Book Review: Alexander Batthyány, Viktor Frankl and the Shoah: Advancing the Debate

Abstract

Ethical and trustworthy historical research methodologies and interpretations are at the core of Batthyány’s1 book, advancing a significant debate with historian Timothy Pytell. Viktor Frankl and the Shoah: Advancing the Debate is a response to claims made by Pytell, the author of Viktor Frankl’s Search for Meaning: An Emblematic 20th-Century Life (2015), the English version of his Viktor Frankl: Das Ende eines Mythos? (2005).2 The debate is focused on the life of Viktor Emil Frankl, MD, PhD (1905–97). Frankl pioneered logotherapy and wrote the renowned Holocaust testimony, Man’s Search for Meaning. It has been translated into over 50 languages, sold over 16 million copies, and is currently listed on Amazon’s ‘Top 100 Books to Read in a Lifetime’. Viktor Frankl and the Shoah is mainly based on an interview that Batthyány provided to the Austrian psychotherapy magazine No:os in 2005 (the original and full-length interview was published by Batthyány in 2007). It should be noted that I read Pytell’s book (twice) in 2019 and also shortly after Batthyány published his book. Pytell’s stated purpose was a reconstruction of Frankl’s intellectual biography. Viktor Frankl and the Shoah: Advancing the Debate consists of eight chapters, each specifically identifying a false claim made by Pytell and then offering a counter-argument with evidence. These chapters are book-ended with a foreword by Wolfgang Neugebauer3 and an afterword by William Evans.4 At the outset, Neugebauer states why he supports Batthyány’s writing. Neugebauer claims he has rarely encountered such a multitude of manipulations, factual errors, and ignorance of archival research as he finds in Pytell’s book. To underscore the consistency of Pytell’s sub-standard academic labour, Neugebauer reports on another article that Pytell authored. According to Neugebauer, this article both falsely accuses him of claiming that Frankl did not sabotage any Jewish euthanasia5 and lied about interviewing him (Neugebauer posits he had a short casual conversation with Pytell in 1997 and not an interview, as Pytell reports). William Evans also attacked distortions he found in Pytell’s work, accusing Pytell of creating a historical strawman version of Frankl. To further support the argument that Pytell’s book is based on slipshod historical research, Batthyány cites four book reviews from peer-reviewed publications suggesting that Pytell’s analysis is superficial and full of errors (e.g. Allan Janik’s 2007 review of Pytell’s 2005 German version in Central European History).