What do you think?
Rate this book
The Eichmann Trial
The capture of SS Lieutenant Colonel Adolf Eichmann by Israeli agents in Argentina in May of 1960 and his subsequent trial in Jerusalem by an Israeli court electrified the world. The public debate it sparked on where, how, and by whom Nazi war criminals should be brought to justice, and the international media coverage of the trial itself, was a watershed moment in how the civilized world in general and Holocaust survivors in particular found the means to deal with the legacy of genocide on a scale that had never been seen before.
Award-winning historian Deborah E. Lipstadt gives us an overview of the trial and analyzes the dramatic effect that the survivors’ courtroom testimony—which was itself not without controversy—had on a world that had until then regularly commemorated the Holocaust but never fully understood what the millions who died and the hundreds of thousands who managed to survive had actually experienced.
As the world continues to confront the ongoing reality of genocide and ponder the fate of those who survive it, this trial of the century, which has become a touchstone for judicial proceedings throughout the world, offers a legal, moral, and political framework for coming to terms with unfathomable evil. Lipstadt infuses a gripping narrative with historical perspective and contemporary urgency.
NATIONAL JEWISH BOOK AWARD FINALIST (2012)
Part of the Jewish Encounter series
Award-winning historian Deborah E. Lipstadt gives us an overview of the trial and analyzes the dramatic effect that the survivors’ courtroom testimony—which was itself not without controversy—had on a world that had until then regularly commemorated the Holocaust but never fully understood what the millions who died and the hundreds of thousands who managed to survive had actually experienced.
As the world continues to confront the ongoing reality of genocide and ponder the fate of those who survive it, this trial of the century, which has become a touchstone for judicial proceedings throughout the world, offers a legal, moral, and political framework for coming to terms with unfathomable evil. Lipstadt infuses a gripping narrative with historical perspective and contemporary urgency.
NATIONAL JEWISH BOOK AWARD FINALIST (2012)
Part of the Jewish Encounter series
272 pages, Hardcover
First published March 4, 2011
77 people are currently reading
1084 people want to read
About the author
Deborah E. Lipstadt
18 books238 followersDeborah Esther Lipstadt is an American historian and diplomat, best known as author of the books Denying the Holocaust (1993), History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier (2005), The Eichmann Trial (2011), and Antisemitism: Here and Now (2019). She has served as the United States Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism since May 3, 2022. Since 1993 she has been the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, US.
Lipstadt was a consultant to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. In 1994, President of the United States Bill Clinton appointed her to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, and she served two terms. On July 30, 2021, President Joe Biden nominated her to be the United States Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism. She was confirmed by voice-vote on March 30, 2022, and sworn in on May 3, 2022. Lipstadt was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine in 2023.
Lipstadt was a consultant to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. In 1994, President of the United States Bill Clinton appointed her to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, and she served two terms. On July 30, 2021, President Joe Biden nominated her to be the United States Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism. She was confirmed by voice-vote on March 30, 2022, and sworn in on May 3, 2022. Lipstadt was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine in 2023.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 104 reviews
May 9, 2024
Deborah Lipstadt's Study Of The Eichmann Trial
While reading Hannah Arendt's famous study, "Eichmann in Jerusalem", I realized the need to read an additional account of the trial in view of the controversy that still surrounds Arendt's work. Thus, I read this recent book by Deborah Lipstadt, "The Eichmann Trial" written to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the beginning of Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem, April 11, 1961. Lipstadt is Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies at Emory University and the author of several studies of the Holocaust. Lipstadt is best-known for the unsuccessful libel suit brought against her by Holocaust-denier David Irving. In the course of that litigation, the Israeli government released to Lipstadt an autobiography that Eichmann had been writing in his cell in the course of his trial. Eichmann's manuscript had never before been released to the public, and it casts substantial light upon his trial defense and shows his strong personal commitment to Nazism and its anti-Semitic ideology. When Arendt wrote her book, she had seen only isolated portions of this autobiography.
The Irving libel case is important to this book in another way as well. Lipstadt spends considerable space in discussing the case and on the influence Irving and other Holocaust deniers had in bringing her to research and write her book on the Eichmann trial. Lipstadt's book was written to show how the Eichmann trial, with its focus on the enormity of the Holocaust and the witness and testimony of its victims, brought this catastrophe home to the public with an immediacy and a personal focus that it had not had earlier. Lipstadt's experience with Irving brought her back to the world of the Eichmann trial. Perhaps that explains the considerable space she expends on the matter.
Lipstadt offers a chronological account of the Eichmann trial that makes for substantially easier reading than Arendt's difficult style and is more clearly organized. Arendt's account opens with a chapter setting the stage for the trial and she returns frequently to various aspects of the proceeding, including the examination of witnesses. But much of the central portions of her book are written in a way which seems to focus on the history itself during the 1940s rather than upon how this history was recounted in the testimony of witnesses.
Lipstadt's history throughout focuses on anti-Semitism and views the Holocaust as the culmination on long centuries of anti-Semitism in Europe. She begins with a chapter on the Israeli governments 1960 capture and kidnapping of Eichmann from Argentina. Lipstadt is highly critical of Simon Wiesenthal, the Nazi hunter, who claimed undue credit for finding Eichmann. More importantly, Wiesenthal invented a figure of 11,000,000 people killed in the camps, including 5,000,000 non-Jews. Lipstadt rejects this attempt to universalize the Holocaust and to take it away from its focus on Jews.
In subsequent chapters, Lipstadt examines the conduct of the trial, the many witnesses for the prosecution, and the cross-examination of Eichmann. Her focus is on the purpose of the trial and on what it was meant to achieve. The Israeli prosecutor, Attorney General Gideon Hausner, made the decision to develop his case by telling with passion the story of the entire Holocaust and its horrors. Thus he called as witnesses 100 Holocaust survivors who gave personal and unforgettable accounts of their experiences. Much of this oral testimony had little to do with Eichmann or with his role in the Holocaust. The three excellent Israeli jurists who heard the case frequently grew impatient with Hausner for what they called his "picture painting". They were interested in what Eichmann did and in whether he was guilty of the charges. They disapproved of Hausner expanding the proceeding from law to history. The written judgment of the trial court rejected much of Hausner's theory of his case. In general, Arendt's approach to the trial was similar to the Israeli judges. Arendt fully supported the verdict and the punishment of Eichmann but she objected vehemently to Hausner's expansion of the scope of a judicial proceeding.
In its discussion of the purpose and conduct of the trial, Lipstadt's book is squarely on the side of Hausner, even though she recognizes that he overstated his case in some instances. For Lipstadt, the Eichmann trial and the testimony of the survivors brought the Holocaust home with an immediacy and force that it had not had earlier. In her extended summary of the impact of the Eichmann trial, Lipstadt writes: "In short, as a result of the trial, the story of the Holocaust, though it had previously been told, discussed, and commemorated, was heard anew, in a profoundly different way, and not just in Israel but in many parts of the Jewish and non-Jewish world. The telling may not have been entirely new, but the hearing was. ... Despite the many references to the Holocaust in Israel, America, and elsewhere, the story did not penetrate into their reality the way it did beginning with the Eichmann trial. The new hearing of the history of the Final Solution would shape our contemporary understanding of this watershed event in human history." (pp. 194-95)
After giving her account of the trial, the witnesses, and the testimony, Lipstadt offers a lengthy chapter devoted to Arendt's book. She observes that "[t]o many people Arendt was a more central character in the Eichmann story than Eichmann himself.... Her book and the controversy it aroused put this trial on the intellectual map. Her perspectives on both perpetrators and victims continue to constitute the prism through which many people's view of the Holocaust is refracted." (p. 149)
Lipstadt recognizes the complexity of Arendt's account and offers a nuanced if ultimately unsympathetic account of her book. She makes many points, large and small, with I think varying degrees of merit. The major points of her critique are first, as discussed above, that Hausner's approach to the trial was correct, in contrast to Arendt's claim that it strayed far from the judicial process. Second, Lipstadt takes issue with Arendt's view of the nature of the Holocaust and its crimes. Arendt saw the Holocaust as a "crime against humanity" arising from but also separate from the anti-Semitism that had plagued Europe. Lipstadt views the Holocaust as the ultimate result of anti-Semitism and as profoundly and immediately directed against the Jewish people. Lipstadt claims that Arendt ignored or minimized the scope of pervasive European anti-Semitism. To simplify, but not unfairly, Arendt sees the Holocaust as a universal crime directed at the Jewish people while Lipstadt sees the Holocaust as a particular crime against the Jewish people with universal implications.
Both Arendt's book and Lipstadt's book have much to teach as history rarely permits of a single indisputably correct interpretation. I suggest that the two books are more consistent than either author might allow. Their approaches are complementary rather than conflicting. Arendt and the Israeli court were correct about the importance of the rule of law and of the judicial process. Lipstadt and Hauser were correct about the importance of remembrance under unique circumstances. Arendt properly emphasized the universal character of the Holocaust while Lipstadt also properly recognized its pervasively anti-Semitic nature. Arendt offers philosophical depth marred by some dogmatism and by an imperious tone. Lipstadt offers a corrective but not a full replacement. We need both books.
Robin Friedman
While reading Hannah Arendt's famous study, "Eichmann in Jerusalem", I realized the need to read an additional account of the trial in view of the controversy that still surrounds Arendt's work. Thus, I read this recent book by Deborah Lipstadt, "The Eichmann Trial" written to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the beginning of Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem, April 11, 1961. Lipstadt is Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies at Emory University and the author of several studies of the Holocaust. Lipstadt is best-known for the unsuccessful libel suit brought against her by Holocaust-denier David Irving. In the course of that litigation, the Israeli government released to Lipstadt an autobiography that Eichmann had been writing in his cell in the course of his trial. Eichmann's manuscript had never before been released to the public, and it casts substantial light upon his trial defense and shows his strong personal commitment to Nazism and its anti-Semitic ideology. When Arendt wrote her book, she had seen only isolated portions of this autobiography.
The Irving libel case is important to this book in another way as well. Lipstadt spends considerable space in discussing the case and on the influence Irving and other Holocaust deniers had in bringing her to research and write her book on the Eichmann trial. Lipstadt's book was written to show how the Eichmann trial, with its focus on the enormity of the Holocaust and the witness and testimony of its victims, brought this catastrophe home to the public with an immediacy and a personal focus that it had not had earlier. Lipstadt's experience with Irving brought her back to the world of the Eichmann trial. Perhaps that explains the considerable space she expends on the matter.
