Sold to joezayed7@gmail.com THE SUNFLOWER
SIMON WIESENTHAL

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLOT OVERVIEW

3

CHAPTER SUMMARIES AND ANALYSES

5

Chapter 1
Chapters 2-5
Chapters 6-10
Chapters 11-15
Chapters 16-20
Chapters 21-25
Chapters 26-30
Chapters 31-35
Chapters 36-40
Chapters 41-45
Chapters 46-50
Chapters 51-54

5
8
12
15
20
23
26
29
33
36
39
42

MAJOR CHARACTER ANALYSIS

45

Simon
Karl
Josek
Arthur
Adam
Bolek
Karl’s Mother

45
45
46
46
47
47
47

THEMES

49

SYMBOLS AND MOTIFS

51

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

2

IMPORTANT QUOTES

53

ESSAY TOPICS

61

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

3

PLOT OVERVIEW
The Sunflower by Simon Wiesenthal is a book of non-fiction. The first section, also titled “The Sunflower,” is an account of Wiesenthal’s experience as a concentration camp prisoner under the Nazi regime. In the account, Wiesenthal describes his life in
Poland prior to the German occupation, his experiences of anti-Semitism within the
Polish culture, and his life as a concentration camp prisoner. He describes life in the concentration camp, the continuous humiliations, the hunger, the illness, and the constant threat of death.
Central to the narrative in “The Sunflower” is the story of Simon being summoned to the deathbed of a young Nazi soldier whom Simon calls Karl and who has been wounded in combat. Karl confesses to Simon his activities against Jewish people, which he did in the service of the Nazi regime, and tells Simon he cannot die in peace unless Simon, a Jewish person, forgives him for the things he has done to Jewish people. Simon, after hearing the detailed confession, leaves the room without giving forgiveness. This experience haunts him long after the encounter. After the war,
Simon tracks down Karl’s mother in Stuttgart and visits with her, listening to her as she tells him about Karl’s youth, his Catholic upbringing, and his rejection of his parents’ values in joining the SS. Simon decides not to tell Karl’s mother the full truth of Karl’s death.
After his experience with the dying Nazi, Simon continues to be troubled by the question of whether he should have forgiven the young man. He discusses it with his friends in the concentration camp and comes to no satisfactory resolution. He does gain some satisfaction, however, from the exchange of perspectives among the various prisoners. At the end of the narrative, Wiesenthal poses the question to his readers: if you had been in his position, at the bedside of the dying Nazi who asked for forgiveness, what would you have done?
The subsequent two-thirds of The Sunflower, the section entitled “The Symposium,” is a series of essays in which fifty-three individuals give their responses to Wiesenthal’s question. The respondents, presented in alphabetical order, come from many different life experiences. Some individuals have experienced political oppression, some are writing from their positions as theologians, some are fellow Holocaust survivors, and one is a former Nazi. The essays address the nature of forgiveness as it is viewed within various religious traditions, as well as from personal, non-religious

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

4

perspectives. The cumulative result is a broad and nuanced variety of opinions on forgiveness, reconciliation, and accountability.
The Sunflower is, in a sense, the story of the vocation of Simon Wiesenthal, a man who spent most of his life bringing former Nazis to justice for the crimes they committed against Jewish people. Having heard that first confession of a dying SS man,
Wiesenthal continued to be troubled by his refusal to give forgiveness and then spent much of his life seeking out and listening to the confessions of many others guilty of crimes of the same nature. By asking his readers what they would do in his situation,
Wiesenthal not only bears witness to the most horrible event of the 20th century, but he also invites all people to participate in the discussion of justice and reconciliation.

STEVEN GALLOWAY

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

5

CHAPTER SUMMARIES AND ANALYSES
Chapter 1
Book 1: The Sunflower
Chapter 1 Summary: The Sunflower
The narrator of the story, Simon, is in a Nazi concentration camp. His two closest friends in the camp are his old friend Arthur and a recent arrival, Josek. In his previous life, Simon was an architect, and Arthur was his closest friend and advisor. Josek is a businessman who has a strong sense of spirituality. They watch the daily deaths of fellow prisoners by illness, starvation, suicide, and the vicious whims of the armed guards, and they await their own seemingly inevitable deaths. The three have discussions about God’s role in their situation, with Josek attempting to take a philosophical view, believing that evil is a perpetual part of life. Arthur takes a more cynical view of the situation, yet he believes that one day the Germans will be destroyed for their crimes. Simon usually tries to referee the two sides when the discussions become heated.
Simon and Arthur are among a group of prisoners who are taken out of the camp during the day for work details. As the group is marched to the work site, they pass a military cemetery, and Simon notices that “on each grave there was planted a sunflower, as straight as a soldier on parade” (14). At the sight of these graves, Simon realizes that his own death will likely not be observed or marked in any way. The sight of the sunflowers also gives him a sense of hope, the sense that he “would come across them again” (15).
The procession moves through the streets of Lemberg in Poland, where Simon and
Arthur once lived and worked, and they pass people whom they recognize from their past lives. Simon recalls how certain neighborhoods used to be dangerous for Jewish people because anti-Semitism was a problem in Poland even before the Nazis moved in. Simon takes heart in the hope that, now that the Polish people are also a target, they may see some benefit in keeping Jewish people alive, as a kind of buffer to protect them from the day when their race too may be annihilated by the Germans.
The working prisoners arrive at their worksite for the day, the former Technical High
School, where Simon was once a student. The building is now being used as a hospital
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

6

for wounded soldiers. As the prisoners are working their detail, a nurse approaches
Simon, asking, “Are you a Jew?” (22). She then asks him to follow her inside the building. She leads him to the bedside of a man who is completely bandaged up, whom Simon knows to be a German. When the bandaged man first speaks, he says, “I have not much longer to live . . . I know the end is near” (26). Karl, the 21-year-old soldier, tells Simon that he asked the nurse to bring him a Jewish prisoner, so that he’ll be able to talk to the Jew about an experience that he’s had and so that he might die in peace.
When Karl’s letter slips from his hand and falls to the floor, Simon picks it up and gives it back to him. Karl explains it’s a letter from his mother. He grabs Simon’s hand to command his attention, and Simon feels revulsion. He begins by telling him about his youth. He grew up in a religious family and was a devout Catholic as a boy, but then he decided to join the Hitler Youth and later to volunteer for the SS, against the wishes of his parents. He tells Simon about his experiences as a soldier during the invasion of
Russia. One particular event that haunts him is when they forced a group of Jewish people to carry cans of petrol into a house, then barricaded them inside and threw grenades into the house, following orders to shoot anyone who tried to escape through the windows.
Simon is reminded of a child, Eli, in the Jewish Ghetto where he lived before being taken to the concentration camp. Eli had seemed elusive to Nazis, as he was able to hide and forage for bread crumbs. As Karl is telling the story of children being killed,
Simon imagines them as if one might have been Eli, “the last Jewish child that I had seen” (47).
Karl tells Simon how he was injured in battle and that he knows that he will soon die without ever getting to see his family again. He says that he is so tormented by the things he has done and that he feels he will not die in peace unless he can confess his sins and receive pardon from a Jewish person. Simon struggles with his sympathy toward the dying young man and realizes that his regret is sincere. Although the soldier is penitent, nothing has changed in Simon’s life; he and his friends are still prisoners, still doomed to death at the hands of soldiers like Karl. Simon leaves the room without saying a word.
Simon remains troubled by this encounter as he returns with his fellow workers to the camp. Later in the day, he recounts the story. Most who hear it respond with cynicism, happy to hear that a Nazi has died. Josek gives it more thought and then says that
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

7

Simon was correct not to forgive him because he is not one of the individuals the soldier harmed directly. He says, “If you had forgiven him, you would never have forgiven yourself all your life” (66).
The next day, when he returns with the work detail to the Technical High School, the nurse from the day before asks to speak with him. She tells him that Karl has died and gives him a bundle that contains all the soldier’s possessions, with the exception of his confirmation watch, which is to be sent to his mother. Simon refuses to accept the bundle. In the years that follow, Simon remains tormented by Karl’s request for forgiveness, even as he witnesses the disappearance of more of his friends. At the end of the war, he makes his way to Stuttgart to visit Karl’s mother. She is now a widow, living among the rubble of the city. The story she tells of her son matches that Karl told of himself.
Instead of giving her the details of Karl’s death, he simply tells her that he was asked by her son to bring her greetings if he ever had the opportunity.
Simon ends the story by reflecting on the years since the war and how his life’s work has brought him into contact with many past-Nazis, few of whom have really shown remorse for their actions under the regime. He expresses his frustration that, so soon after the war, people were quick to urge the Jewish people to forgive the Germans for their crimes. On a personal level, he confesses that he remains tormented by his experience with Karl. He concludes by asking the reader to ask himself: “What would I have done?” (98)
Chapter 1 Analysis
The first section of The Sunflower poses the question that forms the basis for the essays that make up the rest of the book. The event that leads to the question, the afternoon Simon Wiesenthal spends with the dying SS man, is a brief episode of his life in the concentration camp.
Wiesenthal provides a full picture of his life within the camp, as well as of his life prior to the Nazi occupation of Poland. He reveals that anti-Semitism existed before the
Germans moved in. He also highlights the fact that there are more than just two opposing groups during this period. There are Polish people who were anti-Semitic before the war but who now stand to benefit from the survival of the Jewish people.
There are people who, because they look Aryan, attempt to assimilate into German
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

8

culture as a means of survival. Even within the camp, there are varying opinions on the nature of the Nazis. In revealing these varying perspectives, Wiesenthal effectively establishes the idea that every opinion is individual, that there is no easy right or wrong decision in any given situation.
Wiesenthal draws attention to the music of the prison guards, to how they like to sing bawdy songs on the march to and from the work site. He tells of one individual who organized an orchestra of prisoners and commissioned a piece of music that made the man weep every time he heard it. Through these details, Wiesenthal demonstrates the humanity of these people who work on behalf of the evil regime. In presenting them as human beings with aesthetic taste and emotion, he effectively makes the reality of their crimes so much more brutal. That they have an appreciation of goodness and nevertheless treat fellow human beings so monstrously is a reality that sits at the center of the question of mercy that runs through the book.
Chapters 2-5
Book 2: The Symposium
Chapter 2 Summary: Sven Alkalaj
As a Jewish person from Bosnia, Sven Alkalaj relates to Wiesenthal’s experience, since he was a target of the genocide that happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina later in the twentieth century. He asserts that only those who have lived through such genocides
“have the right to give an answer to the question of forgiveness” (102). He says that the crimes must not be forgotten, “because forgetting the crimes devalues the humanity that perished in these atrocities” (102).
Alkalaj distinguishes and, at the same time, highlights the relationship between forgiveness of an individual and reconciliation between groups. He recognizes that
Simon’s particular challenge was the question of whether or not to grant peace to the young SS man who “genuinely seems to recognize his crime and guilt . . . an important first step” (103). He disagrees with the idea that everyone in the society is guilty, but does believe in “national or state responsibility for genocide” (104), and asserts that reconciliation requires an acknowledgement of and accounting for crimes, for
“without justice, there can never be reconciliation and real peace” (104).

