The Sunflower - Comments on the Symposium
 

Please read two of the responses to the novella, "The Sunflower" by Simon Wiesenthal. For each of the responses write a one paragraph response. This should focus on some aspect of the writer's response - not simply an "I agree" or "I disagree" or "as I wrote in my first posting."

Do not mix your comments in one big paragraph, but for each writer, give their name and then comment on their entry. (Due April 6)

The Sunflower by Simon Wiesenthal is a very touching and thought provoking book, which so far, is very well written. The first 98 pages tell of Simons encounter with a dying Nazi soldier, who wants to be forgiven for the horrible atrocities he has committed and is seeking forgiveness from no other than Simon. Was Simon to forgive and forget, or keep silent? Simon stayed silent and now wonders if this was the right decision to make. He asked 53 men and women to respond on what they would have done in the same situation he was put through on that life-altering day. Would you choose between compassion and justice or silence and truth?

Jean Amery - A survivor who escaped and survived the holocaust.

* I really enjoyed reading Jeans story because he brought up very good points that could have changed Simon’s response or better yet, his "non-response" to the Nazi's wishes. Jean says, "... I can easily imagine that, under only slightly different circumstances, you might have forgiven the dying man. Suppose you had seen his pleading and imploring eyes, which may have had more of an effect on you than his rasping voice and folded hands." I agree with Jean when he says this because I feel that if Simon had seen his depressed, dying eyes he would have had more pity over the man, and would have forgiven him right then and there. Jean also says, "...You didn't forgive and it was certainly your right, and if you had said words of forgiveness in a fit of emotion, that would have been legitimate too. Your SS man was a devil, perhaps a poor devil." I defiantly agree with this last statement. There wasn't a right or wrong response to give in that type of situation. I think that Simon even staying with the man while he confessed was forgiveness enough. Jean Amery ended up not sharing his opinion on what he would of done, but rather gave Simon comfort and a sense that there was no right or wrong response to give a man on the brink of death. This is why I especially enjoyed reading Jean's response.

Robert Mcafee Brown - A survivor of the holocaust

* Robert's story was filled with examples of types of forgiveness and how forgiveness can be used toward compassion or brutality. An example Robert gives would be when he says, "..one thinks of Toman Borge, a Nicaraguan Sandinista fighter, captured by the contras and brutally tortured, confronting his torturer after the war had ended. The court entitled him to name the punishment appropriate for his torture. Borge responded, ' My punishment is to forgive you'. Such instances build up a moral capital on which the rest of us can draw: supposing, that an act of forgiveness on our part could tip the scales toward compassion rather than brutality..." Forgiveness can be used in more ways than just to forgive and Robert makes this very clear by his examples. This Nicaraguan man who forgave his torturer didn't forgive to make this man feel better about what he did, but to place a burden over this man shoulders. The torturer has been forgiven over something that could never actually be forgiven and he had to live with that for the rest of his life, which in itself would be torture enough. Robert's reading brings up the question that if Simon had forgiven the man, would it have been to harm or heal? There is no question to that answer. Robert asks the question, " What is there left for us to do?" He then responds by saying, "Only everything from doing justly, loving-kindness, and walking humbly with God, to standing with the victims and the oppressed. And if we do so, perhaps, a world will begin to emerge in which we do not have to ask unanswerable questions any longer." This is a fantastic ending to Robert's thoughts because, once we all learn to walk hand in hand, with no fighting, there won't be unanswerable questions any longer. Robert Mcafee Brown did not respond either to Simons question because in reality, there is no right or wrong response to what should have happened between Simon and Karl.


Thankya!

Jean Amery - Holocaust survivor
- Amery's response to Wiesenthal's question was quite interesting, and also surprising. Being a Holocaust survivor, and having experienced the horrors personally, I would have thought his response would be more emotional. Either Wiesenthal was right not to forgive him and that all Nazis should burn i hell, or that Wiesenthal was wrong and he should have forgiven the man who had realized what he had done and was seeking forgiveness. Amery however responded by stating that he saw it merely from a political perspective, that whether Wiesenthal had forgiven the SS officer or not did not really matter to him, that this moral dillema was to him a mere political question. Still, it is understandable that he, like many, left religion after what happened, that is if he ever had one.

Robert Coles - Professor of Psychiatry and Medical Humanities
- I think Coles' reply to the question makes a lot of sense. As he said that no one could possibly imagine what happened to the Jews, and no sinner today can be compared to the Nazis. This certainly is very true. Although we imagine that it would have been terrible for the Jew in concentration camps, no person can truly know what it feels like without actually going through the actual experience. Yet, he says that he would "pray to God for the forgiveness of that Nazi." The way I look at it, the majority of those who say they would forgive the perpetrators of such crimes, would change their minds once they know what it is really like. Although one can imagine going through those catastrophic events, when asked the question of whether they would forgive, they still come from an ideological standpoint (varying in degree).

