Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Survival in auschwitz critical analysis
Stories of dehumanized holocaust
The truth of Auschwitz
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Survival in auschwitz critical analysis
Thank you Mr. Wiesenthal for letting me be able to read and respond to your book The Sunflower. The Sunflower has showed me how ruthless it was for Jewish people in the Holocaust. In your book Karl, an SS solider, tries to get your forgiveness for the wrong he has done to the Jewish population. For a person to ask for forgiveness means that they have realized that they have done wrong and want to repent for their mistakes. The big question in your book was “What would you do?” I would’ve done exactly what you did I wouldn’t have granted the solider my forgiveness because he didn’t deserve it.
A man who will kill innocent women, children and men just because of their beliefs has no right to be forgiven. It would be like a rapist asking his victim to forgive him after he violated and hurt her for horrible reasons. The victim wouldn’t just look at him and say I forgive you she would hate him and want him to pay for what he has done to her.
Herbert Marcus, who taught philosophy, also agrees with
…show more content…
you about not taking his forgiveness. In Marcus’s symposium to your book The Sunflower he states “One cannot, and should not, go around happily killing and torturing and then, when the moment has come, simply ask, and receive, forgiveness” (208). Basically Herbert, is warning that just because your time has come to die and you have killed innocent people because you were told to do doesn’t mean you get the forgiveness at the end of the road. Karl knew what he was doing by helping burn and shoot innocent Jewish people. Even though he was taking orders he knew that it was the wrong thing to do. Karl was Catholic but yet instead of him seeking forgiveness from a priest he wanted it from a Jew.
I think he felt that if he got your forgiveness then he could die in peace for all the bad he had done. A lot of Jewish people had died due to what Hitler ordered everyone in Germany army to do. Albert Speer was a high-ranking Nazi member and he was also Hitler’s minister and even though he knew he was going to jail no matter what was said at the Nuremberg trials he had confessed to all the things he had done. According to Speer “My moral guilt is not subject to the statute of limitations, it cannot be erased in my lifetime” (245). In making this comment, Speer knew that even though he was punished with twenty years of imprisonment that they only punished his legal guilt. Speer was haunted by the things he had done and he knew that he did not deserve anyone’s forgiveness. Even Speer, Hitler’s minister, knew that no one in the German army deserved anyone’s sympathy or
forgiveness.
He should not have forgiven him because, “One soldier got up from the bench and looked at us as if we were animals in a zoo” (Wiesenthal 20). “Rectifying a misdeed is a matter to be settled between the perpetrator and this victim” (Wiesenthal 54). This shows only a small portion of what the Jewish people were treated as during this time. They were treated like animals, yet they are completely human. Also, an approximate eleven million people were killed during the Holocaust. Six million were Polish citizens, three million were Polish Jews, and another three million were Polish Christians. A single person who was not affected by the soldiers decisions cannot represent the eleven million people who were affected. In order to achieve actual “forgiveness” he would need to speak to every single person who was
Speer’s well structured and thought out defence shaped historical interpretation for years to come. At Nuremberg he presented himself as a pure technician and not involved in the politics or ideology of the party. He also claimed collective responsibility for crimes against Jews but also his ignorance of the Nazi intentions. As he stated at a later time: “I just stood aside and said to myself that as long as I did not personally participate it had nothing to do with me. My toleration for the anti Semitic campaign made me responsible for it.” This admission of guilt won a fair amount of sympathy from the court. The reasons he gave for being with the Nazi party was that he was taken by Hitler’s personality and also realised that if he was to achieve his dream as an architect he will have to sell his soul to the party. This image of Speer was to be accepted for a while by most historians and was given little attention. This was probably because Speer was a little less ‘spectacular’ than Hitler’s other henchmen. There were however some suspicions. John Galbraith, a member of the US team that debriefed Speer before the Nuremberg trial, said in Life magazine 1945 that Speer’s claims contained “elements of fantasy”. He also believed that Speer’s confession was a part of his “well developed strategy of self vindication and survival.”
