Reader's Guide

Adolf Eichmann, a pivotal figure behind the planning and implementation of the Nazis’ “Final Solution,” was captured by Allied forces shortly after the end of World War II but escaped before he could be tried for his crimes at Nuremberg. A decade and a half later, he was discovered in South America, apprehended, and flown to Israel, where he was ultimately tried, convicted, and punished for his genocidal crimes against the Jews. In The Eichmann Trial, Holocaust historian Deborah E. Lipstadt recounts the events leading up to the trial, the courtroom drama itself, and the outcome of this historic trial – for the accused, his victims, and the entire world. The Capture Eichmann was living under a pseudonym in Argentina in the late 1950s, when a tip alerted prosecutors in Germany – and later the Israeli Mossad – of his whereabouts. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion approved a plan to apprehend Eichmann and bring him to Israel to face trial. He was captured in 1960. • Although Israel had not made finding Nazis an important priority, when Ben-Gurion was told of Eichmann’s whereabouts, he instructed Israel’s security service to bring him back so that he could stand trial.  Why do you think he didn’t simply tell them to “eliminate” Eichmann on the spot? •What were some of the objections to Israel’s apprehension of Eichmann? Were Jews’ objections different from those of non-Jews? Regardless of whether you think the operation was justified overall, do you think any of their specific objections were valid? •For some American Jews, Eichmann’s capture was a point of pride. But for others – such as Harvard professor Oscar Alexander – it was an embarrassment smacking of a Jewish desire for revenge. What do you think? •The operation caused considerable diplomatic tension between Israel and Argentina. The tension – and the widespread controversy surrounding Eichmann’s capture – may have lowered the chances of success for similar operations to bring to justice other former Nazis living in Argentina, and elsewhere. If so, was it worth it? •Why is it important to bring former Nazis to trial? So they can be punished? To clarify the facts, or resolve differing versions of what happened? To allow victims the chance to face their persecutors? To avenge the dead, punish the guilty, or create some kind of psychic and diplomatic closure? What is the ultimate value of such a trial? Facing Justice in Israel Israel did not exist at the time of Eichmann’s crimes. Because of this, some critics claimed that Israel lacked legal jurisdiction to try him. Others pointed to the fact that other international courts only handled disputes between countries, and nobody but Israel could claim to speak for the Jews as a people. Regardless of arguments on either side, the trial was the first time in two millennia that Jews sat in judgment of a non-Jew who had done them wrong. •Do you think Israel was the proper place to try Eichmann? If not, what other place might have been more appropriate? •“Acknowledging that Israel could not speak in the name of all Jews,” Lipstadt writes, “[Ben-Gurion] argued that it must speak for the victims of the Holocaust.” Do you agree – about either part? •Some observers argued that the Eichmann trial not only belonged in Israel, but that the trial demonstrated why Israel needed to exist. How could the trial have been used as an example of why the state of Israel was necessary? •Ben-Gurion’s belief that Israel was the right place to try Eichmann reflected his conviction that Israel played a special role in Jewish history and Jewish justice. How did Zionism and questions of Jewish self-determination affect the trial, and how it was perceived? The Trial The Eichmann trial was televised around the world in 1961 with daily news feeds in many languages, the first trial to become an international media event. More reporters  covered the Eichmann trial than the Nuremberg trials of 1945-6, where dozens of top Nazi officials had been tried for war crimes immediately after the end of World War II. •Why did this trial – of one man, 16 years after the end of the war – command so much attention? Was it the fact that it took place in Israel, or the timing, or that Eichmann’s capture included a certain amount of international intrigue? Were there other reasons? •How did the Eichmann trial differ from the Nuremberg trials? If Eichmann had been at the Nuremberg trials, how might his case have been different – in tone, content, outcome, impact? •During the trial, Eichmann claimed he was no anti-Semite, painting himself as someone who worked with Jews, even as a Zionist who’d been inspired by Herzl. Do you believe him, even a little? Does it matter whether he was personally anti-Semitic, or personally believed in Zionism? Why do you think he chose to portray himself this way in court? Testimony Unlike the Nuremberg trials, the