The Perils of Indifference

On the 54th anniversary of his liberation from Buchenwald by American soldiers, Elie Wiesel addresses President Bill Clinton, First Lady Hillary Clinton, and other distinguished White House guests. This speech took place in April of 1999, during the Days of Remembrance set aside to foster awareness of the Holocaust and as the United States approached the 2000s. As a Holocaust survivor, Wiesel is chiefly concerned with combatting indifference, on which he blames much of the suffering of the previous millennium.

This guide references the publicly available version of the speech hosted at AmericanRhetoric.com.

Wiesel begins by narrating his liberation, as a Jewish boy, from Buchenwald, a Nazi concentration camp. This narration takes place in third person, with Wiesel observing how, on his first day of freedom, he nonetheless felt hopeless. Even in that state, though, he also felt an undying gratitude to the American soldiers—not specifically for their rescue, but for their rage and compassion in the moments of liberation. Despite not speaking English, young Wiesel felt that “their eyes told him what he needed to know—that they, too, would remember and bear witness” (Paragraph 2).

Wiesel transitions to the present, then, shifting to first person as he remarks that his gratitude to the American people indeed continues today. Gratitude, he argues, “is what defines the humanity of the human being” (Paragraph 3). In this light, he indicates his gratitude to Hillary Clinton as well for her humanitarian work around the world and expresses thanks to everyone for being present.

With the millennium coming to an end, Wiesel prompts the audience to consider what the legacy of the 20th century will be. Outlining some of the century’s biggest conflicts and most consequential assassinations, he shares his own assessment: “it will be judged, and judged severely, in both moral and metaphysical terms” (Paragraph 4). This reflection opens his discussion on indifference, which he blames for much of the 20th century’s failures.

He approaches indifference, which he refers to as a “strange and unnatural state” (Paragraph 5), with a series of questions about its nature and necessity. He acknowledges the lure of indifference, given that bearing witness to—let alone taking action against—the suffering of others can involve “rude interruptions” (Paragraph 6) to a person’s life. However, he observes, the effect of indifference on the indifferent person is to render the lives of their neighbors meaningless.

Wiesel immediately follows his observations of the indifferent person with a description of the Muselmanner in the death camps, prisoners who he felt had lost all connection to the world. He offers as well a brief glimpse into the psyche of the Jewish people in the camps: Being abandoned by humanity was not the worst possible thing that could happen. Rather, being abandoned by God was what they feared most. Punishment by God would be preferrable: “Better an unjust God than an indifferent one” (Paragraph 8). The Muselmanner, he seems to suggest, in being certain of their own abandonment, were “outside God” (Paragraph 8), unable to live.

Wiesel emphasizes the emptiness of indifference in contrast to anger and even hatred, which at least evoke responses and can inspire action. One of the greatest lessons of the 20th century, he concludes, is that practicing indifference is “not only a sin, it is a punishment” (Paragraph 11). In denying the suffering of others, we undermine our own humanity.

Wiesel reflects on how, in the camps, the victims’ “only miserable consolation” (Paragraph 14) was the belief that no one outside knew about the death camps at Auschwitz and Treblinka. Otherwise, they reasoned, the world would take action. Believing that their suffering was a secret, in other words, seemed more logical and comforting than imagining that the world could be indifferent. Yet, Wiesel confirms, the victims were mistaken: the highest levels of US government, including President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had known. Thus, even though Roosevelt led the Allied effort against Hitler and fascism, “his image in Jewish history is flawed” (Paragraph 15). Wiesel points to the case of the St. Louis as “a case in point” (Paragraph 16). Roosevelt did not allow this ship, with its almost 1,000 Jewish refugees from Germany, to dock on US soil, forcing it to return to Nazi Germany.

Wiesel makes mention of the Righteous Gentiles, those non-Jews who risked their lives to save and harbor Jews from the Nazis. He follows, however, with a series of rhetorical questions that highlight the far more prevalent indifference to the Jews’ plight. American corporations, he notes, continued to do business with the Nazis until 1942.

In an abrupt transition, Wiesel also acknowledges that the 20th century has included positive highlights. He lists several: “the defeat of Nazism, the collapse of communism, the rebirth of Israel on its ancestral soil, the demise of apartheid, Israel's peace treaty with Egypt, the peace accord in Ireland” (Paragraph 19). Wiesel gives special attention to the world’s recent intervention in Kosovo.

However, Wiesel keeps his optimism restrained, generating another series of rhetorical questions that prompt the audience to consider the significance of this intervention. Across several questions, with regard to Kosovo, Wiesel asks if this intervention means that society has learned from the past. Moreover, he asks whether it may serve as a deterrent against such crimes in the future.

Wiesel transitions again with a new question: “What about the children?” (Paragraph 23). His conclusion emphasizes their suffering before he ends the speech by calling back to its beginning, returning to the Jewish boy from the Carpathian Mountains. This boy, Wiesel remarks, “has accompanied the old man I have become throughout these years of quest and struggle” (Paragraph 25). With this boy still at his side, Wiesel looks to the future with a mixture of fear and hope—fear that the 20th century’s pattern of war and suffering will continue into the new millennium and hope that the global community will resist indifference.