ABSTRACT
In Primo Levi’s memoir, Survival in Auschwitz, there is a moment where the inmate Levi tries to break off an icicle to quench his tormenting thirst, only to have a guard knock it out of his hand. When Levi asks the guard why, the guard merely replies ‘Hier ist kein warum (There is no why here)’.1 As an inmate and a victim, Levi is singularly ill positioned to know much about the motivations or goals of his tormenters, the guards. It is not the case that there was no ‘why’ to Auschwitz, only that no guard would have, or would have been able to, explain it to a prisoner. To the victims, the why of Auschwitz remained the mysterious purview of their tormenters. This exchange between a victim of Auschwitz and one of its perpetrators reveals something quite fundamental about the value and limitations of testimony as a source of historical evidence.2 As a historical source, testimony is extremely valuable for answering some kinds of questions but nearly useless for addressing others.