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

9

Returning to Wiesenthal’s initial question of whether he should have forgiven Karl,
Alkalaj states that, while “an argument can be made to forgive if there is a genuine recognition of guilt” (105), it would be wrong to forget the crime altogether.
Reconciliation requires forgiveness for the crime, but it also requires remembrance of the victims.
Chapter 3 Summary: Jean Améry
Jean Améry responds to Wiesenthal’s question as a fellow Holocaust survivor. He addresses the question of forgiveness from two perspectives: the psychological and the political. From both perspectives, he believes that the question of whether he should or should not forgive is essentially an irrelevant question.
From the psychological perspective, Améry suggests that Simon’s decision to forgive or not to forgive was merely a function of his personality and immediate circumstances. He suggests that any small variation in the situation might have made
Simon more or less disposed to forgive than he was in that particular moment.
From the political perspective, Améry points out that this question of forgiveness is a theological one, a matter of religion, and that as an atheist himself, he recognizes no intrinsic value in the conferring of forgiveness. For this reason, he states that he “must abstain from approving or condemning” (107) Wiesenthal’s decision not to forgive the
SS man. Améry states that his main concern is not the matter of forgiveness, but rather that what he and Wiesenthal experienced “must not happen again, never, nowhere” (108).
In conclusion, he states that it was within Wiesenthal’s right not to forgive the dying man, just as it would also have been in his right to forgive if he had done so. He asserts that Wiesenthal’s life path since his release from the concentration camp is what matters. What he did in that instance with the one man doesn’t matter, but
Wiesenthal should continue to bring the crimes of Nazis to light, to “make sure that the arm of worldly justice . . . still reaches them” (109).
Chapter 4 Summary: Smail Balić
Smail Balić acknowledges that, under the circumstances, Wiesenthal could only have given forgiveness on his own “personal behalf” (110) for the wrongs he personally had suffered. COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

10

Balić writes of the Bosnian concept of merhamet, a compassion that, through tradition, binds him to anyone who is suffering. This concept suggests that “in order to understand a person who has carried the burden of so much injustice and suffering, we have to imagine ourselves in his position” (110). Such compassion must be applied to both Karl, the SS man, and to Simon, the Jewish prisoner.
Balić views the “conversion” (110) of Karl as an indicator that better times lie ahead for the nation as a whole. He suggests that the young man’s remorse is “a sign of hope and a signal of a new democratic beginning for Germany” (110). He goes on to qualify this statement by saying that he does not believe in the concept of collective guilt, and asserts that each individual is responsible for his or her own actions.
Therefore, he says that forgiveness and reconciliation must be handled only by the doer of the misdeed and by his victim. Simon, as a third party, “has no proper role other than mediator” (111).
Balić also acknowledges other elements embedded within Wiesenthal’s story. While he does not believe in collective guilt, he does concede that “those who might appear uninvolved in the actual crimes, but who tolerate acts of torture, humiliation, and murder, are certainly also guilty” (111). Also in the story, Balić points out, is a recognition of “historically embedded prejudices, clichés, and stereotypes that shape the views of the masses” (111). He acknowledges that Wiesenthal’s story is one means of educating people about the destructive power of such misinformation.
Chapter 5 Summary: Moshe Bejski
Moshe Bejski, who is also a Holocaust survivor, begins by acknowledging that, writing as he is, fifty years after the episode in question, it is difficult to say for certain what one might have done under those circumstances. He acknowledges that, in theory, the Nazi may have been theologically and rationally worthy of forgiveness by virtue of the assumed fact that he was sincere in his remorse. Bejski also acknowledges, however, that Wiesenthal, whose state of victimization remained unchanged by the
Nazi’s confession, was in no position to give absolution. While Simon is not one of
Karl’s victims directly, he has borne witness to the same manner of crimes perpetrated by people of the same regime to which Karl was loyal. Bejski suggests that any person caught in the system of torture, starvation, and humiliation that Wiesenthal was in at the time would not be capable of any rational act of forgiveness. He says, “How can forgiveness be asked of someone whose death sentence will soon be carried out by
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

11

the dying man’s partners in crime” (114). Bejski goes on to say that, had Wiesenthal granted the requested pardon, he might view his own forgiveness as “an act of betrayal and repudiation of the memory of millions of innocent victims who were unjustly murdered” (115).
Bejski recalls the matter of “God’s silence” (115), that notion raised by friends of
Wiesenthal. Bejski himself remembers a relative, once observant and preparing to become a rabbi, who rejected his belief in God after so much time in a concentration camp. Bejski states that, in the absence of faith, the religious act of forgiveness would not be possible anyway.
Moshe Bejski goes on to talk about the process of accountability that has been taking place since the end of the war. He expresses concern that more and more people are
“interested in consigning the crimes of the Nazi regime to oblivion” (116). He suggests that, because of this move toward forgetting, many of the guilty parties are able to move into peaceful happy lives without ever experiencing repentance or forgiveness.
Returning to Wiesenthal’s situation, Bejski makes the observation that Simon’s decision to the leave the room without giving forgiveness was in fact an act of silence, rather than a refusal. He did not act in revenge, nor did he concede the desired forgiveness. Considering this, alongside the fact that Simon eventually visited Karl’s mother without telling her the painful details of his death, would indicate that Simon did indeed act in mercy. According to Bejski, Wiesenthal exercised a “restraint [that] goes beyond what a human being could be expected to do” (117).
Chapter 2-5 Analysis
The first four respondents to Wiesenthal’s question recognize that each of the two men in the room, Simon and Karl, is representative of a larger group. Karl, the dying
Nazi, feels guilt for his actions, and yet he is a member of a group whose ongoing actions cause Simon to remain in a victimized state. Simon, who is a Jewish prisoner, is a member of the victimized group and therefore a representative, but he is not one of the individuals who was directly victimized by Karl himself.
Several of the respondents comment on the concept of collective guilt. Alkalaj and
Balić are in agreement in not believing that a whole society is guilty of crimes perpetrated in its name. As Balić says, “There is no such thing as collective guilt, since collective guilt would point fingers at the innocent as well as the guilty” (110). Alkalaj
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

12

acknowledges, however, that it is the responsibility of a nation to be accountable for the crimes committed in its name, stating that “if genocide goes unpunished, it will set a precedent for tomorrow’s genocide” (104). Balić qualifies his rejection of the concept of collective guilt by acknowledging that individuals may share guilt, even when they are not the direct perpetrators, when “a society tolerates the development of a fundamentally perverted image of man” (111).
The respondents, with their various backgrounds, bring differing perspectives on the concept of forgiveness. All four acknowledge the religious aspects of the concept of forgiveness, in particular the requirement that the remorse be sincere and not merely
“formal, but based on true remorse emanating from pangs of conscience” (112), as
Moshe Bejski articulates it. Both Bejski and Améry acknowledge this religious foundation of forgiveness and then state that, in the absence of faith, such forgiveness is logically not possible. For Améry, this view springs from his position as an atheist. For Bejski, the impossibility is more poignant, as the loss of faith is, in fact, the result of those very crimes for which the dying man seeks forgiveness. Bejski acknowledges that the concept of repentance and forgiveness exists even outside of theology, stating that “even in normal criminology and penology only true regret accompanied by reformed behavior can be considered a justification for lightening a sentence, and even then not necessarily in the case of serious crimes” (116-17). In effect, Bejski recognizes the possibility of remorse and forgiveness, but also points out the difficulty inherent in it, from both a theological perspective and a sociological one.
Chapters 6-10
Chapter 6 Summary: Alan L. Berger
Alan Berger focuses on a particular detail of Wiesenthal’s story, the fact that “Simon was twice silent: once in the presence of the dying Nazi, and once in the presence of the dead man’s mother” (118). He recognizes that the first act of silence, Simon’s denial of forgiveness to Karl, was justified in that it respected both the dead Jewish victims and the “sanctity of forgiveness” (118). He also acknowledges that Simon’s decision when visiting Karl’s mother to remain reticent about her son’s crimes was an act of grace.
Berger goes on to draw on Jewish teaching on forgiveness, pointing out that Judaism distinguishes between sins committed against God and those committed against humans, and indicates that a person only has the right to forgive sins committed
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

13

against himself, not those committed against someone else. Furthermore, Berger points out, the Nazi’s desire to receive forgiveness from any Jewish person is a further perpetration of the misdeed of seeing all Jewish people as part of an “amorphous, undifferentiated mass” (119).
Berger explores the question of whether Karl’s repentance was sincere. Based on the
Hebrew understanding of “repentance” as “a turning away from evil, a turning toward Torah” (119), he points out that Karl only turned away from his own evil behavior when he had no other options left. Berger asserts that, based on recent studies of SS officers, it is likely Karl could have refused orders on a moral ground earlier in his career without being punished. Characterizing the forgiveness Karl requests as “cheap grace” (119), Berger states that the kind of religious teaching that allows people to “ask forgiveness thereby requiring from others the moral integrity which they themselves so sorely lack” (120) is reprehensible. He expresses doubt that
Karl would have repented at all had he not found himself facing certain death.
Chapter 7 Summary: Robert McAfee Brown
Robert McAfee Brown highlights the difficulty of forgiveness from a moral and theological perspective. To accept that forgiveness is godly, in light of the death camps, would require that God is malevolent rather than loving. Drawing on the words of Elie Wiesel, Brown asserts that even the notion that God lives among the victims, suffering alongside, is insufficient to account for the many million lost lives.
As a counterpoint to this view, Brown acknowledges historical evidence to show where forgiveness can actually effect change, specifically in the cases of Nelson
Mandela and Tomas Borge. Brown makes the tentative suggestion, that “an act of forgiveness on our part could tip the scales toward compassion rather than brutality”
(123).
Chapter 8 Summary: Harry James Cargas
Harry James Cargas begins with the statement “I am afraid not to forgive because I fear not to be forgiven” (124). Acknowledging that justice must exist alongside mercy,
Cargas asserts that most individuals are guilty of something for which they would wish to receive mercy rather than the justice they deserve.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

14

Acknowledging the value of forgiveness, Cargas goes on to question whether there might be certain cases where forgiveness is not appropriate. He points out that
Christian teaching refers to an “unforgivable sin” (125) and then raises the point that there might be sins that we as humans do not have the right to forgive. His final assessment of Wiesenthal’s situation is that to forgive such a deathbed confession is something beyond his right to do. While God may forgive Karl, human beings may not do so.
Chapter 9 Summary: Robert Coles
Robert Coles writes on the assumption that Wiesenthal believes himself correct in his decision not to give forgiveness on that day. Further, he takes up the invitation to offer his own perspective as an act of solidarity with the many victims, an act of bearing witness after the fact. Rather than placing himself in the shoes of Wiesenthal,
Coles grounds his response firmly in the context of his own life, in his own experiences and teachings.
Having situated himself thus, Coles says that if he had been in Wiesenthal’s exact situation, he would likely have done exactly the same as Simon had done, yet he would feel guilty for having done so. And despite aligning himself with the act of
Simon, Coles believes that forgiveness is a part of a way of life that fosters personal accountability, self-discipline, and personal growth and improvement.
As a final thought, Coles highlights the fact that the legacy of The Sunflower is not to discuss the question of forgiveness or to find a conclusive solution to the problem
Wiesenthal raises. The legacy of the story, according to Coles, is “that we never, ever forget what happened to him and millions of others” (129).
Chapter 10 Summary: The Dalai Lama
The Dalai Lama responds from the perspective of Buddhist teachings and draws on his experience with China’s treatment of Tibet. He urges forgiveness in principle, but advises against forgetting. In this succinct chapter, the Dalai Lama asserts that forgiveness and compassion is the means by which the victim retains dignity and integrity. COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

15

Chapter 6-10 Analysis
In Chapters 6-10, the concept of cheap grace arises in a number of ways. Focusing on the guilt of the dying Nazi, Alan Berger seeks to understand Karl’s repentance, whether it was sincere or not. The assumption inherent in this question is that there are levels of worthiness when it comes to forgiveness. For Berger, the question of whether Karl’s confession constitutes a sincere repentance is at the heart of the question of whether Simon should have given him forgiveness.
While for Berger, forgiveness is a function of the attitude of the sinner; for other writers, forgiveness is within the purview of the victim. For example, the Dalai Lama and Robert Coles suggest that forgiveness may be the last best means by which the victim may gain dignity and agency. Harry James Cargas goes so far as to suggest that forgiveness is close to imperative for the victim, for the simple reason that every individual has need of mercy in some way during life.
While most people consider forgiveness to be a factor in the moral equation of addressing misdeeds, Robert McAfee Brown lifts the concept of forgiveness out of the equation altogether. In his assessment, forgiveness has the power not to undo what evil has been done to the victim by the perpetrator, but, in fact, to change the society within which the evil was allowed to take place. For Brown, the act of mercy is a quality of goodness that is larger than the evil committed by the criminal and the pain suffered by the victim. Mercy is the means by which true revolution and correction can take place.
Chapters 11-15
Chapter 11 Summary: Eugene J. Fisher
Eugene J. Fisher begins by reiterating the expression of many earlier respondents to
Wiesenthal’s question, stating that it is difficult to know what one would have done under those particular circumstances. Because Fisher is a new addition to the group of respondents to the question—this edition of The Sunflower having added new voices to the original group—he takes the opportunity to reflect on those who responded in the first edition. He acknowledges that while “repentance and reconciliation are liturgically central to both traditions” (131), both Christian and Jewish, there has, in the decades since the Holocaust, arisen a notion on the part of Christians that Jewish people cannot forgive what happened in the past. Fisher suggests that “the question
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