Albert Speer- “a high-ranking Nazi, one of the planners of the Third Reich and Hitler’s minister of armament… he admitted responsibility for actions of the Nazis…”

Albert Speer thought that Simon Wiesenthal should not forgive. Speer could not forgive himself even after twenty years of imprisonment. His moral guilt was afflicting him in the rest of his life. He wrote, “Every human being has his burden to bear. No one can remove it for another, but for me, ever since that day, it has become much lighter.” I agree with him. One should remove his own guilt by make up for his crime. One does not have the right to ask for forgiveness unless he feels sincere repentance and tries to make up for it.

Manès Sperber- “French author and editor…he studied psychology with Alfred Adler.”

I agree with Sperber about rejecting the idea of collective guilt. Not every German was a Nazi, not every German executed Jews, and not every German was anti-Semitic. The whole German nation should not be condemned as a perpetrator. However, they have the responsibility to take care of the surviving victims of Nazi crimes.
Sperber wrote, “Let none of us refuse to forgive any one of them whose guilt became the irrepressible source of a tortured conscience.” I agree with him. Those who felt sincerely repentant and tortured by their consciences should be forgiven, like Albert Speer. In fact, when Simon Wiesenthal met Speer, he was not filled with hatred; his eyes were full of sympathy for the misery of Speer’s.

Comments on the Symposium
 

Alan L. Berger - Raddock Eminent Scholar and Chairman of Holocaust Studies at Florida Atlantic University
I was really intregued by what Berger wrote in his response to Wiesenthal's story - "Simon was twice silent: once in the death chamber of a dying Nazi and once in the presence of of the dead man's mother. Are the silences the same?" I found this phrase very interesting and that's one of the reasons why i chose to comment on this response to the book. I think that both silences were not the same, even though in both cases it was Wiesenthal's own choice to be silent. I think that the second silence (when he was visiting Karl's mother) was more justified than the first one and i totally agree with Wiesenthal's descion to stay silent about the truth about Karl and all the horrible things he did. I think he pretty much saved Karl's mother's sanity by doing that. I mean, the woman lost everything in the war - husband, son, home, possesions - and she now lives in a war-ravaged country that is the loser in a very important war. The only things she has left are her memories, mainly memories of her son who she will always think of as a 'good boy' and will at least have a few pleasant memories that will help her live on. I think Wiesenthal did an honorable thing by not reveal the truth about Karl that day. On the other hand, his first silence was not justified. I'm not really sure exactly what he was feeling towards Karl (i would guess that it would probably be along the lines of disgust mixed with maybe the tinyest hint of compassion) but i think his choice to stay silent throughout the entire encounter was wrong. Wrong because he chose not to grant someone's (even though he was a Nazi) dying wish - i mean, karl is totally hopeless and in extreme agony. What is going to do? Hurt Wiesenthal, or anyone else? Very doubtable. Plus he is wrestling with himself and his past decisions which he obviously regrets very much, causing him mental anguish, which in some cases can hurt more than physical pain; and it probably does in this case. So, in a sense, Wiesenthal was torturing karl before he died, and i think that is wrong. I understand why he chose to be silent (he had real contempt for Nazis as a group, he was jealous of karl because karl was going to get an honorary funeral while if weisenthal were to die in a concentration camp, he would have probably been thrown into a pit with hundreds of others and then simply forgotten, etc), but i still think it was wrong.

The Dalai Lama - Spiritual leader of Buddhists
I really liked what the Dalai Lama wrote as well - "i believe one should forgive the person or person who have commited atrocities against oneself and mankind. But this does not necessarily mean one should forget about the atrocities commited." I think this is an excellent quote as i think it explains Wiesenthal's situation very well because i believe that Wiesenthal should have forgiven karl up to an extent (not necessarily in the name of the Jews, but just as a general forgiveness on his behalf, no ease karl's concience). The other thing that i really like about this quote is that even though you might choose to forgive a person for some horrible thing they have done, you should still keep in mind WHAT they have done in order to prevent it from happening again - even though you forgive, it doesn't always mean that you should ALWAYS forget (contrary to the common saying) because even though some people might want to forget, in some cases it is better not to; this way, the knowledge can be passed on and thus steps can be taken to prevent it from ever happening again. Unfortunately, our world doesn't seem to work that way because there have been genocides before and after the holocaust and there will be more in the future unless people actually do something about them.

responses to the symposium
 

Yossi Klein Halevi

Yossi Klein Halevi is the son of a Jewish Holocaust survivor. His comments were very similar to the ones that I made after reading the book. He said that for us to try and understand this encounter is beying imagination, which is true. For us to try and judge the decisions that Wiesenthal had to make are extremely hard because a person can not judge thing that they have not done themselves. He talks about how Wiesenthal and his friends debating the fact whether they should forgive Karl is more than people should expect from a group of people whose fellow people have just gone through something as horrible as the Holocaust. I also agree with Halevi that when Wiesenthal did not destroy the image that Karl's mother had of her son was a very respectful thing to do. I especially like the last quote of this passage by Halevi, "For Wiesenthal the survivor, behaving graciously toward the mother of an SS officer required moral courage; for the rest of us, treating a new generation with decency requires only moral common sense."


