The Eichmann Trial (Jewish Encounters Series)

On a trip to Israel several years ago, I visited Beit Lohame Hagetaot ("The Ghetto Fighters' House"), the first museum in the world dedicated to the Holocaust. Beit Lohame Hagetaot, which is located on Lohame Hagetaot, a kibbutz near the border of Lebanon that was founded in 1949 by Holocaust survivors, including several from the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, has an extensive collection including many items which are on loan to the more famous Yad Vashem Holocaust History Museum in Jerusalem. One artifact that the Ghetto Fighters' House retained to display in its own facility is perhaps the most chilling of the objects and images I've seen at either museum - the infamous three-sided "glass booth" that surrounded Adolf Eichmann during his trial in Jerusalem. I didn't know the museum had the glass booth, and when I came across it on the top floor of the building, my blood ran cold. In this enclosure had stood the man who was responsible for the removal of one and a half million Jews from their communities, and their transportation to concentration camps via rail, death marches and other means. This was a man whose name conjured up evil itself, not only an orchestrator of untold suffering, but an enemy of all that is right and good. While the glass booth embodied the person who occupied it, it also represented the victory of justice: Eichmann was caught, tried, and executed by the Jewish people.As I examined the materials accompanying the exhibit, I thought about stepping into the booth, however, my revulsion for Eichmann was so strong that I wasn't sure I wanted to occupy the same confined space that he had, even though more than four decades had passed since his trial. After overcoming my hesitation, I entered and sat in one of the jumpseats built for the guards who were always by his side during the proceedings; however, when I sat in the defendant's chair I experienced a feeling of contamination, a tangential contact with ultimate evil that haunted me for the remainder of the day. On a return trip to Israel a year ago, I revisited Beit Lohame Hagetaot, this time with my wife and sons; and while I made sure that they saw the glass booth, my encounter with it was brief, as I was still haunted by the disturbing memory of my previous experience.A number of books have been published on Eichmann over the years, the most famous of which is Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem." Arendt's book is also the most controversial, and not without reason. I read a good deal of it about twenty years ago, however, I found much of it disturbing and never finished it. Arendt's lofty, detached tone along with her argument that Eichmann was merely an unthinking clerk rather than an unrepentant anti-Semite who dispatched millions to their deaths with excessive zeal were among the things that bothered me. Shortly afterward I read "Eichmann Interrogated: Transcripts from the Archives of the Israeli Police," a fascinating selection from the 275 hours of interviews conducted by Avner Less prior to the start of the trial. Here Eichmann revealed himself to be a master of both evasion and self deception, simultaneously self-pitying and snake-like, but also pathetically obsequious. He knew exactly what he was doing - there were none of Arendt's high-minded philosophical explanations about the "banality of evil," or her theories of a man, and practically an entire people who were guilty of "not thinking" or "understanding" what they were doing.Given my relatively recent visit to Beit Lohame Hagetaot, I decided to read "The Eichmann Trial," especially as 2011 marks the fiftieth anniversary of this seminal event."The Eichmann Trial," at 203 pages, is relatively brief, but packs a tremendous punch. Author Deborah Lipstadt is uniquely qualified to write on this subject, given that she herself was embroiled in a long civil trial in 2000 when she was sued for libel by Holocaust denier David Irving. Lipstadt's extensive introduction to "The Eichmann Trial" elaborates on her own experience and while she links the present (Irving) to the past (Eichmann), if the truth be told, a few paragraphs would have sufficed in this regard. Once she leaves her own trial behind, she's completely on target. The story begins with the locating of Eichmann, who was living in Argentina in a cinderblock house with no electricity or running water, a far cry from the lifestyle he enjoyed as an SS colonel in the Third Reich. From this point on Lipstadt recounts the controversy surrounding Eichmann's abduction and the issue of Israel's right to try him, the reaction by much of the press (e.g., The Washington Post ran two editorials asserting that any trial in Israel would be "tainted with lawlessness") and so forth. No space is wasted as Lipstadt zeroes in on one relevant issue after another, highlighting central points in the testimony that have broad-reaching implications. Only a few quotations are necessary for the reader to see that Eichmann, who portrayed himself as merely a small cog in a very big wheel, and a soldier who was simply following orders, was in fact an outrageous liar. He had damned himself by dictating a memoir in Argentina several years before his capture, the transcripts of which came back to haunt him. Lipstadt writes that "In the newly released memoir, Eichmann expressed himself as an inveterate Nazi and anti-Semite. In contrast to the claims made by Hannah Arendt that he did not really understand the enterprise in which he was involved, the memoir reveals a man who considered the Nazi leaders to be his 'idols' and who was fully committed to their goals." In his own words, "I do a job if I can understand the need for it or the meaning of it, and if I enjoy doing it. [Then] time will just fly by, and that was how it was with the Jews."Lipstadt, who is incredibly fair-minded in her comprehensive retelling of the trial and its various themes and personalities, devotes the last chapter of "The Eichmann Trial" to Hannah Arendt and her controversial "Eichmann in Jerusalem." There were many who were outraged by Arendt's theories, which almost seemed to exonerate Eichmann of personal culpability. There were also those on the other side of the fence who thought she was totally objective. Lipstadt points out that while there are merits to the arguments both pro and con, and she cites many specifics in Arendt's favor and not, the scale is ultimately tipped, and decisively so, against her. Eichmann's own memoir, writes Lipstadt, "reveals the degree to which Arendt was wrong about Eichmann. It is permeated with expressions of support for and full comprehension of Nazi ideology. He was no clerk. This was a well-read man who accepted and espoused the idea of racial purity." But that's just a preamble. Not only did Arendt get many of her facts wrong, Lipstadt writes, "[she] may also have been subliminally writing for her teacher and former lover, the revered philosopher Martin Heidegger, who joined the Nazi Party in 1933, ejected Jewish professors from the university where he served as rector, affirmed Nazi ideals, and never recanted his wartime actions.... In 1960, a few months before the trial, Arendt considered dedicating one of her books to Heidegger but decided not to, because it might upset others. In an unused dedication, she described him as 'my trusted friend to whom I have remained faithful and unfaithful.' She helped resurrect his postwar career by minimizing his Nazi affiliations and fighting to get him readmitted to the scholarly world. When 'Der Spiegel' exposed his wartime record she protested that people should 'leave him in peace.'" (Incredible as it may seem, Hannah Arendt was Jewish.) Lipstadt goes on to lambast Arendt, saying "She was guilty of precisely the same wrong that she derisively ascribed to Adolf Eichmann. She - the great political philosopher who claimed that careful thought and precise expression were of supreme value - did not 'think.'" While all of this may appear to be a sidebar, in fact it's quite the opposite. Lipstatdt isn't overstating it when she claims that Hannah Arendt's work, which mistakenly ignores the central role that historical anti-Semitism played in the scheme of the Holocaust, "has shaped contemporary perceptions of the Final Solution."Let's hope that "The Eichmann Trial" undoes some of the damage caused by Arendt's flawed theories of fifty years ago.