16

so presciently raised and profoundly framed by Simon Wiesenthal has emerged as critical to Jewish-Christian relations” (132).
Fisher makes a case against the idea of collective forgiveness on two counts. First, he argues that it would take at least a generation to investigate and uncover as fully as possible the extent of the crimes committed during the Holocaust. Therefore, to forgive without full knowledge of the evil would be premature. Second, he argues that “it is the height of arrogance for Christians to ask Jews to forgive them” (132).
While it is one thing for Christians to work towards reconciliation, it is incorrect to ask the survivors to forgive on behalf of the six million dead.
Fisher goes on to point out that a more recent movement within the Christian church has been to ask forgiveness, “not directly of the Jews . . . but of God” (134). He asserts that this movement should be followed by a public demonstration of repentance through a change in behavior, which, in a liturgical context, would mean “revised textbooks, improved New Testament translations, better sermons from the pulpit, and better lessons in the classroom” (134).
Chapter 12 Summary: Edward H. Flannery
Edward H. Flannery begins by framing Simon Wiesenthal’s question as follows: “Is it permitted to refuse forgiveness to a sincerely repentant malefactor?” (135). He observes that, by walking away from the dying Nazi without giving forgiveness, Simon brought upon himself years of self-doubt and questioning. This uncertainty is evidenced by his decision to visit Karl’s mother after the war and his decision not to tell her the truth about her son’s crimes. Flannery surmises that “it is difficult not to see these waverings as a leaning toward atonement” (136).
He identifies the obligation to forgive the repentant as a principle of Judeo-Christian practice, acknowledging the New Testament reference to an unforgivable sin, which does not apply under these circumstances. Flannery suggests that Simon’s leaving Karl to die with his own guilt was a response to the wickedness of those who were silent in the face of the Nazi mistreatment of the Jews. He dismisses the question of whether
Simon had the right to forgive on behalf of Karl’s victims as irrelevant, as, in the moment, the question was a personal one between Karl and Simon and was not meant to be collective in nature.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

17

As a final statement, Flannery says that in the same situation, he hopes he would have forgiven the dying man, suggested that the man make his peace with God, and then prayed for the man and for his victims.
Chapter 13 Summary: Eva Fleischner
Eva Fleischner begins her response by pointing out that, as a person who was not around during the event, and as a non-Jew, she feels that she is incapable of answering Wiesenthal’s question as to what she would have done under the circumstances. Instead, she opts to react to Wiesenthal’s reactions throughout his own story.
She points out that while his failure to give forgiveness may be seen by many as a
“lack of response” (138), Simon actually responds in many ways to the dying man by letting him hold his hand, by sitting on the bed, by waving the fly away from his face, and, ultimately, by visiting the man’s mother.
Fleischner points out that in her use of The Sunflower as a discussion text with her students, the trend seems to be that Christian students tend to favor forgiveness, while the Jewish students generally do not. She points out the common understanding shared within the Judeo-Christian experience of God as a loving, forgiving father. She goes on to identify a potential misreading by Christians of the teaching of Jesus to turn the other cheek, pointing out that Jesus does not call on the
Christian to forgive on behalf of others, but only for sins committed against the individual himself. She points out as well that, in the Jewish tradition of atonement, there must be a tangible turning away from the sin, not merely a ritual act of penance as is practiced in the Catholic Church. With these thoughts in mind, Fleischner determines that Simon could not, in that situation, feel justified in offering the forgiveness Karl was requesting.
She concludes by observing that the very situation Karl created by having one of the
Jewish prisoners brought to his room to hear his confession, exposing him to potential punishment, was a further act of injustice toward Simon. She questions whether, in those final penitential moments of his life, Karl might have done something to ease the lot of the Jewish people within his circle of influence, thereby constituting the atonement required by the Jewish tradition for forgiveness.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

18

Chapter 14 Summary: Matthew Fox
Matthew Fox begins by considering the guilt of the SS officer, pointing out that while the one episode of the torched house is the one that troubles Karl, surely his guilt extends to many more crimes. His act of confessing this one event is an attempt to clear himself of the torment for the episode that troubles his sleep.
Fox points out that, in the Catholic tradition in which Karl grew up, confession must be accompanied by penance. He suggests that, under the circumstances, Simon’s leaving
Karl “alone with his conscience before he died” would constitute an ideal penance.
Furthermore, because Simon is not able to forgive on behalf of Karl’s direct victims, his own integrity is spared at the same time. He suggests that this might be a form of
“nonsentimenal compassion” (145), to have left Karl alone with his guilt in those last days. Rather than be relieved of his torments by the prisoner he had someone bring to his bed, Karl was left to struggle in his own darkness for those final hours. Fox acknowledges that, in spite of his refusal to offer the requested forgiveness, by staying at his side and waving the fly away, Simon did attend to the few creature comforts that it was within his power to address.
Fox observes that a “mysterious grace” (146) occurred between Karl and Simon, both of whom “were victims of older men’s decision making” (145). He raises the idea that, considering the scope of his work since the Holocaust, Simon may have received his life’s vocation from Karl.
When Simon visits Karl’s mother, Fox points out, the issue is raised of the guilt of those who watched the Nazi actions without speaking out. He points out that today, long after the Nazi movement has fallen, we are still at risk of similar “sins of complicity” (147) in new contexts. In the end, he suggests that forgiveness is beneficial, so that the victim can move past the evil done to him, but that it is important not to forget.
Chapter 15 Summary: Rebecca Goldstein
Rebecca Goldstein begins her discussion by recognizing the value of the particularity of Wiesenthal’s story in the face of the abstractions of guilt and forgiveness. She says that the very value of this story is Wiesenthal’s “fierce attention to the details that engender the severe discomfort of answerlessness” (148).

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

19

Goldstein distinguishes between the attitudes of Simon and Karl in their ways of viewing each other. For Karl, Simon is a Jew, an interchangeable sample of that mass known to Nazis as the Jews. By contrast, Simon views Karl as an individual separate from that group of evildoers of which he is a member. She points out that Simon seeks to determine, “both in his death chamber and long afterward, to figure out what manner of person he truly is” (149).
Goldstein observes that Karl was a man who acted not by denying his conscience, but by exercising his already-developed sense of duty. She recognizes that, despite his many opportunities to recognize the evil in the Nazi treatment of Jewish people, it wasn’t until he participated in the torching of the houseful of people that he experienced a true “conversion” (151), a partial recognition of the evil he was perpetrating. She asserts that “had he understood the enormity of his crimes, he would never have dared to ask for forgiveness” (151).
Chapter 11-15 Analysis
Some respondents treat the concept of forgiveness as a theological notion, an abstract concept to which all adherents to the philosophy are subject. Flannery states that, while “the psychological or emotive aspects of the situation” (136) are significant, they must be secondary to religious principles. Because of this opinion, he views forgiveness as a religious imperative. By contrast, Fleischer’s assertion that she cannot answer the question of forgiveness because she is an outsider to the situation implies that the particularity of the situation must dictate the correct response.
Rebecca Goldstein asserts that it is the very “confundment” (148) that Wiesenthal expresses that has value, that the state of uncertainty is itself the ultimate virtue.
Many of the respondents depart from the particular situation of Wiesenthal’s question, the prisoner and the dying SS officer, and extrapolate the question into broader contexts. Eugene J. Fisher’s response concerns the arena of Jewish-Christian relations, discussing whether, a half-century after the fact, the Christian Church has the right to expect the Jewish community to forgive what was done to their members under the Nazi regime. Eva Fleischner recognizes that the differences between how the Jewish and Christian traditions treat the concept of forgiveness are at the center of the conundrum. Goldstein is resistant to the notion that Simon is anything other than an individual person in a particular situation.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

20

Matthew Fox raises the notion of cheap grace, which was raised in earlier sections. He suggests that the shared experience of Karl and Simon constitutes a deeper, more profound form of grace, whereby the dying man was made to reflect on his guilt and the victim received a life vocation. He contrasts this grace with the form of grace offered by priests in ritual confessional settings, where pardon is given for
“unmentionable sins” (145).
Chapters 16-20
Chapter 16 Summary: Mary Gordon
Mary Gordon approaches Wiesenthal’s question from the perspective of the Catholic faith, the religion of the SS man who is seeking forgiveness. First, she acknowledges that forgiveness can be a positive thing, but not when accompanied by forgetting,
“because only a recognition of guilt by both sides can begin to prevent repetition of the same heinous deed” (152).
She goes on to say that it is not within the SS man’s power to establish Simon as the symbolic representative of all those people whom the Nazi’s victimized. Further, she states that, being trained in the Catholic faith, Karl should be aware that, when the sinner is guilty of public crime, he must first “publicly acknowledge guilt, and only then ask for absolution” (153).
Mary Gordon sums up by asserting that, on a personal level, it is not within Simon’s power to forgive, because doing so “would be theft of the wounded person’s right to forgive or not to forgive” (153). Further, for Simon to give ritual forgiveness, he must be given this authority by his own community, and the atonement should match the crime, which, in this case, would be that Karl “be placed in the camps, so that he could die in the miserable circumstances of those in whose name he is asking forgiveness”
(153).
Chapter 17 Summary: Mark Goulden
Mark Goulden, writing this response in the 1970s, begins by reviewing the magnitude of the crimes committed against the Jews of Europe under the Nazis. He then goes on to observe how, in just three decades, the German nation seems to have moved out of the shadow of international shame and dissociated itself from the Nazi regime, as if
“no living German was ever a Nazi” (157).
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

21

Goulden addresses the implications of forgiveness. First, he questions who has the right to forgive, whether it should be God alone or the individual victim. In any case, he asserts that there can be no acceptable reason for forgiving people who made a public ritual of torture and murder and that no person can have the authority to pardon such large-scale acts of evil against others.
Returning to the very personal question of what he would have done in the situation in which Wiesenthal found himself, Goulden asserts that he would have considered what “young Nazi [might] have become had he survived or, indeed, if Germany had won the war” (158). With this in mind, Goulden says he would have walked away without giving forgiveness and been happy that he had died.
Chapter 18 Summary: Hans Habe
Hans Habe discusses specifically the question of forgiveness as it relates to murderers, where the direct victims are no longer alive to give the forgiveness. He asserts that morals, the actual prohibition of murder for example, are outside of the hands of any individual. The murderer has committed a crime that is more than merely an act against a victim; it is a universal act of evil. He goes on to point out that to say Karl was not born a murderer is of no particular ethical value, for few people who commit murder are thus born.
He goes on to address the idea that extenuating circumstances might play a part in establishing the extent of guilt of the person who takes another’s life. He takes exception to the “excuse that the system relieves the individual of responsibility”
(161), stating that it is not heroic to defy evil authority, it is only one’s duty.
Habe points out that two concepts, love and justice, are historically held as disparate and incompatible approaches to evil. He asserts that both are of God and that the goal for humanity is to find a way to bring both love and justice together. In response to
Wiesenthal’s question of whether he was right or wrong in not forgiving the dying man, Habe states that the response is immaterial. What is important, he says, is that
Simon “did not hate the dying murderer, and that is a beginning” (162). In conclusion,
Habe states that the combination of love and justice are the only means to “life without hatred” (163).

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

22

Chapter 19 Summary: Yossi Klein Halevi
Yossi Klein Halevi begins by asserting that nobody who experienced the Holocaust has the right to evaluate the behavior of those who endured the victimization that occurred during that time. He suggests that, once the Nazi regime ended in 1945, the survivors “assumed the burden of moral normalcy” (163), and from this point on they are subject to the same moral standards as the rest of society. Thus, Halevi begins his assessment of Simon’s behavior with the visit to Karl’s mother after the war was over, saying that Simon demonstrated a grace toward her, which Halevi, was unable to find within himself for many years after the war.
Halevi says that, for his own part, he spent many decades avoiding Germany at all costs, refusing even to buy German products. He recalls his first return to the country in 1989, at the time of the opening of the Berlin Wall. He encountered a group of
German activists engaged in current political activists who named their organization after a German Jew killed during the Holocaust, thus “offering their notion of altruistic politics to his memory” (165). Asking these young people whether they were excited about the Wall coming down, they laughed, as if “they couldn’t allow themselves to share their people’s celebration” (165).
Halevi concludes by taking as a lesson from Simon’s treatment of Karl’s mother, the idea that it is sometimes important to transcend the evils of the past.
Chapter 20 Summary: Arthur Hertzberg
Arthur Hertzberg begins by taking an account of the SS man’s life, how he was raised in a devout Christian home as a pious Catholic, how he joined the Hitler Youth and later the SS in defiance of his father, how he followed orders to kill even when he would not have been punished for declining such assignments.
Hertzberg goes on to question the very justice of God during the Holocaust, remembering the God’s words to Abraham in the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah that God would not destroy a people if there were ten righteous people among them. He states, “The God who had allowed the Holocaust did not, and does not, have the standing to forgive the monsters who had carried out the murders” (168).

