In 2001, the Journal of Historical Review published a short article penned by Theodore O'Keefe about the famous Austrian psychologist Viktor Frankl. On the basis of statements by Frankl and of research by orthodox historians, O'Keefe showed that Frankl was not particularly truthful in his recollections about his stay at the Auschwitz Camp. In response to a German translation of OKeefe's paper, Austrian engineer Walter Lüftl wrote a letter to the editor, in which he excused Frankl's inaccuracies, and emphasized his love of truth otherwise. The present article systematically examines Frankl's account of his experiences at Auschwitz. The reader is left to judge, how far Frankl's love of truth really does, when it comes to his experiences at and around Auschwitz.
To the impartial observer, a testimony by an individual who belonged to a group allegedly targeted by the Nazis for extermination does not always sound absolutely convincing, but who would wish to insinuate that those who had such terrible experiences during the war are not telling the truth? In the eyes of the public, the Holocaust survivors have become sanctified, indubitable, and irreproachable. It is precisely in this respect that skepticism, criticism and scrutiny have become most important. This section deals with persons who were on the side of the alleged victims and who either confirmed or denied the claimed events – or sometimes both. What are these testimonies worth?