Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann In Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil"
A cumulative book review by Dennis D. McDonald
Chapter 2 Thoughts (Aug 24, 2026)
I’m on Chapter 2 of this 1964 book. I’ll add more as time goes by. My thoughts so far:
I can see why many were upset about this book when it first came out. Arendt is critical of the Israeli government in its handling of this “show trial” and she uses the term “banality of evil” to describe Eichmann’s complicity. Many supporters of Israel’s founding were not ready to deal with such criticism, especially when coming from an intellectual luminary like Arendt.
Her discussion of Eichmann’s background goes into detail into how he almost haphazardly became part of the Nazi death machine even though he did not “personally” murder anyone; he was just “following the law.”
While her take on Eichmann is anything but sympathetic, she does illustrate how an ordinary, unambitious, and intellectually shallow person, while somewhat educated, was drawn into Hitler’s orbit. This tracks well with her dispassionate and detailed view of how totalitarianism takes hold and spreads.
It’s this latter view of the “banality of evil” that I find so disturbing about this book in relation to what is happening in the US now.
Review copyright (c) 2026 by Dennis D. McDonald
Chapter 3 Thoughts (Aug 30, 2026)
In chapter 3 Arendt attempts, based on Eichmann’s trial testimony and on transcripts of his interviews, to get “into Eichmann’s head” for an understanding of his perspective on his actions on behalf of Hitler during the Holocaust.
While her criticisms of the trial procedures continue to come through as in previous chapters, she now focuses on trying to understand Eichmann’s state of mind and his inability (or unwillingness) to accept personal responsibility for Nazism’s evil, even though he does not deny active involvement in actions that directly or indirectly led to the murders of thousands.
Arendt’s analysis in this chapter is more sophisticated than a simple tear-down of the hackneyed “I was just following orders” defense. She delineates Eichmann’s state of mind at different stages of his career and how at each point he may have seriously believed that much of what he was doing was actually being done “on behalf of the Jews,” as ridiculous as that may sound to us now.
The picture she creates of Eichmann is of someone able to deftly create different contexts and different perspectives that effectively allow him to shield himself from direct responsibility for Nazi horrors. This “deconstruction” of Eichmann’s personality brought to my mind two thoughts, one ephemeral, the other disturbing.
The first thought is during Clarice Starling’s prison encounter with Hannibal Lecter in the movie SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. When Clarice says, “… you ate yours”when referring to Lecter’s victims, a tiny and fleeting acknowledgement of that fact flashes across Lector’s face and is gone in an instant.
Given Arendt’s analysis, I can imagine Eichmann mentally shifting gears like that on the witness stand in Jerusalem when faced with the incontrovertible horrors of Nazi atrocities that he may have had a hand in enabling.
The other thought, more disturbing, concerns the long term efforts to bring Nazis to justice following the war. Will there be long term efforts to hold the current US Administration accountable for the deaths that have resulted due to ICE actions on the streets of the US and in ICE detention camps? Who might conduct such trials? How far up will the chain of command will responsibility extend?
Significantly, what image of US justice and culture will be promoted around the world if no attempt is made to prosecute those responsible for ICE-related deaths?
While Arendt’s book focuses primarily on Eichmann’s trial, she also reference how resistant postwar German society may have been when it came to holding German citizens responsible for Nazi acts. In that regard it is significant that Eichmann was kidnapped in Argentine and brought to Israel for trial by the Israeli government.
Will there be similar demands for accountability for ICE actions by other nations? Americans may dislike being held accountable internationally for such acts. Future US Administrations might need to be prepared for such eventualities.
Cumulative review copyright (c) 2026 by Dennis D. McDonald
