Stangneth on Eichmann

[Don Phillipson]

Bettina Stangneth's book Eichmann Before Jerusalem has been
available for a year or two and favourably mentioned here and
there, but hardly reviewed (I'd say:)
http://www.randomhouse.com/book/218310/eichmann-before-jerusalem-by-bettina-stangneth

Favourably reviewed (i.e. Arendt evaluated and condemned) at
http://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/1106/the-banality-of-evil-the-demise-of-a-legend/
Reviewer Wolin adds that Eichmann escaped to S. America in 1950
"with the CIA's tacit approval" because he knew too much about the
Nazi record of numerous powerful figures in Adenauer's BRD administration.
One of the biggest surprises in Stangneth was that Eichmann wrote to
Adenauer in the 1950s offering to return to stand trial, expecting to be
acquitted.

[WJHopwood]

Long Lines

Bettina Stangneth's book Eichmann Before Jerusalem
has been available for a year or two and favourably
mentioned here and there...
...Favourably reviewed (i.e. Arendt evaluated and
condemned) at

http://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/1106/the-banality-of-evil-the-demise-of-a-legend/

Listen up because this gets a little complicated:
Mr. Phillipson's post above refers to a controversy between
those with different interpretations of the meaning of the
word, "banality," used by author, Hannah Arendt, in her
book,"Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil."

Curiously, in a supposed review of a different book,"Eichmann
Before Jerusalem: The Unexamined Life of a Mass Murderer," by
Bettina Stangneth, Mr. Wolin says little about that book, which
he is supposedly reviewing, but says plenty about the Arendt
book, which he strongly condemns for its use of the word
"banality.

Wolin's main objection is Arendt's use of the word in referring
to the principal part played by Eichmann in the planning and
oversight of the "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem"
(a.k.a The Holocaust) from its implementation at the Wanssee
conference in 1942 (at which Eichmann, acted as recording
secretary) to its operation until Germany's defeat in 1945.
According to Wolin, Arendt's use of "banality" in reference to
Eichmann's role in the mass murders trivialized the horrors of
the Holocaust and minimized Eichmann's crucial part in it.

Although Wolin's offense at Arendt's use of "banality" in
connection with Eichmann is apparently shared by some,
offense its use by Arendt does not seem to be universal
among all who feel as strongly about the evils of the
Holocaust as does Mr, Wolin. Perhaps that is because the
word has numerous shades of meaning, depending on what
the one who uses it means to say and how it is interpreted
by the one who reads it.

One who apparently had a more favorable, or at least less
hostile, view of its use in referring to Eichmann is the
well-known Nazi hunter, Simon Wiesenthal, who, in his book,
"Justice Not Vengeance," is quoted as having written the
following:
"The world now understands the concept of 'desk murderer'.
We know that one doesn't need to be fanatical, sadistic, or
mentally ill to murder millions; that it is enough to be a loyal
follower eager to do one's duty."

WJH

[Don Phillipson]

Post by Don Phillipson
http://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/1106/the-banality-of-evil-the-demise-of-a-legend/
. . . controversy between
those with different interpretations of the meaning of the
word, "banality," used by author, Hannah Arendt, in her
book,"Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil."
Curiously, in a supposed review of a different book,"Eichmann
Before Jerusalem: The Unexamined Life of a Mass Murderer," by
Bettina Stangneth, Mr. Wolin says little about that book, which
he is supposedly reviewing, but says plenty about the Arendt
book, which he strongly condemns for its use of the word
"banality.
Wolin's main objection is Arendt's use of the word in referring
to the principal part played by Eichmann in the planning and
oversight of the "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem"
(a.k.a The Holocaust) from its implementation at the Wanssee
conference in 1942 (at which Eichmann, acted as recording
secretary) to its operation until Germany's defeat in 1945.
According to Wolin, Arendt's use of "banality" in reference to
Eichmann's role in the mass murders trivialized the horrors of
the Holocaust and minimized Eichmann's crucial part in it.

I think Wolin is saying that written records of Eichmann in
S.America in the 1950s (unavailable in 1961 but studied by
Stangneth) substantiate his active enthusiasm for genocide,
thus show that Arendt's "banality" (as generally understood)
is quite wrong.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Don Phillipson
I think Wolin is saying that written records of Eichmann in
S.America in the 1950s (unavailable in 1961 but studied by
Stangneth) substantiate his active enthusiasm for genocide,
thus show that Arendt's "banality" (as generally understood)
is quite wrong.

I had always thought that Arend's point
was that these horrendous crimes were
perpetrated not by a Satanic eminence,
but a dull, colorless bureaucrat.

Some great crimes (9/11 for instance)
are committed as a dramatic display.
Some great criminals are big personalities
with huge ambitions.