Lipstadt offers a chronological account of the Eichmann trial that makes for substantially easier reading than Arendt's difficult style and is more clearly organized. Arendt's account opens with a chapter setting the stage for the trial and she returns frequently to various aspects of the proceeding, including the examination of witnesses. But much of the central portions of her book are written in a way which seems to focus on the history itself during the 1940s rather than upon how this history was recounted in the testimony of witnesses.
Lipstadt's history throughout focuses on anti-Semitism and views the Holocaust as the culmination on long centuries of anti-Semitism in Europe. She begins with a chapter on the Israeli governments 1960 capture and kidnapping of Eichmann from Argentina. Lipstadt is highly critical of Simon Wiesenthal, the Nazi hunter, who claimed undue credit for finding Eichmann. More importantly, Wiesenthal invented a figure of 11,000,000 people killed in the camps, including 5,000,000 non-Jews. Lipstadt rejects this attempt to universalize the Holocaust and to take it away from its focus on Jews.
In subsequent chapters, Lipstadt examines the conduct of the trial, the many witnesses for the prosecution, and the cross-examination of Eichmann. Her focus is on the purpose of the trial and on what it was meant to achieve. The Israeli prosecutor, Attorney General Gideon Hausner, made the decision to develop his case by telling with passion the story of the entire Holocaust and its horrors. Thus he called as witnesses 100 Holocaust survivors who gave personal and unforgettable accounts of their experiences. Much of this oral testimony had little to do with Eichmann or with his role in the Holocaust. The three excellent Israeli jurists who heard the case frequently grew impatient with Hausner for what they called his "picture painting". They were interested in what Eichmann did and in whether he was guilty of the charges. They disapproved of Hausner expanding the proceeding from law to history. The written judgment of the trial court rejected much of Hausner's theory of his case. In general, Arendt's approach to the trial was similar to the Israeli judges. Arendt fully supported the verdict and the punishment of Eichmann but she objected vehemently to Hausner's expansion of the scope of a judicial proceeding.
In its discussion of the purpose and conduct of the trial, Lipstadt's book is squarely on the side of Hausner, even though she recognizes that he overstated his case in some instances. For Lipstadt, the Eichmann trial and the testimony of the survivors brought the Holocaust home with an immediacy and force that it had not had earlier. In her extended summary of the impact of the Eichmann trial, Lipstadt writes: "In short, as a result of the trial, the story of the Holocaust, though it had previously been told, discussed, and commemorated, was heard anew, in a profoundly different way, and not just in Israel but in many parts of the Jewish and non-Jewish world. The telling may not have been entirely new, but the hearing was. ... Despite the many references to the Holocaust in Israel, America, and elsewhere, the story did not penetrate into their reality the way it did beginning with the Eichmann trial. The new hearing of the history of the Final Solution would shape our contemporary understanding of this watershed event in human history." (pp. 194-95)
After giving her account of the trial, the witnesses, and the testimony, Lipstadt offers a lengthy chapter devoted to Arendt's book. She observes that "[t]o many people Arendt was a more central character in the Eichmann story than Eichmann himself.... Her book and the controversy it aroused put this trial on the intellectual map. Her perspectives on both perpetrators and victims continue to constitute the prism through which many people's view of the Holocaust is refracted." (p. 149)
Lipstadt recognizes the complexity of Arendt's account and offers a nuanced if ultimately unsympathetic account of her book. She makes many points, large and small, with I think varying degrees of merit. The major points of her critique are first, as discussed above, that Hausner's approach to the trial was correct, in contrast to Arendt's claim that it strayed far from the judicial process. Second, Lipstadt takes issue with Arendt's view of the nature of the Holocaust and its crimes. Arendt saw the Holocaust as a "crime against humanity" arising from but also separate from the anti-Semitism that had plagued Europe. Lipstadt views the Holocaust as the ultimate result of anti-Semitism and as profoundly and immediately directed against the Jewish people. Lipstadt claims that Arendt ignored or minimized the scope of pervasive European anti-Semitism. To simplify, but not unfairly, Arendt sees the Holocaust as a universal crime directed at the Jewish people while Lipstadt sees the Holocaust as a particular crime against the Jewish people with universal implications.
Both Arendt's book and Lipstadt's book have much to teach as history rarely permits of a single indisputably correct interpretation. I suggest that the two books are more consistent than either author might allow. Their approaches are complementary rather than conflicting. Arendt and the Israeli court were correct about the importance of the rule of law and of the judicial process. Lipstadt and Hauser were correct about the importance of remembrance under unique circumstances. Arendt properly emphasized the universal character of the Holocaust while Lipstadt also properly recognized its pervasively anti-Semitic nature. Arendt offers philosophical depth marred by some dogmatism and by an imperious tone. Lipstadt offers a corrective but not a full replacement. We need both books.
Robin Friedman
February 9, 2021
Lipstadt has written an outstanding report on the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann ... and the purposeful transformation of that trial by the Israeli prosecutor from a strictly criminal trial of Eichmann into a portrayal of the horrors of the Nazi's Final Solution that changed forever the way the world viewed those atrocities ... Both of my fictional characters (Berthold Becker and Anna Gorska) will play major roles in preparations for the trial, and perhaps (I haven't decided yet) will also testify as the Eichmann trial becomes the history around which my trilogy concludes ... the first two volumes - A Flood of Evil & A Promise Kept: 1934 to 1946 - are available in kindle and paper editions at amazon.com
May 21, 2011
Lipstadt's most recent book makes a good companion for her History on Trial. In this slim volumne, Lipstadt offers a well thought out and even handed anaylsis of the the capture and trial of Echimann as well as the work of Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. The book is short and immensely readable.
Lipstadt further illustrates the impact that the trial had on the world and how it is still felt today.
Lipstadt further illustrates the impact that the trial had on the world and how it is still felt today.
April 5, 2011
While there were many interesting points and observations, what started as a very promising read turned into a rather frustrating one. By 3/4 of the way through, the author had made herself much too present in the pages. This would have been a much less scattered and more interesting read had Lipstadt limited herself to Eichmann and his trial; instead, she ultimately detoured into several pages of analysis on Hannah Arendt's reactions to the trial where a few paragraphs would have sufficed. Instead of an analysis of the trial's aftermath, the Arendt detour felt personal, and that in combination with the author'[s periodic interjections of "I" and regular statements about what historical figures "must have" felt really detracted from the overall impact of what was otherwise a fairly interesting and engagingly-written work. I'll look elsewhere for a more scholarly, balanced analysis.
July 1, 2017
A good response to Arendt's dubious claims about Eichmann
August 17, 2014
Deborah Lipstadt is my new go-to for Tisha be-Av reading.
I started this book on Tisha be-Av and read most of it, only finishing it up today. Although I've OD'd on Holocaust fiction, there is some wonderful, enlightening Holocaust non-fiction out there and this is a prime example.
In this relatively slim book (200 pages), Lipstadt gives us a meticulously researched, multifaceted, and very readable account of the Eichmann trial -- his capture, his prosecution, his defense, and arguments for and against throughout the procedure. We see Hausner's decision to have various Holocaust survivors testify about their experiences from a variety of perspectives, both critical and supportive, ultimately ending with the effect this had on history (and even that is complex).
After covering the trial, Lipstadt moves into discussing Hannah Arendt's writing about it. Here too, she takes a balanced view. Although Arendt was vilified by many, and justifiably so, Lipstadt manages to defend some of her actions as well. Lipstadt is not only informative and readable, but excellent at fleshing out the various sides of an issue.
I'm going to wait until next Tisha be-Av to pick up another one of her books, but I'm confident that it will be satisfying and a good choice for the day.
I started this book on Tisha be-Av and read most of it, only finishing it up today. Although I've OD'd on Holocaust fiction, there is some wonderful, enlightening Holocaust non-fiction out there and this is a prime example.
In this relatively slim book (200 pages), Lipstadt gives us a meticulously researched, multifaceted, and very readable account of the Eichmann trial -- his capture, his prosecution, his defense, and arguments for and against throughout the procedure. We see Hausner's decision to have various Holocaust survivors testify about their experiences from a variety of perspectives, both critical and supportive, ultimately ending with the effect this had on history (and even that is complex).
After covering the trial, Lipstadt moves into discussing Hannah Arendt's writing about it. Here too, she takes a balanced view. Although Arendt was vilified by many, and justifiably so, Lipstadt manages to defend some of her actions as well. Lipstadt is not only informative and readable, but excellent at fleshing out the various sides of an issue.
I'm going to wait until next Tisha be-Av to pick up another one of her books, but I'm confident that it will be satisfying and a good choice for the day.
May 3, 2011
Lipstadt,Deborah. “The Eichmann Trial” (Jewish Encounters), Schocken, 2011.
50 Years Later
Amos Lassen
The trial of Adolph Eichmann is one of the milestones in the history of Israel and the Jewish people. Judge Gideon Hausner had the evidence to show that Eichmann was an important player in the destruction of European Jewry. Hausner put Holocaust survivors on the witness stand and even though there was never a confession from the Nazi in the courtroom, Hausner found that Eichmann was totally committed to the Nazi party and its actions. The trial was drama at its finest and Lipstadt did extensive research to give us this look at it and its implication for the world.
Israeli agents captured Eichmann in 1960 in Argentina and the world woke up. When Israel decided to try him for crimes against humanity proved to be an event that dealt with genocide unlike anything we had seen before. It also provided a living look at the Holocaust and answered questions as to how we remember the darkest period in the history of the world. When Eichmann was captured, many did not know he was but the world was about to find out.
The author had access to a great deal of evidence which became the backbone of her book. She thoroughly examines the trial and the politics that surrounded it and she answers many questions that have bothered people for five decades. It is amazing that she manages to do so in only 203 pages.
The book begins with the capture of Eichmann and the controversy that ensued. Many felt that Israel did not have the right to try him simply because the country did not exist during his reign of terror. Eichmann tried to show that he was only a small player who was just following orders. What many of us did not know was that he had begun writing a memoir in Argentina and the transcripts of it provided just what was needed to show the world the kind of murderer he was. He had admitted to being an anti-Semite and that he worshipped Nazi leadership.