In the symposium section, Abraham Joshua Heschel quoted, “No one can forgive crimes committed against other people. It is therefore preposterous to assume that anybody alive can extend forgiveness for the suffering of any one of the six million people who perished.” (171). Simon Wiesenthal would possibly never forgive the SS officer because he doesn’t represents to those who suffer and died by the SS officers because he is just one jewish person out of many different jews that died. At that point, Simon Wiesenthal does not represent the rest of the jews and other Holocaust
In Simon Wiesenthal’s The Sunflower, he recounts his incidence of meeting a dying Nazi soldier who tells Simon that he was responsible for the death of his family. Upon telling Simon the details, Karl asks for his forgiveness for what he helped accomplish. Simon leaves Karl without giving him an answer. This paper will argue that, even though Karl admits to killing Simon’s family in the house, Simon is morally forbidden to forgive Karl because Karl does not seem to show genuine remorse for his committed crime and it is not up to Simon to be able to forgive Karl for his sins. This stand will be supported by the meaning of forgiveness, evidence from the memoir, quotes from the published responses to Simon’s moral question, and arguments from Thomas Brudholm, Charles Griswold, and Trudy Govier. The possibly raised objection, for this particular modified situation, of forgiveness being necessary to move on from Desmond Tutu will be countered with the logic of needing to eventually find an end somewhere.
Personally, I make mistakes every single day. For example, over this past winter break, my Mom bought our entire family tickets to the Seattle Boys Choir for the night I got home. Instead of going to the concert with my family I ditched them to go to a party at my high school friends house. My Mom was really hurt by my lack of recognition of her hard work to create a special memory for my family and I. All she wanted to do was spend time with me and I blew her off for something pointless. When I do something I regret, I hope that whoever afflicted would find it in their heart to see that I was sorry, and that they see that given the chance to re-do the situation, I would choose to change my actions. To be clear, I am not in the slightest defending or validating the actions of the Nazi regime during the time of the Holocaust. But as a person who has regretted certain actions or decisions I’ve made, I can understand the root of his need for forgiveness. The Nazi’s plea for forgiveness points toward his recognition of fault. Many Nazi’s were operating on the mindset that the atrocities they were committing were actually in the right. This Nazi, seeing the error in his actions, shows that he realizes what he did was wrong. For some people, the request for forgiveness isn’t enough to justify the act of giving it. In my opinion, if the person who is requesting the forgiveness is genuine in their motives, then they deserve
He told of being on a balcony, seeing people pass by, and wanting to have a machine gun to release his anger. His hatred for the Germans and what they had done to him and his family was very evident. On a personal level Thomas Buergenthal learned to forgive, because it benefited him more than staying bitter. He sums this up when talking about himself and his mother by saying, “ I doubt that we would have been able to preserve our sanity had we remained consumed by hatred for the rest of our lives.” The process of forgiving took a lot of time. He eventually realized “that one cannot hope to protect mankind from crimes such as those that were visited upon us unless one struggles to break the cycle of hatred and violence that invariably leads to more suffering by innocent human beings.” This realization lead Buergenthal to go to law school and work in multiple human rights organizations and courts. He felt fit to serve in such a place as he was a victim of the greatest infringement on human rights in
He should have asked for forgiveness from a minister or a priest, but he felt the need to confess to a Jew because his confession would mean more to himself and also Simon or any other Jew. Karl was a young Nazi Soldier who was in his early twenties. I think many people can agree that everybody wants to die with a clean sleight. No one wants to die a sinner so Karl had every right to ask for forgiveness, because if it was one of us, we would be doing the same thing and I guarantee none of us can say we wouldn 't. As a boy who is very young and in the military, how is he supposed to say no to his commanding officer? One could not simply deny his commanding officers orders. Still to this day, you do not deny your commanding officers
I personally have mixed feelings about whether Albert Speer was in fact a ‘Good Nazi’. First of all, although being an architect could be harmless, his closeness and loyalty to Hitler seemed to tarnish his character, perhaps making him turn a cold shoulder towards the horrible things being conducted by Hitler and his government. There have been many arguments on whether Speer knew the full extent of what happened in the concentration camps and the upcoming fate of Jewish civilians. I believe that Speer did evidently understand the magnitude of what went on in the concentration camps and slave workers as he was present during Heinrich Himmler’s addressing of the Jews during the Posen Conference on October 6, 1943. Although Speer denies being