In Eichmann's case, the crime was reduced
to the execution of bureaucratic
directives by a passionless nobody.

[Michele]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Don Phillipson
I think Wolin is saying that written records of Eichmann in
S.America in the 1950s (unavailable in 1961 but studied by
Stangneth) substantiate his active enthusiasm for genocide,
thus show that Arendt's "banality" (as generally understood)
is quite wrong.

I had always thought that Arend's point
was that these horrendous crimes were
perpetrated not by a Satanic eminence,
but a dull, colorless bureaucrat.
Some great crimes (9/11 for instance)
are committed as a dramatic display.
Some great criminals are big personalities
with huge ambitions.
In Eichmann's case, the crime was reduced
to the execution of bureaucratic
directives by a passionless nobody.

I agree. Let's not forget how it's easy to glamorize evil. Lots of
people are fascinated by serial killers. We have a long cultural
tradition of Satan as a remarkable anti-hero, evil, yes, but not without
a greatness of his own. Nazism, also thanks to Hitler's penchant for
propaganda in images (simple and strong symbols, spiffy uniforms etc.)
and words, would still be a candidate for this among the less well informed.

[Bill]

Post by Michele

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Don Phillipson
I think Wolin is saying that written records of Eichmann in
S.America in the 1950s (unavailable in 1961 but studied by
Stangneth) substantiate his active enthusiasm for genocide,
thus show that Arendt's "banality" (as generally understood)
is quite wrong.

I had always thought that Arend's point
was that these horrendous crimes were
perpetrated not by a Satanic eminence,
but a dull, colorless bureaucrat.
Some great crimes (9/11 for instance)
are committed as a dramatic display.
Some great criminals are big personalities
with huge ambitions.
In Eichmann's case, the crime was reduced
to the execution of bureaucratic
directives by a passionless nobody.

I agree. Let's not forget how it's easy to glamorize evil. Lots of
people are fascinated by serial killers. We have a long cultural
tradition of Satan as a remarkable anti-hero, evil, yes, but not without
a greatness of his own. Nazism, also thanks to Hitler's penchant for
propaganda in images (simple and strong symbols, spiffy uniforms etc.)
and words, would still be a candidate for this among the less well informed.

The problem here is that Heydrich and company really were glamorous...

And the uniforms really were terribly spiffy.

It has stopped most of the Western world from adopting spiffy
'designer' uniforms and being dazzled by glam politicians for almost
three generations now.

[Michael Emrys]

Post by Bill
It has stopped most of the Western world from adopting spiffy
'designer' uniforms and being dazzled by glam politicians for almost
three generations now.

Someone once observed, with particular attention to Latin-American
military dictatorships (which were rife at the time), that the more
ornate and beautiful the uniforms, the uglier and more repellent the
regime. I find that with few exceptions to have held up pretty well.

Michael

[Mario]

Post by Michael Emrys

Post by Bill
It has stopped most of the Western world from adopting
spiffy 'designer' uniforms and being dazzled by glam
politicians for almost three generations now.

Someone once observed, with particular attention to
Latin-American military dictatorships (which were rife at the
time), that the more ornate and beautiful the uniforms, the
uglier and more repellent the regime. I find that with few
exceptions to have held up pretty well.

Fidel Castro's uniform wasn't all that glamour...

[Bill]

Post by Mario

Post by Michael Emrys

Post by Bill
It has stopped most of the Western world from adopting
spiffy 'designer' uniforms and being dazzled by glam
politicians for almost three generations now.

Someone once observed, with particular attention to
Latin-American military dictatorships (which were rife at the
time), that the more ornate and beautiful the uniforms, the
uglier and more repellent the regime. I find that with few
exceptions to have held up pretty well.

Fidel Castro's uniform wasn't all that glamour...

And compared to someone like 'Blowtorch Bob' he isn't really that
nasty...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_D%27Aubuisson

[Bill]

Post by Michael Emrys

Post by Bill
It has stopped most of the Western world from adopting spiffy
'designer' uniforms and being dazzled by glam politicians for almost
three generations now.

Someone once observed, with particular attention to Latin-American
military dictatorships (which were rife at the time), that the more
ornate and beautiful the uniforms, the uglier and more repellent the
regime. I find that with few exceptions to have held up pretty well.

I think it was James Dunnigan who wrote something on the lines of:

'In any given war it's the guys who look like sacks of shit tied up
in the middle who win'.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Bill
'In any given war it's the guys who look like sacks of shit tied up
in the middle who win'.

Funny - I always thought Dunnigan was a huge fanboy for George Patton
who certainly didn't look like a 'sack of sh**'

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Bill
'In any given war it's the guys who look like sacks of shit tied up
in the middle who win'.