Until now the classic book about Eichmann and his implications had been Hannah Arendt’s “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil” in which Arendt appeared to excuse Eichmann of being personally responsible for the deaths of so many simply because he was little more than a clerk. Lipstadt shows that Arendt was wrong and that he was a man who was totally aware of what he was doing. He openly spoke about racial purity. To make matters even more interesting we learn that Arendt “subliminally” wrote the book “for her teacher and former lover…Martin Heidegger, who joined the Nazi Party in 1933…affirmed Nazi ideals, and never recanted his wartime actions…”. This certainly causes us to look at Arendt’s book differently.
Lipstadt speculates on how certain of the characters involved in the Eichmann affair may have felt and, for me, this was a flaw and I wish she had used her research more here. However, even with that, this is a very powerful book with great importance.
Lipstadt shows that it was the witnesses that were responsible for showing the Holocaust as the evil that it really was. In the Nuremberg trials, documents were used for evidence but with Eichmann living, breathing witnesses to the horrors of the Holocaust were responsible for damning him. Judge Hausner risked a good deal by calling for witnesses but this is what really doomed the Nazi. When they spoke, the past became very real and ensured that the trial would not be forgotten.
Something else that happened during the trial was that the world heard that there was a Jewish resistance movement and we began to see that we were not passive as so many thought. The Holocaust was more than anti-Semitism; it was a crime unequalled in the history of civilization; it was genocide on an epic scale that not only attempted to do away with an entire people but to do away with the evidence that it had ever happened.
Lipstadt tells us that Eichmann was the chief operating officer who was indeed carrying out orders but was well aware of what he was doing. It was the Eichmann trial that convinced the world that genocide had actually taken place and this is the true importance of it. We are reminded that in the 1950’s and 60’s there were no Holocaust memorials and we were more concerned with the Cold War then we were with the fact that the world had lost millions of people. Israel was little more than a small speck on the world map and it was not until the Six Day War in 1967 that Israel really took her place in the world. It was this war and the Eichmann trial that made the world sit up and notice the country. Lipstadt has wonderfully analyzed the trial and this is one of the most compelling books I have ever read. However I must add that there will be those that disagree with her but they will have to be well armed with information in order to do so. To understand someone like Eichmann, the facts must be at hand and this is what Lipstadt has done—she has carefully analyzed and explained so thereby wakes up the world and gives us a glimpse of “banality”.
50 Years Later
Amos Lassen
The trial of Adolph Eichmann is one of the milestones in the history of Israel and the Jewish people. Judge Gideon Hausner had the evidence to show that Eichmann was an important player in the destruction of European Jewry. Hausner put Holocaust survivors on the witness stand and even though there was never a confession from the Nazi in the courtroom, Hausner found that Eichmann was totally committed to the Nazi party and its actions. The trial was drama at its finest and Lipstadt did extensive research to give us this look at it and its implication for the world.
Israeli agents captured Eichmann in 1960 in Argentina and the world woke up. When Israel decided to try him for crimes against humanity proved to be an event that dealt with genocide unlike anything we had seen before. It also provided a living look at the Holocaust and answered questions as to how we remember the darkest period in the history of the world. When Eichmann was captured, many did not know he was but the world was about to find out.
The author had access to a great deal of evidence which became the backbone of her book. She thoroughly examines the trial and the politics that surrounded it and she answers many questions that have bothered people for five decades. It is amazing that she manages to do so in only 203 pages.
The book begins with the capture of Eichmann and the controversy that ensued. Many felt that Israel did not have the right to try him simply because the country did not exist during his reign of terror. Eichmann tried to show that he was only a small player who was just following orders. What many of us did not know was that he had begun writing a memoir in Argentina and the transcripts of it provided just what was needed to show the world the kind of murderer he was. He had admitted to being an anti-Semite and that he worshipped Nazi leadership.
Until now the classic book about Eichmann and his implications had been Hannah Arendt’s “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil” in which Arendt appeared to excuse Eichmann of being personally responsible for the deaths of so many simply because he was little more than a clerk. Lipstadt shows that Arendt was wrong and that he was a man who was totally aware of what he was doing. He openly spoke about racial purity. To make matters even more interesting we learn that Arendt “subliminally” wrote the book “for her teacher and former lover…Martin Heidegger, who joined the Nazi Party in 1933…affirmed Nazi ideals, and never recanted his wartime actions…”. This certainly causes us to look at Arendt’s book differently.
Lipstadt speculates on how certain of the characters involved in the Eichmann affair may have felt and, for me, this was a flaw and I wish she had used her research more here. However, even with that, this is a very powerful book with great importance.
Lipstadt shows that it was the witnesses that were responsible for showing the Holocaust as the evil that it really was. In the Nuremberg trials, documents were used for evidence but with Eichmann living, breathing witnesses to the horrors of the Holocaust were responsible for damning him. Judge Hausner risked a good deal by calling for witnesses but this is what really doomed the Nazi. When they spoke, the past became very real and ensured that the trial would not be forgotten.
Something else that happened during the trial was that the world heard that there was a Jewish resistance movement and we began to see that we were not passive as so many thought. The Holocaust was more than anti-Semitism; it was a crime unequalled in the history of civilization; it was genocide on an epic scale that not only attempted to do away with an entire people but to do away with the evidence that it had ever happened.
Lipstadt tells us that Eichmann was the chief operating officer who was indeed carrying out orders but was well aware of what he was doing. It was the Eichmann trial that convinced the world that genocide had actually taken place and this is the true importance of it. We are reminded that in the 1950’s and 60’s there were no Holocaust memorials and we were more concerned with the Cold War then we were with the fact that the world had lost millions of people. Israel was little more than a small speck on the world map and it was not until the Six Day War in 1967 that Israel really took her place in the world. It was this war and the Eichmann trial that made the world sit up and notice the country. Lipstadt has wonderfully analyzed the trial and this is one of the most compelling books I have ever read. However I must add that there will be those that disagree with her but they will have to be well armed with information in order to do so. To understand someone like Eichmann, the facts must be at hand and this is what Lipstadt has done—she has carefully analyzed and explained so thereby wakes up the world and gives us a glimpse of “banality”.
January 6, 2013
Definitely an interesting and at times provocative read on this subject.
The book is about two topics – the actual Eichmann trial in Israel and the subsequent writings of Hanna Arendt. These are preceded by a short and intriguing expose of the abduction of Eichmann in Argentina.
The trial had different meanings for those involved. The judges (there were three) wanted to confine it to Eichmann, whereas the prosecutor, Hausner, wanted to invoke the entire Holocaust – and literally broadcast this to Israel and the entire Western World. In this he largely succeeded – by bringing in scores of witnesses whose testimony at times had no direct connection to Eichmann. The trial was covered by an international press who broadcast these searing indictments and educated an audience to the full totality of the Second World War.
Hausner’s unregulated approach infuriated the judges who wished to have a more regulated trial. As the author demonstrates, this “broadcasting” accomplished, for the long term, the goal of implanting the Holocaust in the public domain.
But, the second topic in the book, and more controversial, was the publication of Hanna Arendt’s book “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil”. This set a paradigm for the interpretation of the events of the genocide for years to come. Because the trial was an exposition of the Holocaust, rather than a personal indictment focusing solely on the crimes of Eichmann it sometimes gave an impression of individuals in Germany who were merely automatons following the orders of a top-down society. Also Hanna Arendt never got beyond seeing a man stuck in a glass booth – this reinforced her impression of a simple-minded bureaucrat who had no concept of malevolence.
For whatever reason, she could not realize that this now impotent Eichmann in a courtroom in Israel surrounded by Jews, could possibly be a quite a different person in a German setting with his Nazi cohorts. The bully in the schoolyard, with his pals, will have a completely different persona sitting with his parents in the principal’s office. Thus we got from Hanna Arendt the term “banality” – suggesting the commonplace, the nondescript, an individual performing a routine job. This became part of the myth of the Holocaust – perhaps until Daniel Goldhagen wrote his book “Hitler’s Willing Executioner’s” and shifted the paradigm to something else besides the “cog in the machine”. As Ms. Lipstadt points out, Eichmann was not just doing a job – he did it with innovation and enthusiasm – pushing boundaries as in extending deadlines, filling up more cattle cars with Jews. He was a major player in the Hungarian round-up of hundreds of thousands of Jews who were sent to their deaths in Hungary. Like all his other comrades, they believed in the work they were doing and loved their job. These people were not banal – they were evil and it was by choice. By contrast a German, Anton Schmid chose to be kind.
I strongly feel that Hanna Arendt misled and did a disservice with the term “banal”. As the author astutely points out Hanna Arendt was not even present to witness Eichmann’s interrogation by the prosecutor Hausner. She also points out that Arendt minimized Eichmann’s anti-Semitism.
This was an engaging and excellent evaluation of the Eichmann trial.
The book is about two topics – the actual Eichmann trial in Israel and the subsequent writings of Hanna Arendt. These are preceded by a short and intriguing expose of the abduction of Eichmann in Argentina.
The trial had different meanings for those involved. The judges (there were three) wanted to confine it to Eichmann, whereas the prosecutor, Hausner, wanted to invoke the entire Holocaust – and literally broadcast this to Israel and the entire Western World. In this he largely succeeded – by bringing in scores of witnesses whose testimony at times had no direct connection to Eichmann. The trial was covered by an international press who broadcast these searing indictments and educated an audience to the full totality of the Second World War.
Hausner’s unregulated approach infuriated the judges who wished to have a more regulated trial. As the author demonstrates, this “broadcasting” accomplished, for the long term, the goal of implanting the Holocaust in the public domain.
But, the second topic in the book, and more controversial, was the publication of Hanna Arendt’s book “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil”. This set a paradigm for the interpretation of the events of the genocide for years to come. Because the trial was an exposition of the Holocaust, rather than a personal indictment focusing solely on the crimes of Eichmann it sometimes gave an impression of individuals in Germany who were merely automatons following the orders of a top-down society. Also Hanna Arendt never got beyond seeing a man stuck in a glass booth – this reinforced her impression of a simple-minded bureaucrat who had no concept of malevolence.