Albert Speer

Albert Speer was a high-ranking Nazi, who was one of the planners of the Third Reich as well as Hitler's minister of armaments. At the Nuremberg trials he admitted responsibility for actions by the Nazi's. When reading Speer's comments I was very touched by the things that he said. He has taken full responsibility for the crimes he commited and he is still coping with the guilt. His reaction to Wiesenthal's forgiveness is pure surprise because even he himself has not been able to forgive. Speer says that Wisenthal has made dealing with the guilt much easier because he has supported men like himself and given them hope. Wiesenthal has showed Speer that every man makes his mistakes and these are not things that will last forever. Once again, the last line of this passage is very touching, "It is God's grace that has touched me through you."

Religion always has one (or more) answer
 

The Dalai Lama
I agree with the Dalai Lama’s responses to the Sunflower. The Dalai Lama preaches that forgiveness should be compassionately distributed by the victim to the criminal, but not without ensuring that the memories of the incident live on and are not repeated. I feel that you must always forgive as soon as you are truly able to do so, because anger often grows into hate over time. And hatred is always terrible for humanity as a whole. The Dalai Lama, being a champion of Buddhism, strongly believes in this.

Cardinal Franz König
This man of God states that he sympathizes with Wiesenthal on his reasons for not forgiving the Nazi soldier, but he also says that to forgive him would be an act of goodness. Whether Wiesenthal was allowed to give forgiveness is another question, according to König. I do not think that the question of if he is allowed to and the question should he are separated at all. I think that if he gave the dying man peace, then that would be dishonoring those he has murdered.

Responsibility and Justice
 

Harry Wu

I agree with Harry Wu that even though the dying soldier understands his guilt, “everyone else in the society shares the same responsibility with” him. He wouldn’t forgive the Nazi soldier because he believed that people are responsible for punishing the guilty ones. I agree with this idea simply because it is justice. Quite a similar story happened to Harry Wu in early communist China. In 1979, when Harry Wu visited Comrade Ma, he showed to her that she lost. He probably felt really proud because he stayed alive; that meant a real victory for Harry Wu. Moreover, Harry Wu went beyond forgiveness, he humiliated comrade Ma by his appearance. It was this deadly moment of him showing up in front of comrade Ma and sort of saying “look at me now… I survived.”

Jean Amèry

I absolutely agree with Jean because she supports justice perfectly. If a dying SS man needs forgiveness, he will get it from God. I agree that it is not a question of an average Jew who was not a victim of that particular Nazi. Since his victims are already dead, the only one who could judge SS man was God (If he exists). I also agree with the statement “Your SS man was a devil, perhaps a poor devil.” That Nazi was evil even though he acknowledges his guilt. It is justice that needs to be carried out against him and a Jew made a right decision.

HARRY JAMES CARGAS

Cargas in his response talks about a very interesting point that had to be made. They question is not "Would you forgive the nazi soldier?" The true question is what Cargas asked himself, which is "Who am I to forgive?" What right do you have as an individual to forgive someone for a crime they have committed, on other people? I definetly agree with Cargas's points because I believe that it is not in our power to forgive someone for their sins. The ideas in Christianity are that if you have sinned you go and ask for forgiveness from a priest. In Cargas's response he talks about the ideas of Christian Scripture, which talks about "an unforgivable sin" . The idea of if such a thing exists Cargas argues that Hitler and the nazis have definetly committed such a sin. Then if you can not be forgiven by a priest, who can you be forgiven by. If you are a christian, which the nazis were, the answer is no one. Once you have committed this "unforgivable sin" forgiveness can only be given by God himself. So although I am no religious I do believe in the concept. Forgiveness cannot be given by an individual. "If God chooses to forgive Karl, that's God's affair. Simon Wiesenthal could not, I cannot. For me, Karl dies unforgiven. God have mercy on my soul (Cargas 124)."