Yes - I never did remember Dunnigan being a fan of George Patton....

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Bill

Post by Michael Emrys
Someone once observed, with particular attention to Latin-American
military dictatorships (which were rife at the time), that the more
ornate and beautiful the uniforms, the uglier and more repellent the
regime. I find that with few exceptions to have held up pretty well.

'In any given war it's the guys who look like sacks of shit tied up
in the middle who win'.

Much as I respect Dunnigan the original poster was talking about ugly
and repellent regimes not their uniforms.

Just a bit of difference!

[Don Phillipson]

Post by Bill
'In any given war it's the guys who look like sacks of shit tied up
in the middle who win'.

Napoleon thought that, the more gorgeously his soldiers dressed,
rankers as well as officers, the better they would fight. Nowadays
American soldiers (of all ranks) seem to think they look more
"operational" in camouflaged overalls than in what we used to
call "best blue." Perhaps this fashion is borrowed from the
current enemy.

[Duwop]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Bill
'In any given war it's the guys who look like sacks of shit tied up
in the middle who win'.

Napoleon thought that, the more gorgeously his soldiers dressed,
rankers as well as officers, the better they would fight. Nowadays
American soldiers (of all ranks) seem to think they look more
"operational" in camouflaged overalls than in what we used to
call "best blue." Perhaps this fashion is borrowed from the
current enemy.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Well, camoflage BDU's became standard issue sometime in the late 70's
early 80's and back then came in only a pattern intended for the
European theatre. It has since been greatly expanded and experimented
on. So borrowing from the current enemy might not be the case.

[Mario]

Post by Don Phillipson

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:24:00 -0400, Bill

Post by Bill
I think it was James Dunnigan who wrote something on the
'In any given war it's the guys who look like sacks of shit
tied up in the middle who win'.

Napoleon thought that, the more gorgeously his soldiers
dressed, rankers as well as officers, the better they would
fight.
Nowadays American soldiers (of all ranks) seem to think they
look more "operational" in camouflaged overalls than in what
we used to call "best blue."
Perhaps this fashion is borrowed from the current enemy.

Adversary.
Enemy is the Navy.
(gen. Curtis LeMay)
;-)

[Don Phillipson]

. . . Let's not forget how it's easy to glamorize evil. Lots of people
are fascinated by serial killers. We have a long cultural tradition of
Satan as a remarkable anti-hero, evil, yes, but not without a greatness of
his own. Nazism, also thanks to Hitler's penchant for propaganda in images
(simple and strong symbols, spiffy uniforms etc.) and words, would still
be a candidate for this among the less well informed.

If real, this seems to be strictly a 20th century phenomenon. Milton's
Satan (1667) provided a glamorous precedent, but only in the
English-speaking world, and was forgotten by 1920 or whenever
Mussolini made Fascist uniform, marching, etc., glamorous.
Contrarian Satanism was eclipsed by the real events of WW2,
after which uniforms were worn only for functional reasons, not
fashion: but revived about 1970 when (hippy) contrarianism was
co-opted by the music and fashion industries, cf "heavy metal" etc. .

[WJHopwood]

Post by Rich Rostrom
I had always thought that Arend's point
was that these horrendous crimes were
perpetrated not by a Satanic eminence,
but a dull, colorless bureaucrat...

.>In Eichmann's case, the crime was reduced

Post by Rich Rostrom
to the execution of bureaucratic
dirrectives by a passionless nobody.

I think that was precisely her point. I don't
understand why such a firestorm is raging
over her use of the phrase "The banality
of evil." To me it seems clear that Arendt
used the word "banality" in the sense that
to Eichmann the genocide he directed was
ordinary and commonplace under the
circumstances. That he thought there was
nothing special about it. In other words,
it was "banal."

WJH

[Don Phillipson]

Post by WJHopwood

Post by Rich Rostrom
I had always thought that Arend's point
was that these horrendous crimes were
perpetrated not by a Satanic eminence,
but a dull, colorless bureaucrat...

.>In Eichmann's case, the crime was reduced

Post by Rich Rostrom
to the execution of bureaucratic
dirrectives by a passionless nobody.

I think that was precisely her point. I don't
understand why such a firestorm is raging
over her use of the phrase "The banality
of evil." To me it seems clear that Arendt
used the word "banality" in the sense that
to Eichmann the genocide he directed was
ordinary and commonplace under the
circumstances. That he thought there was
nothing special about it. In other words,
it was "banal."

