Bystander During The Holocaust Analysis

Writer, Elie Wiesel in his metaphorical speech “The perils of Indifference” argues that the future will never know the agony of the Holocaust and they will never understand the tragedy of the horrific terror in Germany. Wiesel wants people to not let this happen but at the time many modern genocides that are occurring and people shouldn’t be focused on just the Holocaust, they should focus on making this world a better place; moreover, Wiesel expresses his thoughts about all the genocides that has happen throughout the years. He develops his message through in an horrifying event that took place 54 years ago the day “ The perils of Indifference” was published. Wiesel illustrates the indifferences of good vs evil. He develops this message

He was finally free, no joy filled his heart but abandonment was drowning it. How dangerous is indifference to humankind as it pertains to suffering and the need for conscience understanding when people are faced with unjust behaviors? Elie Wiesel is an award winning author and novelist who has endured and survived hardships. One of the darkest times in history, a massacre of over six million Jews, the Holocaust and Hitler himself. After the Holocaust he went on and wrote the internationally acclaimed memoir “Night,” in which he spoke out against persecution and injustice across the world. In the compassionate yet pleading speech, ¨Perils of Indifference,¨ Elie Wiesel analyzes the injustices that himself and others endured during the twentieth century, as well as the hellish acts of the Holocaust through effective rhetorical choices.

Many Jews started to flee Germany and were immigrating to other countries. Many countries did not want all the refugees so they put restrictions on the number of refugees that they let in. If the countries had been more receptive to the refugees fleeing Germany there would not have been such a large number of people killed and the Holocaust might never have happened. Yet if some people did not open their homes and hearts to some of the Jewish families, Hitler’s dream would have been realised and the Jews of Europe and then perhaps the world, would have been wiped out.

The message that is sent across in this speech is also something that makes it so effective. Wiesel’s goal is not only to inform the people of the horrible events of the Holocaust, but also a call to action. This call to action is to end indifference throughout the world. Wiesel tries throughout the speech to inspire his audience within the White House, as well as the people of the world to act in times of human suffering, injustice, and violence. Within this call to action, Wiesel argues that indifference is an action worse than any other. Even anger, according to Wiesel, is a more positive action than indifference. “Even hatred at times may elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it. Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response.” When Wiesel states this simple, yet powerful statement, it forces any listener to consider how negative of an emotion hatred is, then puts indifference well below it. Wiesel also addresses how easy it is for any person to be indifferent. He states, “Of course, indifference can be tempting—more than that, seductive. It is so much easier to look away from victims.” This quote

Elie Wiesel’s speech falls into the deliberative genre category, and was designed to influence his listeners into action by warning them about the dangers indifference can have on society as it pertains to human atrocities and suffering. The speech helped the audience understand the need for every individual to exercise their moral conscience in the face of injustice. Wiesel attempts to convince his audience to support his views by using his childhood experience and relating them to the harsh realities while living in Nazi Death Camps as a boy during the Holocaust. He warns, “To be indifferent to suffering is to lose one’s humanity” (Wiesel, 1999). Wiesel persuades the audience to embrace a higher level of level moral awareness against indifference by stating, “the hungry children, the homeless refugees-not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope, is to exile them from human memory”. Wiesel’s uses historical narrative, woven with portions of an autobiography to move his persuasive speech from a strictly deliberative genre to a hybrid deliberative genre.

The role of ordinary Germans in the Holocaust is that of bystanders. The people of Germany watched on, without protest, as the Jewish people were murdered. Small and large jobs such as engineering and railway work contributed to the operation of the Holocaust and the murdering of Jews. The manipulation of the German people, through racist and anti-Semitic propaganda, speeches and polices from Hitler, meant that millions of Germans backed the plans to rid the nation of Jews. The idea that the Jews were responsible for economic, social and political issues was endorsed and it led to the idea that their banishment would lead Germany into a brighter future. Many people did not intend on aiding the Holocaust, but minor jobs that they did

Elie Wiesel questions and asks that even though people see photos, are aware and feel empathy for what is what is occurring around the world, why don’t they just do something? “Does it mean that we have learned from the past? Does it mean that society has changed? Has the human being become less indifferent and more human? Have we really learned from our experiences” (Perils of Indifference)? Though that the holocaust has supposedly taught the world the responsibility of prevent, have we all really learned that? He also wanted to convey that indifference is worse than any other feeling such as hate. “Yet, for the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbor are of no consequence. And, therefore, their lives are meaningless. Their hidden or even visible anguish is of no interest. Indifference reduces the other to an abstraction” (Perils of Indifference). Indifference is when solicitude is missing which indicates that there is a lack of awareness. Elie believes indifference is worse than hate because it implies that someone’s suffering isn’t worth rumination and consideration. The inhumanity that was put upon the Jews could have been stopped if people cared enough to take action against the Germans. Both messages are relevant and matter because they

The Holocaust took place during the late 1930s to the early 1940s, a time when many external and internal factors were affecting Germany and its people (Hill 1). Nevertheless Nazi leaders and common Germans killed almost two thirds of an estimated nine million Jewish people (Hill 2). One of the most puzzling questions about the Holocaust is why did common Germans take part? It is difficult to formulate an exact answer to the question because it deals with a whole nation, but many historians have hypothesized explanations related to the German’s unwilling and willing participation (Goldhagen 375).

