The Sunflower is a first person account of a Jew living in a concentration camp during the Holocaust confronted with the question, when such an atrocity has been committed is it possible for a person to forgive? Throughout Simon flashes between the present in the concentration camp, back to his recent past, even further to his time as a youth. Selected to work outside of the camp one day Simon and others were marched through the town. Along the way he noticed a graveyard for Nazi soldiers and above each grave, a sunflower, had been planted. Upon seeing this, he experienced envy for the soldiers who were still connected to “the living world”(Wiesenthal, 1998, p. 14). Simon indicated his desensitization to death, but upon seeing the graves with flowers and knowing when he died, he would be placed in an unmarked grave with no flowers to tie him to this world, he felt bitterness along with a small hope that he “would come across them again; that they were a symbol with a special meaning”(Wiesenthal, 1998, p. 15).
Arriving to the work site, Simon is approached by a nurse inquiring if he was Jewish. Acknowledging this, she took him to a room that had been transformed into a sickroom for Karl, a dying SS soldier. Karl’s story began with his youth and Catholic upbringing and he joined the Hitler Youth and SS willingly. He then gave his account of the crime he committed and was so desperately seeking forgiveness for. Simon listened silently to the murder of more Jews and walked away grappling with the thought, “here was a dying man-a murder who did not want to be a murder but who had been made into a murder by murderous ideology.”(Wiesenthal, 1998, p. 53) but his own death could come at any time from someone such as Karl. He left in silence and through the remainder of the holocaust and in the visit to Karl’s mother Simon kept silent. Simon clearly states his silence is a moral question “that challenges the conscious” (Wiesenthal, 1998, p. 97) for him and it should challenge the reader as well, was he right in doing so?
To forgive or not to forgive, after closely reading Simon’s account, I would have to agree with Joesk statement that one “…would have no right to do this in the name of the people who had not authorized you to do so. What people have done to yourself, you can,…that is your own affair.” (Wiesenthal, 1998, p. 64) Who am I to forgive someone for actions that have not been taken upon me, also as person of Jewish decent, the profound loss of generations in the Holocaust makes it difficult for one to justify forgiveness. What all has been lost by the actions of the Nazi’s can never be undone and I would also say that time does not necessarily heal all wounds. My argument extends also to the forgiveness of random SS soldiers who have lived a ‘clean’ life since the atrocities of the Holocaust and were never brought to trial. Should they be forgiven, were they really innocent bystanders? In most cases these nameless soldiers I feel were even more heartless and cowardly. Karl mentioned when talking with Simon, that he was brought up as a devout Catholic serving in the church and “hoped one day to study theology”(Wiesenthal, 1998, p. 31), is not ones faith to be a guide post created upon a cornerstone of compassion for others? One must ask where was Karl’s compassion regarding those of Jewish decent, he clearly says “otherwise all I knew about the Jews was what came out of the loudspeaker…”(Wiesenthal, 1998, p. 40); there is no compassion and personal responsibility being taken here, just a man who left his faith with his youth. Like so many, Karl, just blindly followed and believed the gross falsehoods about the Jews, without even thinking, I feel that this is why forgiveness cannot be granted by an individual for an entire group and as an individual I know that I would not have offered him forgiveness. There are proponents of forgiveness, who suggest that forgiving helps set one free, and it does if it is the person the crimes were committed against who is able to forgive their specific perpetrator or associates of that person. A good example of this is Eva Mozes Kor; she was able to confront a doctor in the camp where she and her twin were brutalized through inhumane experiments. She is an example of someone who can say she forgives and, she makes this very clear, that she only speaks for herself. Of course the idea of forgiveness is the crux of this situation and is covered in many thorny issues, but I think Joesk makes a clear case of why one cannot forgive for an entire people. There are numerous responses in the symposium after Simon’s story and of the responders that support the position of not to forgive I feel that Erich H. Loewy, Arthur Hertzberg and Herbert Marcuse best support the case of not forgiving.
Herbert Marcuse touches on a similar thought that I was considering as I read Karl’s story and his request for forgiveness. “It always seemed to me inhuman and a travesty of justice if the executioner asked the victim to forgive. One cannot, and should not, go around happily killing and torturing and then, when the moment has come, simply ask, and receive, forgiveness.”(Wiesenthal, 1998, pp. 207–208) After this quote and considering Karl’s story the argument posed earlier is supported here, where is the personal accountability for ones actions. In the beginning he has no issues with the actions he participated in after joining the SS as he was simply fighting Russians and not killing Jews. Only now as he is faced with his own demise does he seek out forgiveness. Why not seek penance after participating in killing the Jews packed into the burning house. Perhaps a better inquiry to Karl would be in consideration of his former faith why did he not request a transfer, which was allowed, even before he killed those Jewish families. There should have had a crisis of faith, if his faith was strong enough. Perpetuation was an interesting idea presented by Marcuse, that by forgiving to quickly we give the signal that the actions are acceptable.
