Attention TRUC, DANIEL and VINCENT...

I am still waiting for your response to the statement; 'a thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased.'

National Guilt - Hans Frank Quote Response

“A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased.”

This quote revolves around the national guilt of the German people during World War 2 and their crimes committed by Hitler’s Germany. It was said by Hans Frank, a former Nazi governor of Poland. In some aspects, I do agree with the statement above. However, there are other areas in which I disagree that the guilt of Germany will not be erased.

I strongly believe that future generations after WW2 will still feel that they are responsible for the crimes committed by Hitler’s Germany. They feel as if they cannot wash the blood off their hands. In an article, Bernard Schlink (author of ‘The Reader’) pointed out that “Children inevitably share some of that guilt...Not because they were directly involved but their parents, teachers and those they look up to as people of admiration may have had a concealed past.” If a child was suddenly told that his or her father was involved in the holocaust and slaughtered many lives, the child would be full of regret and would immediately feel the desire to re-pay the debts his or her father had caused to the Jews. In essence, I believe that the guilt would not fade away. By having this guilt and remorse created by future generations, it makes them pay homage to the victims of the Holocaust, acknowledging that Jews were a serious victim of torture, torment and slaughter. In this way, Jews who were involved in the Holocaust and the children of the victims are able to be at peace and gain respect and acknowledgement from the outside world. Although victims of the Holocaust may never forgive Germany for exposing them to genocide, they know that Germany acknowledges that they are guilty and as long as history stands, they will always feel regret and do not wish to impose any prolonging threats against the Jews made by their ancestors.

However, society, as a whole, should move onward and need not remind themselves about the atrocities of WW2 and the Nazi’s whenever they hear the word “German” or “Germany” in the next thousand years. There are those who have become ashamed of calling themselves “German” because of WW2. It is true that one must recount history, learning about mistakes in the past to advance and learn for the future. But it does not need to be exaggerated like Frank’s quote. The Crusades between the Christians and Muslims occurred roughly a thousand years ago, yet no strong collective guilt is felt between Christians today. There are no memorials to celebrate the end of the Crusades, neither are there any emphatic gestures of apology today. In a thousand years time, would the same occur for the Holocaust? Would people forget about the atrocities although it has been engraved in the sandstones of history? Although I strongly believe that the victims of the Holocaust should be remembered, we cannot guarantee that the collective guilt of Germans will never be erased.

I do believe that the guilt caused by the Nazis of those who were not involved will be difficult to erase. But as history has told us with the Crusades, this “guilt” defined by Frank may not last for a thousand years. It could fade away as time burries the events of the past. This guilt felt by Germans who were not involved in WW2 should not be taken lightly. 11 million to 17 million of Jews were slaughtered for no definite reason. This guilt should last as a reminder and a gesture remembrance to the countless victims killed during the Holocaust.

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 1^st 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 4^th-5^th generation would be much less under the shadow of guilt, much less than the 1^st and 2^nd generation, where there are personal links and the shock of coming to terms with the situation is intense.

For Thursday 3rd December

Write 500 words expressing your response to the statement: "A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased”

Vincent's response to the use of Prolepsis in Atonement.

“Briony was hardly to know it then, but this was the project’s highest point of fulfillment”

This is a short but significant prolepsis because it shows the reader Briony’s role in the novel. Firstly, the author suggests to the reader that the play that Briony made, which is seen as very childish would be the best thing Briony would achieve throughout the whole novel. This would make us think about why and how Briony wouldn’t be able to achieve anything else better than just a play, perhaps she will do something bad that would make the reader loose sympathy for her, or her character is simply boring and monotonous.

Furthermore, this quote also creates an emphasis on how important the play would be and how it would contribute a lot to the novel, because the play reflects on Briony’s character and on how she sees everything in black and white. Perhaps this would be bad later on in the story, for example when she sees Robbie and Cecilia by the fountain or when the blamed Robbie for the rape just because she saw him as a bad guy from a fairy tale.