MARY GORDON

Gordon believes that the nazi had no right to ask Wiesenthal for his forgiveness. It is wrong to ask him for two reasons, which Gordon clearly states. "First, he is wrong to ask one man to serve as a public symbol for all Jews." Wiensenthal cannot forgive the nazi as a representative of the entire Jewish community. Forgiveness in this sense can only be given by the community and not just an individul in that community. It is because perhaps that he is a Catholic-educated nazi that is why he asks Wiensethal for forgiveness. He may think that like Christianity Wiensenthal can act as a priest and give forgiveness in the name of God. The difference is of course that a priest forgives in the name of God and Wiensenthal forgives in the name of the Jews.
Gordons second reason is that "the Nazi misunderstands penance." The Nazi believes that Wiensenthal can give private absolution to one whose crimes have been public. As Gordon says not even a priest can do this so the Nazi does not understand that forgiveness cannot be given to him by anyone. Wiensenthal cannot be the Nazi's confessor. Because Wiensenthal can only represent himself he has no right to give forgiveness in the name of the Jewish community. It is because of this idea that Gordon believes that what Wiensenthal did was just because he could not give the dying man his forgiveness because it was not his right to give it in the name of all the Jews.

The Dalai Lama
The Dalai Lama believes that those who have commited crimes against oneself and mankind should all be forgiven, but the memories should all stay within the mind. This really is a Buddhist's way. His reponse to the Sunflower is that victims should in a way let go of their and enemies' wrong doings. Both shouldn't grab onto the rope of hate so hard and refuse to let each other have peace. He says that people "self righteously condemn them [in this case, each other] for their brutality and dismiss them as unworthy of further thought or consideration". I believe this is true, because people don't often have the thought to give compassion to another side no matter what they did. However, in the Buddhist religion, as well as Taoism, things come and things go. We can forgive and be forgiven, but everything that has happened won't be forgotten.

Harold S. Kushner
I am convinced by this man's voice that what he says is true. I agree with his words. "To be forgiven is to feel the weight of the past lifted from our shoulders, to feel the stain of past wrongdoing washed away. To be forgiven is to feel free to step into the future unburdened by the precedent of who we have been and what we have done in previous times." I like this quote very much. Kushner argues that to be forgiven can only be done by ourselves and to forgive is only done upon ourselves. We may go to someone and ask for forgiveness but even when we are forgiven, the feeling of guilt or whatever will still remain. We may feel regret, pity, sympathy, etc. Kushner says that to be forgiven is that we ourselves let go of the past and make new decisions of what to do. His response to the Sunflower is explained as the Nazi solder merely asking someone who doesn't have the power to do what he asked. "His plea for forgiveness was addressed to someone who lacked the power (let along the right) to grant it." My reponse to the first posting has the same message. I wouldn't give the dying soldier his forgiveness because it is not my right to speak for all the Jews he had brought death to. I would merely bring him comfort. To be forgiven is when you no longer feel that you are grabbing onto the past and not letting go the feelings from that past. To be forgiven is to set yourself free.

what is meant by forgivness?
 

Susannah Heschel:

Susannah argues that in Judaism, if you ask for forgivness atonement (public appology or reparation) and restitution (a return to someone's position) are needed. She as well, explains that murder and destroying ones reputation are both sins, "a murdered person, after all, cannot forgive the murderer, and a good reputation can never be restored." A Jewish person that has been in the Holocaust will never be able to forget those memories but also the many Nazis that have participated, their reputation will probably never be 'normal' or the same liek before. Another problem that is interesting which we have also discussed in class, for example in Susannah's response she wrote: " Even as Chancelor Konrad Adenauer publicly declared Germany's readliness to pay reparations, his secretary of state was Hans Globke, the author of the emergency legislation that gave Hitler unlimited dictatorial powers and of the Nuremburg Laws that disenfranchised the German Jews. But beacuse Globke was never a memer of the Nazi party, he was free to serve in the government." It is very ironic in my opinion, but if that was the law there is nothing to be done about it.

Mary Gordon:

Mary has a very religious Catholic opinionin which she made some very specific and ture arguments about forgivness. I made a connection to Mary's resonse, since I think that forgivness might serve as Karma in the next life. Maybe that is the forgivness that the Nazi soldier deserves?!
Simon Wiesenthal does not represent all the Jews and by this circumstance, Simon can not forgive the NAzi soldier under the name of all the Jews that have gone through horible and unforgetable experiences. " As a private person, and not a priest, he may act only in his own name."
What is the meaning of forgivness? Will the Nazi soldier "feel" better? Maybe he will be able to tell the other soldiers that he has been forgiven by Simon, but what good will that serve? "If the dying Nazi soldier wished to atone, he should have insisted that he be placed in the camps, so that he could die in the misreable cirumstances of those in whose name he is asking forgivness." This statment might be cruel, however many Jews might forgive but never forget, and for the Nazi soldier to go into any of those camps and die might be a punishment or consequence for him.

