The judges were chaired by Georg Neithardt, who had been a judge of Hitler at another incident before. Except for Neithardt, who tended to be lenient towards right-wing defendants who claimed to have acted out of sincere, patriotic reasons, the judges were pro-Nazi. At the trial, Hitler got a chance to broadcast his views, as every word he spoke was being published. He claimed to have acted out of selfless devotion and for the good of the people and took all responsibility for the coup. Explaining his reasons, he declared that the government was treacherous for signing the Treaty of Versailles, which many Germans agreed on, and explained that the clear communist threat in Germany had to be eliminated.
Forgive, not because they deserve forgives, but because you deserve peace. It’s not easy to stop blaming someone’s fault, especially for someone who do wrong to us. In the book The Sunflower written by Simon Wiesenthal, a survivor of the Holocaust during World War II, he described his conflict with Karl, a dying Nazi soldier who killed many innocent Jews and begging for forgiveness for his outrageous crime at the end of his life. At the end of this sad and tragic episode, Simon did not response to Karl’s request directly; instead he left us a tough question: “What should you have done?” Based on what Karl had done during World War II and his repentance, each person might have their own point of view about where should we draw the line of forgiveness.
The majority of the youth became brainwashed with ideas of racism and Aryan superiority. Due to the formation of the Hitler Youth group, education which taught hatred towards Jews, and media, including movies, books, and theatre, the mind of Germany’s youth were shaped according to Hitler’s convictions. Hitler’s captivity of the youth’s spirit created a poisonous atmosphere in Germany in which Nazi propaganda completely dominated the perspective of society. Ultimately, Nazi propaganda enabled Hitler to mobilize German society to willingly participate in a lengthy and bloody war in which the German people remained loyal until the end. Only the bitter defeat and occupation of Germany’s capital Berlin, and Hitler’s suicide finally broke the spell that dominated Germany for twelve
Wiesel’s speech shows how he worked to keep the memory of those people alive because he knows that people will continue to be guilty, to be accomplices if they forget. Furthermore, Wiesel knows that keeping the memory of those poor, innocent will avoid the repetition of the atrocity done in the future. The stories and experiences of Wiesel allowed for people to see the true horrors of what occurs when people who keep silence become “accomplices” of those who inflict pain towards humans. To conclude, Wiesel chose to use parallelism in his speech to emphasize the fault people had for keeping silence and allowing the torture of innocent
The portrayal of Howard Campbell as morally self-righteous is evident through Vonnegut’s use of sardonic voice and invective. While in jail, Campbell looks back on his time shortly after WWII and recalls his discussion with Colonel Frank Wirtanen, “He beamed at me and he shook my hand warmly, and he said, ‘Well—what did you think of that war, Campbell?’” Campbell responds by saying, “I would just as soon have stayed out of it” (Vonnegut, ch. 32). Vonnegut sends a literal message through Campbell 's desire to avert the war: there is a lack of commitment to a moral ideal. Vonnegut demonstrates that Campbell has no allegiance to any nation through his comment, “I would have just as soon stayed out
Firstly, follower might act blindly what those leaders say. They were blinded by their value as they value their leader, so whatever their leader says, they will believe it is true. Some leaders use this opportunity to give the bad effect to the society. For example, Adolf Hitler was appreciated by most of the German people when he solved the Great Depression; however, he governed his country without ethic value and their people followed him without notice. Secondly, the charismatic leaders can grow its own sake and forget their purposes.
The holocaust was not just a movement to mass execute the Jewish race; there were reasons behind this tragic event. Hitler, the Nazi leader, believed that Germans were “racially superior” and the Jews were “inferior”, therefore they should be eliminated. Does this not happen today? Stereotypes, racism, prejudice and discrimination keep us from evolving and living at peace with each other. We see discrimination and racism happen everyday in our lives.
Best case scenario, moral relativism makes society flimsy, as the ideas of good and bad all of a sudden turn into an issue of moving prevalent feelings. The most noticeably bad conceivable result of such a condition is the despot: a ruler who mishandle a brief swing in well known supposition to seize control, however observes no power as better than his own, and no laws more authoritative than his own. Amid the Nuremberg trials after World War II, the sensible issue of relativism got to be evident. Nazi litigants consistently pled for their absolution, saying that they were just after the laws of their territory. In dissatisfaction, at long last, one judge asked, "however is there no law higher than our law?"
While studying Nazi war criminals in the World War II, Hannah Arendt discovered that Eichmann, who was sentenced to death for devising egregious methods for massive Jews execution, was in fact a passive receptor of authoritative orders from the Nazi regime. She proclaimed the concept of “banality of evil”, noting that “There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking in itself is dangerous.” Such fickle and even potentially dangerous orientation of humanity is well demonstrated in An Essay on Man, where Alexander Pope illustrates the constantly errant and confused nature of human. Similarly, in Miguel Cervantes’s Don Quixote, the foolish protagonist Don Quixote shows how men may often fail to notice the absurdity and errors in certain actions. Here, exploration of the similarities and differences between two pieces and search for relevant contemporary examples may reveal how two works effectively characterize the faults and flaws that humans fail to learn from and constantly commit. In An Essay on Man, Alexander Pope characterizes men as inherently bemused beings who will continuously commit numerous errors.
This isn’t to say that you can’t or shouldn’t be allowed to surround yourself with those who share the same beliefs as you, rather, that it’s important to challenge your beliefs and to explore what others may know. The rise of dictatorships such as Joseph Stalin in Russia or Adolf Hitler in Germany are well known for their silencing of opposing views. Stalin was infamous for the gulags that were found all around Russia that housed political opponents, Hitler’s concentration camps also housing those who disagreed with him alongside those he blamed Germany’s problems on, yet both men thought they were doing the world a service in their actions. I believe that a lack of disagreement among each country’s respective leaders is the root of the problems that plagued Germany and Russia at the time. Simply silencing those who challenge you politically is how problems stay unsolved.