For whatever reason, she could not realize that this now impotent Eichmann in a courtroom in Israel surrounded by Jews, could possibly be a quite a different person in a German setting with his Nazi cohorts. The bully in the schoolyard, with his pals, will have a completely different persona sitting with his parents in the principal’s office. Thus we got from Hanna Arendt the term “banality” – suggesting the commonplace, the nondescript, an individual performing a routine job. This became part of the myth of the Holocaust – perhaps until Daniel Goldhagen wrote his book “Hitler’s Willing Executioner’s” and shifted the paradigm to something else besides the “cog in the machine”. As Ms. Lipstadt points out, Eichmann was not just doing a job – he did it with innovation and enthusiasm – pushing boundaries as in extending deadlines, filling up more cattle cars with Jews. He was a major player in the Hungarian round-up of hundreds of thousands of Jews who were sent to their deaths in Hungary. Like all his other comrades, they believed in the work they were doing and loved their job. These people were not banal – they were evil and it was by choice. By contrast a German, Anton Schmid chose to be kind.
I strongly feel that Hanna Arendt misled and did a disservice with the term “banal”. As the author astutely points out Hanna Arendt was not even present to witness Eichmann’s interrogation by the prosecutor Hausner. She also points out that Arendt minimized Eichmann’s anti-Semitism.
This was an engaging and excellent evaluation of the Eichmann trial.
December 8, 2015
This is the first book I've ever read about the Holocaust. We now have decades of hindsight, and the judgment of Nazi Germany is written in stone forevermore, except for the crazed, deluded deniers. Surely, convicting and executing Eichmann, but one genocidal criminal, helped chisel that verdict. By starting here, years after the Holocaust, with a perpetrator of evil apprehended and dragged into the docket, and the hand of justice at work, I was expecting a satisfying, morally certain read. But for me, not so. The wrenching testimony of victims and the reprehensible defenses of the accused left me full of sorrow. The conviction and execution was not cathartic. This hollow feeling was compounded by the strong (and surprising) disagreement among Jewish observers over how the trial was handled, what it failed to do, and the rifts it revealed. This is not a triumphant book. I was totally wrong to expect one.
February 3, 2012
If you've ever wondered why we still seek and punish those who have committed horrific crimes, years ago, the opening address by prosecutor Hausner begins, and sums it all up.."As I stand here before you, Shoftei Tisrael, Judges of Israel, to lead the prosecution of Adolph Eichmann, I do not stand alone. With me at this place and at this hour, stand six million accusers. But they cannot rise to their feet and point an accusing finger towards the man who sits in the glass dock: "J'accuse." For their ashes were piled up in the hills of Auschwitz and in the hills of Treblinka, or washed away by the rivers of Poland; their graves are scattered over the length and breadth of Europe. Their blood cries out, but their voices are not heard. Therefore it falls to me to be their spokesman and to unfold in their name the awesome indictment.
February 19, 2017
It's always amazing how people who commit evil things explain themselves. How they cannot answer straight away that they are guilty. On the contrary they are deeply convinced they're right and above that they were doing good instead of bad. From this perspective this book is shocking. It also made me search for actual trial footage and it was interesting, as well. Definitely a memorable book.
December 29, 2013
Remember the "game" of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon? You can connect yourself to anyone famous with six or fewer relationships among people. I discovered a while ago that I am 5 degrees from Adolf Eichmann (and therefore 6 degrees from Adolf Hitler!!!!!!) But that wasn't my reason for reading this book.
I recently finished a book on why people believe weird things which had a large amount of it concerned with Holocaust deniers. It mentioned the trial between David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt in which Irving, a notorious Holocaust denier, brought libel charges against Lipstadt in Britain for, basically, saying exactly that in one of her books. The trial ended in defeat for Irving and he is now persona non grata in Germany and Britain as well (I believe).
This book, then, combined two interests: Lipstadt and Eichmann. Lipstadt spends her introduction talking about the libel trial and Holocaust deniers in general and then begins her story on Eichmann's actual trial.
Eichmann was abducted by Israeli agents in May of 1960 and executed in May of 1962. He had been living in Argentina under an assumed name since escaping from a POW camp just after WWII ended. The trial focused on Eichmann's crimes and not, as now or at Nuremburg, on crimes against humanity. The idea was to gain a conviction not to fight for an idea.
Eichmann has been considered the Father of the Final Solution but a review of his record does not show this. Yes, he was responsible for the deaths of 1,000s of Jews during the war and initiated many actions on his own, but he was not responsible for creating the idea. Many people, today and then, do not realize this.
The prosecutor in the trial did try to turn it into a podium for the expression of survivors' stories and this succeeded as nothing had before to bringing the human, personal cost of the Holocaust to the attention of the world. However, it was won on the evidence.
Rather than a jury, the case was prosecuted before 3 Israeli judges. (I'm not going into a description of the entire judicial system of Israel.) They would ultimately determine innocence or guilt and the accompanying punishment in the latter case.
What emerges is not the "banality of evil" as described by Hannah Arendt but a more complicated picture. Eichmann was nearly universally described at the beginning of the trial as someone who certainly didn't look like the stereotypical Nazi executioner. He was an old, balding man who looked a bit frightened at what was going on. However, those people who attended the trial day by day soon saw the side of him that WAS the executioner. His displays of anger at his attorney for having to ask him for certain papers he himself had forgotten to bring, the callousness of his posture and face during the most emotional of the survivor witnesses began exposing him as not the man he appeared to be. Evidence mounted on evidence: written memos, testimony by people who had actually dealt in person with him, other Nazis' written reports, etc.
Eichmann's defense? He couldn't remember that incident (although he could remember exactly what he had for dinner at a meeting with higher ups in 1932), memos had been doctored, photos were not what they seemed, he had actually helped the Jews (some of his best friends were Jewish........!), evidence that would exonerate him had been destroyed, the evidence was plainly wrong, he couldn't have been connected with that action because he wasn't there at that time, etc., etc.
Lipstadt does an excellent job of describing the uproar that surrounded Eichmann's capture (why wouldn't he be tried in Germany? was Israel, not having existed at the time of his crimes, legally capable of trying him? Could Israelis hold a fair trial? Would the trial be conducted such that it threw a bad light on the current German government and people?), the trial itself, and its aftermath.
Anyone interested in WWII or the trials of the Nazis after the war should definitely read this.
I recently finished a book on why people believe weird things which had a large amount of it concerned with Holocaust deniers. It mentioned the trial between David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt in which Irving, a notorious Holocaust denier, brought libel charges against Lipstadt in Britain for, basically, saying exactly that in one of her books. The trial ended in defeat for Irving and he is now persona non grata in Germany and Britain as well (I believe).
This book, then, combined two interests: Lipstadt and Eichmann. Lipstadt spends her introduction talking about the libel trial and Holocaust deniers in general and then begins her story on Eichmann's actual trial.
Eichmann was abducted by Israeli agents in May of 1960 and executed in May of 1962. He had been living in Argentina under an assumed name since escaping from a POW camp just after WWII ended. The trial focused on Eichmann's crimes and not, as now or at Nuremburg, on crimes against humanity. The idea was to gain a conviction not to fight for an idea.
Eichmann has been considered the Father of the Final Solution but a review of his record does not show this. Yes, he was responsible for the deaths of 1,000s of Jews during the war and initiated many actions on his own, but he was not responsible for creating the idea. Many people, today and then, do not realize this.
The prosecutor in the trial did try to turn it into a podium for the expression of survivors' stories and this succeeded as nothing had before to bringing the human, personal cost of the Holocaust to the attention of the world. However, it was won on the evidence.
Rather than a jury, the case was prosecuted before 3 Israeli judges. (I'm not going into a description of the entire judicial system of Israel.) They would ultimately determine innocence or guilt and the accompanying punishment in the latter case.
What emerges is not the "banality of evil" as described by Hannah Arendt but a more complicated picture. Eichmann was nearly universally described at the beginning of the trial as someone who certainly didn't look like the stereotypical Nazi executioner. He was an old, balding man who looked a bit frightened at what was going on. However, those people who attended the trial day by day soon saw the side of him that WAS the executioner. His displays of anger at his attorney for having to ask him for certain papers he himself had forgotten to bring, the callousness of his posture and face during the most emotional of the survivor witnesses began exposing him as not the man he appeared to be. Evidence mounted on evidence: written memos, testimony by people who had actually dealt in person with him, other Nazis' written reports, etc.
Eichmann's defense? He couldn't remember that incident (although he could remember exactly what he had for dinner at a meeting with higher ups in 1932), memos had been doctored, photos were not what they seemed, he had actually helped the Jews (some of his best friends were Jewish........!), evidence that would exonerate him had been destroyed, the evidence was plainly wrong, he couldn't have been connected with that action because he wasn't there at that time, etc., etc.
Lipstadt does an excellent job of describing the uproar that surrounded Eichmann's capture (why wouldn't he be tried in Germany? was Israel, not having existed at the time of his crimes, legally capable of trying him? Could Israelis hold a fair trial? Would the trial be conducted such that it threw a bad light on the current German government and people?), the trial itself, and its aftermath.
Anyone interested in WWII or the trials of the Nazis after the war should definitely read this.
April 27, 2016
I've always been an observant of how people in general perceive Jewish individuals as well as the perception of my Jewish-Israeli friends of the world that surrounds them. There are certainly some level of paranoia in both ends, admittedly not remotely close to what one would think prevailed at the time this book was written. Coming from a small island (Dom Rep) of mostly Catholics the whole idea of the holocaust, and the leading believes held for so many centuries, came to me as something that happened in a different planet.
I've always wondered about many of the questions addressed throughout the book, questions i asked many times getting different levels of evasiveness in the answers from both Jewish and non Jewish people. This book makes a compelling case as to why the answers I've been looking for are not as simple as I expected them to be.
I know for fact the subject of the holocaust is widely discussed in Israel schools from an early stage. I also know that survivors, some more than others, pass alone their experiences to their children and grandchildren. However, not being Jewish or Israeli or anything close I've always had the impression that some of my questions would go unanswered due to the very fact of this being such a sensitive subject and my respect for the feelings of those touched by it.
I can only be happy to have run into this book as it covered a substantial part of my curiosity while opening a brief window into what transpired at such an important moment in Jewish history.