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

23

Hertzberg acknowledges that Simon’s sparing Karl’s mother of the details of Karl’s crimes was in accordance with biblical teaching not to inflict the punishment for the son’s sins upon the mother.
As a response to Wiesenthal’s question, Hertzberg presents his own family situation.
Born in Galicia in 1921 and having emigrated to the United States shortly before the
Nazis came into power, he is aware of the experiences and accounts of family and friends who lived through it. He states that he “can only leave to their own guilt” (168) those who express regret at having participated in the Holocaust.
Chapter 16-20 Analysis
Where other respondents assert that forgiveness is good, but forgetting must never take place, Mark Goulden is suggesting that forgetting has already taken place and been achieved with some measure of ease and speed, while forgiveness should not.
A line of reasoning emerges in which we see that for some respondents, forgiveness is contingent upon the nature of the crime. Because Karl’s victims are dead, they are not available to give forgive him, and so he approaches Simon as a kind of surrogate victim. In the vein of those, such as Mary Gordon, who have stated that it is not for the individual Simon to forgive on behalf of others, Goulden goes even further, saying that it is inconceivable that any individual forgive “monsters who burned people alive in public; in ceremonies staged in the open” (157). Halevi, who refuses to evaluate the specific interaction between Simon and Karl, reveals that his own sense of retribution against the entire German nation led him to avoid the country for a long time.
Hertzberg goes as far as to hold God himself accountable to his own standard of justice for not intervening in the Holocaust.
Chapters 21-25
Chapter 21 Summary: Theodore M. Hesburgh
Theodore Hesburgh begins by claiming no right to give opinion on a person of another opinion with regard to the question of forgiveness. At the request of Wiesenthal, he continues by stating that, as a Catholic priest, his instinct is to forgive, because that is the basis upon which his entire religious movement is built, “God as the forgiver of sinful humanity” (169).
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

24

Chapter 22 Summary: Abraham Joshua Heschel
Abraham Joshua Heschel uses a parable to illustrate his response to Wiesenthal’s question. A rabbi is treated with disrespect by a man who doesn’t know he is the rabbi. When the man learns the rabbi’s identity, he begs for forgiveness, and the rabbi refuses. The rabbi’s reason for not giving forgiveness is that the offence was committed against a common man, albeit one who doesn’t exist, whom the offender first thought the rabbi to be. Heschel’s summation is that “no one can forgive crimes committed against other people” (171).
Chapter 23 Summary: Susannah Heschel
Susannah Heschel begins by stating that she “would have done exactly as Simon
Wiesenthal did” (172).
She explains that the sins of the Nazis fall under the two categories of sin for which, under Judaism, no forgiveness is possible: “murder and destroying one’s reputation”
(172).
She goes on to draw the distinction between South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation
Commission—which exposed the crimes of the regime in a public forum in an attempt at restitution—and the German process of de-Nazification, which was in effect a process of covering up or dissociating from Nazi crimes. Rather than confessing guilt,
Germany sought to cover it up. She further points out that the Nazis did not act as enemies of the common people, but rather that many citizens were “often eager participants in its crimes” (173), resulting in “murder and a kind of national suicide”
(173).
Heschel concludes by stating that the legacy of murdered victims must remain with their families for generations, for this is how their humanity will be preserved. She extends this imperative of remembrance to the descendants of the Nazis as well, as a means of preserving their humanity.
Chapter 24 Summary: José Hobday
José Hobday responds from his position as a man of Native American heritage. He relates to Wiesenthal from his cultural position, as being from a race that was oppressed, murdered, and mistreated through history.
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

25

He draws on the teaching of his grandmother, who advised that he should “not be so ignorant and stupid and inhuman as they are” (174). He asserts that, in fact, forgiveness and forgetting are “of a piece” (175), that every time one remembers a misdeed, one should forgive it again, and, by this means, achieve full mastery over the offence. True healing from the injury comes through forgiveness of the one who inflicted the injury.
Chapter 25 Summary: Christopher Hollis
Christopher Hollis observes that, while Simon did not forgive Karl, all indications are that Simon feels remorse for not having done so. He states that if asked what he would have done in the same situation, he cannot say that he would have done any differently than Simon.
As to the question of what Simon should have done, Hollis says Simon should have expressed compassion. He points out that both Judaism and Christianity teach that forgiveness is correct, for it is the only way to correct the law of love when it is broken. Hollis raises the Christian notion of original sin and points out that, while
Jewish teaching does not use the phrase, the concept is still present within the teachings. Based on this theology, every individual is guilty and in need of forgiveness.
He goes on to point out that scripture advises people “to be reluctant to condemn others” (177), because everyone is subject to condemnation.
Then, Hollis points out that these considerations are, in light of this particular circumstance, irrelevant because in this case the crime is blatant and not merely a theoretical generic state of the soul. Yet, because the “absolute moral law was stated by Christ at the Crucifixion when he prayed for the forgiveness of His own murderers”
(178), the imperative is to forgive.
In response to the argument that Simon the individual could not forgive crimes against other Jewish people, Hollis states that by this reasoning, Karl could not be held responsible for the crimes committed by the entire Nazi regime. He suggests that
Karl “was as much a victim . . . of that campaign” (179) as were those people who died at his hands. As to the question of punishment, Karl was about to suffer his punishment through his death to injuries received in the line of duty, but that is something other than the question of spiritual forgiveness.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

26

In conclusion, Hollis acknowledges the cynical belief of Jewish people during the time, that “God was on leave” (180). He suggests that faith requires that believers reject such an idea, because faith is about standing by God even when he can’t be seen.
Further, he suggests that it is precisely the vilest sinner, like Judas, that God wants to forgive. Chapter 21-25 Analysis
Theodore M. Hesburgh and Abraham Joshua Heschel, both in succinct responses, offer diametrically opposed responses to Wiesenthal’s question. Hesburgh, as a
Catholic priest, advocates forgiveness; Heschel, using a story from the Jewish tradition, asserts that Simon cannot forgive on behalf of the victims who are no longer alive to give forgiveness. These opposing theories demonstrate the complexity of the question of forgiveness. Christopher Hollis also takes a theological approach toward the question, asserting that forgiveness is the nature of God, and that all of humanity shares in the guilt of a sinful nature and therefore needs to partake mutually in the grace and forgiveness that is demonstrated through Christ.
Susannah Heschel and José Hobday offer opposing views, but both with a view not toward religious tradition but toward the interests of the future of humanity. Hobday asserts that healing is only possible through forgiving and that forgetting is a necessary part of forgiveness. Heschel advocates a form of reconciliation that makes room for continued remembrance of the sins of the past, in order that the victims may be honored and the future generations might, through their guilt and/or grief, preserve their own humanity.
Chapters 26-30
Chapter 26 Summary: Rodger Kamenetz
Rodger Kamenetz begins by stating that Wiesenthal’s silence was in fact the best response under the circumstances. Because Simon was still a prisoner and thus still subject to the power of the SS guards, he had no way of knowing whether any response he gave would result in his own punishment or even death.
Kamenetz continues by raising the objection that Simon was addressed not as “an individual, with a life, a history, a heartbreak of [his] own, but merely as a Jew” (181).
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

27

While Simon was able to see the SS man as an individual, Karl could not give Simon that same measure of respect.
Chapter 27 Summary: Cardinal Franz König, Archbishop of Vienna
Cardinal König reiterates the opinion put forth by many other respondents, that “an individual cannot forgive what was done to others” (182), but adds that, for Christians, whether one may forgive has, through Christ, been made possible. He adds that the question of whether he should forgive is still unresolved.
König acknowledges that Simon, in listening to Karl’s story and displaying sympathy for his physical condition, indeed did demonstrate compassion and allowed Karl the relief of having his confession heard. Under the circumstances, Simon could not have been expected to be able to express pardon explicitly, but he was given an opportunity to demonstrate “superhuman goodness in the midst of a subhuman and bestial world of atrocities” (183), and his decision not to do so may be the thing that continues to trouble him after the fact.
Chapter 28 Summary: Harold S. Kushner
Harold Kushner questions the ability of an individual to give forgiveness, but believes that the power to be forgiven is a matter between the guilty individual and God. He believes forgiveness is miraculous but possible, that a person can feel the release of being separated from his past wrongdoing.
In the case of The Sunflower, Kushner says that the mistake on the part of the SS man was to believe that he could be forgiven by another individual, rather than by God. He says that, if Karl wanted to die with a sense of forgiveness, he should have prayed to
God, renouncing his life as a Nazi. Further, he states, “by summoning one Jew to absolve him of what he had done to other Jews, he leaves us doubting whether he has in fact transcended the Nazi view of seeing Jews as less than human, interchangeable entities rather than unique human beings” (185).
In the case of an individual granting forgiveness to another, Kushner says, this is “a letting go of the sense of grievance, and perhaps more importantly a letting go of the role of victim” (186). This type of forgiveness would, in effect, be a rejection of the atrocities committed against himself by the Nazis, in order to set himself, Simon, free.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

28

Chapter 29 Summary: Lawrence L. Langer
Lawrence L. Langer begins his assessment from the position that while some crimes are forgivable, “the mass murder of European Jewry is an unforgivable crime” (187).
Further, he believes that Wiesenthal’s refusal to grant pardon to the SS man is an indication that Wiesenthal is also aware of the extent of these crimes.
Langer points out that, while the SS man confessed, Simon said nothing, and as a result, we have an unchallenged version of Karl’s experience. More is said of his regret than of his evil actions, and therefore we are inclined toward forgiveness and away from the awareness of the full extent of his guilt. Meanwhile, Simon is left with the question of whether he is guilty of not giving forgiveness when it was requested of him. Langer’s concern is how the language used to talk about the Holocaust has resulted in a “verbal tapestry of exculpation that shifts the onus of responsibility from the criminal to the victim” (188). At a personal level, the dying SS man is, even in asking for forgiveness, attempting to downplay his own guilt. He says that the discussion of The
Sunflower should not be whether Simon should have forgiven Karl, but rather why
Karl chose in the first place the path that led him to participate in the atrocities of the
Holocaust. Although Karl asks for forgiveness, he does not address the reasons he made these choices in the beginning.
As a final statement, Langer asserts, “Simon Wiesenthal himself was and remains innocent of any wrong” (190).
Chapter 30 Summary: Primo Levi
Primo Levi begins with a discussion of justice in the form of punishment for crime, that public opinion requires that crime be punished in such a way that it can make amends without leading to further offence or pain.
Levi says that Simon was correct in refusing to forgive the SS man, because it was the
“lesser evil” (191), pointing out that for Simon there was not one absolutely correct option. Simon, destined as he was for unjust death at the hands of the Nazis, was in no position to give premature forgiveness on his own behalf, and even less so on behalf of those who had already died at the hands of this particular Nazi.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

29

Levi points out that the Nazi’s repentance was dubious and that he most likely would have continued on with his crimes had he not found himself facing death. In fact, his confession to Simon would indicate that his mind may still be twisted by propaganda, viewing “the ‘Jew’ as an abnormal being—half-devil, half-miracle worker, capable in any case of supernatural deeds” (192). Further, he suggests that, in a sense, Karl was attempting to relieve himself of his anguish by placing it on Simon.
Chapter 26-30 Analysis
Kushner’s view that forgiveness benefits the victim is similar to the opinion expressed earlier by José Hobday. There is a distinction to be made, however, in Kushner’s belief.
Hobday’s view suggests that forgiving and forgetting are bound up in the relationship between criminal and victim. Kushner, on the other hand, states that it is God’s forgiveness, not man’s, that releases the criminal from his guilt. The value to the victim of giving forgiveness lies in the sense of freedom the victim receives, in no longer identifying with the grievance. Whereas Hobday’s view of forgiveness involves a reconstitution of the humanity of both parties, Kushner believes that the victim’s act of forgiveness is, in effect, a rejection of the criminal.
Kamenetz, Kushner, and Levi all add their voices to those earlier respondents who have said that the SS man, in viewing Simon not as an individual but as any Jew, continues in the criminal mindset that led him to commit his crimes. Levi adds that he
“was using the Jew as a tool, unaware of the danger and the shock his request must have constituted for the prisoner” (192). Not only was he not viewing Simon as an individual separate from the group he represented, but he also acted without empathy. Both Levi and Langer comment on the dubiousness of the SS man’s repentance. As other respondents have said before, there is a strong likelihood that, were he not facing death, Karl would have continued on in his crimes.
Chapters 31-35
Chapter 31 Summary: Deborah E. Lipstadt
Deborah E. Lipstadt begins with a few words about the Jewish concept of teshuvah, or repentance. She quotes a passage from the Talmud that indicates that God desires the return of the sinner more than he welcomes the righteous one. She acknowledges the difficulty of this idea. She goes on to establish a series of steps required for teshuvah, as a means of evaluating whether the dying Nazi meets the criteria.
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

