Controversy was perhaps inevitable: during the Shoah, and in its aftermath, there was (and perhaps still remains) considerable historical and ideological disagreement about who should have done what to stop the machinery of death or to save people from vanishing into that machinery. A single example may suffice. Rezso Kasztner in Budapest negotiated with Eichmann the safe passage from Hungary of a number of potential victims, in exchange for cash, much of which was raised from the would-be emigrants themselves.. About 2000 subsequently left by train and survived -- but a number who had paid were not actually allowed to leave. Kasztner moved to Israel after the war, and in the late 1950s was accused of being a Nazi collaborateur; Kasztner sued for libel, lost and appealed. His appeal ultimately succeeded and cleared his name -- but a week before that happened, Kasztner was assassinated
IMO her book is well worth the read and sheds real light on Eichmann's character (and thus presumably on many of those involved in the WWII era crimes). His internal contradictions are real: Eichmann describes himself as a friend of the Jews, who happened to be charged with their complete extermination, and explains it was his humane duty to carry out his task efficiently. I expect such talk need not be taken too seriously: perhaps what Eichmann said often depended on what he thought his listeners might want to hear, since that habit would have served him well in the Third Reich
The portrait Arendt paints is terrifying in an unexpected way: Eichmann is not driven by a monstrous hatred; he is not a man seduced by a fascinating evil vision. He is rather a somewhat flat individual, with little or no ability to empathize with others -- and willing to defer all responsibility for moral judgments to his superiors. His ambition is constantly disappointed, so he does what he thinks he is expected to do as well as he can, hiding his contradictions from himself by appealing to little slogans
= new reply since forum marked as read