The author engages in what seems to be score setting with others at some point but her work is otherwise very good and engaging.
I've always wondered about many of the questions addressed throughout the book, questions i asked many times getting different levels of evasiveness in the answers from both Jewish and non Jewish people. This book makes a compelling case as to why the answers I've been looking for are not as simple as I expected them to be.
I know for fact the subject of the holocaust is widely discussed in Israel schools from an early stage. I also know that survivors, some more than others, pass alone their experiences to their children and grandchildren. However, not being Jewish or Israeli or anything close I've always had the impression that some of my questions would go unanswered due to the very fact of this being such a sensitive subject and my respect for the feelings of those touched by it.
I can only be happy to have run into this book as it covered a substantial part of my curiosity while opening a brief window into what transpired at such an important moment in Jewish history.
The author engages in what seems to be score setting with others at some point but her work is otherwise very good and engaging.
November 24, 2020
A very solid work. One of her best, I think. The book begins with the author commenting on her own libel trial (Irving v Penguin Books Ltd) in England. With this a s a foundation for what follows, she goes on to examine the disputes about Eichmann's capture and rendition from Argentina to Israel, the arguments about whether Israel had any moral or legal grounds for prosecuting him, the debates about how the trial should proceed (should Holocaust survivors testify if they had no direct exposure to Eichmann?), the backgrounds and personalities of the prosecutor and judges, and more. There's a lot to think about here, and Lipstadt sets it all out clearly and laudably, trying her best to be scrupulously objective. I was particularly impressed by her extensive discussion of Hannah Arendt, whose "Eichmann in Jerusalem" was so controversial.
It was largely coincidence that I listened to this and read the WW2-related book "We Germans" at the same time. The New Yorker made available the articles Arendt wrote when she covered the trial for them. After reading them, I found myself wanting to know more about the trial and the basis of the controversy surrounding those articles. Hence, Lipstadt. I won "We Germans" in a GR Giveaway and was uncomfortable putting off reading it, so...
An extremely well-done book. Walter Dixon did a fine job reading it.
It was largely coincidence that I listened to this and read the WW2-related book "We Germans" at the same time. The New Yorker made available the articles Arendt wrote when she covered the trial for them. After reading them, I found myself wanting to know more about the trial and the basis of the controversy surrounding those articles. Hence, Lipstadt. I won "We Germans" in a GR Giveaway and was uncomfortable putting off reading it, so...
An extremely well-done book. Walter Dixon did a fine job reading it.
April 12, 2011
I read this book in one sitting - I felt that the book should be read on the fiftieth anniversary of the beginning of the trial. I loved it. Lipstadt covered the controversy surrounding Eichmann's capture, the decision to try him in Israel and the prosecution strategy. Her research is thorough and fair. She explains why the trial was a monumental event both in Jewish history and in the world's understanding of the Holocaust. She also devotes a significant number of pages to a discussion of Hannah Arendt's account of the trial "Eichmann in Jerusalem." Many people criticize Arendt for her notorious view that the Jews were themselves collaborators. Arendt also saw in the trial "The Banality of Evil" (the subheading of her book), a theory that ordinary people, like Eichmann, are capable of great evil when ruled by a totalitarian society. Lipstadt argues that Arendt ignored the role played by deeply ingrained, historical anti-semitism without which it would not have been so easy to turn ordinary people into perpetrators of cruelty.
Read the NYT Sunday Book Review here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/boo...
Read the NYT Sunday Book Review here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/boo...
August 20, 2013
After having read Hunting Eichmann, I was left wondering whatever happened to Adolf Eichmann after his capture. I knew that he was given the death sentence but I needed to know how this "monster" presented himself during his trial. This book examines that trial and the world's reaction to the barbarity and facts behind the Holocaust. The word Holocaust came about from this trial and remained part of our vocabulary. Before this trial, the world didn't quite understand what had happened, how 6 million Jews perished, how this genocide came about and how survivors found the means to deal with the legacy of genocide that had never been seen before.
The Eichmann Trial gives us an overview of the trial and the world's reaction to the survivor's stories. Very powerful, factual and necessary reading for all, so that we never forget.
The Eichmann Trial gives us an overview of the trial and the world's reaction to the survivor's stories. Very powerful, factual and necessary reading for all, so that we never forget.
Read
September 13, 2015A critical response to Ardent's famous coverage of the trail, begins with his capture in Argentina. Attempts to provide a less one-sided story of the trial than Ardent. A short and surprisingly easy read for such a well-researched and written piece.
July 15, 2017
Recounts the capture, trial and subsequent execution of one of the last “free” Nazis. Also looks at Hannah Arendt’s analysis and the significance of the trial for Israel. Thought-provoking.
May 26, 2025
This is a short look at how the Eichmann Trial impacted history, Holocaust survivors and public perception of the Holocaust in general. It's written not only by an acclaimed Jewish historian, but someone who was sued by Holocaust denier David Irving because of the UK's jaw-droppingly complex libel laws.
This is NOT a definitive look at Eichmann's life or the trial itself. Although there is a long summary of Eichmann's capture and trial, you'll need to watch a few documentaries and read other books about the details ... of which, not all had come to light when this book was published in 2011.
A good section of this book examines the most quoted reporter and historian of the trial, who coined the now banal phrase "the banality of evil." For some reason, Goodreads won't let me type out her full name, so I'll just call her HA. This section was the hardest for me to follow (probably because I'm not old enough) and I zoned out a few times. It does have a point, since HA was read by far more people watched the trial. HA didnt even bother attending the entire trial. HA had a major impact in the 1960s and 1970s Gentile viewpoint of the Holocaust. Although HA was Jewish, she tended to blame Jews for the Holocaust. This is a popular view today.
As the years have gone by since this was published, Holocaust denial is growing. Genocides have happened over and over again since 1945. Those, too, are sure to be denied or ignored. Although the old saying is that history is written by the winners, that's clearly not the case. In America, most states do not require teaching the Holocaust (or just about anything else) in schools.
Although Lipstadt is Jewish, she's first and foremost an historian. She shows the good and bad of each principal player, whether Jewish or Gentile. She can separate myth from fact. The book has extensive notes. Lipstadt also recounts a time when as a young scholar interviewing a Holocaust survivor, she thought she knew it all and let it slip to the survivor, and was promptly put in her place.
This is NOT a definitive look at Eichmann's life or the trial itself. Although there is a long summary of Eichmann's capture and trial, you'll need to watch a few documentaries and read other books about the details ... of which, not all had come to light when this book was published in 2011.
A good section of this book examines the most quoted reporter and historian of the trial, who coined the now banal phrase "the banality of evil." For some reason, Goodreads won't let me type out her full name, so I'll just call her HA. This section was the hardest for me to follow (probably because I'm not old enough) and I zoned out a few times. It does have a point, since HA was read by far more people watched the trial. HA didnt even bother attending the entire trial. HA had a major impact in the 1960s and 1970s Gentile viewpoint of the Holocaust. Although HA was Jewish, she tended to blame Jews for the Holocaust. This is a popular view today.
As the years have gone by since this was published, Holocaust denial is growing. Genocides have happened over and over again since 1945. Those, too, are sure to be denied or ignored. Although the old saying is that history is written by the winners, that's clearly not the case. In America, most states do not require teaching the Holocaust (or just about anything else) in schools.
Although Lipstadt is Jewish, she's first and foremost an historian. She shows the good and bad of each principal player, whether Jewish or Gentile. She can separate myth from fact. The book has extensive notes. Lipstadt also recounts a time when as a young scholar interviewing a Holocaust survivor, she thought she knew it all and let it slip to the survivor, and was promptly put in her place.
Read
July 31, 2019Read this after watching the movie ("Denial") made about the libel case between Deborah Lipstadt and David Irving. The book gives a brief description of the kidnapping of the renegade Eichmann in Argentina by the Israeli Mossad and the heated debate of the validity, legality and the format of the trial. His interrogation is described and in the process we learn Eichmann's life history.
The dramatic trial (which woke up most of the Western World in the 1960's to the history and horrors of the Holocaust) is described in detail. Lipstadt's writing is lucid and this is a good way to learn about Eichmann and this significant juncture of opening Israel up to discourse about the Holocaust
The dramatic trial (which woke up most of the Western World in the 1960's to the history and horrors of the Holocaust) is described in detail. Lipstadt's writing is lucid and this is a good way to learn about Eichmann and this significant juncture of opening Israel up to discourse about the Holocaust
September 2, 2013
Was Eichmann the architect of the Final Solution or just a minor clerk? Today is the 50th anniversary of his execution and the above book is a review of the events surrounding Eichmann’s capture, trial and execution with a focus on Hannah Arendt’s significant, but misguided work, (‘Eichmann in Jerusalem’) written at the time of the trial.
In retrospect and with additional documents now available, it is clear that Eichmann was no minor clerk or ’paper-pusher’ as he claimed at his trial. While not the ‘architect’ of the destruction of European Jewry, he was intimately involved in the early planning and later implementation of the ‘Final Solution’. He gave the orders, ensured that the trains were made available for the transportation to the killing camps and, often, went far above the ‘call of duty’ to ensure that the Jewish populations under his jurisdiction are disposed of. He felt special satisfaction in ferreting out the hidden Jews and of his part in the destruction of whole communities.
The book deals with the various political and ideological currents in Israel at the time of the trial with Ben Gurion and his followers seeking to both educate the young Israelis and to show how different Israel is to any threat to its citizens. There is also a discussion of the reaction of the survivors at facing Eichmann and thoughts about the decision-making and leadership issues in the towns of Europe as the threat of destruction materialized.
Arendt comes in for serious criticism as she minimized the role of Eichmann and other high-ranking Nazis they carried out the process of destroying millions of human beings. Her term, ‘The Banality of Evil’ may not have been too far off the mark, but it served to diminish the actions of those who carried out the mass murder, destroy the evidence and, then, deny their and their compatriots role in the most horrendous mass murder in history. Arendt also minimizes the heroic acts of the Jews (Warsaw Ghetto, Partisans, etc. ) and is very selective in her use of historical evidence. To be fair, Arendt does stress the importance of the existence of a Jewish state both a place of refuge and a source of pride for the Jewish people.
