"Account of despairing and then being persuaded to live by Czech Jewish girls?" More like two preteen girls, buck naked except for a gold chain worn by one that the evil Nazis hadn't bothered to confiscate, calmly resigned to their fate who learned through telepathy that an adult man whom they had never met had chosen to commit suicide and determined that he must live to bear witness, dragged him against his will and against the stream of hundreds of terrified Jews being forced into a gas chamber, to the entrance and threw him out.
Filip Mueller didn't preface this particular passage with an "OK, here's where I'm lying." and then tell us "OK, here's where I start telling the truth" when he gets to the passages quoted by historians. When you have source that mixes obvious fantasy with what might be the truth in a book that pretends to tell the whole truth, it's better to pass on that source and find one that doesn't do that.
Maybe this particular story isn't quoted by holocaust historians but leaving out the ◊◊◊◊◊◊t crazy utterances of holocaust witnesses when quoting them is par for the course.
I would ask the same of you. How much much of a witness' testimony can be fantastical before the entire testimony is considered unreliable?
Arguments to incredulity are quite effective when witness statements are in fact incredible. In a modern court a witness doesn't have to tell too many lies before their entire testimony is unreliable. I know that lying by holocaust eyewitnesses is tolerated to a greater degree. There is the attitude, expressed by one participant on another board, that: "I have a personal rule, which many other also have, that I will not question the veracity of a survivor's account - this is the reality that they recall they lived through."
But that's because the holocaust is held to a different st.....Oh, never mind.