The Dalai Lama – The spiritual leader of Buddhists around the world.

The Dalai Lama had a short response to the question if a victim should forgive a perpetrator. Even with his few words, I did not agree. He’s saying that one should forgive the person who committed atrocities against oneself, but one should not forget about the atrocities committed. I say that one should either forgive and forget, or not forgive and forget. If Wiesenthal forgave the dying Nazi soldier, then it makes no sense to me if he shouldn’t forget about what the dying Nazi soldier had committed. He already gave up his pride and honor of his own people by forgiving the Nazi so why suffer more with anger by keeping the memories of the crimes committed by the Nazi? If one is willing to renounce or excuse a perpetrator for the committed crimes, then he should also be ready to forget about it. In the perpetrators mind, he’ll be free from guilt because the victim had forgiven him, so the victim should also be free from anger. If one isn’t able to renounce anger, then he should keep it and not forgive the perpetrator. This way, the perpetrator will feel guilty as the victim wishes him to feel by not forgiving him.

Harry Wu – A student who was imprisoned by the Chinese Communists Government for nineteen years in 1960.

Harry Wu compared his own experience of imprisonment in the Chinese Communists labor camps to Wiesenthal’s issue. I liked his comparison as I found his experience and Wiesenthal’s quite similar. He was tortured by the Chinese communists for the reason of not being pro-communist. It’s a total crime of the communist government because they had no reason to torture him. By taking actions on people like Wu, the communists took away their personal rights; they no longer could speak up freely about their true opinions of China in the 1950s. There was also no reason for the Nazis to torture Jews like Wiesenthal. Germany thought that the Jews were in danger of their society and economy, but that gives Germany no right to kill off an entire Jewish race.

I agree with Harry Wu about a victim not forgiving a perpetrator. He made the reason really clear as to why not by stating that perpetrators are responsible for their actions. A perpetrator had committed atrocities; he should be responsible for it. He should either be given a life sentence or be jailed for the rest of his life. He should be the last person to ask for forgiveness. I also thought that his comment of perpetrators sharing the same responsibility was effective. This is very true, the perpetrators during the holocaust have all committed a similar crime so how can one of them step out at the last minute and be forgiven by their victim? The perpetrators, for being the same, no individuals of them should have the right to be forgiven; they must share the responsibility together! The victims, for being tortured in the same way, no individuals of them should have the right to forgive their perpetrator; betraying the other victims. They must together hold the anger and revenge against the perpetrators.

Comment on Forgiveness
 

I chose two very different responses to respond to. The Dalai Lama who is seen as a holy and good person and then someone who used to be a Nazi, seen as “evil”.

The Dalai Lama - Spiritual leader of Buddhists
I find the Dalia Lama’s response very inspiring. He claims that the right thing to do was to forgive the dying Nazi. More importantly though, he made the point that to forgive is not to forget and that one should indeed remember. Many people seem to think that forgiveness is forgetting but I don’t think so. Forgiving is makes a persons mind at rest but s/he still knows that what has happened has happened and that it never can be taken back. Forgiving is the act of accepting that one can start again without forgetting the past. For me the Dalai Lama’s response was very inspiring and puts faith in human nature. He also links the experience that Wiesenthal went through to a monk that had been imprisoned by the Chinese. The monk said that his biggest fear was to lose his compassion for the Chinese. This, I believe, provides hope for the human race.

Albert Speer – was a high-ranking Nazi
I chose this response to The Sunflower because I was interested in what an ex-Nazi would say on this matter. His response puts Wiesenthal in the right. He says that “no one is bound to forgive.” I think this is a very important statement because it means that no one is right or wrong in this situation. No one has to forgive, it is entirely there choice and one should not judge this person. Albert Speer then goes on to say that Wiesenthal should not feel guilty in any way because he went on to show compassion by visiting the Nazi’s mother and not telling her what her boy had done. Also Albert Speer is under the impression that Wiesenthal helped the dying Nazi very much by not reproaching him or withdrawing his hand. I agree with this. I think that his silence should not be conceived as an accusation against the dying Nazi and that it was in a way a type of forgiveness. What also moved me in Albert Speer’s response is that he, like the Dalai Lama, relates The Sunflower to his own experience. Albert Speer was tried at Nuremburg where he openly confessed his guilt. Still he claims that he can never forgive himself for supporting a government which carried out genocide. Yet after talking to Wiesenthal he said that the load of guilt that he carried was lessoned. I find that very inspiring and I don’t think that Wiesenthal was wrong in what he did. I think he was right to keep silent since he didn’t really have the right to speak for a whole race but he did give comfort to a dying man in the end.