So, in effect, Arendt tried to fit into two worlds. The Anti-Semitic, yet intellectual German world of pre-Nazi Germany and the Jewish and Zionistic world of her upbringing. In her writing about Eichmann, to an extent, she allowed the former to cloud her objectivity.
The book reads well and Lipstadt makes her case that Eichmann was very involved in the daily implementation of the Holocaust. She also has some comments regarding her being a defendant in the suit brought by the dean of Holocaust deniers, David Irving. That trial was recounted by her in a book, ‘History on Trial’ and by well know historian who was a primary witness at the trial, Richard Evans in ‘ Lying about Hitler’. Both books well worth reading.
In retrospect and with additional documents now available, it is clear that Eichmann was no minor clerk or ’paper-pusher’ as he claimed at his trial. While not the ‘architect’ of the destruction of European Jewry, he was intimately involved in the early planning and later implementation of the ‘Final Solution’. He gave the orders, ensured that the trains were made available for the transportation to the killing camps and, often, went far above the ‘call of duty’ to ensure that the Jewish populations under his jurisdiction are disposed of. He felt special satisfaction in ferreting out the hidden Jews and of his part in the destruction of whole communities.
The book deals with the various political and ideological currents in Israel at the time of the trial with Ben Gurion and his followers seeking to both educate the young Israelis and to show how different Israel is to any threat to its citizens. There is also a discussion of the reaction of the survivors at facing Eichmann and thoughts about the decision-making and leadership issues in the towns of Europe as the threat of destruction materialized.
Arendt comes in for serious criticism as she minimized the role of Eichmann and other high-ranking Nazis they carried out the process of destroying millions of human beings. Her term, ‘The Banality of Evil’ may not have been too far off the mark, but it served to diminish the actions of those who carried out the mass murder, destroy the evidence and, then, deny their and their compatriots role in the most horrendous mass murder in history. Arendt also minimizes the heroic acts of the Jews (Warsaw Ghetto, Partisans, etc. ) and is very selective in her use of historical evidence. To be fair, Arendt does stress the importance of the existence of a Jewish state both a place of refuge and a source of pride for the Jewish people.
So, in effect, Arendt tried to fit into two worlds. The Anti-Semitic, yet intellectual German world of pre-Nazi Germany and the Jewish and Zionistic world of her upbringing. In her writing about Eichmann, to an extent, she allowed the former to cloud her objectivity.
The book reads well and Lipstadt makes her case that Eichmann was very involved in the daily implementation of the Holocaust. She also has some comments regarding her being a defendant in the suit brought by the dean of Holocaust deniers, David Irving. That trial was recounted by her in a book, ‘History on Trial’ and by well know historian who was a primary witness at the trial, Richard Evans in ‘ Lying about Hitler’. Both books well worth reading.
August 23, 2017
This was a sobering story, so of course I can't claim that I "liked" it. But neither can I say it was unbearable to listen to. I thought a goodly portion of the book was rather dry considering the subject matter, but I was astonished at the things I did learn from it. The most astonishing takeaway for me was the fact that the Eichmann trial took place during a time period when Jews were still fighting to lay claim to the worldwide sympathies they were owed after surviving the Holocaust. Because I grew up in a world where the Holocaust was known to have occurred and where people offer Jewish survivors and their descendants sincere sympathy and respect, I found it more than surprising that this prevalent culture of sympathy was not always the norm amongst the civilized nations of the world. Jews had to defend their actions during the Holocaust because people kept asking them, "How did you survive?" with the attitude that true defenders of their faith would have fought and died for their freedoms rather than tamely submitted to the Nazi oppression. Years of research and witness testimony from the Eichmann trial among other trials have helped shape our American opinion of the Holocaust. The truth was, however, that the 1950s were still a bizarre time for Holocaust survivors and victims. There was still substantial Antisemitism in most nations and centuries of struggle and persecution of Jews had been previously ignored. If Hitler and his National Socialist party hadn't tried to take over all of Europe, America and Great Britain and almost certainly France might have ignored the complete destruction of the German Jewish people. I guess I had forgotten that Hitler didn't just want to trample the rights of Jews in his nation--he wanted to end their existence entirely. He tried to wipe out an entire ethnicity. And the world stood by and watched him for more than a decade before intervening. It's this kind of revelation that makes this book so compelling. The results that came from the Eichmann Trial--a greater understanding of the suffering of the Jews and how to treat them and a greater understanding of the legal right of the state of Israel to prosecute Nazi officers--changed the international reception of Jews in the aftermath of WWII. It was certainly a very eye-opening book to read during this baffling modern-day resurgence of neo-Nazism in America.
July 16, 2019
Normally enjoy books on this subject matter but it was so clinical and boring. I felt like I was reading a textbook instead of book.
July 9, 2019
I learned so much from this book and almost never found it dry (as sometimes happens with histories). From the kidnapping and extradition of Eichmann from Argentina through the trial itself and the testimony of survivors and then the enduring legacy of the trial, Lipstadt is clear in her presentation and sometimes judgment of the facts. I was especially interested in her argument that it was this trial that foregrounded and gave new authority to survivors' words and testimonies.
December 21, 2025
I have already talked about my fascination with Deborah E. Lipstadt and her incredible account of the groundbreaking trial when she was sued by a famous Holocaust denier David Irving (reflected in her book, “Denial: Holocaust History on Trial,” and its movie adaptation, “Denial” (2016)). So when I learned that she also had a book about the Eichmann trial (about which I am now reading and watching everything I can find), I was excited to read it as soon as possible.
Yes, this is a good book, and I can recommend it very much. Basically, she does here what people initially expected from Hannah Arendt when she was commissioned to cover the trial in 1961. As we know, Arendt “covered” the trial with a surprising (to say the least), even outrageous partiality, cherry-picking some facts and events and ignoring or ridiculing others, and overall provided not an objective overview of the trial but her own interpretation of the events (both those that were happenning during the trial and those that were discussed on it, i.e., the Holocaust itself). Instead of analyzing the trial intelligently and objectively, with all its positive and negative aspects, Arendt almost reversed the situation, endorsing Eichmann’s main self-defense approach (about being “just a little cog,” not understanding much in Nazi policies, and thus not bearing real responsibility) and representing Jews and Israel as evil parties (both during the Holocaust and in this trial). As a result, even in our days, nobody understands much the significance and magnitude of the Eichmann trial but repeats the empty stupidity about “the banality of evil” with glazed eyes.
Deborah E. Lipstadt reviewed the trial events as it should have been done 50 years ago, providing both the necessary historical background and representing the events of the trial as they were unfolding step by step. Plus, she added some discussion of the “aftereffects,” including the “Arendt problem.” So, if you want to actually learn something about history in a clear and concise manner, I can recommend this book wholeheartedly.
Importantly, she wrote this book after her own famous trial with David Irving, and therefore she was able to appreciate both purely judicial aspects of both trials and their historical significance, which are partly overlapping, as you might imagine. Moreover, she had a unique competence to write about the Eichmann trial, considering that, during her own trial, she received an early access to Eichmann’s memoir written by him during his trial (provided to her as an unpublished manuscript):
“During his trial, Eichmann wrote a memoir. After Eichmann’s execution, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion agreed, at the suggestion of prosecutor Gideon Hausner, to seal the manuscript in Israel’s National Archives. Hausner contended that Eichmann had been given extensive opportunity to present his case, and therefore Israel had no further obligation to publicize his version of events. In the late 1990s, one of Eichmann’s sons requested the release of the manuscript. A debate ensued as to what should be done. Some Israeli historians wanted a German research institute to annotate Eichmann’s false assertions prior to publication. Other historians contended that Israel should just release the manuscript and allow the normal scholarly process to take its course. In the spirit of much else in the Middle East, nothing happened. During my trial, one of my former students suggested I look at the manuscript to determine if it contained anything that might be useful to my defense team. Our objective was to prove that Irving’s claims about the Holocaust were lies. It was not to prove that the Holocaust happened. However, we thought that a direct statement from Eichmann’s manuscript about the mass murders would, at the least, demonstrate that Irving denied the very things that those who had engaged in the killings freely admitted. Though it was a long shot, I asked my lawyer to request that Israel release the memoir. A few weeks later, I received a call from retired Israeli High Court Justice Gabriel Bach, who had served as Hausner’s first assistant during the Eichmann trial. Bach told me that the current attorney general had consulted with a high-ranking group of jurists and historians and they had unanimously agreed that my request be honored. Even the prime minister had weighed in on the matter. The next day, my barrister, Richard Rampton, arrived in court carrying a small yellow computer disk with an electronic version of Eichmann’s manuscript, which had just been downloaded to him. When Rampton, who as barrister had the task of pleading or litigating the case in court, introduced the contents of the disk as evidence, it was the first time the memoir was in the public’s hand since Eichmann wrote it.
When I returned to my hotel that night, a hard copy of the manuscript was waiting for me. As I looked through it, I found myself comparing what I was experiencing to what had happened in Jerusalem in 1961. The importance of the Eichmann trial dwarfed mine. Irving cannot be compared to Eichmann in terms of either historical significance or the damage he caused to the Jewish people. Yet there were certain parallels between the two events. One of these men helped wiped out one-third of world Jewry. The second had dedicated himself to denying the truth of this. Neither man started his career expressing overt anti-Semitism. Both men seemed to me to have either conveniently adopted that ignominious mantle or let it emerge from where it had always been when it served their purposes. In the newly released memoir, Eichmann expressed himself as an inveterate Nazi and anti-Semite. In contrast to claims that would be made by Hannah Arendt that he did not really understand the enterprise in which he was involved, the memoir reveals a man who considered his Nazi leaders to be his “idols” and who was fully committed to their goals.”
I personally had two reservations about this book:
First, it was shorter and more laconic than I expected. I hoped for a detailed in-depth account, similar to the one that was given by Ann & John Tusa in their excellent book “Nuremberg Trial.” No, Deborah E. Lipstadt’s book is a much simpler and lighter, although it doesn’t mean that it is bad. No, and it may be even perfect for people who have just started their acquaintance with the subject, as it does not overwhelm the reader with too many nuances and excessive information. For me, though, it was “not enough” in some sense, because I already knew most of the aspects she discusses there, and some of them look more interesting and important to me when they are represented with all the “nuances.”
