Today me and my robot assistant are going to analyze some witness testimony from Filip Müller.
Filip Müller is said to have been a member of the Sonderkommando, a unit of Jewish inmates that were allegedly forced to help the Germans with the murdering of other Jews.
According to Wikipedia Müller witnessed tens of thousands of murders. The ‘testimony’ section in his Wiki page has zero criticisms of his claims.
I told my robot assistant, who I will call Bill, about some of Müller’s testimony (I am using passages from Jürgen Graf’s Auschwitz: Eyewitness Reports and Perpetrator Confessions of the Holocaust). Bill agreed that Müller’s statement about undressing victims after the alleged gassing contradicted other witness testimony and would have been impractical and dangerous.
Bill also agreed that using human fat for fuel during cremation is not supported by scientific evidence. Bill, like many humans, is hardwired to believe the Holocaust. Bill makes excuses for Müller’s false testimony and in the last paragraph he states, “Regardless of the origins of the story, it is important to approach historical accounts of the Holocaust with a critical eye and to rely on established facts and evidence whenever possible.” You’ll see exactly what this means in the next section.
I asked Bill if Müller could be a reliable witness considering his contradictory and false claims. Bill admits there are criticisms of Müller’s testimony. Bill also says Müller’s accounts are valuable and are widely cited as a source of information about the Holocaust. So when Bill says, “Regardless of the origins of the story, it is important to approach historical accounts of the Holocaust with a critical eye and to rely on established facts and evidence whenever possible.” What he means is that when it comes to the official Holocaust narrative, which is an ‘established fact’, it is ok to cherry-pick witness testimony for details that jive with the preconceived notion that the Holocaust is real.
What happens when I take the Holocaust factor out? I asked about the validity of the testimony of a hypothetical person named Mary, who was witness to a crime yet claimed to see physically impossible things. Of course the answer is that he credibility should be taken into question. When I compounded the issue by stating that Mary had a long standing grudge against the accused, Bill said that that further undermined the credibility of her testimony.
When I asked it why these factors were not taken into consideration with Holocaust survivor testimony the answer actually surprised me. Bill said that their testimony is unique and sensitive and there are some differences in the way Holocaust survivor testimony is evaluated compared to other types of evidence. Bill further states that testimony is often used to establish facts that may be difficult or impossible to establish through other forms of evidence. So when it comes to the Holocaust, facts can be established on the basis of testimony alone.
Thus, Bill and I have established that Holocaust privilege exists. What is Holocaust privilege? Holocaust privilege is a concept that highlights the unfair societal advantages that the Holocaust has over other historical events. It is something that is pervasive throughout society and exists in all of the major systems and institutions that operate in society, as well as on an interpersonal level.
In so many of our communities and countries, Holocaust privilege is endemic. It’s built-in, like rot in a frame. And it remains, festers, and spreads because many of those in charge allow it to. Others look away and pretend it’s not there. But like cancer, if ignored, it grows. In the name of equality, Holocaust privilege must be dismantled.