At the beginning Speer was held separately and he depicted himself as a technocrat who was willing to give information to his captors regarding German weapons and economic performance. Speer was not only forthcoming with information, but he also was the first to step forward, pleading a collective guilt and responsibility for the crimes committed by the Third Reich. Similar to his consolidation of power, this move is very different to the actions of Goering, who was the other member of Hitler’s inner circle who was on trial. While Goering, an ideologue who defended Hitler, and Nazi Germany’s war policy rather than admitting the criminality of his and the entire actions of the entire nation. This displays Speer’s realization of his only chance of survival, showing how he was not ruled by ideology like Goering but only out of self interest. This is further seen in his life following his release from Spandau, where he carefully creates the image of himself as the ‘Good Nazi’ through his writings. One of the constant themes within his writing is his claimed ignorance towards the systematic killing of Jews. One piece of historical evidence used by many historians such as Erich Goldhagen (Goldhagen, 1971) is Speer’s attendance at the Posen Conference, where Heinrich Himmler gave an explicit speech on the extermination of Europe’s Jews, where Speer is even mentioned. However, Speer continually denied that he was there at that time, claiming he left the conference prior to Speech. One of the leading historians on Speer, Gitta Sereny maintains that whether he was there or not, it was impossible for Speer to not know about this key Nazi policy (Sereny, 1995). This denial on the part of Speer displays how he cared simply about himself. Therefore, Speer did not work out of the machinations of an overarching ideology, showing
Hlton Jr . 1992. GENERAL ARTICLES. Boisterous blue jays (**Edition**) [Internet]. [**Last Updated**, cited 2014 Oct 23] **Journal Info**. Available from: http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/news/2014/06/05/of-birds-beaks-and-better-football-helmets.html
In The Sunflower, Simon Wiesenthal wrote of an incident of the time he was a concentration camp inmate. He described life in the concentration camp, the continuous humiliations, the hunger, the illness, and the constant threat of death. Death was fearful, but death was not his only worry. When he was asked by a dying Nazi soldier for forgiveness, this tore him down, ultimately killing his heart and tearing him mentally apart. Having heard the first confession of a dying SS man, Weisenthal continued to be troubled by his refusal to give forgiveness. In the end of the book when he asked his readers what they would do in his situation, Weisenthal not only bore witness to a horrible event, but he invited all people to participate in the discussion of justice and forgiveness.
At Nuremberg trials, Speer escaped the death penalty and only receives 20 years imprisonment. During the trials, Speer differentiated himself from other High Nazis by expressing remorse for his involvement in the regime and claiming ignorance of the Holocaust. This seemingly highly influenced the judge’s final verdict on Speer’s fate. After his release , Speer erected the image of a ‘Good Nazi’ by portraying himself as a mere apolitical technocrat swept along the Nazi regime in which he had minimal influence.
To all of them? To the countless families and children. What right did he have to take their world and break it to shambles? They had no right. They had no reason. But still they did. Bertolt is resentful. Resentful to be German. To be associated with the name “Nazi.” To be part of a culture that took the lives of millions upon millions and even screwed with the lives of those who lived under Hitler’s reign. “Neither in the old days nor now did I wish to have my son’s imagination perverted for him.” They’ve corrupted the children. Turned them against their parents by influencing them to join “Hitler youth groups.” The words youth group and Hitler in the same sentence are pure
The name Helianthus Annus comes from the Greek word Helios, meaning “sun” and anthos, meaning “flower,” annus was from Linnaeus, it was the only sunflower known to him that lived for a single season, hence it was called annus for “annual” (Mitchell, 08). The sunflower is native to primarily North America. The sunflower grows in prairies and dry open areas. It grows best in sunny moist areas. The sunflower is tolerant of high and low temperatures, although more tolerant to low temperatures with the optimum temperature range being 70-78 degrees Fahrenheit (Mitchell, 08).
The sunflower, original only to the Americas, has become one of the most important plants throughout the world due to its adaptability, diversity, and sustainability. It is a key component in cooking, human health, soil detoxification, and has been use in medicine, art and poetry.