Second, I felt that Deborah E. Lipstadt was “too soft” regarding the “Arendt problem” )). She even defends her with regard to some accusations, because she tries to be “objective” overall and thus explain Arendt’s position and give her some credit (even where I personally do not see any necessity in this). Nevertheless, she comments on her scandalous articles and book and all the waves of related discussions in the following years with a proper immersion into the topic and giving you the much-needed context that you have to know before or after reading Arendt’s book itself. Again, I would prefer an even more detailed and nuanced account of all this, as I already know much more interesting nuances about some of the aspects and am eager for more, but a less informed reader would find Lipstadt’s representation a perfect introduction to the problem.
Just a couple of short quotes, to give you a taste of the book:
“By the 1960s, the number of Jews and Jewish organizations in the Diaspora who thought that the existence of a Jewish state would compromise their own status as citizens of the countries in which they lived had diminished markedly. In the intervening years since the creation of the state, they had grasped that the existence of Israel did not threaten their political status. Nonetheless, some Diaspora Jews were still sensitive to any Israeli actions that might suggest to non-Jews that Israel was acting or speaking on behalf of Jews who were not its citizens. Eichmann’s capture and, even more so, Ben-Gurion’s comments to The New York Times left them uneasy. Not surprisingly, some of the most vituperative criticism came from Jews who had found a comfortable home in the highest reaches of the non-Jewish world.”
“Arendt’s perspective would be condemned as “tasteless,” “wicked,” “pervaded by vanity,” “inaccurate and curiously unfeeling,” “gratuitous and distorted.” Oxford historian Hugh Trevor-Roper dismissed her as “arrogant” and her book as filled with “half-truths … loaded language and … double standards of evidence.” Her most extreme critics branded her as “sympathetic” to Eichmann and her writings as “claptrap.” Her fans were no less effusive. Stephen Spender, who would become Poet Laureate of the United States, described her work as “brilliant.” Former Poet Laureate Robert Lowell deemed it a “masterpiece.” Arendt’s close friend, the novelist and literary critic Mary McCarthy, proclaimed it “splendid and extraordinary.” McCarthy did more than just praise Arendt. She defended Arendt, by categorizing her critics according to their ethnic identity. Describing the attacks as a “pogrom,” McCarthy contended that Jews were critical of Arendt. Non-Jews, on the other hand, apparently able to see the bigger picture and to react unemotionally, were favorable. Non-Jews who opposed Arendt were summarily dismissed by McCarthy as “special cases.” Dwight MacDonald, a former editor of Partisan Review and a New Yorker and Esquire writer, who declared the book “a masterpiece of historical journalism,” joined McCarthy and dubbed the “hostile” reviews an expression of “Jewish patriotism,” and the non-Jews who criticized Arendt as “Honorary Semites.”
“The trial’s impact extends far beyond Adolf Eichmann and his nefarious deeds. Some of the changes it wrought emanated directly from the court proceedings; others germinated at the trial but were nourished by subsequent events. Some changes affected the Jewish community; others had a far broader reach. Some were profound; others were stylistic. One of those stylistic changes was the adoption of the term “Holocaust.” It had already been used before the trial, including in the official translation of the Israeli Declaration of Independence. However, it was cemented into the lexicon of the non-Hebrew-speaking population when the court translators used it throughout the trial. The trial did not just give a universally accepted name to an event, but greatly accelerated the growth of a field of study. In the wake of the trial, scholars already immersed in researching the Final Solution found a growing audience for their work. More scholars began to explore the topic, thereby accelerating the development of what today we call Holocaust and genocide studies.”
“Although some look back and see a trial of momentous importance because it brought to justice one of the key players in the Final Solution, others dismiss both the trial and Eichmann himself as things of little importance. They charge that Israel aggrandized the matter for political ends. They dismiss Eichmann as simply a transportation “specialist” and fault Israel for using the trial for Zionist ends. They claim he was a bureaucratic “clown,” who really did not understand what he was doing. These differences of opinion about the Eichmann trial may well be metonyms for attitudes toward and perceptions of contemporary anti-Semitism. Some find the overt anti-Semitism of Holocaust deniers the ranting of idiots who are best ignored. Others take these comments quite seriously and see a dire and existential threat to Jewish well-being.”
*
I also want to add these photographs (Lipstadt’s book does not contain them, but I felt an urge to google the key personalities, and I am now inspired to watch all the movies about the trial I can find, because it was an exciting thriller with outstanding personalities as the main actors ))). This is Gideon Hausner, the prosecutor at the Eichmann trial. I love him! (although Lipstadt criticizes him as well)
Yes, this is a good book, and I can recommend it very much. Basically, she does here what people initially expected from Hannah Arendt when she was commissioned to cover the trial in 1961. As we know, Arendt “covered” the trial with a surprising (to say the least), even outrageous partiality, cherry-picking some facts and events and ignoring or ridiculing others, and overall provided not an objective overview of the trial but her own interpretation of the events (both those that were happenning during the trial and those that were discussed on it, i.e., the Holocaust itself). Instead of analyzing the trial intelligently and objectively, with all its positive and negative aspects, Arendt almost reversed the situation, endorsing Eichmann’s main self-defense approach (about being “just a little cog,” not understanding much in Nazi policies, and thus not bearing real responsibility) and representing Jews and Israel as evil parties (both during the Holocaust and in this trial). As a result, even in our days, nobody understands much the significance and magnitude of the Eichmann trial but repeats the empty stupidity about “the banality of evil” with glazed eyes.
Deborah E. Lipstadt reviewed the trial events as it should have been done 50 years ago, providing both the necessary historical background and representing the events of the trial as they were unfolding step by step. Plus, she added some discussion of the “aftereffects,” including the “Arendt problem.” So, if you want to actually learn something about history in a clear and concise manner, I can recommend this book wholeheartedly.
Importantly, she wrote this book after her own famous trial with David Irving, and therefore she was able to appreciate both purely judicial aspects of both trials and their historical significance, which are partly overlapping, as you might imagine. Moreover, she had a unique competence to write about the Eichmann trial, considering that, during her own trial, she received an early access to Eichmann’s memoir written by him during his trial (provided to her as an unpublished manuscript):
“During his trial, Eichmann wrote a memoir. After Eichmann’s execution, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion agreed, at the suggestion of prosecutor Gideon Hausner, to seal the manuscript in Israel’s National Archives. Hausner contended that Eichmann had been given extensive opportunity to present his case, and therefore Israel had no further obligation to publicize his version of events. In the late 1990s, one of Eichmann’s sons requested the release of the manuscript. A debate ensued as to what should be done. Some Israeli historians wanted a German research institute to annotate Eichmann’s false assertions prior to publication. Other historians contended that Israel should just release the manuscript and allow the normal scholarly process to take its course. In the spirit of much else in the Middle East, nothing happened. During my trial, one of my former students suggested I look at the manuscript to determine if it contained anything that might be useful to my defense team. Our objective was to prove that Irving’s claims about the Holocaust were lies. It was not to prove that the Holocaust happened. However, we thought that a direct statement from Eichmann’s manuscript about the mass murders would, at the least, demonstrate that Irving denied the very things that those who had engaged in the killings freely admitted. Though it was a long shot, I asked my lawyer to request that Israel release the memoir. A few weeks later, I received a call from retired Israeli High Court Justice Gabriel Bach, who had served as Hausner’s first assistant during the Eichmann trial. Bach told me that the current attorney general had consulted with a high-ranking group of jurists and historians and they had unanimously agreed that my request be honored. Even the prime minister had weighed in on the matter. The next day, my barrister, Richard Rampton, arrived in court carrying a small yellow computer disk with an electronic version of Eichmann’s manuscript, which had just been downloaded to him. When Rampton, who as barrister had the task of pleading or litigating the case in court, introduced the contents of the disk as evidence, it was the first time the memoir was in the public’s hand since Eichmann wrote it.
When I returned to my hotel that night, a hard copy of the manuscript was waiting for me. As I looked through it, I found myself comparing what I was experiencing to what had happened in Jerusalem in 1961. The importance of the Eichmann trial dwarfed mine. Irving cannot be compared to Eichmann in terms of either historical significance or the damage he caused to the Jewish people. Yet there were certain parallels between the two events. One of these men helped wiped out one-third of world Jewry. The second had dedicated himself to denying the truth of this. Neither man started his career expressing overt anti-Semitism. Both men seemed to me to have either conveniently adopted that ignominious mantle or let it emerge from where it had always been when it served their purposes. In the newly released memoir, Eichmann expressed himself as an inveterate Nazi and anti-Semite. In contrast to claims that would be made by Hannah Arendt that he did not really understand the enterprise in which he was involved, the memoir reveals a man who considered his Nazi leaders to be his “idols” and who was fully committed to their goals.”
I personally had two reservations about this book:
First, it was shorter and more laconic than I expected. I hoped for a detailed in-depth account, similar to the one that was given by Ann & John Tusa in their excellent book “Nuremberg Trial.” No, Deborah E. Lipstadt’s book is a much simpler and lighter, although it doesn’t mean that it is bad. No, and it may be even perfect for people who have just started their acquaintance with the subject, as it does not overwhelm the reader with too many nuances and excessive information. For me, though, it was “not enough” in some sense, because I already knew most of the aspects she discusses there, and some of them look more interesting and important to me when they are represented with all the “nuances.”
Second, I felt that Deborah E. Lipstadt was “too soft” regarding the “Arendt problem” )). She even defends her with regard to some accusations, because she tries to be “objective” overall and thus explain Arendt’s position and give her some credit (even where I personally do not see any necessity in this). Nevertheless, she comments on her scandalous articles and book and all the waves of related discussions in the following years with a proper immersion into the topic and giving you the much-needed context that you have to know before or after reading Arendt’s book itself. Again, I would prefer an even more detailed and nuanced account of all this, as I already know much more interesting nuances about some of the aspects and am eager for more, but a less informed reader would find Lipstadt’s representation a perfect introduction to the problem.
