as well as the errors she points out, from the prosecution clearly ignoring or flat out contradicting witness accounts, to blatant flaws in the legal arguments used and the view of how this trial ought to have been conducted, I almost feel like this should be a preparation for anyone who is curious about being some kind of human rights lawyer. The amount of research she did for this book is commendable, and she even very clearly lays out a meta analysis of her own commentary, rightly identifying where her limits lie and where more research ought to be done to be able to arrive at a stronger conclusion than the mere intuitive insights she gives.
She’s also, shockingly, actually quite funny. I feel bad for saying this, but there are a number of moments she actually made me laugh with her comments. It actually makes the whole book actually more “enjoyable” to read, it helps you hear her tone and understand a lot more: there’s a point where she criticised the German translation of the Nuremberg Charter’s definition of “inhuman acts”, which had been translated to what could be interpreted as calling the Nazis “inhumane” or “lacking in kindness”. She doesn’t hesitate to add a little comment: “certainly the understatement of the century”.
I’ll admit that there are a number of times where she did lose me on the legalese arguments though, and I wouldn’t even consider myself someone woefully uneducated on the subject. Still, it feels like there are certain moments where she assumes her reader is just as privy to the wealth of knowledge and context she has, perhaps with some sort of judicial and/or philosophical educational background, and certainly is well-versed in the current hot debates among academics on the topic of Nazis and the Holocaust. I originally deducted a star for that, but looking back on it, I still find this book enough of an achievement to still merit 5 stars. I’ll certainly read more of hers.
She’s also, shockingly, actually quite funny. I feel bad for saying this, but there are a number of moments she actually made me laugh with her comments. It actually makes the whole book actually more “enjoyable” to read, it helps you hear her tone and understand a lot more: there’s a point where she criticised the German translation of the Nuremberg Charter’s definition of “inhuman acts”, which had been translated to what could be interpreted as calling the Nazis “inhumane” or “lacking in kindness”. She doesn’t hesitate to add a little comment: “certainly the understatement of the century”.
I’ll admit that there are a number of times where she did lose me on the legalese arguments though, and I wouldn’t even consider myself someone woefully uneducated on the subject. Still, it feels like there are certain moments where she assumes her reader is just as privy to the wealth of knowledge and context she has, perhaps with some sort of judicial and/or philosophical educational background, and certainly is well-versed in the current hot debates among academics on the topic of Nazis and the Holocaust. I originally deducted a star for that, but looking back on it, I still find this book enough of an achievement to still merit 5 stars. I’ll certainly read more of hers.
" Ma il guaio del caso Eichmann era che di uomini come lui ce n'erano tanti e che questi non erano nè perversi nè sadici, bensì erano, e sono tuttora, terribilmente normali"
Uno dei libri imprescindibili del 1900. La Arendt ricevette molte critiche per questo libro (critiche che in parte discute nell'ultimo capitolo di questa edizione), ma molte erano neanche lontanamente incentrate sul libro ( Cosa che capita tutt'ora, criticare senza aver letto un libro o una legge o aver visto un film). Credo che il merito/demerito della Arendt con questo libro sia stato offrire una visione il più dettagliata e realistica possibile in un momento in cui il mondo si stava ancora riprendendo dallo shock dello sterminio degli ebrei. Aver rifiutato la classificazione tra buoni e cattivi e aver descritto Eichmann come l'uomo che forse era, un ingranaggio di un sistema marcio, senza per questo salvarlo. La Arendt è comunque molto chiara sul fatto che il periodo storico non è una scusante per le responsabilità personali, ma è comunque importante capire e analizzare come si è arrivati a un disastro del genere. Molto interessanti i capitoli sullo sterminio in altre regioni europei. Risulta chiaro ( io non lo sapevo ad esempio) che il ruolo dei capi ebrei sia stato fondamentale nel permettere lo sterminio di cosi tante persone in Germania (pochissimi soldati tedeschi erano coinvolti nella questione ebraica). Nei paesi in cui i capi ebrei si sono rifiutati o semplicemente non erano presenti i numeri sono stati molto bassi, vedi Danimarca. Con sorpresa ho appreso che anche l'Italia fascista non ha aiutato la soluzione ebraica granchè, nonostante l'accordo con la Germania poi erano volutamente non efficienti nel raccogliere ebrei e spedirli, per cui spesso gli ebrei passavano da posti occupati da tedeschi a posti occupati da italiani per salvarsi la vita. Credo che alla Eichmann non sia stato perdonato il fatto che pur essendo ebrea non si sia battuta come vittima, ma abbia approcciato il processo con quanta piu razionalità potesse. Sicuramente leggerò altri dei suoi saggi sul totalitarismo. E con questo ho deciso di recuperare più libri segnanti un'epoca rispetto alla narrativa contemporanea.
