Elie Wiesel's Speech In Buchenwald

The Second World War was a time of dread and fear for everybody in Germany and surrounding countries with Adolf Hitler in power, especially Jews. Hitler believed that Jews were the people to blame for the breaking economy in Germany, and soon he grew a strong hatred for the Jewish people, that he planned to forcefully drive out all Jews from Germany. However, he soon started sending Jews and other types of people he believed were a problem, into labor camps and/or killed them. While Hitler was in power of Germany he was responsible for the life of six million people and 1,500,000 were only children. In the sources Night by Elie Wiesel and “Fifty Years Later” by Judy (Weissenberg) Cohen, plenty of rhetoric was used to tell the audience

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

Wiesel is effective with his speech by connecting exaggeration within his revelation. He questions the guilt and responsibility for past massacres, pointing specifically at the Nazi’s while using historical facts, such as bloodbaths in Cambodia, Algeria, India, and Pakistan to include incidents on a larger level such as Auschwitz to provide people with a better idea (Engelhardt, 2002). He is effective in putting together the law and society’s need for future actions against indifference by stating, “In the place I come from, society was composed of three simple categories: the killer, the victims, and the bystanders” 7.(Wiesel 223).

Elie Wiesel uses many different styles to present his main purpose, one of the most widely used is anaphora. He does this to help the audience further develop a context of the situations Wiesel went through as a child. Wiesel asserts, “ They no longer feel pain, hunger, thirst. They feared nothing. They felt nothing. They were dead and did not know it,” this creates a reaction of the audience to feel sympathy for the “musselmanners” that were left to die, it also forces the audience to imagine the horrific details of Wiesel’s childhood. Furthermore, towards the end of his speech to change tones to appeal to the audience while he questions the American government on why they chose not to intervene. He then creates another tonal shift, patronizing

Ethos is displayed in this speech by what had happened, but no one doing anything about it. “When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irreverent (“Elie Wiesel - Acceptance Speech”). When anything life threatening happens the world acts like nothing is going on and lets it continue until after it is over with and people's lives are taken. Pathos is brought up in this speech by showing how harmful and horrible this time was. “Violence and terrorism are not the answer. Something must be done about their suffering, and soon.(“Elie Wiesel - Acceptance Speech”).” Everything that is happening caused so much suffering from people being violent and no one putting a stop to any of the injustice. Wiesel states facts about what he remembered from when he was younger and got put into the camp. “The fiery altar upon which the history of our people and the future of mankind were meant to be sacrificed (“Elie Wiesel - Acceptance Speech”).” Wiesel remembers everything that had happened to him and what the nazis were doing to everyone as if it was yesterday or eternities ago. All in all, Wiesel displayed all the rhetoric meaning in his

In the speech, “Hope, Despair, and Memory” Elie Wiesel uses diction and rhetorical devices to make his claim about how there are horrible crimes that has happened. Diction and rhetorical devices also creates the tone of the speech, which is serious. The tone that is developed is serious because the speech utilizes the phrase “... memory of evil will serve as a shield against evil… memory of death will serve as a shield against death.” This phrase’s meaning is that memories of ill-will and death will become information that we can learn not to do again. Another phrase that supports seriousness is, “... man would live in a permanent, paralyzing fear of death.” Wiesel is making the audience understand what the repercussions is for the fear of

Wiesel does a wonderful job with his use of pathos throughout the speech by making the audience reflect on his words and creates a strong emotional reaction for what is being said. From being a survivor of the Holocaust, one of the darkest parts of history as well as the most shallow times for humanity. Immediate sympathy is drawn from the audience. When he states that himself endured the horrible conditions these people had to live in. He then explains to us that the people there, “No longer felt hunger, pain, thirst. They feared nothing. They felt nothing. They were dead and did not know it.” With saying this it brings forth feelings of guilt, one of the most negative emotions to accumulate a reaction towards these events. Also numerous people throughout the world long for world peace and to hear the inhumane acts that was once acted upon an innocent man, makes their stomach's sink. Wiesel defines its derivation, as “no difference” and uses numerous comparisons on what may cause indifference, as a “strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur.” Like good and evil, dark and light. Wiesel continues to attract the audience emotionally by stating this he is aware of how tempting it may be to be indifferent and that at times it can be easier to avoid

In the beginning of the speech Wiesel explains his childhood. He uses imagery to paint a picture in the audience’s mind of what it was like to live in a war-torn country. He states, “Fifty-four years to the day, a young Jewish boy from a small town in the Carpathian Mountains woke up, not far from Goethe’s beloved Weimar, in a place of eternal infamy called Buchenwald.” (Wiesel 1) This makes the audience think about what he just said and where Wiesel came from. It also makes the reader feel

