REGENERATION

"...I believe that I may help to destroy the callous complacence with which the majority of those at home regard the continuance of agonies which they do not share, and which they have not sufficient imagination to realise."

Siegfried Sassoon - 1917

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

HANS FRANK QUOTATION - My response, By Arusha.

Hans Frank, the Nazi governor of Poland, stated right after the Nuremberg trials that “A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased”
The aforementioned quote was said during a time of immense feelings of guilt, remorse, despondency. At this point, it was an intense time, Hans Frank seemed to have honestly uttered this statement, however, that is arguable.

I would agree with Hans Frank’s statement, I believe that the guilt of the Nazi’s is a collective guilt felt by the people of Germany. I say so for the mere reason that those who were NOT directly involved (or were not harmed) were therefore, not involved and by not involving themselves, they looked on while history was unfolding before them. Therefore, the generation of that particular time felt guilt and remorse collectively for having not extending themselves in a time of need. The people directly involved, on the other hand, would most definitely feel guilt because it is clearly established that what the Nazi’s did was unforgivable, and therefore no significant amount of time would erase their act. And since their act can never be erased effectively enough, the children of the following generations will reside under the shadow of the past, as Bernhard Schlink also makes clear in his novel “The Reader”.

The reason that Hans Frank feels as though an exceedingly large number of years could never diminish the resentment and guilt felt by those who were, in fact, not the direct perpetrators of the heinous crime committed an age ago, is because the 1st generation to follow the war, are the children of either the perpetrators, the onlookers, or the harmed. The children of the perpetrators would feel guilt for ever having loved those, for ever having admire those that turned out to be involved in such a monstrous crime, and even though they were previously oblivious to it, they would still feel the guilt when it’s a matter of coming to terms with redefining their relationship with their loved ones and feeling a sense of disappointment and disgust at having been loved by the person who could carry out such terrible tasks. The children of the on-lookers were inclusive of those to feel the guilt in years to come due to the fact that they also must redefine their relationship with their loved ones. They must do so because, as time progressed and so did their education and awareness, they realized the true magnitude of destruction caused, and wish to understand why the acts didn’t come to end when they could have, hence they feel as though the guilt rests upon them because they are the ones involved with those who were involved, they must learn to live with the thoughts that those they respected, turned out to be coldhearted enough to ignore their surroundings when the situation worsened. The children of those harmed of course, just feel guilt for ever having been part of a country that so conveniently banished them, therefore, they feel guilt alongside disgust and grief.

Perhaps we can say that the quote was exaggerated, even though I agree with it, I wouldn’t entirely state that a thousand years would diminish the guilt felt by the oncoming generations, but the 4th-5th generation would be much less under the shadow of guilt, much less than the 1st and 2nd generation, where there are personal links and the shock of coming to terms with the situation is intense.

1 comment:

Miss T. said...

An honest and thoughtful response, Arusha. You sympathise strongly with Schlink's assertions that even those who were not the 'direct perpetrators' feel the shame of the Holocaust.

You said:
"The children of the perpetrators would feel guilt for ever having loved those, for ever having admire those that turned out to be involved in such a monstrous crime, and even though they were previously oblivious to it, they would still feel the guilt when it’s a matter of coming to terms with redefining their relationship with their loved ones and feeling a sense of disappointment and disgust at having been loved by the person who could carry out such terrible tasks."

This very clearly explored by Schlink in the novel as Micheal struggles to define and come to terms with his relationship with Hanna - the only woman he has ever been able to love. Do you think that Micheal seeks to forgive her actions or even to justify them? Is this perhaps what Schlink wants his reader to think about - can there be absolution for people who have committed such unthinkable crimes?

You are quite correct to comment that Frank's original statement was made at a time of emotional intensity (his trial for war Crimes) and therefore possibly liable to being more exaggerated. As Schlink himself says, it is easier for each new German generation to forget the shadows of their past.

Well done.