Arthur Hertzberg’s response resonated with me for a couple of reasons, he questions if the Holocaust was really God’s plan and brings up that in the Talmud murder is never acceptable. Arthur’s first sentence hit the nail on the head “this personal history of the dying soldier made him more, and not less guilty.”(Wiesenthal, 1998, p. 166) All the teachings that Karl learned in his early life should have prevented him or anyone with the same upbringing from being morally able to commit these atrocities. I would not be able to forgive someone who would abandon his earliest teachings of right and wrong to fit into a situation, which should make someone with true faith question what they were doing. As for God’s plan he employs stories from the Old Testament to prove that the Holocaust was in God’s plan which also makes God as guilty as the Nazi’s, “surely it is not beyond His power to achieve whatever He wants in the world without the near total murder of a people”(Wiesenthal, 1998, p. 167). This argument is truly compelling putting God on the same level of the Nazi’s is uncomfortable for anyone of faith but yet rings with validity. At the end of his writing as he mentions he escaped the Holocaust while many of his family did not and I took away a feeling that he has survivor’s guilt. Which affirmed my thoughts that forgiveness is truly an individual affair because why should one ever feel guilty for living.
Eric H. Loewy, like Hertzberg also escaped from the Holocaust, takes a very strong approach that judging this situation is fairly pretentious, as we have never been in a situation such as Simon. His position is mainly of an ethical nature but he also points out that Simon was in a precarious position as he was still the weaker party, as Simon was Jewish. How Loewy enhanced the argument of not forgiving by highlighting that reasoned compassion not forgiveness should be the focus made this passage moving. Simon’s demonstration of basic human compassion through his sitting with the officer and by doing so “tacitly admits the SS man back into a human company…”(Wiesenthal, 1998, p. 205)and he spared Karl’s mother the real truth of her son. Loewy does make the Simon did not have the ability to forgive that which has not be done to him, but that his compassionate actions are ‘the true measure of the man.”(Wiesenthal, 1998, p. 205)
Of the writers best supporting the stance of forgiveness for Karl, the Dalai Lama, Dith Pran and Desmond Tutu, give good support for forgiveness. In his response, The Dalai Lama focuses on forgiveness but not forgetting so that we remain aware. The theme of awareness I felt was lacking in all but The Dalia Lama’s writing, as he says “…one should be aware and remember these experiences so that efforts can be made to check the reoccurrence of such atrocities in the future.” (Wiesenthal, 1998, p. 129), to prevent further genocides from starting or continuing a much larger acknowledgement of issues needs to be present. The Dalai Lama delivers his message from a place of personal experience with the Tibetans’ who have suffered grave atrocities at the hands of the Chinese. He cites that at least “one-fith of the population, have lost their lives due to massacre, execution, starvation, and suicide.”(Wiesenthal, 1998, p. 130) Buddhism is a religion of peace and compassion which is why I believe his stance is forgiveness, he believes wholly in his religion, not to be influenced by outsiders he has true faith. While this is in opposition to the argument of not forgiving he speaks of compassion as do others in the symposium with the opposite view, which is the common ground we can start from is understanding that basic human compassion for those who are suffering or wronged must not be ignored. Those victims of such actions can be the only ones that can choose to forgive and in his example of the monk, that monk chooses through faith to forgive and he is alive to do so and forgive his wardens.
Dith Pran’s response brought into focus something that gave me pause in my belief to not forgive. “Pulling away from the Khmer Rouge leadership, I can forgive the soldiers of the Khmer Rouge, those who actually did the killing, although I can never forget what they did.”(Wiesenthal, 1998, p. 231) While Karl wasn’t a leader, he was a soldier and this is where Dith Pran’s statement opens the door for a deeper look at his situation. By this thought process, he makes a valid argument that after the suicides of top level Nazi party officers, and the Nuremburg Trials, there should be a move to forgive the “cogs” of the Nazi party machine. But the idea of personal responsibility comes back up and I struggle with the conviction that faith aside a person has a responsibility to do what is right or to accept the consequence of their actions. If there were no cogs, how could such a terrible machine run the Khmer Rouge or the Nazi party ever function.
Bishop Desmond Tutu’s closing in his response also made me consider forgiveness as he addresses the future. “It is clear that if we look only to retributive justice, then we could just as well close up shop. Forgiveness is not some nebulous thing. It is practical politics. Without forgiveness, this is no future.” (Wiesenthal, 1998, p. 268) Through the book we see that Simon wrestles with his decision throughout his life, never sure if what he did in his silence was right or wrong. Bishop Tutu’s statement gives a reason of why Simon wrestles with his silence. By not forgiving, he is unable to move forward in his life and be completely at peace.
The Dalia Lama and Dith Pran are both Buddhists who share a common belief on forgiveness. One suffered for his faith and has forgiven and had a good life. The other continues to be persecuted but still forgives and in the process hopes to change those who persecute him. These are strong arguments on why we should forgive, but in the end it still comes down to a personal choice. I understand the points made by these individual’s but for me it doesn’t change my mind on forgiveness in this situation. The level of atrocities committed make it impossible for me to forgive Karl, because the atrocities did not happen to me directly and morally Karl could and should have stayed true to his faith and dealt in compassion instead of ignorance and hate.