I think that the arguments presented in Wiesel's speech are highly logical and force democratic societies that stand for freedom and tolerance to examine their own policies and predispositions. For example, when Wiesel criticizes America of the 1930s for silence, it is a logical analysis of American intervention in the war. The mythic retelling of American entry into World War II was to stand for democracy and freedom, whose antithesis was present in the form of Hitler and the Nazis. Yet, Wiesel points to FDR's and the government's silence to the problem, even rejecting Jewish refugees who escaped from death only to be sent back to it. The idea of demanding voice in the face of injustice and resisting silence and indifference as paths if one believes in freedom is of critical importance and logically made in Wiesel's speech. At the time of his writing, the ethnic cleansing happening in Rwanda and the war crimes perpetrated in the former Yugoslavian republic were moments where the United States had to reexamine its own position towards these and the points made in Wiesel's speech help to resolve any potential inaction that one might feel would be an appropriate course: "Indifference is not a response... it is a sin."