Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem" (Part 2/4)

Thank you so much for this series, I have learned so much.

While Eichmann in Jerusalem is an important work, I think it's also necessary to qualify that these are only Arendt's impressions from limited data. She was not a researcher or a historian. She read Hilberg - magisterial is an understatement, but he was also limited by relying entirely on German sources. She sat through part of the trial where Eichmann had every incentive for self-vindication, so his defense cannot be taken at face value. That's basically the extent of her knowledge on the subject. Most of her observations are not accepted by historians. Her excoriation of the Judenrat has been rejected by virtually every Holocaust scholar who have utilized the Jewish sources, and they generally take a more nuanced and sympathetic view of them (even for ones as controversial and egotistical as Chaim Rumkowski); Michael Marrus is a great example of that. Eichmann is also recognized to have played a much more significant role in organizing and carrying out the final solution than Arendt recognized. So I wouldn't use descriptive language about Eichmann's role in the Holocaust, but instead being clear that these were only Arendt's (largely erroneous) impressions.

Yaaas. David is good for it! Love u, keep doing you David.

More quotes from the book would be great and insulate the topic somewhat from criticism Very insightful and brave work by Arendt told in a dispassionate but pointed way.

This is really good, thank you! But why did you keep stressing that Poland’s role in the whole matter is dubious?

There is something in all of this (imo) and all of continental (and, perhaps, analytic) philosophy that seems to move toward an insoluble and wonderous (if you defer away from the connotations of delight in that word) tension between essentialism and social construction/existentialism. In the former, at its most benign, you have Noam Chomsky looking for groundings of language and morality in genes/genetics without committing to a full knowingness because it lacks the support of empirical data. With the latter you have existentialists/phenomenologists, postmodernists, Lacanian/Freudian (not so much Jungian) psychoanalysts, etc. ad nauseum who, for and from all their disparate and diverse perspectives, disagreements and problematics, tend in some degree to intersectionally eschew the pretensions of "grounding," systemization and complete/d universals. While the latter tends to diminish the capacities of praxis, the former's knowingness and willingness to impose this upon other/ed people can lead to popular movements that can force "egregious harm/s" (that is a euphemism) we have witnessed and are witnessing in history. Maybe the preceding statements have already placed me in an ideological trap that I can't recognize, but maybe de Beauvoir's articulation of an ethics of ambiguity is an inclusive and constructive movement for solutionary projects... at very least I am heartened by the personal perception that Judith Butler's and Zizek's most recent discourse is resonating more harmoniously (I would say in the "politics of desire") toward conceptions of praxis without knowingness... writing YT comments in response to strong readings of philosophical texts (thank you, David) is not fulfilling collective human needs, but I guess we have to start somewhere

Really horrible. I have read so much about Arendt and saw documentaries on her but never knew the full content of this book. Could you also do maim the bodies? And more on Adorno?