The Symposium
 

Jean Amery - Holocaust Survivor

Jean Amery offered a very interesting opinion. She, probably quite accurately, assumed that anyone put in the position of Wiesenthal's answer probably wouldn't correspond to there true feelings. This is because, first of all, based on many uncontrollable conditions surrounding Wiesenthal, his mindset in that moment as to whether or not he forgave the man could go either way. One such example she gave was, had he maybe just spoken with a friendly SS man, maybe he would have thought of the exceptions to the cruelty of the other SS members. The second reason is that many prisoners probably hadn't thought through whether or not they would forgive in such a situation, so they would maybe make a hasty decision while searching for an answer. So because of the, Amery says that from a psychological viewpoint, to forgive or not to forgive is irrelevant. From a political viewpoint though, she felt very differently. She said to ensure this could never happen again, they could not forgive and would "refuse any reconciliation with the criminals", or such a thing as the Holocaust could happen again. This viewpoint doesn't make complete sense to me though. Amery obviously hates the Nazis to an extent where she can never forgive, and will not, so atrocities like the Holocaust will never happen again. While I don't believe that we can all be happy by a policy of simply "forgive and forget", I do believe that to refuse to ever forgive means that such a thing as the Holocaust could happen due to that lingering hate. Justice should be done, but in time we must forgive. As you can see my feelings about Amery's response when taking politics into consideration slightly contradict my own feelings about what I would have done, as I also said I wouldn't forgive. So what is my overall opinion? I don't know, I don’t really think I can judge. I don't know if those wrongs against Wiesenthal and the Jews during the Holocaust outweigh the danger of maintaining a great hate towards Germans. It is not for me to decide as I have no experience with these things. I do think Amery's approach to this problem, by looking at aspects other than simply Wiesenthal’s opinions is very important and valid though.

The Dalai Lama - Leader of the Buddhists

The Dalai Lama's approach to the problem was to forgive the man, but remember the crimes that were committed against you. He compared it to China's invasion of Tibet and the destruction of 1/5 of Tibet's population. Through all this the Buddhists have been able to keep up there tradition of avoiding all violence. I suppose I respect the Buddhist’s strength of faith in there ideology, but I cannot really understand a people that will take any action against them, including the murder or destruction of their land and people, with "nonviolence and compassion". This is probably because of my background. As an American, a very proud and patriotic country, if such a thing were to happen to my country, I would immediately either join the military or find another way to help my country. So when the Dalai Lama uses Tibet and China as a metaphor for the Holocaust, as an American I will use America and Terrorists. If a known terrorist asked me for forgiveness for what he had done to my country, I know, without a doubt, I would not forgive him. So for this reason I can't agree with the Dalai Lama's reasoning.

Comments on the Symposium
 

Rodger Kamenetz

Rodger Kamenetz’s response is only one page long but very detailed and right to the point. Rodger talks about silence and he writes to Simon Wiesenthal that he was under duress and the best choice was to remain silent. I thought that this response from Rodger was interesting and unique because unlike most of the other responses Rodger did not tell anything about himself. It is a mystery what lies in his past and what experiences, if any, he has had with the Holocaust.
Rodger argues in his response that since Simon was not addressed as a person by the Nazi but as Jew, it shows that the Nazi was not specifically interested in having Simon’s forgiveness, but just having the forgiveness of a Jew, any Jew, before his death. I think Rodger is right in saying that, “he saw the suffering he had inflicted, and he felt the guilt. But he had not moved past the deeper sickness of his soul and of his time, and our time as well. He could not see you as a person because he could only see you as Jew.” This statement is strong but I think it is a great example of how some Nazis in the Holocaust felt guilty about the pain they had brought upon Jews and they wanted forgiveness for what they had done, but deep inside they still had the Nazi attitude that Jews were not real people.



Matthieu Ricard

Matthieu Ricard’s response is based on forgiveness in Buddhism. Even though I am not a Buddhist I found it very interesting to read his opinions on forgiveness, not in particular forgiveness of the Nazi, but forgiveness in general.
Matthieu argued that, “For a Buddhist, forgiveness is always possible and one should always forgive.” Reading that I was admired. How can people forgive a person who did something horrible? Why do they want to? How can they just forget about what happened? That was when I realized that forgiving and forgetting are two different things that do not go together. Forgiving does not mean that now you will forget about everything that the person did to you, forgiving means to accept. The fact that the Nazi, not only apologized to Simon, but also asked for forgiveness was an enormous step for him to take. He had realized that the group of people he had always looked down upon and brought pain upon were people with feelings just like himself, and that is why he asked for forgiveness. For Simon to forgive the Nazi would not mean that he would put it all behind him and be his best friend now, it would simply mean that he would accept his apology and the fact that he asked him for forgiveness. However it would not make up psychologically, for all the tremendous actions the Nazi had brought upon his people.
Matthieu Ricard’s response really caught my attention and made me look at forgiveness in another way, just like Buddhists do, and I think that is a characteristic many people could learn from.