30

“First one must ask forgiveness of the aggrieved party” (194). She states that this must take place before a person can ask God for forgiveness, and adds that it must be
“a face-to-face encounter with the aggrieved party” (194). Therefore, it is not sufficient to ask a third party to forgive. Once the repentance is expressed toward the victim, then the sinner can appeal to God for forgiveness, by confessing verbally his sins and then resolving never to commit the act again. But, Lipstadt says, there is yet a higher level, known as teshuvah gemurah, or complete teshuvah, which is “achieved when the individual is in the same situation in which he or she originally sinned and chooses not to repeat the act” (195). Further than teshuvah is the concept of kaparah, or atonement, which takes place “after one bears the consequences of one’s acts”
(195).
Based on these criteria, Lipstadt concludes that the question is not whether Simon should have forgiven Karl, but rather whether he could have done so. While he may have given him personal forgiveness, he could never have provided atonement. This soldier’s crimes were not against Simon personally, and Simon had not been appointed by Karl’s victims to represent them.
Lipstadt goes on to point out the modern-day implications of this problem, in the form of non-Jewish people suggesting that it’s time for Jews to forgive and forget what happened in the past. She states that she has “yet to encounter a perpetrator who is actually seeking forgiveness” (196).
Chapter 32 Summary: Franklin H. Littell
Franklin H. Littell addresses the concept of genocide as a historical phenomenon. He explores the development, most specifically through the Geneva Convention, of attempts to criminalize the act of nationally sanctioned, race-based killing. He suggests that politicians are more likely to denounce such acts than are religious leaders. He charges the Christian church, saying that its “doctrines of Sin and Guilt are
. . . whittled down to the relatively painless pagan idea of error or mistaken judgment”
(199). He points out that the Holocaust was a point in history when Christian words and Christian actions became shamefully separated, and holds Christian people who were reticent in the face of such atrocities to the same account as the Nazis who perpetrated the crimes.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

31

Chapter 33 Summary: Hubert G. Locke
Hubert G. Locke observes that much of Wiesenthal’s story focuses on silence, the silence in the room where Karl was dying and Simon’s own silence, both in response to Karl’s request and as a gesture of kindness toward his grieving mother. Locke suggests that silence is perhaps the best response also for the respondents to
Wiesenthal’s question, “in the hope that by listening quietly and more closely to
[Simon’s] experience, we might learn from it, rather than moralize about it” (201). He suggests that there ought to be certain questions that cannot be answered, because through the persistence of the unresolved, “we concede that we are not gods and that we lack . . . the capacity to provide understanding and assurance for every inexplicable moment in life” (202).
Locke suggests a second reason for not giving an answer, which is that “an answer involves our willingness to attest to or affirm, by our personal involvement and commitment, the genuineness of our assertion” (202-03). He believes that to give answer this moral question without being prepared to act upon it would be incorrect.
Chapter 34 Summary: Erich H. Loewy
Erich Loewy begins by expressing his belief that it would be an act of hubris to pass judgment on Wiesenthal’s actions in those circumstances. He goes on to examine the dynamic of the situation in the room where the SS man was dying, pointing out that this is not “a relationship of former victim to former aggressor with strength and weakness of each having, so to speak, changed places” (204). Although Karl is dying,
Simon is still at the mercy of the brutal forces that are within Karl’s command, and so
Simon is not entirely free to choose whether or not to grant the requested forgiveness. Loewy draws attention to the fact that Simon stays in the room as long as he does, touches the man, brushes a fly away, stating that such actions constitute an acknowledgement of the man’s basic humanity. Loewy says, “That is a form of acceptance . . . of common humanity if not forgiveness or even understanding” (205) then goes on to suggest that even this is more than the man deserved. He states that
Wiesenthal could neither have forgiven on behalf of Karl’s victims, nor could he have forgiven on behalf of God, as a priest or rabbi might have done. Therefore, according to Loewy, “ignoring such a request is all that Wiesenthal could do” (206). He

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

32

acknowledges as well, that Simon’s decision not to tell the whole truth to Karl’s mother was a further act of compassion.
Loewy’s assessment, based on his decision not to give forgiveness to Karl and subsequently to spare Karl’s mother the truth, is that Simon exercised an ideal combination of compassion and rationality. He says, “Reason prevented the sentiment of compassion from degenerating into sentimentality and compassion prevented unmodified reason from prompting a less humane act” (207).
Chapter 35 Summary: Herbert Marcuse
Herbert Marcuse’s brief response expresses the idea that he too would have refused to forgive the dying Nazi, stating that it is “inhuman and a travesty of justice if the executioner asked the victim to forgive” (207-08). He concludes by saying that such a practice of forgiveness simply serves to perpetuate the crimes.
Chapter 31-35 Analysis
Lipstadt raises the idea of collective guilt and victimhood, which earlier respondents have addressed, when she discusses whether the contemporary Jewish community should forgive and forget the crimes of the Holocaust. She says that current citizens of those countries, most of whom were not alive at the time, are not individually responsible for the crimes, even if they belong to nations where such crimes were sanctioned. Further, she believes that as an individual who was not directly victimized by the Nazis, it is not for her to forgive on their behalf.
Many respondents examine the details of the situation for nuance in the question of whether or not Simon should have forgiven Karl. Loewy—and others before—have pointed out that Simon is not one of the direct victims of Karl’s crimes, and therefore not able to forgive on their behalf. Nor is Simon a cleric, qualified to offer forgiveness on behalf of God. These details of the situation make forgiveness a relative matter, dependent upon the circumstances. Other respondents discuss forgiveness as a rational matter of principle, independent of the particular circumstances. For example,
José Hobday advocates forgiveness under all circumstances, because, according to his cultural teachings, forgiveness is the means by which the universe remains in balance.
Herbert Marcuse provides the counterpoint to this argument, stating that, on principle, forgiveness is incorrect because it “perpetuates the very evil it wants to alleviate” (208).
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

33

Chapters 36-40
Chapter 36 Summary: Martin E. Marty
Martin E. Marty begins by discussing the legacy of Christianity, that believers are taught to be prepared to die for their faith as disciples of Jesus, and adds that he is not sure that he would be capable of doing so if the circumstance ever arose. Addressing
Wiesenthal’s questions as to what he would have done in this situation, he is inclined to turn the question into what he should have done. However, Marty states that he prefers the uncertainty that Wiesenthal expresses to the idea that there might be one correct answer.
Marty says that, because he is a Christian and Wiesenthal is Jewish, he can only read the question as “What would/should a Jew have done?” and goes on to say that “NonJews and perhaps especially Christians should not give advice about the Holocaust experience to its heirs for the next two thousand years. And then we shall have nothing to say” (210).
Marty believes, in general, that “more value would grow out of forgiveness than out of its withholding” (211), but he then goes on to express his reservations about this belief. First, he is resistant to the possibility that grace might be cheapened if it is offered without limits. Second, he feels that “crimes against a people will be taken less seriously if individual persons start forgiving in their name” (211). Third, he fears that if forgiveness is offered freely, there is the risk that people will forget to tell the story, and thus fail to honor the victims.
Chapter 37 Summary: Cynthia Ozick, Notes Toward a Meditation on “Forgiveness”
Cynthia Ozick’s response is divided into four sections:
The Uses of Jesus. That the SS man had a Christian education seems like a ridiculous situation, and yet that is the case. Is it possible that being taught to worship a “Master depicted in human form yet seen to be omnipotent [would] make it easier to accept a
Führer” (213)?

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

34

The Sources of Pity. It is the commandment against idols that teaches people pity.
Wherever people have idols, they will hunt for victims. Did Germany make Hitler an idol? Vengeance and Forgiveness. It can be said that “vengeance brutalizes, forgiveness refines” (215), but rabbis also teach that being kind to cruel people can cause a person to be indifferent to victims. While it might be argued that forgiveness can lead to a fresh start, this can only be true when the forgiven has the opportunity to make the same choice again and instead chooses differently. But murder cannot be undone, and therefore the act cannot be forgiven. Vengeance, that is to repay the criminal with a matching act, serves by “bringing public justice to evil” (216) as an alternative to complicity through failure to respond to the crime. Forgiveness is, then, the crime, because “it forgets the victim” (216)
Moral Tenderness and Moral Responsibility. The SS man is contrite, which is very different from an unrepentant Nazi. The difference is that this man suffered moral twinges throughout his career, and yet continued to kill people. It’s easy to want to consign the unrepentant to hell, but we should hold to higher and more brutal account the man who was taught better, who knew he was committing evil and yet did so anyway.
Chapter 38 Summary: John T. Pawlikowski
John T. Pawlikowski points out that there is a difference between forgiveness and reconciliation. He observes that, through the course of Wiesenthal’s narrative, there is indication that he wishes to view the SS man as a fellow human being. Reconciliation, on the other hand, is a more public matter, requiring time and a process of stages:
“repentance, contrition, acceptance of responsibility, healing, and finally reunion”
(221). Since Karl seems to have been asking Simon for reconciliation on behalf of an entire group of people, Simon was right in withholding such forgiveness.
Pawlikowski addresses the comment Wiesenthal hears about God being on leave. He suggests that the Holocaust was a historical moment, in which people came to think of God’s interaction with humanity in a different way. Rather than God having left people behind, believers begin to see their faith in a moment-to-moment way, and
God’s involvement in the world as less interventionist than the ancient teachings portrayed it.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

35

He also addresses the issue of Polish-Jewish relations Wiesenthal raises in The
Sunflower. He acknowledges that there was a large degree of anti-Semitism in Poland and the Ukraine, but also points out that the Zegota movement was “the only organization aimed at saving Jews during the Holocaust” (225). He adds that, while
Wiesenthal’s personal experiences of anti-Semitism were inexcusable, there is a multifaceted history of Jewish people in Poland that has yet to be fully studied or documented. Chapter 39 Summary: Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager begins by identifying his position as a Jewish person who has, through much discussion with Christians, come to respect Christianity as a “holy path to God for non-Jews” (225). He observes that many Jewish respondents have expressed their belief that Simon was correct in not giving forgiveness, while many Christians have said that they would offer forgiveness. He suggests that the reason for this is because of “the nature of “Jewish and Christian responses to evil, which are related to their differing understandings of forgiveness” (226).
He goes on to state his belief that “tolerance of murder is a characteristic of a world in decay” (227), referring to the western world’s tendency to offer light sentences to criminals convicted of murder. He suggests that Christian tolerance of murder may be rooted in the belief that people should pray for their enemies rather than seek to do them harm, that all human beings are loved by God, and that the eternal afterlife has more value than the mortal realm.
Chapter 40 Summary: Dith Pran
Dith Pran talks about his own experiences as a Cambodian victim of the Khmer Rouge regime. Having witnessed the murder of his immediate family members and close friends and having been imprisoned like an animal, he can find no way to forgive those leaders. He does acknowledge, however, that he can forgive the soldiers who did the actual killing but that he cannot forget what they did. Therefore, he believes that if he were in Wiesenthal’s position, he would have forgiven the SS man. While he does not judge Simon for his decision, he believes that it is important to recognize a difference between the regime leaders who create the systems in which the crimes take place, and the people who carry out the orders, people who are often brainwashed or otherwise under the control of evil leadership.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

36

Chapter 36-40 Analysis
Martin E. Marty raises the idea of “cheap grace,” which others have discussed, and makes reference to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Christian writer who discussed the notion of cheap grace in his book The Cost of Discipleship, before himself becoming a prisoner and dying at the hands of the Nazis. Pawlikowski also discusses the notion of “cheap grace,” which he attributes to the theologian Paul Tillich.
Dennis Prager’s view that it is in the particular nature of Christianity to be inclined toward forgiveness seems to contradict Lipstadt’s suggestion that, under the Jewish tradition of teshuvah, the sinner seems to be more valuable to God than the righteous one. Dith Pran creates an interesting counterpoint to those earlier respondents who have asserted that any act of complicity within the regime is an act of malice. Pran, whose position as a victim of a brutal regime makes his opinion particularly poignant, believes that the people who carry out the orders are, in many cases, victims themselves.
Chapters 41-45
Chapter 41 Summary: Terence Prittie
Terence Prittie begins by acknowledging that it is natural that a person facing death would ask for “special consideration” (233), particularly in the form of forgiveness for past sins. He goes on to say that Simon, to whom this request was made, was facing death every single day and should have seen Karl’s request as an affront. Prittie says that, as a person of Jewish faith, Simon “could only forgive wrongs done to him personally” (234). The forgiveness Karl sought was from his God, for his crimes against all humanity, not merely against a finite number of individuals. He summarizes by saying that to point out this philosophical idea would be too much to ask a concentration camp inmate and that to pardon on behalf of God would not be within
Simon’s authority. By listening to Karl’s story and walking out without speaking, Simon made the best possible choice under the circumstances.
Chapter 42 Summary: Matthieu Ricard
Matthieu Ricard responds from a Buddhist perspective, stating that, within his belief system, forgiveness is always possible and expected of believers. “In Buddhism,” says
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

