Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by nyhvpf9sf
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.5
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.