Responding to Two Responses
 

THE DALAI LAMA-

The Dalai Lama's response to Simon Wiesenthal's Sunflower is one of the shortest compared to the others, but at the same time expains the most as to why one should be forgiven. His quote in the first paragraph "I believe one should forgive the person or persons who have committed atrocities...This does not necessarily mean one should forget about the atrocities committed...One should be aware and remember these experiences so that efforts can be made to check the reoccurrence of such atrocities in the future" truly does make a lot of sense. i do believe in forgiveness, but only to a certain extent.

In my perspective Karl can not be forgiven for his actions because he always had a choice, and that is basically what it comse down to, but what he chose to do came with responsibilty and consequences. I just can't get over the fact that Karl has murdered innocent people, and their only crime was being a Jew. think of this: The Holocaust never took place, and Karl was just and individual among a society, and one day decided to kill lets say 2 people because they were Jewish. He will probably get life sentence for this crime. What if he is terribly guilty after killing these two people, can we then allow him to walk? Dont think so...

What I do agree with though is how one should remember their mistake for the future so you wont make the same mistake twice. This has to do with memory, when certain experiences/images will stay with you till the day you die. In this case, Karl will never forget what he has done, and even though he wishes he hasnt done what he did, it still does not change the fact that he belonged to a mass murdering group and ended people's lives that will never be able to stroll the Earth again.

MARY GORDON -

You can imagine that Mary is very religious because of how she relates why the Nazi officer is wrong to ask Wiesenthal for forgiveness to God, priests, sacraments, sinners, and rituals. I connect with Gordon because of how we share the same idea of how Karl is asking forgiveness from Simon but in means to all the Jews he has murdered or scarred for life. After what he has done there is nothing for him to do anymore since he wont be able to find all the people he has murdered since they have been either burned to ashes or are laying in a huge piles among other corpses/ The only thing he can do is to feel sorry for himself for being a cold hearted killer and cherish those who's lives he has taken. Karl misunderstands the fact that if he asks one Jew to make up for all the other murders he has committed everything will go back to normal. He believes by asking forgiveness from one survivor will erase all of his memory from the other killings he has done, and that this way it will undo all of his mistakes. It is too late to ask for forgiveness Karl, because your tasks have already been done, and they cannot and will not be forgotton for century's to come.

Smail Balić

Balić said that he would probably not forgive the officer if he was in the same position back then, but he thinks that many people would forgive him due to his "sincere remorse." If Wiesenthal would have forgave, he wouldnt be a different or a worse person, but it would take lots of power from him to forgive. I agree to his feeling of compassion for any sufferer, and that people shouldnt really talk about what the right thing to do was unless they really experienced these situations. This problem should be decided by the people involved, not by outsiders. Balić also says that there are actions too large to be forgiven, and that only God is able to decide about it. I think that his response is logical and normal: feel compassion for the sufferer and not really forgive the soldier, because after all, they are your enemy. It is alright for us to think what we would do in these situations, but to decide if Wiesenthal did the right or wrong thing is not up to us.

Theodore M. Hesburgh

Hesburgh is a catholic priest, and i thought it would be interesting to hear what this person has to say, because he forgives anyone who comes in to confess their sins. He thinks its right to forgive anyone who confesses, which i think is wrong. You shouldnt feel sorry for everyone, you need to have limits. He says that "he would forgive anyone for anything if he was asked, because God would forgive." How does he know that God would forgive anyone? I think that religion should not influence your decision that much, because it doesnt seem logical sometimes to forgive anyone. He just bases it in his beliefs in God. I think he needs to gain some experience first, before making these comments. He is too religious.

I read several of the other peoples responses, but I will only write about those that I remember-- those are the ones that are significant to me.

The Dalai Llama's response made an impression on me that he understands what is happening, because he is experiencing persecution against his own people, however he doesn't seem to understand the scale of the Holocaust and that is also what made it unique. Why I think he doesn't understand is because he says that one should forgive, yet I don't believe that a non-jew has the right to tell jews to forgive, they can forgive for the suffering they did themselves, but no one can ever forgive for the dead.