37

Ricard, “forgiveness does not mean absolution, but an opportunity for the inner transformation of both victim and perpetrator” (235). For the victim, forgiveness is the path to healing from the pain inflicted. For the perpetrator, forgiveness is the means by which he can be transformed, which means that he is no longer harmful to humanity. Ricard suggests that Karl made a good first step by acknowledging his wrongdoing but adds that he might have gone further to establish his intention to change by directing his comrades to stop committing those crimes as well.
Chapter 43 Summary: Joshua Rubenstein
Joshua Rubenstein makes reference to a speech by Heinrich Himmler, in which the head of the SS once acknowledged that it is natural for an individual Nazi to be revolted by the horrors he witnesses, that this revulsion is a sign that he is still a human being, but that his willingness to carry on killing on behalf of the Aryan race is a sign that he is a good Nazi. Rubenstein uses this point to establish that Nazis, the
Catholic-raised Karl among them, were not without moral judgment, rather, they murdered willfully and with the knowledge that it was wrong. Rubenstein concludes that Karl’s “dying wish to beg forgiveness from a scared, vulnerable Jewish prisoner was as much an act of callous egotism as it was a misguided act of contrition” (240).
Chapter 44 Summary: Sidney Shachnow
Sidney Schachnow identifies himself as a lifetime veteran of the Green Berets, a soldier who knows the experience of killing in battle. He qualifies this statement by saying “I had broken no rules of war, killed no one who was not trying to kill me”
(241). Nonetheless, his experiences did bring him to a point emotionally where he would have asked forgiveness if he could have done so.
Schachnow also reveals that his experience as a Holocaust survivor leads him to believe that the perpetrators of those crimes—Karl, in particular—were aware of the immorality of their decisions and, therefore, should not be forgiven. He believes that
German people were as moral and free to choose as any people anywhere; that the people who chose to participate in the Holocaust should be held accountable as morally competent human beings.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

38

He concludes by saying that Wiesenthal should not forgive for two reasons: first, it is not for him to forgive the crimes committed against others, and second, this SS man
“stepped over the boundary where forgiveness is possible” (243).
Chapter 45 Summary: Dorothee Soelle
Dorothee Soelle begins by observing that the persistent question of whether Simon should have forgiven or not reveals both the impossibility and the necessity of forgiveness. She goes on to tell a story from personal experience of a professor of
German literature who had been a Nazi, of his falling to the floor in contrition for his acts, and of how she and he prayed together.
She identifies as a Christian who is by necessity “an heir to the Jewish tradition” (245).
Invoking the Jewish tradition of teshuvah, or repentance, she says, “there is no person, time or place where teshuvah is not possible” (244). She concludes by saying that forgiveness was possible for Simon, but acknowledges that, if she were in that position, she may or may not have given it.
Chapter 41-45 Analysis
Ricard adds his voice to Hobday’s and others’ in stating that forgiveness is the means to healing both victim and perpetrator and to establishing goodness in humanity as a whole. Dorothee Soelle also advocates forgiveness, but bases her argument on the belief that it is the need of human beings—in both Christian and Jewish traditions—to achieve resolution through forgiveness.
Rubenstein and Schachnow both base their opinions that forgiveness was not possible on the nature of the crimes. Rubenstein argues that, philosophically, the Nazi was capable of moral decision-making and willfully chose to commit the evil acts and that this precludes him from receiving forgiveness.
Prittie criticizes the situation the SS man put Wiesenthal in, asking for forgiveness from someone who wasn’t his direct victim and in a situation where the prisoner was still at risk of punishment. Rather than answer directly whether Simon should have forgiven him or not, Prittie excuses him from the responsibility of making that choice at all.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

39

Chapters 46-50
Chapter 46 Summary: Albert Speer
Albert Speer is a former Nazi who confessed his crimes at the Nuremburg Trial and spent twenty years in prison. He says that “the court punished only my legal guilt”
(245) but that his moral guilt will continue on. Having met Wiesenthal in person, Speer says that he can attest to the fact that Wiesenthal is a man who has shown compassion and grace to the guilty ones in the years since the war. Further, he says that by bringing Nazis into a position where they can confess their crimes, Wiesenthal has enabled a reconciliation to take place.
Chapter 47 Summary: Manès Sperber
Manès Sperber begins by exploring the question of what it means to forgive, whether it inherently requires forgetting of the crime. He suggests two possible answers from a historical perspective. The first is that “the surest and most lasting forgiveness and reconciliation is when the descendants of the evildoers and the victims bind themselves into a collective and unbreakable unity” (247). Sperber acknowledges that, in this case, time allows for new revelations of the relationship between the two groups. The second possible answer, which, he says, may be more applicable to this case, “because of the one-sidedness of the crime” (247), is a tragic situation where the victim participates in forgiveness as a form of submission to the wrongdoer.
Sperber points out that it is often the tendency of the wrongdoer to forget his own crime, whether or not he ever receives forgiveness. He suggests that, because of the circumstances, Simon and Karl are forever bound together, whether one would desire it or not. He advises, “Do not grant pardon until you are sure that the guilty on their side will always remember their guilt” (248). At the national level, Sperber says it is good that Germans have paid reparations, not because it restores anything that has been lost to the Jewish nation, but rather as a form of cleansing for the German nation itself. As to whether Simon should have forgiven Karl, Sperber says that Simon was correct not to give forgiveness in that moment, because he was not authorized to do so on behalf of the martyrs. He adds, however, that had Karl continued to live and proven himself to be reformed and truly repentant, forgiveness would be the only healthy choice. COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

40

Chapter 48 Summary: André Stein
André Stein begins by criticizing those respondents who advocate forgiveness and thereby “show a greater affinity with the dying murderer than with his victims” (251).
He points out that Karl fails to show real empathy when he asks for any Jew to listen to his confession; therefore he fails to demonstrate true repentance. Stein says that for Simon to have forgiven Karl would have been a lie. He says that to listen to Karl’s story on behalf of the victims and to respond with silence was the best he could have done. Stein tells the story of his aunt, who was raped and became pregnant by a Nazi soldier, then used the unborn child to bargain for the lives of her family. He charges those who criticize his aunt, by saying that it is wrong for outsiders to “stay riveted on the moral stance of the victim” (254).
Further, Stein takes exception to Simon’s decision not to tell Karl’s mother the truth.
He believes that only by confronting people with the reality of misdeeds can we hope for real accountability.
Chapter 49 Summary: Nechama Tec
Nechama Tec says his initial reaction to Wiesenthal’s question is that he would not be able to forgive the SS man. He identifies himself as a Holocaust survivor who avoided concentration camps by pretending to be a Catholic.
Tec discusses the questions that people ask him, for some decades since the
Holocaust, as to whether it may be time to stop punishing the Nazis. His response is no, because he is not authorized to forgive on behalf of the murdered and because society needs murderers to be held to account.
Tec goes on to say that he is not satisfied with his initial negative response to the question and returns to Wiesenthal’s story. He observes that the Nazi, although claiming to be repentant, “dwells on his own personal suffering” (258). If Karl were truly sorry, he might have spoken instead to his fellow Germans and implored them to discontinue their crimes. Tec states, “Even on his deathbed he did not give up the racial ideologies which became part of his very being” (260).

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

41

He concludes by saying that Wiesenthal’s act of listening in silence, followed by a continuous questioning about forgiveness, indicates a moral superiority on the part of the victim in this case.
Chapter 50 Summary: Joseph Telushkin
Telushkin questions whether the Nazi would have continued feeling sorry for his actions if he had survived his injuries. He refers to Karl’s self-pity, specifically to the line—intended as a gesture of goodwill toward Karl—in which he says that the Jews were less guilty than he is, the implication being that on some level he still believes the
Jews to be guilty at all.
Telushkin responds that he would not have given forgiveness to the man. First, he believes that Simon was not in the position to forgive on behalf of Karl’s victims.
Second, he believes that there can be no benefit to society for people to be taught that they can commit crimes because forgiveness is an option.
As to whether Karl might be forgiven by God, Telushkin expresses some ambivalence within Talmudic teaching. He points out that the Talmud teaches that God can only forgive sins committed against Himself. He adds, however, that another teaching indicates contrition upon death may result in “some measure of atonement in the next world” (264).
In conclusion, he states that the religions of the world should teach forgiveness as a virtue, but that it is more desirable that people from a very early age be taught that some acts are beyond forgiveness, so that repentance might take place before the grievous act is committed.
Chapter 46-50 Analysis
Speer is a unique respondent in this collection, as he is himself a convicted Nazi. His response is interesting in that he addresses Wiesenthal directly and expresses gratitude for Wiesenthal’s compassion without saying whether he should have forgiven or not.
Sperber briefly addresses the idea of collective guilt, which other respondents have also addressed. In his case, he rejects that notion specifically but adds that there is

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

42

such thing as national responsibility. He goes on to distinguish Karl as a victim of the regime he served, albeit a guilty victim.
Both Telushkin and Tec point out that the dying Nazi is more concerned with his own plight than he is with the plight of the prisoners. Both believe that Karl would have continued on in his crimes if he were given another opportunity.
Telushkin adds his voice to those who assert that forgiveness, when offered too freely, can be of no benefit to society and will only perpetuate more evildoing.
Chapters 51-54
Chapter 51 Summary: Tzvetan Todorov
Tzvetan Todorov begins by expressing his belief that no person can forgive on behalf of another and that, therefore, murder cannot be forgiven. He adds that, because he was not raised as a Christian, he has no belief in the theological concept of absolution.
He goes on to consider Karl specifically, to evaluate his sense of regret. Todorov points out that, historically, war criminals almost invariably fail to express remorse for their crimes. Based on this, he recognizes that Karl’s confession deserves “not absolution, of course, but recognition for embarking on that specifically human activity which consists of changing for the better” (265).
In conclusion, Todorov points out that, while it is difficult to answer Wiesenthal’s question fifty years later, the value lies in the recognition that evil does exist as part of the human condition. Therefore, it is important to remember this so that people remain aware of their dangerous potential.
Chapter 52 Summary: Desmond Tutu
Desmond Tutu responds from his position as head of South Africa’s Truth and
Reconciliation Commission, established to expose crimes committed under the apartheid regime. He tells of stories he has heard of atrocities and of times when he has witnessed victims publicly express forgiveness to the perpetrators. By example, he points out Nelson Mandela, who suffered bodily for over 30 years in prison, and who then invited his jailer to attend his presidential inauguration as his personal guest.
He makes reference to the words of Jesus, who prayed that God would forgive his
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

43

murderers. In conclusion, he states that “without forgiveness, there is no future”
(268).
Chapter 53 Summary: Arthur Waskow
Arthur Waskow responds from the perspective of Kabbalah. This tradition holds that
Ultimate Unity is composed of four components: “Doing, Relating, Knowing, and
Being” (268). Waskow charges that Karl has shattered all four of these components and that he is requesting that his victim partake with him in reestablishing this order.
Waskow states that he cannot offer forgiveness, because Karl is not capable of restoring any of the broken components.
The only component that Karl comes close to partaking in is Knowing, because through his actions, Karl has taught the possibilities of evil. Waskow articulates four areas in which he may learn from Karl’s behavior: the need to create a larger sense of community among all people, the need to treat knowledge as a basic human need, the need to place God among humans rather than in some distant elevated place, and the need to reestablish the physical entity of Jewish people through celebration and physical expression.
Chapter 54 Summary: Harry Wu
Harry Wu begins his response by telling the story of how, in China in 1957, he was imprisoned along with hundreds of other students and teachers from his university for the charge of being enemies of the revolution. He spent nineteen years in prison. He was abused and tortured, sustaining injuries that lasted long after his release. After a failed escape attempt, he was placed in solitary confinement in a cell that was “slightly larger than a coffin” (272) for nine days, and was given no food and water, until a feeding tube was forced down his throat and he was released back to his regular barracks. He also recalls moments of kindness. A particular guard, Captain Cao, increased their food rations and had the prisoners walk in the sun every day to increase their strength, offering words of encouragement to them.
In 1979, when he was released from prison, he visited Comrade Ma, the woman who had been responsible for his imprisonment. When he met her in person, he says, “I did not feel the need to reproach her or accuse her of her wrongdoing toward me” (273).
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

44

She didn’t apologize, she simply said that all that was in the past, and now it was time for both of them to work towards the future. He realized that Comrade Ma was a victim of the Party, willing to believe whatever they say without question. He describes this as a “moment of triumph” (274), because in this moment he realized that he hadn’t been destroyed.
In conclusion, Wu says that he would not have forgiven the SS man, but he would have been able to understand how he had become a part of the terrible system.
Chapter 51-54 Analysis
Todorov’s theory that most war criminals fail to express any form of remorse for their behavior is borne out in Harry Wu’s account of his own experience under Chinese law.
Wu states, “It is inconceivable for me to believe that anyone in the People’s Republic of China would ask for such forgiveness as the Nazi soldier did to the Jewish prisoner”
(274).
Desmond Tutu’s response encompasses the collective process of reconciliation, which, in his case, is illustrated by his experience in post-apartheid South Africa. While his view is a collective one, he draws on examples of specific, personal accounts of individuals—the country’s leader included—who forgave their past oppressors in public ways.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

