Question: Based on the quality of class discussions, it seems clear to me that your understanding of Arendt has developed significantly. Please reflect on the development of your views by choosing one of the following journal topics. Option 1 is straightforward: explain how your perception of Eichmann (or better: of Arendt’s view of Eichmann) has changed since the beginning of the book. It probably makes sense to refer and/or link to one of your early posts. Option 2: Comment on a post written by one of your peers, preferably a recent one (within the last week or two). Try to point out how that person’s post demonstrates the class’s well-developed understanding of Eichmann in Jerusalem, and/or how it highlights problems we still have with the book. Option 3: State what you don’t understand or find problematic in Eichmann in Jerusalem, and explain why.
Answer (kind of option 3): I only became clear on most of what Eichmann in Jerusalem was about during class discussion, reading the critical article by Amos Elon, and through part of the epilogue. Most the time when I read the chapter the day before class, I did not get much out of it. Class discussions helped clarify a lot of it, but mostly just where Arendt stood after each chapter. A lot of the actual information she talks about still is not clear to me because we mainly discussed her view of Eichmann. However, these are not problems with the trial, but more problems with me understanding Arendt.
Because of reading the article by Amos Elon, I understand a lot of the misconceptions I had about Arent and her views. Also, she summed up pretty well what she thought should have been the outcome of the trial with the last pages of the epilogue. If she spoke that clearly throughout the whole book, for one it would be a lot shorter, but more importantly it would be a lot easier to understand. But, even though the last passage in the epilogue is telling, she still falls into contradictions. She addresses degrees of guilt, even though she says earlier those cannot be of concern. Even in her little tangent here, she still digressed from Eichmann by mentioning the Bible. Even though it was an example that may have pertained to Eichmann, it still was not really necessary. Also, a main thing that Arendt focused on in the book that she wanted everyone to understand was that of the issue of knowing that Eichmann was not a monster. While she finally flat-out says this in the epilogue on page 276, she does not really talk about that in her final passage of how the judges could have addressed Eichmann. If that was such an important part in understanding the whole trial, she should have made that clear in her final statement of how the trial should have ended.
Overall, I do think my opinion changed about Arendt’s view of Eichmann and Eichmann himself throughout the book . In the beginning I thought she was disgusted by him in all regards and did see him as a monster and was anxious for him to be hung. However, I now realize that she thought he was guilty in some respects but not the way the prosecution made him out to be, like the green fanged monster. While she did want him to be hung so justice was reached, she thought the way the trial was carried out was wrong in many respects. Also, I thought Eichmann was going to be a lot more guilty than he turned out to be. While he did pretty much order millions to their deaths, he did only sit behind a desk. While he was aware of the results of his actions when he went to visit the camps, he did get sick about it and showed some signs of guilt. Also, someone that was capable of such a huge task, that of expulsion of an entire race, was surprisingly stupid on the surface. He was depicted to have no original thought and just as a ditzy man stuck in a child-like state, but that seems inconsistent with his contributions to the Final Solution. However, he did it somehow, and with great success. Overall, my opinions changed a lot. From thinking Arent was on the side of the prosecution and seeing Eichmann as a monster, to realizing Arendt was really showing that Eichmann was very human and very much like me and you.
