This prompt is very hard to answer for the sole reason that no one has never been in the situation.  It is easy for an onlooker to say what any objective person would do in any situation; however, when a person’s life is on the line, the decisions they would have made are most likely different then the decisions they will make under the dire circumstances.  Hitler rose to basically absolute power.  He had his entire country stomping through Europe and committing ruthless atrocities everywhere they stepped foot.  We also see this happening in Macbeth.  He rises to power with the death of the king and the success of his scheme.  He begins to kill people and the people under his rule carry out his orders.  These two are extremely similar.  The people under the rule of these people carry out their orders because it is hard to combat the extreme, insane viciousness that is evident in both of these examples.  As Kirsch discusses in the article, you would need an equal amount of radically insane people doing positive work to counteract the vicious negativity already present. 

Honestly, it is impossible to gage anyone’s reaction to the evil that is possible to find in the world.  I personally believe that when you see evil rise up there are three potential options.  Firstly, a person can fight with all of their heart and soul against the evil and try to make a big enough sacrifice to eventually cause a chain reaction in the minds of the people around them.  The hope being that enough people begin to fight against the evil that the fiery resistance becomes enough to burn away the extreme darkness.  Secondly, a person could slowly work at the infrastructure of the organization.  A person could achieve success by forming a group, or a resistance, and slowly conjuring up enough people to eventually be able to fight the faction in control and to be able to destroy it all together.  Thirdly, as most people tend to do, you can do nothing.  Many people in this situation seem to observe, probably thinking that their own personal thoughts of disgust and hatred suffice to absolve their souls.  However, I believe that doing nothing, even when no option seems safe, is still worse then doing something and failing.

Because of all of this, I conclude that the onlookers should act as much as they can.  Casualties would be hard to avoid, and I do not think that the abrupt attack approach would work at all.  However, I do believe that the people in these examples, like the onlookers in Macbeth or the SS pharmacist (with his ignorance and desensitization) and Russian camp leader (Although he had good motives), should have done something.  Any lack of action would end up in at least some guilt even if they are not totally at fault, they assisted by not working against the problem that they were aware was a problem.  The people in Macbeth could have made an impact because of the smaller numbers involved while the people in World War two times would have had a harder time, but it was possible.  If it is possible, it can be made probable, and can turn into reality with determination and will.