The Accountant of Auschwitz

Overall entertaining but after the end you have the feel like the documentary is overly biased

In not to repeat the mistakes of history, we should learn about them. Oskar Groning was told in the 60s he would not be prosecuted. He openly and frankly discussed what happened at Auschwitz. He should not be prosecuted because he is doing more to prevent the repetition of history than his trial and conviction would ever achieve. Until he spoke, the world had only heard the story of the camp from one side. Thanks to Oskar, the history has been told.

If Oskar is to be prosecuted, then the member of the zondercommando, if alive, who admitted to killing a fellow prisoner who was German should be tried for murder.

To have access to the trove of information, including much in the public domain from interviews and the trial of the 'Accountant' is a documentary film makers dream. But in this work, it is spoiled by scant regard for basic journalism and documentary makers 'Rule #1 - trust but verify' sources statements. That the subject was not even spoken to in the making of the film, nor statements included being second-source validated, was a real distortion, leaving the otherwise exceptionally interesting subject an Emperor with no clothes

Oskar Grönig was a member of the SS and a bookkeeper at the Aushwitz concentration camp during World War II. In 2014 (when he was ninety-three years old), he was tried in a German court for being an accessory to murder. The details of the trial and related histories are recounted in this Canadian documentary.

Director Matthew Shoychet and writer Ricki Gurwitz are clearly skilled as their film has all the elements of a great documentary including solid footage - some going back to the Holocaust itself, clever title devices that summarize history as they juxtapose the footage, and the inclusion of all sides of the debate. The debate, of course, is whether Grönig should be on trial due to his advanced age plus his past efforts to fight against the denial of the Holocaust in the 1990s.

Some of the post-Holocaust histories include German trials (in the 1950s and 1960s) of those who were directly involved in the murders as well as the trials in later decades of those, like Grönig, who were captured and tried as accessories.

Another praiseworthy element of the film is the many intelligent interviewees. They provide great insight on many discussions including various views on forgiveness (which follows a very surprising event during the trial) and how the phrase 'never again' has ended up as a sad failure considering the genocides that followed the Holocaust.

By the film's conclusion, it is evident that even though the Holocaust ended over seven decades ago, it remains a real-life drama that can still cause shivers and bring out the best as well as the worst in people. It has obviously brought out the best in the creators of "The Accountant of Auschwitz". - dbamateurcritic

That accountant was guilty, justice is blind. Age is no excuse for crimes. The only question is how do you punish them in a fair way. But I stand firmly on the side of those that seek justice. There are a lot of complexities in bringing a trial about. But at the end of the day you need to punish the guilty, no matter how long it takes. Its the morally right thing to do. I don't want to sound draconian but if you are guilty of crimes against humanity then you are guilty.