Simon Wiesenthal Analysis
Simon Wiesenthal takes his readers on a course back in time with his writings of The Sunflower. Simon recollects moments when he was subjected to live in Nazi concentration camps during World War II. Karl, a dying SS soldier implores for forgiveness for his crimes against Jews of Simon. Our main character is conflicted by the request and leaves his readers by asking what would one have done being in his position. Providing an answer to this question can be determined by the analysis of Simon’s experiences and findings of experimenters. Philip Zimbardo and Stanley Milgram’s experiments demonstrate the relationship and effects that authority has on subjects. In “The Perils of Obedience”, Milgram applies his analysis of his experiments showing
…show more content…
When retelling his early training experiences, Karl says, “We were told time after time we must be prepared for great doings. Each of us must show himself a man...He must be tough. There was no place for humanitarian nonsense”(Weisenthal 35). Karl is directly being told to prove his manhood, as being amongst others Karl wouldn't want to be perceived as weak. He was made to believe that his actions were justifiable due to a bigger cause and man would feel encouraged to partake in “great doings”. As a result, readers identify how Karl’s development as an SS was heavy influenced by his commanders. Milgram’s article provides insight on Karl's mentality by stating, “ The subjects do not derive satisfaction from inflicting pain, but they often like the feeling they get from pleasing the experimenter They are proud of doing a good job” (Milgram 75). This statement says that subjects aren’t satisfied by the pain of others, but rather fulfilled by the completion of their tasks commanded by experimenters. Milgram reasons that subjects have a hard time releasing authority because they believe they are making the experimenter content by executing their commands. Just like the subjects of Milgram’s experiments, Karl himself has been a subject in his young SS days and was motivated by the words of his leaders in which he found approval. All these circumstances explain that Karl’s thinking was altered by social ideology which drove him to believe what his actions were
When retelling his early training experiences, Karl says, “We were told time after time we must be prepared for great doings. Each of us must show himself a man...He must be tough. There was no place for humanitarian nonsense”(Weisenthal 35). Karl is directly being told to prove his manhood, as being amongst others Karl wouldn't want to be perceived as weak. He was made to believe that his actions were justifiable due to a bigger cause and man would feel encouraged to partake in “great doings”. As a result, readers identify how Karl’s development as an SS was heavy influenced by his commanders. Milgram’s article provides insight on Karl's mentality by stating, “ The subjects do not derive satisfaction from inflicting pain, but they often like the feeling they get from pleasing the experimenter They are proud of doing a good job” (Milgram 75). This statement says that subjects aren’t satisfied by the pain of others, but rather fulfilled by the completion of their tasks commanded by experimenters. Milgram reasons that subjects have a hard time releasing authority because they believe they are making the experimenter content by executing their commands. Just like the subjects of Milgram’s experiments, Karl himself has been a subject in his young SS days and was motivated by the words of his leaders in which he found approval. All these circumstances explain that Karl’s thinking was altered by social ideology which drove him to believe what his actions were