Deborah E. Lipstadt's response had one element which I found particullary interresting-- how she suggested one can reach teshuvah gemurah, or ultimate forgiveness. This is if the person has full strength --so not like Karl on his deathbed-- and if oppurtunity arrises they chose not to commit the crime. If it were Nazi's burning a village then the only one who could actually save the lives of the would be victims, would be the soldier in charge, it is hardly worth anything if one soldier chooses not to shoot but another 199 shoot. That also means that even if Karl weren't crippled he probablly wouldn't of been able to do anything either because one soldier cannot stop a battalion or the peer pressure would force him to shoot.
Another thing which I thought about myself, and which Deborah Lipstadt also mentioned is whether Karl would of sought forgiveness or if he would of at all changed if he weren't on his deathbed. It is normal for humans to become religious when they are dying, because with afterlife religion provides for them a possibility that even after death it's not all over.

Primo Levi raises another good point, and that that during 'justice' more "offense" is inflicted and a "new source of pain" is given birth. With the allied counter-attack against Germany they caused the same pain as Germany caused before. Then again the whole point of justice is to inflict the same pain on the oppressor as they inflicted on the victim. Therefore one could say that Hitler and his followers are responsible for all the suffering that 'justice' has brought Germany and her allies.

ALBERT SPEER- used to be a high-ranking Nazi.

Albert Speer was a Nazi who was one of the planners of the Third Reich and Hitler's minister of armamtents. I chose him because I was curious what a Nazi would think about Wiesenthal's question of forgiveness. When I read Speer's response I was quite surprised. He said that he was unable to even forgive himself, and he admitted the responsibilty of the horrifying things he had done. He realizes the horrible things he did, and also says that his moral guilt cannot be erased in his lifetime. He understands how Wiesenthal would have felt and agrees with his decision. Speer also talks about Wiesenthal's kindness. He says that Wiesenthal showed compassion towards the SS man and also to him. Speer also thanks Wiesenthal for his help of making his burden a bit better to bear.

DITH PRAN- witness to and survivor of the Cambodian killing fields.

Dith Pran survived the Cambodian killing fields. He was exiled to forced labor camps where he endured four years of starvation and torture. I chose Dith Pran because I thought he endured a somewhat similar experience as Wiesenthal. I thought their thoughts would be similar, but Pran disagreed with Wiesenthal. He writes that he cannot forgive the leaders of the Khmer Rouge who made the plan and ordered the killing of millions of people. However, he says that he can forgive the soldiers of the Khmer Rouge, although he can never forget what they did. He does not think what they did was right, but he understands why they did what they did. Pran says if he was placed in Simon Wiesenthal's position, he would have forgiven the soldier. He says that he always felt that the soldiers were trapped, and that we need to separate the leaders and the individuals who followed their order.He says that they were brainwashed and were forced to kill. I agree that they were, but still if I had endured the same experience I would not forgive the soldier. The fact that they were forced to do those unspeakable things does not change the fact that they murdered millions of innocent people. He thinks the key to forgiveness is understanding. I agree, because I think when you understand the other person you can also forgive them. Pran feels that forgiveness is a very personal thing and there is no right of wrong. I agree that nobody knows if a forgiveness is right or wrong. It differs from people to people.

The Symposium
 

Henry James Cargas

In Cargas' response he asked a great question, better than the question of "what would you do in the situation". He asked, "Who am I to forgive?" It's not so much if we forgive him or not, it's more along the lines, if it is moral for one of us to be a representative of a whole community and forgive. He is very right right in saying that one has to earn the forgiveness before it should be given to them. Karl, hasn't really earned the forgiveness, eventhough he has asked to personally confess to a Jew. Asking for forgiveness as he lies there doesn't qualify as earning the forgiveness, because it is just too easy. The ending of his response was quite powerful though. If we had any doubt about how Cargas felt about forgiving Karl, we definately find out in the last 2-3 sentences. "For me Karl dies unforgiven. God have mercy on my soul". Cargas gives no mercy to Karl. I don't think I would either, but then again how could i know what it was like. What I think is really interesting is that he's not even Jewish, he's Catholic.

Mary Gordon

"He is asking for private forgiveness, not from the person he has harmed, but in the name of others." How can someone even think that one Jew could pardon him for what he did to countless others. Gordon asks the question of what Karl thinks he'll gain by being forgiven. It's not like after being forgiven, all of his sins will be erased by this "magic". She believes that it cannot be undone, whether or not one Jew decides that he will grant the Nazi his last wish.
She makes the parallel to a priest being able to forgive sins in the name of God, to a privately symbolic figues of the Jewish community. There is no symbolic figure for the Jewish community and there shouldn't be because, who is able to say that they can forgive someone, whom they have never met nor been effected by, that has massacred millions of other people. I don't think that those that were gased or shot, would like the fact that someone was taking the role of "Forgiver of the Nazis". Gordon believes that Wiesenthal cannot be Karl's confessor. He can only forgive him for something that was done to him. Since Karl and Simon have never met before this, he has no reason to forgive.