Jessa Crispin reviews a new edition of Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt. Arendt's reporting for The New Yorker stirred controversy because she criticized Jews for not revolting against the Nazis, while failing to acknowledge those who did. Crispin argues Arendt's faults make it essential reading today:
The Second World War has become Disneyfied into a battle of bad guys versus good guys with all nuance removed. Hell, you can’t even admit there is nuance to WWII without someone accusing you of being anti-Semitic, a Nazi apologist, or unpatriotic (after all, America single-handedly won WWII — never mind those Russian troops over there in the East). Arendt’s book is an account of someone struggling with the meaning, and lack of meaning, of Europe’s near-disintegration. Today you’d be hard pressed to find someone who thinks there is something to struggle with.
Allison Hoffman compares the New Yorker's edits to Arendt's original piece. Norman Geras has more on Eichmann.
The Dish 