Two interpretive points coincide here.
#1 is the degree of Jewish complicity in the Holocaust
(in the form of meek compliance of ghetto leadership with
orders from the SS.) Evidence of such compliance was
firat published at the date of the Eichmann trial (cf. Raul
Hilberg). Arendt initiated in 1961 debate about this
which continues today.
#2 genocide as either abnormal (a freak of history) or
normal (viz. a constant threat.) Arendt's general opinion
seems to have been documented before she traveled to
Jerusalem, where she accumulated confirmng evidence
from Eichmann's presentation of himself as an ordinary
bureaucrat (but a very efficient one.) Stangneth reports
1950s evidence (from the South American Nazi community)
that Eichmann had been as passionate antisemite since
early days in the SS in the 1930s, viz. was an enthusiast
for genocide, not at all "banal."

[WJHopwood]

Post by Don Phillipson

.......According to Wolin, Arendt's use of "banality"
in reference to Eichmann's role in the mass
murders trivialized the horrors of the Holocaust
and minimized Eichmann's crucial part in it.

I think Wolin is saying that written records of
Eichmann in S.America in the 1950s (unavailable
in 1961 but studied by Stangneth) substantiate
his active enthusiasm for genocide,
thus show that Arendt's "banality" (as generally
understood) is quite wrong.

Could be, but others believe Arendt was well aware
of Eichmann's complete disregard of the enormity
of the genocide in which he was engaged. To him,
it was just another job. To Arendt, he was,
"dehumanized" and she approved his death sentence
when some of prominence in the Jewish community
had not.

Incidentally, the controversy over the word "banality"
as used by Arendt in reference to Eichmann shows no
signs of going away. Yesterday's (Sunday Sept.21)
New York Times ran a story appropriately titled:
"Whose On Trial, Eichmann or Arendt?" It was written
by Seyla Benhabib, profesor of political science at
Yale University. Here are a few excerpts:
"Stangneth's book centered on the circle of
neo-Nazi sympathizers in Argentina...American
commentators...have mainly ignored those issues,
choosing instead to turn the trial of Adolf Eichmann
into the trial of Hannah Arendt...rejection of the
"banality of evil" argument...does not hold up...if
one understands....German as she did and,...the
philosophical context within which she meant
precisely what she said... "
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/whos-on-trial-eichmann-or-anrendt/?emc=edit_tnt_20140921&nlid=65401455&tntemail0=y

As for Wolin, he does acknowledge that the
S.American records which Strangneth reviewed,
although revealing new information not available
to Arendt, did leave something to be desired in the
way of credibility. The records contained notable
evidence of Eichmann braggadocio at
alcohol-related gatherings of ex-Nazis, and
interviews of Eichmann made by a former Dutch SS
officer who didn't mind some embellishment of his
own in order to further his own agenda which was
to personally profit from them, which he did. It is
also to be noted that a considerable amount of the
Eichmann S.American material was disallowed at the
Eichmann trial because it was illegible or considered
alcohol inspired.

WJH

[Don Phillipson]

Post by WJHopwood

Post by Don Phillipson

.......According to Wolin, Arendt's use of "banality"
in reference to Eichmann's role in the mass
murders trivialized the horrors of the Holocaust
and minimized Eichmann's crucial part in it.

I think Wolin is saying that written records of
Eichmann in S.America in the 1950s (unavailable
in 1961 but studied by Stangneth) substantiate
his active enthusiasm for genocide,
thus show that Arendt's "banality" (as generally
understood) is quite wrong.

Could be, but others believe Arendt was well aware
of Eichmann's complete disregard of the enormity
of the genocide in which he was engaged. To him,
it was just another job. To Arendt, he was,
"dehumanized" and she approved his death sentence
when some of prominence in the Jewish community
had not.

A fresh sidelight on the topic is provided by the daughter
of Willem Sassen, who recorded Eichmann's autobiography
(or apologia) in the 1950s. She turns out now to be an
eminent academic in New York, cf.
http://chronicle.com/article/Saskia-Sassens-Missing/150337/
with childhood memories of Eichmann's visiting the
family to reminisce/argue with Willem Sassen.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by WJHopwood
Long Lines
One who apparently had a more favorable, or at least less
hostile, view of its use in referring to Eichmann is the
well-known Nazi hunter, Simon Wiesenthal, who, in his book,
"Justice Not Vengeance," is quoted as having written the
"The world now understands the concept of 'desk murderer'.
We know that one doesn't need to be fanatical, sadistic, or
mentally ill to murder millions; that it is enough to be a loyal
follower eager to do one's duty."

I would argue that the word "eager" is not necessary to describe the
phenonmenon of "the banality of evil". Sometimes, it's simply doing
one's job, without thought of the consequences.

That would apply to a great many situations around the world; the nazis
simply brought that into focus on a scale not previously acknowledged.

Mike