April 11, 2011 is the 50th anniversary of the start of the trial of Adolph Eichmann, the event that brought the full significance of the Holocaust to the world's attention.The Holocaust has played a major role in my life. First, my parents were fortunate to escape from Vienna shortly after Hitler and the Nazis marched into Austria in 1938 - "Anschluss," as it was called back then. My parents were then able to get their parents out of Vienna a year later. I was born in 1942 in England and my parents and I moved to the U.S. in 1950. Other members of my family were not so fortunate. Many of them died in the Holocaust. On several occasions in my first 15 years after we moved to the U.S., I was the recipient of anti-Semitic remarks. All of these events made me feel that Jews were a much hated people.In 1993, I learned that the late Gideon Hausner, the chief prosecutor in the Eichmann trial, was a distant cousin. I got to know his widow, son and daughter and we became very close. I learned that Gideon was attorney general of Israel at the time of the trial. Later, he was the founding President of the Yad Vashem, the Israel-based center for documentation, research, education and commemoration of the Holocaust. He also served as a member of the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) for many years, and a minister at large in Golda Meir's Cabinet. Historian Deborah Lipstadt has just written a vital account of the trial of Eichmann, the SS officer who managed the logistics of setting up death camps and transporting Jews to them.In "The Eichmann Trial," (Nextbookpress), Lipstadt makes the point that it was the volume of witnesses who testified that finally put a face on the horror of the Final Solution. Even though many who testified were not directly affected by Eichmann's cruelty, their eyewitness accounts of calamity and destruction were riveting. They ensured that the unspeakable tragedy did, in fact, have a voice.In contrast, Lipstadt notes, the Nuremberg trials just after the close of World War II were chiefly examinations of documents. The most poignant moment of those trials was the use of film of emaciated survivors taken by liberators of the concentration camps.The decision by Gideon Hausner to call a multitude of witnesses was a risk. Lipstadt writes that it was a questionable legal strategy and that Eichmann's judges questioned the relevance. But the personal narratives won out.The testimony "would transform the trial from an important war-crimes trial into an event that would have enduring significance," Lipstadt said. "It would give a voice to the victims that they had not had before."The Eichmann trial was one of the first times the world heard that many Jews actively fought German tyranny. Witnesses recalled the Warsaw ghetto uprisings, fierce and brave resistance ultimately crushed by the Nazis who leveled the area with tanks and heavy artillery. This challenged a prevailing view of passivity in the face of the German regime's power.The trial was significant in showing that the Holocaust was unique and was not just another example of anti-Semitism throughout world history. The enormity of the testimony proved the Holocaust "was an unprecedented crime....No one had ever tried to wipe out an entire people and then erase any vestige either of them or the crime," Lipstadt wrote. The trial's location also was key. The Eichmann trial was the first of the Holocaust aftermath to be held in Israel. It became a national obsession, with citizens glued to radios for hours listening to the proceedings. Although Hausner was opposed to the death penalty and later supported the banning of capital punishment from Israeli law, he made an exception in Eichmann's case.The significance and reach of this legal case has been much debated, particularly by political theorist Hannah Arendt, who wrote "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil," a book that was highly critical of the trial. Arendt particularly took Jews to task for failing to fight back against the Nazis, and even in some cases helping to facilitate their own destruction. Lipstadt points out that they did fight back in some instances and that in any case, the rest of the world made very little attempt to help the Jews.Lipstadt also disagrees with prosecutor Hausner's version of Eichmann's role, which was described in his book, "Justice in Jerusalem." Hausner considered Eichmann as the chief architect behind the entire Holocaust, including the concentration camps, ghettos and mass graves. He believed that Eichmann developed the plans that led to most of the deaths in the Holocaust. But Lipstadt describes Eichmann as the chief operating officer carrying out orders, pointing out he made only minor changes to commands. Yet she details how Eichmann allowed a number of people to escape by leaving Europe instead of reporting to death camps. Such autonomy seems to argue against her view that he was more functionary than commander.Lipstadt is both complimentary and critical of Hausner's handling of the trial. I am not in a position to assess her comments as I have not reviewed the trial's tapes. However, as noted earlier, she particularly acknowledges that Hausner's decision to call 100 witnesses was most important because it placed a face on the holocaust. The world felt the full significance of the Holocaust and that endures to today. .Lipstadt also underplays the significance of Simon Wiesenthal in the Eichmann trial and Wiesenthal's role in capturing many other Nazi war criminals. She correctly notes that he did not play the key role in Eichmann's capture in Argentina. However, as was described by author Tom Segev in his recent biography of Wiesenthal, Weisenthal fought the efforts of the Eichmann family to have their relative declared legally dead. This led to the continued efforts to find and ultimately capture him.Like the Eichmann trial, Lipstadt herself played a significant role in convincing the world that the horrors ofthe Holocaust actually occurred. She and her publisher, Penguin Books, were sued by David Irving over her earlier book, "Denying the Holocaust." She had described some of Irving's writings and public statements as denying the Holocaust. An English court ruled in Lipstadt's favor after a highly publicized trial, constituting an important victory against deniers.Similarly, fifty years ago, the Eichmann trial played an essential role in convincing the world of the truth of genocide. Although it strains credulity that deniers continue to exist, the dismissive statements of some world leaders in Iran and elsewhere show that attention must be paid to eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust. "The Eichmann Trial," as well as a video of the trial produced by the Public Broadcasting System in 1997 are needed antidotes to the resilience of misinformation that pollutes truth.See New York Times book review section on 42011 for an excellent review of the book. (Tony Hausner lives in Silver Spring, Md.)

