In which ways do you think it might have colored her analysis? Was she maybe "too soft" for current standards?

Arendt her book is BS as she only attended about six weeks of the trial, missing most survivor testimonies and the more crucial cross examination (the whole trial took many months). She basically relied on transcripts and her own preconceived theories.

Eichmann wasn't just some bureaucrat but wanted to be seen as just a cog in the system. She basically ate his act and now everyone has to bring her up whenever something evil happens which people seemingly don't seem to care about. In reality Eichmann was a man who had genuine ideology, was personally driven and extremely calculated.

Raul Hilberg holocaust expert is a better source for information on Eichmann, he wrote (one of) the best works on the holocaust and is a genuine historian, was one of the first people to write an extensive history of it . He's not exactly as promoted today (in the media/general public) as actually following his view would poke some holes in the 'holocaust industry' (this doesn't mean that I in any way minimize or doubt the holocaust and its cruelty).

So you think she wasn't competent to have written what she wrote because of not having participated in the entirety of the trial and because of her preconceptions? What makes it hard for me to take what you say at face value and as credible source is you writing off the work as BS just because. It's a really important and recognized philosophical work, even if it's not perfect.

Yes I dismiss it for those reasons. I don't think the book would've been nearly as successful without the Eichmann vehicle, the ideas presented were not novel. So when this part of the book is misleading I believe it shouldn't be treated as having value.

Not 'defending' Arendt, as I don't know enough about her or Heidegger to do so. But doesn't her relationship with Heidegger underscore her point? At the time it would have seemed like two adults indulging everyday human impulses.

When you're looking to get laid you don't ask a lot of questions about politics. Same goes when you're looking for a job. Soon enough, you -- or your offspring -- are part of the machine. And that's the banality of evil.

The point is that Arendt didn't just have an affair with Heidegger but worked in the post war era to conceal how fully Heidegger had embraced NAZIism earlier. That a part of their overall relationship.

I think you are painting Heidegger in an undeservedly bad light (not all Nazis were the same. There were shades of grey), and even if you consider Heidegger's thoughts as worthless by contamination (which would be a tragedy), you are adding a contact guilt to one of the most influential philosophers for having known him 10 years before he turned brown.

Arendt was a defender of Heidegger even in the post-WWII world.

But moreover, Heidegger didn't just "turn brown". He saw NAZIism as a potential realization of his philosophy. Such a belief definitely influences my view of Heidegger. Any summary of Heidegger's philosophy and it's problem naturally either involves a lot of simplification or is book length. For book length critiques, I'd recommend The Jagon Of Authenticity by Adorno. My simplification of Heidegger's weakness is that he among a number of philosophers criticizing the lacking of authenticity/awareness/true-being/etc in the modern world in isolation. Such critiques tend to fall for political movements promising the violent reconstruction of tradition - such as NAZIism but limited to that. Michelle Foucault's despicable endorsement of Ayatollah Khomeini on the eve of the overthrow of the Shah is quite similar Heidegger's turn.

You miss the point completely.

The point is that even someone as brilliant as Heidegger could be captured by insane ideology.

You are obviously also captured by an ideology,if you can see it or not.

Heidegger became a Nazi -- literally, he joined the party -- but he was not a "Nazi ideologue" for any reasonable definition of "ideologue".

And the idea that Hannah Arendt needs "defenders" because she had an affair with Heidegger is just bizarre.

Heidegger joined the NAZIs before they captured the state and very much wished to have his own philosophy elevated as something like the official NAZI ideology - resigned his position when it became obvious that the NAZI wasn't interested in his approach. An ideologue by some definition is someone who produces ideas with the aim of furthering a movement, state or similar force. By that definition Heidegger was a NAZI ideologue though perhaps "would-be NAZI ideologue" would be more accurate.

an ideologue who at one time was a NAZI member

Your premise doesn't imply your conclusion. A "Nazi ideologue" is someone who believes/promotes Nazi ideology. Not someone who seeks to use Nazism to promote his own philosophy.

That argument is "protesting too much". Like a multitude of political movements (say MAGA), lots of people joined the NAZIs with their spin on the cause.

Heidegger aimed to use the NAZI movement to promote his own ideology, which he viewed as compatible with and appropriate to the movement. It was different from other versions of NAZIism and they were different from each - only at point the NAZIs fully consolidated their state control and wielded top-down state propaganda did things become uniform. But the idea-point leading up to that point (say, about when Heidegger resigned his rectorship, after The Night Long Knives) should most simply and clearly be called "NAZI ideologues".

And yes, that's not something those who like Heidegger's writings like to hear.