45

MAJOR CHARACTER ANALYSIS
Simon
Simon Wiesenthal is the first-person narrator of the story at the beginning of The
Sunflower, and the man who requests his readers to ask themselves, “What would I have done?” (98).
Educated as an architect, Simon has experienced anti-Semitism in Polish society even before the Nazis occupied the country. Now, as a concentration camp prisoner, treated as vermin to be eradicated, he wonders whether all human beings are of the same order. His descriptions of fellow prisoners, of Polish people outside the concentration camp, and of German soldiers indicate that he is always observing them for individual characteristics, seeking to discern the friendly individuals from the unfriendly. As readers, we get the sense that Simon refuses to view any group of people with a general judgment but rather seeks the humanity in everyone.
Within the story portion of The Sunflower, the prisoner Simon is a listener and an observer. He not only listens to the story of the dying Nazi but is also an observer of his surroundings. He reads the faces of the people around him, listens for news of the outside world, and asks the opinions of his fellow prisoners. After refusing to express forgiveness to Karl, Simon asks his closest friends what they each would have done in his situation. In fact, the entire book—the story and the many essays in response— forms one large act of Simon Wiesenthal’s quest for answers from other people.
Karl
Karl is a young SS soldier, mortally wounded in battle, who confesses his crimes against the Jews to Simon and asks for forgiveness. He tells Simon that he grew up in a devout Catholic home but then alienated himself from his father, first when he joined the Hitler Youth and later when he joined the SS. He recounts his experiences of having mistreated Jewish people as a part of his job, and is particularly troubled by the time he participated in torching a houseful of Jewish prisoners and then shooting those who tried to escape through the windows. Among those he killed were women and children. When Simon encounters him, Karl is close to death and is convinced that, if a Jewish person would forgive him for his acts, he will be able to die in peace.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

46

Karl is clearly a conscientious young man, who remembers his early religious training now that he is approaching death. However, he was obedient to his leaders to the point of defying his own morals. While he is obviously regretful about his treatment of
Jewish people, the nature of his remorse is dubious, as is his attitude towards the
Jewish people. When he tells Simon how badly he is suffering, he says, “those Jews died quickly, they did not suffer as I do—although they were not as guilty as I am”
(52). This statement indicates that, while he recognizes that the Jewish people have had bitter experiences, he still believes that they bear some degree of guilt, which has resulted in their cruel deaths.
Josek
Josek is one of Simon’s close friends in the concentration camp. At the beginning of
Wiesenthal’s story, Josek is a newcomer to the camp where Simon and Arthur are prisoners. Wiesenthal portrays Josek to be a devout and thoughtful person, saying,
“Jokingly I called Josek ‘Rabbi.’ He was not of course a rabbi; he was a businessman, but religion permeated his life” (5). Josek gives the most thought to Simon’s questions as to whether he should have forgiven Karl. He points out that Simon had a responsibility to the dead victims, not to give forgiveness on their behalf.
Josek would die before the end of the war. Wiesenthal says that he learned of Josek’s death from other prisoners. He had contracted a fever that made him too ill to work, which prompted a soldier to shoot him as “punishment for being ‘work-shy’” (76).
Arthur
Arthur is one of Simon’s closest friends in the concentration camp at the beginning of
The Sunflower. They have been friends since youth, since before their incarceration, when Arthur was a lawyer. Wiesenthal describes him as a “cynic” (6). Arthur’s persistent belief was that, while he might not survive the concentration camp, “the
Germans would not escape unpunished” (8). Arthur’s immediate response to Simon’s story of having been at the deathbed of a Nazi is, “One less!” (64).
Wiesenthal tells us that Arthur died of typhus, that “in his last few hours fever made him unconscious, mercifully for him” (76).

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

47

Adam
Adam is a fellow prisoner with Simon, Josek, and Arthur. Adam studied architecture but gave up his studies when the war started. Coming from an affluent family, he viewed being imprisoned in a concentration camp as being preferable to being imprisoned by the Soviets for being of an enemy—that is, wealthy—class. He had seen his parents killed at the beginning of the war. Wiesenthal says that, upon hearing his story of the dying Nazi, Adam’s response is, “So you saw a murderer dying . . . I would like to do that ten times a day. I couldn’t have enough such hospital visits” (64).
Wiesenthal recalls how Adam was condemned to die when he sprained his ankle at work, then waited at the concentration camp’s place of execution for two days, in full view of the prisoners, before being shot to death along with several others.
Bolek
Bolek is a man who becomes Simon’s bunkmate during the final days of the war, after
Simon’s closest friends have all died. Bolek has been evacuated into Mauthausen camp from Auschwitz during the Russian advance on Poland. A Catholic priest in training, he has already suffered many humiliations at the hands of the Nazis, and yet continues to practice his faith. When Simon tells him about the dying Nazi, Bolek says he should have given forgiveness because Karl was sincerely repentant and because
Simon had an obligation to grant a dying man his last request. Wiesenthal says that their discussion did not really come to a resolution but that he felt some satisfaction from their having shared their opinions with one another, “and that each had a better understanding of the other’s views” (83).
Karl’s Mother
Karl speaks of his mother while he is dying, how he wishes he could see her again before he dies. Simon tells of her after the war when he makes his way to Stuttgart to meet her. By this time, she is a widow, living in the rubble of her house. She says to
Simon, “What happened to us was a punishment from God” (89). She tells Simon how
Karl’s decision to join the Nazis led to a break in their family, because her husband refused to speak to her son after his decision. When she realizes Simon is Jewish, she rushes to explain that her community did not mistreat Jewish people, saying, “We are

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

48

not responsible for their fate” (92). She says she cannot believe the stories she’s been hearing about the Nazi treatment of Jews.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

49

THEMES
Forgiveness
The Nazi’s deathbed plea for forgiveness forms the central theme on which The
Sunflower focuses. Wiesenthal’s persistent question, which he passes on to the reader, is “What would I have done?” (98). The many respondents reveal forgiveness to be a complex notion, some viewing it as an unthinkable option, others as a virtue, and others as a moral imperative.
Some respondents suggest that forgiveness is the means by which the victim may recover wholeness after being victimized. Furthermore, some suggest that it is the means by which society, and the universe as a whole, is restored to health and balance. At the other end of the spectrum, some respondents say that forgiveness in this situation was not possible, for it was not for Wiesenthal to forgive on behalf of the dead victims. Many suggest that forgiveness is merely a means of perpetuating evil by setting up a system whereby people may commit crimes and then be forgiven for them after the damage is done.
Some respondents make forgiveness conditional, based on the nature of the crime or the sincerity of the criminal’s repentance. Other respondents believe that it is in the very nature of forgiveness that it be unconditional, that forgiveness is never deserved but that it can nonetheless be conferred.
Several respondents, particularly those writing from the Christian teachings of forgiveness, speak of the notion of “cheap grace,” the idea that people may continue on in their crimes in the knowledge that there is always the possibility of receiving forgiveness. The fear is that forgiving the man for his crimes will set up a system in which people feel free to do whatever harm they please without fear of accountability. Repentance (Teshuvah)
Respondents from both Christian and Jewish traditions discuss the concept of repentance, or teshuvah in Hebrew. Deborah E. Lipstadt says the concept is “derived from the Hebrew word ‘to return,’ is Judaism’s process of saying I’m sorry to those we have wronged” (193). Dorothee Soelle states that “teshuvah was created even before the Creation, together with the Torah, the name of the Messiah, and other mysteries”
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

50

(244). Many of the respondents to Wiesenthal’s question examine Karl’s words to attempt to discern whether his confession is heartfelt, believing that their decision to forgive must be contingent upon sincere repentance. Within Wiesenthal’s story, Bolek asserts that, according to the Catholic faith, it was Karl’s repentance and not Simon’s forgiveness that was necessary for Karl to receive God’s grace.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

51

SYMBOLS AND MOTIFS
Sunflower
Within the narrative portion of The Sunflower, Wiesenthal reveals that the sunflowers became a harbinger of hope and also a reminder of his own responsibility. At the point when he encounters the military grave, he believes that he is doomed to die at the hands of the Nazis alongside his fellow prisoners. However, the sight of the sunflowers, at the time, he says, “aroused new thoughts in me. I felt I would come across them again” (15). When, after the war, Simon comes across a bunch of sunflowers growing wild on a hillside, the sight prompts the memory of the soldiers’ cemetery and the afternoon he spent with the dying Nazi. The sight of these sunflowers prompts a sense of guilt, as he asks himself, “Had I anything to reproach myself for?” (84). This revived memory prompts him to go to Stuttgart to visit Karl’s mother some weeks later.
The sunflower on each grave is a symbol of remembrance for the person buried in that grave. The planting of the flower is an act of bearing witness to a single life.
Wiesenthal’s book, The Sunflower, is also a gesture of bearing witness to the many lives who were taken unjustly and never sufficiently acknowledged or grieved.
Bandages
The bandages that cover the entire body of the dying Nazi are a covering that hides the physical appearance of the man, while at the same time revealing the extent of his injuries. The bandages obscure his body from view, which also means that Simon is unable to read the man’s face or body languages for indications as to whether he is speaking the truth in his confession. The fact that the bandages contain yellow stains suggests that the injuries are difficult to contain. In later years, the bandages, like the sunflowers, have become for Simon a token to remind him of this experience with
Karl, as he says, “every time I see a nurse, or a man with his head bandaged, I recall him” (95).
Rebecca Goldstein, one of the respondents to Wiesenthal’s question, uses the image of the bandages as a metaphor for the Nazi teachings to which Karl submitted. She says the theories were “as vilely opaque as those bandages with the yellow stains”
(150). Lawrence Langer makes a similar comparison in his response, as he points out that Karl’s confession cannot ever be adequately evaluated, as it is presented to us
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

52

through the recollection of Wiesenthal, “the mystery of his inner feelings remains swathed in the bandages that encase his body” (187-88).
Crucifix
When Simon visits Karl’s mother in Stuttgart, he sees that she has a crucifix hanging on her wall, a common religious artifact in Catholic households. Karl’s mother explains that she found it sticking out of the rubble after a bombing and has taken comfort in its presence, feeling “a little less abandoned” (89). Simon realizes, through her story of the crucifix, that she too has suffered a test of faith, a sense of being forsaken by God.
The religious object then, despite its explicitly Christian associations, becomes a point of connection between the German woman and the Jewish man. The crucifix as a symbol, the depiction of an innocent man unjustly murdered, becomes an image to which Simon, as a persecuted Jewish man, can relate.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

53

IMPORTANT QUOTES
1. “‘Josek,’ he said, ‘I am prepared to believe that God created a Jew out of this tear-soaked clod of earth, but do you expect me to believe He also made our camp commandant, Wilhaus, out of the same material?’” (Chapter 1, p. 6)
This statement is spoken by Simon’s friend, Arthur, in response to a story Josek tells about God creating man from a clod of earth soaked with the tears of an angel who had been banished from heaven. Arthur interrupts the story to argue that the Jewish people and the Nazis cannot possibly all be created in the same way. The question of whether Nazis and Jews are of the same order of humanity becomes one of the central questions running through Wiesenthal’s account.
2. “So that’s the news; we live in a world that God has abandoned?” (Chapter 1, p.
8)
Simon says this to his friends after they have heard a woman state that the reason things are so bad for Jewish people is that God is on leave. Wiesenthal goes on to say that, during this time, he witnessed many people lose their faith in God. Under the circumstances where people were treated as sub-human, over a period of time, people begin to think that God has forsaken them. He says that, during this time, he felt the woman’s words to be true.
3. “Did any of them reflect that there were still Jews and as long as they were there, as long as the Nazis were still busy with the Jews, they would leave the citizens alone?” (Chapter 1, pp. 13-14)
Wiesenthal is describing the experience of being a part of a work detail, parading to the worksite outside the concentration camp through the streets of the town where he once lived. When the free citizens—Polish people now under German occupation—would see them, sometimes there would be recognition between individuals. Wiesenthal recalls one incident where a fellow colleague saw him and had a look of surprise, as if he had assumed Simon to be already dead. This statement points out the fact that, between the Nazis and the Jews, there were various other strata within the Holocaust experience. There were other victims and potential victims of the regime, and there were anti-Nazi citizens who were nonetheless reticent in the face of the treatment of Jewish people.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

54

4. “Suddenly I envied the dead soldiers. Each had a sunflower to connect him with the living world, and butterflies to visit his grave. For me there would be no sunflower. I would be buried in a mass grave, where corpses would be piled on top of me.” (Chapter 1, p. 14)
Wiesenthal is describing a military cemetery, in which the grave of each soldier has a sunflower growing. He sees the sunflowers as being the means by which the dead were “receiving light and messages” (14). He sees the flower, one for each individual, as a measure of the value of these dead people, and he contrasts this with his own condition, still alive but doomed to die in a mass grave with no gestures or symbols of remembrance.
5. “‘Look,’ he said, ‘those Jews died quickly, they did not suffer as I do—though they were not as guilty as I am.’” (Chapter 1, p. 52)
These words are spoken by Karl during his confession to Simon. They reveal that, in spite of Karl’s sense of guilt for his participation in the murder of Jewish people, he still does not completely grasp the extent of his crimes. In his self-pity, he views his suffering as being more extreme than that of his victims, and he continues to view his victims as having some measure of guilt.
6. “In each person’s life there are historic moments which rarely occur—and today you have experienced one such.” (Chapter 1, p. 65)
These words are spoken by Josek, Simon’s friend in the concentration camp. He is referring to Simon’s story of having just listened to the confession of the dying
Nazi. Simon is asking whether he should not, on behalf of his Jewish community, have forgiven the man. Josek is acknowledging that the decision of whether to forgive is a question full of responsibility, not just to himself, to but to the murdered victims who can no longer speak for themselves. Josek’s response carries a further level of significance when one considers that the event to which he is referring is a moment in Simon Wiesenthal’s life that will lead to his life’s vocation. 7. “I do not know who you are, I only know that you are a Jew and that is enough.” (Chapter 1, p. 54)