The holocaust one of the darkest times in history, as there were people standing up for the Jews there were also people that stood there and watched the Jews being beaten or killed. Up standers affected the holocaust tremendously as Jews were being killed some people would stand up for them and sometimes even put their own life at risk for others. Also there were bystanders they did not affect the holocaust at all they stood and watched innocent lives taken for their religion.

It is a challenge to reconcile human beliefs in compassion and morality with the actions, or inactions, of bystanders in the Holocaust. How is it possible that hundreds of thousands of people stood by while millions faced pain and suffering? Before exonerating or condemning all of them, it is necessary to consider the differences in bystanders. For the context of the Holocaust, a bystander is someone who was neither a target of the Nazis or a Nazi themselves. Putting all of these people in the same group is an oversimplification, because it ignores the power system in place during the Holocaust and the various positions of bystanders in that system. The wealthy business owner is not the same as the working-class mother of four. In this situation, one has considerable power and ability, and the other does not. Applying a blanket statement, and calling the latter unjust when they are ordinary people in a time of horrific war is contrary to reason. It is also necessary to consider the extent of bystander’s actions. Have their actions merely helped to ensure their own survival, or do they directly hurt Holocaust victims? The magnitude of each situation is varied. In conclusion, to gauge the morality of a bystander’s actions, they need to be judged on an individual basis, with two qualities in mind: that person’s ability to act and the effect of their actions.

The world today is still uncertain about the major cause of the Holocaust. Many people have a wide range of opinions on this traumatic topic leaving the identity of those responsible unknown. The real question is who had most to do with being responsible for the holocaust out of the Nazis and the German people. The German’s were said to be manipulated by Hitler’s powerful speeches and propaganda which he used to make himself appear powerful, making the German’s feel as though they had no choice but to elect him as their leader. The Germans worshipped Hitler and demonstrated acts of love and support by celebrating and voting for him. The Germans didn’t hesitate to stop their beloved leader from ordering the Nazi party to wipe out the entire

People's’ choices in life make will affect the outcome of history, these individuals will not be blamed, however for their inaction. During the Holocaust, the heinous genocide in which Nazi Germany slaughtered about 6 million Jewish people, ordinary European citizens and bystanders shaped history through the choices they made. Their decisions were greatly influenced by their understanding of the universe of obligation, which sociologist Helen Fein defines as “the circle of individuals and groups ‘toward whom obligations are owed, to whom rules apply, and whose injuries call for [amends]’ (“We and They” 56). During the Holocaust, bystanders’ decisions were influenced by their desire to survive rather than their beliefs and moral obligations, therefore they are not to blame for their inaction, despite these decisions negatively impacting

Indifference is as determined and as forcefully muscular as any blow.” –The Teacher’s Guide to the Holocaust. One is a bystander by choice. They can stand up and do something or sit and watch. For years the world sat back and allowed Hitler to invade several countries, break the Treaty of Versailles, and massacre millions of people (“Bystander”). “The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jews.” –Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf. Hitler told the German people that’s the Jews were their misfortune and they needed to be taken care off. First they lost their rights, then their jobs, their homes, the dignity, they independence, then their lives.

Eleven million people were killed in the Holocaust. In this case and many others, turning a blind eye only perpetuated the situation. There are countless examples of how a few concerned individuals made a difference and saved many lives. We will never know what could have happened if the majority of Germans would have taken action against this evil. Being informed in situations like these allows one to take a stand and help those in harm’s way. Ignorance may not be complicit in wrongdoing, but purposeful ignorance is just as immoral.

It is hard to reconcile our belief in compassion and morality with the actions, or inactions, of bystanders in the Holocaust. How is it possible that hundreds of thousands of people stood by while millions faced pain and suffering? For the context of the Holocaust, a bystander is someone who was neither a target of the Nazis or a Nazi themself. Before exonerating or condemning all of them, it is necessary to consider the differences in bystanders. Putting all of the bystanders in the same group is an oversimplification, because it ignores the power system in place during the Holocaust and the various positions of bystanders in that system. The wealthy business owner is not the same as the working-class mother of four. In this situation, one has considerable power and ability, and the other is much more limited. It is hard to make a blanket statement and call the latter unjust when they are ordinary people in a time of horrific war. It is also necessary to consider the extent of bystander’s actions. Do their actions merely help to ensure their own survival, or do they directly hurt Holocaust victims? To gauge the morality of a bystander’s actions, they need to be judged on an individual basis, with two qualities in mind: that person’s ability to act and the effect of their actions.