Prolepsis (Extract 2)

“Six decades later [Briony] would describe how at the age of thirteen she had written her way through a whole history of literature, beginning with stories derived from the European traditional folk tales, through drama with simple moral intent, to arrive at an impartial psychological realism which she had discovered for herself, one special morning during a heat wave in 1935.”

Prolepsis is the rhetorical act of anticipation (in essence, here, the reader’s ‘premature’ knowledge of later events). In other words, the author gives account of future events that will definitely come true to the reader. The use of “six decades later” creates this effect.

Earlier on, McEwan introduces Briony to the reader. She is seen as an immature, innocent, ignorant and short-sighted girl. When McEwan uses prolepsis, he hints a transition in the character of Briony. “Six decades later”, he suggests that Briony has become very wise and mature, realising her faults in her late childhood. In some way, the distaste for Briony that the reader created for her is reduced, knowing that Briony will eventually realise her faults and strip away her childhood characteristics.

The use of “six decades later” also reveals the fact that Briony has survived the war. Within these six decades, McEwan informs the reader that Briony has experienced a long and enduring journey in reference to her passion for writing: “...had written her way through a whole history of literature”. This also reveals that Briony will mature rapidly in her writing, as well as her thoughts of the world around her through her written expression.

Furthermore, McEwan’s use of prolepsis lures the reader. The reader is intrigued to find out what will happen “six decades later”. The reader questions if Briony truly does become a mature person and wants to know how she survived the war and her experiences during that period.

Prolepsis in Atonement (extract 3 from page 90 --- on handout)

PROLEPSIS IN ATONEMENT (EXTRACT ANALYSIS)

“To what extent is prolepsis used on page 90 and to what effect?”

“In years to come he would often think back to this time, when he walked along the footpath that made a shortcut through a corner of the oak woods and joined the main drive where it curved towards the lake and the house.” – PAGE 90.

This is the scene before he gave the letter to Briony, and the letter giving should have been a small event, but it wasn’t depicted to be so due to the way the author has phrased the aforementioned sentence. The letter giving becomes very significant and the extract emphasizes the event and heightens its importance in order to impact how we feel about the oncoming outcome of the events, we begin to understand the true magnitude of devastation and havoc that will be caused because the author clearly states that the next few pages will contain an event that will be so major that it will be prevalent later on in the novel or in the life of the character, “In years to come”. Through prolepsis the author uses minor events and heightens its importance in order to monitor a particular character carefully, focus on the larger picture and perceive the next few pages differently in order to have a greater impact on the advent of important events in the novel. And this way, McEwan, with his specific phrasing, effectively allows the reader to not only focus on shock or the unfolding of events (as passive readers) but to focus on the moral issue and the idea conveyed and HOW the unfolding of events took place (as active readers) and hence, this has an engaging effect.

Prolepsis in 'Atonement'

5. ‘Within the half hour Briony would commit her crime.’

This statement is the first sentence of chapter thirteen and so its impact is big. When the reader reads this, he/she would immediately ask ‘what crime?’ This subtle hint of future events will engage the reader and compel him/her to keep reading on to find out what the ‘crime’ is. The reader could also predict and roughly guess what the ‘crime’ Briony will commit is by inferring from the previous events and Briony’s childish and melodramatic way of thinking. The readers can also infer ‘The Trials of Arabella’, Briony’s play, which basically shows what happens in the book. This is another example of prolepsis McEwan uses in the novel ‘Atonement’. So by doing this, McEwan makes the reader lose sympathy for Briony and we start to dislike Briony. This also gives away what Briony does so it may ruin it for readers who like surprises hence the critical remarks by critics who are against prolepsis.
However, this particular sentence is more of a foreshadowing than a prolepsis. This is because it doesn’t exactly tell us what is going to happen but only leaves subtle clues of what might happen afterwards.
Therefore, by using prolepsis and foreshadowing, McEwan makes readers think and keeps them ‘active’ throughout the book and not passive.