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

55

These words are spoken my Karl, as he expresses his regret to Simon for his part in murdering other Jewish people. As Wiesenthal recounts this portion of the story, he insists that Karl was truly repentant for his actions. Yet many of the people who respond to Wiesenthal’s question point out that Karl’s belief that any Jew would do to receive his confession is an indication that he continues to see Jewish people as interchangeable and not individual people.
8. “He, a candidate for the Catholic priesthood, and I, a Jew, had exposed our arguments to each other, and each had a better understanding of the other’s views.” (Chapter 1, p. 83)
Wiesenthal is speaking of his discussion with Bolek as to whether or not he should have granted Karl forgiveness. While their discussion comes to no final resolution,
Wiesenthal gains some sense of satisfaction from their having opened up to one another about their beliefs. As readers, we get the sense that this conversation may be the seed of what becomes The Sunflower, the collection of many voices, may different individual perspectives on the question of forgiveness.
9. “There were millions of such families anxious only for peace and quiet in their own little nests. These were the mounting blocks by which the criminals climbed to power and kept it.” (Chapter 1, p. 91)
Wiesenthal makes this observation as he is talking with Karl’s mother in Stuttgart.
He sees that she wanted only peace within her family and that she was troubled by the rift that developed when her son volunteered for the SS and her husband refused to speak with him again. Wiesenthal suggests that it was this desire for domestic peace—the willingness to tolerate the minor injustices—that empowered the Nazis to create the massive system of murder and mistreatment that would become known as the Holocaust.
10. “Repentance is formulaic: a learned ritual which soothes the troubled soul of the murderer, but does nothing for those who were murdered.” (Alan L. Berger,
p. 119)
Alan Berger believes that Simon could not have given Karl forgiveness, because he was not one of Simon’s murdered victims. This is a point within Jewish teaching, that only the direct victims may forgive for the crimes committed against them. He goes on to question whether Karl’s repentance was sincere, which is to say,
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

56

whether it met the requirements for the Jewish concept of teshuvah. He concludes that Karl had no opportunity to demonstrate a material change in his attitude through changed behavior. Therefore, to forgive Karl would have been to give the criminal what he wanted, while dishonoring those whom he murdered.
11. “For me, Karl dies unforgiven. God have mercy on my soul.” (Harry James
Cargas, 125)
This statement, in form, is a play on the traditional words said at a person’s death:
“God have mercy on his soul.” But, in this case, Cargas turns the statement from the dead and focuses it upon himself. Cargas begins his response to Wiesenthal’s question by saying that he feels forgiveness is an imperative for him, because he needs to receive forgiveness for himself. He goes on to explore the conditions under which man may not be forgiven, discussing the Christian notion of the unforgivable sin. He also suggests that there are sins that only God can forgive.
This statement, the final word in his response to Wiesenthal’s question, is his final word with regard to whether he would have forgiven the dying Nazi. While he believes forgiveness is imperative, he does not believe he could have forgiven this particular man.
12. “To forgive without justice is a self-satisfying weakness. Justice without love is a simulation of strength.” (Hans Habe, 162)
Hans Habe’s statement demonstrates the paradox of healing the world through love rather than hatred. His argument is that both forgiveness and justice are aspects of God. He believes that healing can only take place in the world where people can, without being motivated by hatred, be both forgiving and just.
13. “I would have forgiven, as much for my own peace as for Karl’s.” (José Hobday,
p. 174)
José Hobday is responding to Wiesenthal’s question from his perspective as a man of Native American heritage. He explains that, according to the teachings of his family, forgiveness is the means by which balance is restored to the universe after someone has upset the balance through their wrongdoing. Forgiveness, according to Hobday, is not intended to condone the criminal’s behavior, but is the means by which healing takes place after the injury is inflicted.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

57

14. “Forgiving is not something we do for another person, as the Nazi asked
Wiesenthal to do for him. Forgiving happens inside us.” (Harold S. Kushner, p.
186)
Kushner believes that forgiveness is the means by which the victim sets himself free from the crime that was committed against him. It is not an act of acceptance; on the contrary, it is the process by which the victim rejects the wrongdoing and severs the bond between himself and the criminal.
15. “Ironically, in asking forgiveness of a Jew, the SS man transfers the weight of moral decision from himself to one of his potential victims.” (Lawrence L.
Langer, p. 188-89)
Lawrence L. Langer is concerned both with the immediate question of whether
Simon should forgive Karl and with the historical implications of the question of forgiveness. He believes that the request for forgiveness is one more violation against the victim, calling on him to make an impossible moral choice. Langer extrapolates this theory to the question that has arisen in the decades since the
Holocaust, that of whether Jewish people should forgive the Germans for what was done during that time. He believes that the entire question of forgiveness serves to obscure the seriousness of the crimes, and he urges that people remember the horrors plainly in order that they not be repeated.
16. “If God was silent, dare any of us speak?” (Hubert G. Locke, p. 203)
Hubert G. Locke observes that Wiesenthal’s account is full of examples in which the act of remaining silent was a conscious, positive choice. He points out that not only was Simon silent when asked for forgiveness, but he was also mercifully silent when Karl’s mother asked for more details about her son. Locke points out that silence can sometimes be the only means by which truth is revealed, that in a world where so much is achieved through discussion and explanation, sometimes silence is more godly. His statement also echoes the idea raised in Wiesenthal’s story that perhaps God might be “on leave,” suggesting that if God had chosen not to intervene, a human being could do no more.
17. “Is anyone justified, entitled to forgive?” (Herbert Marcuse, p. 208)

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

58

Marcuse states succinctly that, on principle, forgiveness is merely a perpetuation of the crime. He applies this belief to all circumstances in which people kill one another. 18. “To say that all persons in a people must act a specific way is to routinize them, to program them, to deprive them of elements of their humanity.” (Martin E.
Marty, p. 209)
Martin E. Marty acknowledges that there is the temptation to understand
Wiesenthal’s question as “What should I have done?” Marty points out that the question must have many answers, because every individual has the basic right to choose for himself how to respond. Implied in this response is the idea that
Wiesenthal should not have been treated as any Jew, just one of many, and representative of the many unique individuals who were murdered.
19. “The Second Commandment is more explicit than the Sixth, which tells us simply that we must not kill; the Second Commandment tells us we must resist especially that killing which serves our belief.” (Cynthia Ozick, p. 214)
Cynthia Ozick looks to the Judeo-Christian teachings of the Ten Commandments to explore the nature of the crimes of the Nazis. The Second Commandment states that we should not have false idols, and the Sixth Commandment is the prohibition against murder. Ozick observes that the Holocaust was a contravention of the
Second Commandment, in that the German people allowed Hitler to become a false idol. She suggests that the crime was greater than simply murder; in fact, it was murder in the service of a false god.
20.“We need to learn to separate the true culprits from the pawns, the evil masterminds from the brainwashed.” (Dith Pran, p. 232)
Dith Pran, responding from his experience as a victim of the Khmer Rouge in
Cambodia, suggests that there is a difference in the nature of guilt between the soldiers who carried out the orders and the leaders who first conceived the plan and issued the orders. Pran suggests that many of those who carry out the directives are themselves victims of brainwashing and are therefore not as culpable as their actions would first seem.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

59

21. “Everywhere, one senses the no, and the necessity of finding a yes.” (Dorothee
Soelle, p. 243)
Dorothee Soelle addresses the perplexity in Wiesenthal’s question of whether to forgive the dying Nazi. She acknowledges that, while forgiveness for such atrocities is unthinkable, there persists a need to find resolution in the face of the crimes. Speaking from her own faith as a Christian and from what she has learned of the Jewish concept of teshuvah, Soelle suggests that perhaps repentance and forgiveness are in fact part of the spiritual nature of humanity.
22. “Must one forget before one can forgive?” (Manès Sperber, p. 247)
Sperber’s question raises the question of whether forgetting is a function of, or prerequisite for, forgiveness. He points out that, often, the perpetrator of the crime may forget the heinousness of his acts even before forgiveness is given. In such cases, the forgiveness has little value, and the criminal is at risk of committing the same offences again. On the part of the victim, forgetting is sometimes a tragic condition of moving forward, a means of avoiding further victimization.
23. “We must stop dictating moral postures to the survivors.” (André Stein, p. 253)
André Stein points out the moral conundrum inherent in the request for forgiveness. Ostensibly, for Simon to forgive Karl would have been an act of graciousness. Viewed in the light of the many victims on whose behalf he would be forgiving, however, the act of forgiveness would be an act of brutal disregard for the pain and suffering of the murdered. Simon is a survivor who is also a victim. It is incorrect to place him in the position of having to decide whether or not to forgive the murderers on behalf of the murdered.
24. “We know that he voiced regret over his murderous deeds; unfortunately, that is all we know.” (Joseph Telushkin, p. 263)
Telushkin calls into question the sincerity of Karl’s repentance. While he seems to be truly troubled by his memories of having partaken in the murder of certain
Jewish people, his words reveal a failure to grasp the full extent of his guilt. He still views his own sufferings as a young man as unjust, in spite of the fact that he actively inflicted such sufferings on others much younger than himself. Karl continues to view Jewish people as guilty, even if less guilty than he is. Telushkin
COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

60

concludes that, because sincere repentance requires a tangible change in behavior under the same circumstances as the original crime, Karl is beyond being able to demonstrate the sincerity of his repentance.
25. “Forgiveness is not some nebulous thing. It is practical politics.” (Desmond
Tutu, p. 268)
Desmond Tutu is speaking from his experiences as head of South Africa’s Truth and
Reconciliation Commission. He believes that when the criminals are honest and repentant about their crimes and when the victims can find ways of expressing forgiveness to those criminals, then true healing can take place. He advocates forgiveness as the means by which nations can collectively break free from their brutal histories.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

61

ESSAY TOPICS
1. Josek tells the story about the four angels, “angels of Mercy, Truth, Peace, and
Justice” (6), who stood as godparents at the creation of the world. Discuss how each of these four qualities arises in the initial story and subsequent discussions in The Sunflower.
2. Alan Berger characterizes Wiesenthal’s story as a morality tale. What is a morality tale, and how does The Sunflower fit this description? Are there ways in which it does not meet the criteria for a morality tale?
3. Some respondents to Wiesenthal’s question talk about forgetting as a function of forgiveness, while others assert that remembering is the means by which true reconciliation can take place. Using three or four of the respondents in The
Sunflower as your basis, discuss forgetting and remembrance as they relate to reconciliation. 4. Matthew Fox says that Wiesenthal’s story is troubling, because of its universality, that it “lays bare the sins of complicity and the sins of omission and denial that render our participation in evil so profound” (147). In what ways are individuals guilty of complicity and denial in the face of misdeeds in our world today? 5. According to Christopher Hollis, “The real issue is whether the Jew and Nazi were two of God’s children sharing a common humanity or whether they are two different sorts of being, irrevocably at war with one another” (180). Which do you believe to be true? Explain why.
6. Lawrence L. Langer says, “The ‘disappearing criminal’ is one of the most dangerous and lamentable legacies of the Holocaust experience” (188). Explain the idea of the “disappearing criminal” as Langer presents it, and then discuss how other respondents in The Sunflower may or may not share this theory.
7. Several respondents to The Sunflower comment on the fact that our understanding of the encounter between Karl and Simon is limited by the fact that Simon is recounting the story some time later. Discuss the nature of storytelling, how it can both reveal and obscure truth.

COPYRIGHT 2016

THE SUNFLOWER

SUPERSUMMARY

62

8. According to Erich H. Loewy, “rationality without compassion and compassion without rationality are both ineffective when it comes to grappling with ethical problems” (206). Discuss how both rationality and compassion figure in Simon
Wiesenthal’s account in The Sunflower.
9. Many of Wiesenthal’s respondents discuss the role of silence in The Sunflower.
What is the value of silence in response to the historical truth of the Holocaust?
What are the negative consequences of silence?
10. What would be your response to the question Simon Wiesenthal poses at the end of his story in “The Sunflower”: “What would I have done?” (98)