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

“He was finally free, but there was no joy in his heart. He thought there never would be again”. This quote stated by Elie Wiesel from his speech, “The Perils of Indifference”, refers to the day Elie Wiesel got liberated from the Holocaust when he was young. The Holocaust was just one of the many horrific tragedies that occurred during that century. In hopes of changing the future for the better, Wiesel decides to deliver a speech about helping the victims of injustice. He gives this speech intended for the President, Mrs. Clinton, members of Congress, Ambassador Holbrooke, Excellencies, and friends hoping that they will make positive changes for the future. By using rhetorical strategies such as anaphora, rhetorical questions, and ethos, Wiesel tries to help the victims of injustice and prevent future tragedies from happening.

Dzungar, Holodomor, Rwandan, Cambodians, Armenians, Circassian, Ottoman Greek, and the Jewish. All too many genocides. When will it stop? When will we learn? When will we stop forgetting about the past and when will the history books end the patterns of war and death? When? The survivors share their stories, but do we listen? Elie Wiesel was a fifteen year old boy with the a life ahead of him, when his religion, following Judaism, made him a target in Adolf Hitler's extermination plans. He was only a boy. He had done nothing wrong, absolutely nothing, yet his life had been ended before it began. From Auschwitz to Birkenau to Buna to Gleiwitz and Gleiwitz to Buchenwald. Wiesel endured separation and starvation, to survive the brutality of the Jewish Holocaust that left millions of others dead. Individuals with lives, with hopes, with dreams, suffering with no end, and losing everything upon survival. Adults, children, elderly, everyone one of them innocent. As individuals living without these threats we cannot empathize for the horror stories we hear, since we have no personal connection, we can only sympathize for them. With no personal connection to the events, it is sure that we will forget Wiesel, but why do we forget? Because humans are imperfect beings? How do we stop erring and forget the mistakes that have preceded us? Humans struggle to understand that the mistakes of one individual do not define those similar to them. If human can attempt to

Wiesel’s inclusion of this quote shows readers that he was appalled by the inhuman prisoners and concentration camp leaders. One of the reasons for Wiesel becoming so traumatized by the evils of humanity is his prior belief that people would help each other in times of need. Halperin writes, “Before coming to Auschwitz, Eliezer had believed that twentieth-century man was civilized. He had supposed that people would try to help one another in difficult times; certainly his father and teachers had taught him that every Jew is responsible for all other Jews” (Halperin 33). Convinced that people were kind and that Jews would help one another, Wiesel was greatly disappointed after coming to a tragic realization in the concentration camps. Wiesel was robbed, pushed, beaten, and betrayed by his fellow Jews at the camps. Contrary to his prior belief that Jews should be working together, the other Jews invested in themselves. They cared, solely, about their own well being. In including the evils of the other prisoners, Wiesel is able to show readers that due to the lack of innocence within the concentration camps, it was inevitable for him to lose his

Never shall I forget that nocturnal silence which deprived me, for all eternity, of the desire to live. Never shall I forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dust. Never shall I forget these things, even if I am condemned to live as long as God Himself. Never.” The repetition of the phrase “Never shall I forget” really emphasises on and illustrated that what Wiesel is describing will be engraved in his memory forever, that it is impossible to forget. I also think that he wants to spread the word about what happened in the holocaust, raise awareness and make sure that nothing even remotely like it ever happens again.

In his speech he recalls not only the bad, but the good to follow, “And yet, my friends, good things have also happened in this traumatic century: the defeat of Nazism, the collapse of communism… And then, of course, the joint decision of the United States and NATO to intervene in Kosovo and save those victims, those refugees, those who were uprooted by a man whom I believe that because of his crimes, should be charged with crimes against humanity. But this time, the world was not silent. This time, we do respond. This time, we intervene.”(Wiesel). Wiesel remembers the good following the bad, “The defeat of Nazism” those who killed 11 million people and “The collapse of communism” what caused the holocaust to continue. The horrible things that happened good came out, not enough to make up but good things. Wiesel also states that this time (in Kosovo) when the people were being tortured similarly to the holocaust and instead of doing nothing and letting people die like before, they did something. What happened in the Holocaust, looking back, there was so much that people could have done, some wonder ‘How many important people did they kill, people who would find the cure for cancer or diseases, doctors, engineers, lawyers the list goes on. The world sat back and watched as this happen and there way no way the world would do that