Just a couple of short quotes, to give you a taste of the book:
“By the 1960s, the number of Jews and Jewish organizations in the Diaspora who thought that the existence of a Jewish state would compromise their own status as citizens of the countries in which they lived had diminished markedly. In the intervening years since the creation of the state, they had grasped that the existence of Israel did not threaten their political status. Nonetheless, some Diaspora Jews were still sensitive to any Israeli actions that might suggest to non-Jews that Israel was acting or speaking on behalf of Jews who were not its citizens. Eichmann’s capture and, even more so, Ben-Gurion’s comments to The New York Times left them uneasy. Not surprisingly, some of the most vituperative criticism came from Jews who had found a comfortable home in the highest reaches of the non-Jewish world.”
“Arendt’s perspective would be condemned as “tasteless,” “wicked,” “pervaded by vanity,” “inaccurate and curiously unfeeling,” “gratuitous and distorted.” Oxford historian Hugh Trevor-Roper dismissed her as “arrogant” and her book as filled with “half-truths … loaded language and … double standards of evidence.” Her most extreme critics branded her as “sympathetic” to Eichmann and her writings as “claptrap.” Her fans were no less effusive. Stephen Spender, who would become Poet Laureate of the United States, described her work as “brilliant.” Former Poet Laureate Robert Lowell deemed it a “masterpiece.” Arendt’s close friend, the novelist and literary critic Mary McCarthy, proclaimed it “splendid and extraordinary.” McCarthy did more than just praise Arendt. She defended Arendt, by categorizing her critics according to their ethnic identity. Describing the attacks as a “pogrom,” McCarthy contended that Jews were critical of Arendt. Non-Jews, on the other hand, apparently able to see the bigger picture and to react unemotionally, were favorable. Non-Jews who opposed Arendt were summarily dismissed by McCarthy as “special cases.” Dwight MacDonald, a former editor of Partisan Review and a New Yorker and Esquire writer, who declared the book “a masterpiece of historical journalism,” joined McCarthy and dubbed the “hostile” reviews an expression of “Jewish patriotism,” and the non-Jews who criticized Arendt as “Honorary Semites.”
“The trial’s impact extends far beyond Adolf Eichmann and his nefarious deeds. Some of the changes it wrought emanated directly from the court proceedings; others germinated at the trial but were nourished by subsequent events. Some changes affected the Jewish community; others had a far broader reach. Some were profound; others were stylistic. One of those stylistic changes was the adoption of the term “Holocaust.” It had already been used before the trial, including in the official translation of the Israeli Declaration of Independence. However, it was cemented into the lexicon of the non-Hebrew-speaking population when the court translators used it throughout the trial. The trial did not just give a universally accepted name to an event, but greatly accelerated the growth of a field of study. In the wake of the trial, scholars already immersed in researching the Final Solution found a growing audience for their work. More scholars began to explore the topic, thereby accelerating the development of what today we call Holocaust and genocide studies.”
“Although some look back and see a trial of momentous importance because it brought to justice one of the key players in the Final Solution, others dismiss both the trial and Eichmann himself as things of little importance. They charge that Israel aggrandized the matter for political ends. They dismiss Eichmann as simply a transportation “specialist” and fault Israel for using the trial for Zionist ends. They claim he was a bureaucratic “clown,” who really did not understand what he was doing. These differences of opinion about the Eichmann trial may well be metonyms for attitudes toward and perceptions of contemporary anti-Semitism. Some find the overt anti-Semitism of Holocaust deniers the ranting of idiots who are best ignored. Others take these comments quite seriously and see a dire and existential threat to Jewish well-being.”
*
I also want to add these photographs (Lipstadt’s book does not contain them, but I felt an urge to google the key personalities, and I am now inspired to watch all the movies about the trial I can find, because it was an exciting thriller with outstanding personalities as the main actors ))). This is Gideon Hausner, the prosecutor at the Eichmann trial. I love him! (although Lipstadt criticizes him as well)
May 23, 2011
This book details the history of the Eichmann trial, which recently celebrated its 50th anniversary. I was drawn to this book after reading Tony Judt's Postwar, which made that point that our current knowledge and appreciation of the Holocaust stems from the Eichmann trail and not from the Nuremberg trials - that the enormity of the effort to eradicate the Jews of Europe had not been appreciated as the central fact of Hitler's crimes until the Eichmann trial brought it to the world's attention. The book is a manageable read (250 pages or so) and is very clear. There were several surprises and highlights. The first was the author's fight with an holocaust denier in British courts where she was sued for libel and British courts put to burden of proof on her to prove her charges. The second highlight was the discussion of how the general approach of the prosecution was designed and the conflicts over whether to focus on the overall enormity of the holocaust or to focus strictly on what could be specifically tied to Eichmann. This leads to the final discussion of the disputes with Hannah Arendt and her criticism of the trial and also her "banality of evil" argument. I had been exposed to this argument in college but did not recall the context or how flawed her arguments were -- even though they were not without merit.
Overall the book was very enlightening and prompted me to go back and reread Arendt - through her four New Yorker pieces that were eventually collected into Eichmann in Jerusalem.
Overall the book was very enlightening and prompted me to go back and reread Arendt - through her four New Yorker pieces that were eventually collected into Eichmann in Jerusalem.
September 7, 2012
I can't say that I loved this book, but I can't say that I hated it either. I semi-liked it because it was interesting, there are not a lot of books I can say that about that are written about history in a more historical format. There were definitely dry parts to this book, which I was expecting, but I was expecting the whole book to be dry.
There were still a lot of historical facts and figures that confused me (making it hard to fully understand everything of the book), but all things considered, I think I understood more than I would have thought possible. There were so many striking sentences that got me thinking about everything in such depth. I couldn't believe some of the things that were said or mentioned. Dates and political aspects went right over my head, but the other parts were really well.
I don't know what the last section of this book really had to do with anything (the last chapter and conclusion), but as for the actual trial, it was all laid out in a easy to follow manner...if not a little random at times...or all the time.
Considering I had to read this for a class (Holocaust Lit), it was not a bad selection. It kind of gave an overview of one of the "leaders" so that we can somehow grasp what they were like (even though another teacher warned us that we should never be able to understand the reason behind genocide because that would be rationalizing it, which would make us no better than them). Powerful stuff. I have to say that the material I read from this book will probably stay with me for a long time.
There were still a lot of historical facts and figures that confused me (making it hard to fully understand everything of the book), but all things considered, I think I understood more than I would have thought possible. There were so many striking sentences that got me thinking about everything in such depth. I couldn't believe some of the things that were said or mentioned. Dates and political aspects went right over my head, but the other parts were really well.
I don't know what the last section of this book really had to do with anything (the last chapter and conclusion), but as for the actual trial, it was all laid out in a easy to follow manner...if not a little random at times...or all the time.
Considering I had to read this for a class (Holocaust Lit), it was not a bad selection. It kind of gave an overview of one of the "leaders" so that we can somehow grasp what they were like (even though another teacher warned us that we should never be able to understand the reason behind genocide because that would be rationalizing it, which would make us no better than them). Powerful stuff. I have to say that the material I read from this book will probably stay with me for a long time.
February 11, 2016
A readable account though the end, where the defense take over, is a bit slow. The book stems from the author's personal experience and much of the first third of the book recounts her own experience of being sued by a Holocaust denier for libel under British law. She decided that her defense would not try to establish the truth of the Holocaust which she considers established beyond doubt. Earlier Holocaust related trials had turned into confusing circuses. I think her interest in the Eichmann Trial stems from this experience and, even though Eichmann eventually was convicted for his role in the 'Final Solution,' much of the prosecution's efforts were spent establishing the scope of the horror through the testimony of survivors, many of whom had never met Eichmann. Lipstadt also uses the Eichmann story (and her own) to contrast two strategies for dealing with the Holocaust. One strategy seeks to assimilate the Jewish experience by making it universal--Jews were only the most numerous victims of the Nazi 'ethnic cleansing' (to use a more modern term.) The other notes that, though other groups were also caught up in the Nazi racial policies, Jews were singled out especially. The Final Solution targeted Jews. And no other population was targeted for total extermination.
January 25, 2014
This is what I wanted and didn't get from The Nazi Hunters: How a Team of Spies and Survivors Captured the World's Most Notorious Nazi--context, complications, big words. This is the first book I've read about the Eichmann trial, so it's the only perspective I have--but I really like how Lipstadt made it clear that various participants and observers wanted different things from the trial, and that those ideas and ideals affected both what happened during the trial and how it was reported.
One of her final points is that the testimony of Holocaust survivors during the trial marked a change in how survival stories were told and heard. I don't think she makes a particularly strong case for this; not that I disagree, just that it was a point made at the end, without a whole lot of supporting examples & evidence. It's a really interesting point, and I would've liked to have read more about it.
One of her final points is that the testimony of Holocaust survivors during the trial marked a change in how survival stories were told and heard. I don't think she makes a particularly strong case for this; not that I disagree, just that it was a point made at the end, without a whole lot of supporting examples & evidence. It's a really interesting point, and I would've liked to have read more about it.
February 23, 2014
A really good account of the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann and its meaning. I found this book to be both a good read and even-handed in its assessments. The thing that captured most attention when the book was released was its criticism of Hannah Arendt and her theory of the banality of evil. But even there, I found author Deborah Lipstadt provided a very multi-layered view of Arendt and her vision of Eichmann.
Lipstadt's conclusion is the Eichmann was no mere bureaucrat, and it seems difficult to really dispute that. From the book:
"In every instance where his imprint was to be found -- volunteering suggestions, giving orders or interpreting policy -- Eichmann always chose the most stringent option. Ordered to deport one trainload of Jews, he pushed for two. Ordered to end deportations at a certain date, he fought to extend the deadline. Ordered to deport Jews from one region, he included those from another. A portrait emerged of a man who was proactive, energetic, and a creative master of deception. The defendant, working with a group of subordinates who were dedicated to their task and to him, arranged the deportations of a great portion of European Jewry."
Lipstadt's conclusion is the Eichmann was no mere bureaucrat, and it seems difficult to really dispute that. From the book:
"In every instance where his imprint was to be found -- volunteering suggestions, giving orders or interpreting policy -- Eichmann always chose the most stringent option. Ordered to deport one trainload of Jews, he pushed for two. Ordered to end deportations at a certain date, he fought to extend the deadline. Ordered to deport Jews from one region, he included those from another. A portrait emerged of a man who was proactive, energetic, and a creative master of deception. The defendant, working with a group of subordinates who were dedicated to their task and to him, arranged the deportations of a great portion of European Jewry."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 104 reviews