Eichmann trial included first-person testimony from many Holocaust survivors. This wasn’t the first time any survivors’ stories had been heard, but it was the first time they were heard in such detail by such a large international audience, and the first time the crimes against the Jews were specifically placed center-stage in a legal arena. •How did the inclusion of so many survivors’ testimony affect the proceedings, the way they were perceived by observers, and the verdict? •Do survivors have a certain moral authority that others lack, because of their experiences? Do they lack a certain objectivity that others possess? What connotations does the word “survivor” have for you today? •Gideon Hausner, the prosecutor, asked survivors during the trial why they didn’t resist during the Holocaust. What was the purpose of this questioning in relation to the Eichmann case? Do you think it was appropriate or useful? What did their answers reveal – about them, about the Nazis, about widely held notions about the Holocaust? Media Coverage The journalists covering the Eichmann trial were remarkable not only for their numbers and their caliber – including Elie Wiesel, writing for the Forward – but also for their unique world views. One of the most controversial reporters at the trial was philosopher Hannah Arendt, who wrote about the trial for the New Yorker. •In her coverage of the trial, Hannah Arendt claimed that the Holocaust was not a crime against the Jews, but a “crime against humanity,” perpetrated on the Jews. What’s the difference? Do you agree with Arendt on this point? •One of the reasons Arendt’s book Eichmann in Jerusalem, which grew out of her New Yorker coverage, remains so controversial is its focus on the role played by Jews who collaborated with the Nazis. Why was this important for her? •One of the lasting phrases to emerge from the trial was Arendt’s use of the term “the banality of evil” to describe Eichmann’s drab, bureaucratic role in the extermination of the Jews. How do you understand this phrase? Do you think it’s an accurate description? •Do you have a specific definition of “evil”? Do you think it applies to the Nazis – to some or all of them? What about the other Germans, or Poles or Russians or Ukrainians who participated – actively or passively – in the Holocaust? Eichmann's Crimes In addition to addressing specific crimes that Eichmann was alleged to have committed personally, the indictment charged him with implementing the Final Solution more broadly. Thus, the crimes addressed at the trial included everything from overseeing death camps and forced deportations to plundering property and sending people to forced labor camps and ghettoes across Europe. •The judges declared that Eichmann’s trial should be a narrowly drawn trial of one man, not a “forum for clarification of questions of great import.” How narrow or broad do you think the trial should have been? What might it have achieved if it had been conducted differently? Would the outcome have changed? •“Hausner made the man in the glass booth look more mythic than real,” Lipstadt writes, noting that by over-emphasizing Eichmann’s importance, the prosecutor diminished the culpability of other top Nazis. “It may have served Hausner’s short-term rhetorical goal, but it did not serve the cause of history.” Do you agree? Considering that most of the other top Nazis – from Himmler to Heydrich – would never face their own trials, does it matter to you? •Eichmann was 55 years old when he was tried. Is there a point where it is no longer practical or morally imperative to prosecute Nazis for their crimes? The Verdict Eichmann was found guilty of most of the charges and sentenced to death – the only death sentence an Israeli civilian court has ever carried out. •Eichmann never unambiguously admitted his guilt. Does this mean that Eichmann “won on points,” as some observers have claimed? The court even found him not guilty on several specific charges. In the end, does this matter? Would it have been better or worse if the court has found him guilty on all charges? •In his statement following the verdict, Eichmann stated that he was being punished for other people’s deeds. Do you agree, even in part? •Eichmann was sentenced to death. Do you think this sentence was appropriate? If not, what punishment might have better fit his crimes? •Lipstadt herself was involved in a trial, defending herself against libel charges from a notorious Holocaust-denier. What does the persistence of Holocaust denial say about where we are today, 50 years after Eichmann’s trial? In what sense is the Eichmann trial still going on?

Additional Resources

• The Newseum's Holocaust: The Untold Story has Deborah Lipstadt among its featured experts. The documentary dispells the myth of the Holocaust as a "secret." • VIDEO: Deborah Lipstadt on Charlie Rose, July 5, 2011

News and Reviews