The Perils of Indifference

Wiesel asks numerous questions in his short speech, many of which are rhetorical in nature (meaning that they do not have given answers). Rhetorical questioning can be a powerful way to drive home a point without stating the point explicitly. For example, Wiesel notes that the world has intervened in the conflict in Kosovo, which he follows with a series of questions: “Does it mean that we have learned from the past? Does it mean that society has changed? [. . . .] Is today's justified intervention in Kosovo, led by you, Mr. President, a lasting warning that never again will the deportation, the terrorization of children and their parents, be allowed anywhere in the world? Will it discourage other dictators in other lands to do the same?” (Paragraph 22). Wiesel sees the intervention as right but also wonders whether it will be enough to prevent future wars and genocides. Given the way he ends his speech—with “profound fear and extraordinary hope”—he remains uncertain (Paragraph 25).

In sketching the dangers of indifference, Wiesel points to a number of contradictory conditions that made the Holocaust possible. He locates some of these paradoxes in the war effort of the United States. For instance, the United States led the Allied Powers into war against the Axis Powers, sacrificing blood and treasure to defeat Hitler. Yet American businesses continued to deal with the Nazis until 1942. He also points to the indifference demonstrated by President Roosevelt in turning back the St. Louis, loaded with almost 1,000 Jewish refugees, from American shores. These contradictions stump Wiesel. American soldiers liberated the death camps, but their country, which knew of the death camps at the highest levels of government, also demonstrated profound indifference to the pain and suffering of the Nazis’ victims.