Uno dei libri imprescindibili del 1900. La Arendt ricevette molte critiche per questo libro (critiche che in parte discute nell'ultimo capitolo di questa edizione), ma molte erano neanche lontanamente incentrate sul libro ( Cosa che capita tutt'ora, criticare senza aver letto un libro o una legge o aver visto un film). Credo che il merito/demerito della Arendt con questo libro sia stato offrire una visione il più dettagliata e realistica possibile in un momento in cui il mondo si stava ancora riprendendo dallo shock dello sterminio degli ebrei. Aver rifiutato la classificazione tra buoni e cattivi e aver descritto Eichmann come l'uomo che forse era, un ingranaggio di un sistema marcio, senza per questo salvarlo. La Arendt è comunque molto chiara sul fatto che il periodo storico non è una scusante per le responsabilità personali, ma è comunque importante capire e analizzare come si è arrivati a un disastro del genere. Molto interessanti i capitoli sullo sterminio in altre regioni europei. Risulta chiaro ( io non lo sapevo ad esempio) che il ruolo dei capi ebrei sia stato fondamentale nel permettere lo sterminio di cosi tante persone in Germania (pochissimi soldati tedeschi erano coinvolti nella questione ebraica). Nei paesi in cui i capi ebrei si sono rifiutati o semplicemente non erano presenti i numeri sono stati molto bassi, vedi Danimarca. Con sorpresa ho appreso che anche l'Italia fascista non ha aiutato la soluzione ebraica granchè, nonostante l'accordo con la Germania poi erano volutamente non efficienti nel raccogliere ebrei e spedirli, per cui spesso gli ebrei passavano da posti occupati da tedeschi a posti occupati da italiani per salvarsi la vita. Credo che alla Eichmann non sia stato perdonato il fatto che pur essendo ebrea non si sia battuta come vittima, ma abbia approcciato il processo con quanta piu razionalità potesse. Sicuramente leggerò altri dei suoi saggi sul totalitarismo. E con questo ho deciso di recuperare più libri segnanti un'epoca rispetto alla narrativa contemporanea.
dark
funny
informative
medium-paced
I don't feel totally right assigning a star rating because I'm not absorbing the book. I got nearly 4 hours into the audiobook before abandoning it completely because I have spent so much time zoning out, paying zero attention, that I could not tell you except in the absolute vaguest terms what the book is even about. I don't think there's a point in trying to tell myself I'm going to listen to the remaining 7.5 hours and try to power through. I'm done.
Weirdly, I recognized the narrator's voice immediately. She also narrated the book written by Lady Astor's maid. I knew that Yorkshire accent was fake! She has a bizarrely cheerful narration style given the subject matter.
A recommendation from a friend, but it's not really my thing, apparently.
Weirdly, I recognized the narrator's voice immediately. She also narrated the book written by Lady Astor's maid. I knew that Yorkshire accent was fake! She has a bizarrely cheerful narration style given the subject matter.
A recommendation from a friend, but it's not really my thing, apparently.