The author gives a fantastic insight into the feeling of Israel and the Jewish people about putting Eichmann on trial in Jerusalem. Highly recommend.

Lipstadt's access to previously unavailable material makes this a good read.

Deborah Lipstadt has written a brilliant analysis of a complex and controversial historical event, the trial of Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann was one of the key players in the implementation of the Final Solution in World War II, the attempt by Nazi Germany to exterminate European Jewry known as the Holocaust. Lipstadt has always had the gift of conveying a great deal of information in every sentence; not a word is wasted. This has allowed her to report extensively on the Eichmann Trial in a relatively few, very readable pages. She comprehensively addresses the major historical facts of the trial as well as its controversial aspects (the kidnapping of Eichmann, the "retroactive law" argument, his execution and the "banality of evil" issue) in a concise and objective manner. The book is at once packed with facts, complete, fair and readable, a pleasing combination and a Lipstadt trademark. First-class history from a first-class historian.

In 2012 I read Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem", and found it perplexing and at times difficult to understand. Many thanks go to Deborah Lipstadt for doing three things in "The Eichmann Trial": 1. laying out the facts and events leading up to, during and after Eichmann's 1961 trial, fairly and objectively; 2. conveying the story of her own legal battle with Holocaust denier David Irving; and 3. explaining and putting into context Hannah Arendt's often controversial role in the Eichmann trial narrative. It was Lipstadt's clarification of Arendt's perspectives that I particularly value about "The Eichmann Trial". I highly recommend this concise, balanced work.

Very well written account of the capture of Adolph Eichmann in South America and his subsequent trial in Jerusalem. The author criticizes Hannah Arendt's account of the trial.

Excellent book - well written and informative