BIIf section. In the book, we learn that the 1930 World Cup brought in by one of the SS men was the stake in this match, whereas the award of this statuette only began in 1974. In June 1930, FIFA organised the first World Championship in football (so-called the World Cup), but the trophy in this competition - the Nike Golden statuette - was a challenge trophy. The winner was the tournament's host Uruguay (France, mentioned in the novel as the competition winner, did not even make it to the semi-finals). The Italians won the next championship in 1934, and so the Golden Nike statuette remained in Italy for the next 16 years, until 1950. It is therefore impossible that the trophy was in Auschwitz in 1944.
The basic concepts of the history of Auschwitz are repeatedly mistaken in the book. For instance, in the fragment presenting Lale’s dialogue with SS man (Stefan) Baretzki the penal company (SK) was apparently located in Block 11 of the parent camp, but in May 1942 it had already been moved to Birkenau. Ludovit Eisenberg’s stay in Block 11 and later in the penal company are two separate events occurring in two different parts of KL Auschwitz.
The claim that no prisoner detained in Block 11 left the cell alive is untrue; on the contrary, most of them were released into the camp after the investigations. Some also survived the war and have testified to this. Likewise, it is not true that no-one survived the stay in the penal company, as the opposite was the case in the realities of 1944. It should also be noted that while Block 11 (or rather its underground cells) may be called a “penal block”, Block 10, contrary to information contained in the book, did not serve such a function.
The book’s narrative does not differentiate the function of Kapo (guarding prisoners during work) from block leader (supervising inside the blocks). Here, the Kapo seems to personify all prison camp functions related to the control of prisoners. Similarly, the concepts of selection and registration have been erroneously used and identified - the narrative claims that these processes were conducted in parallel, i.e. female prisoners were examined in terms of capability to work during the number tattooing process. This is not true, as registration was conducted after selection.
To sum up: the reality of the war, especially the historical and socio-psychological context of the concentration camp, has been fictionalised and poetised in this book. The Birkenau camp is also presented as a place where prisoners moved about almost freely between various parts during the day and at night, visiting friends in other sectors. The fact that particular sections of the camp were separated with barbed wire, and moving between them was strictly prohibited (and due to the presence of guards, practically impossible) is not reflected in the book. Likewise, the strictly observed separation of residential parts dedicated to male and female prisoners is not recognised. Men were not allowed to enter the premises of the women’s camp without a justified reason, related to the performance of duties (only the craftsmen commando were given access in order to perform specific works). This is why it was impossible that Gita and her friends could be among prisoners watching the soccer game between prisoners and the SS.
Ludovit Eisenberg’s relationship with Gisela Furman is described in the book; at one point the block leader agrees to call the prisoner from her workplace (located behind wires, that is, outside the restricted area of the camp) and lead her to the block to meet her beloved, in exchange for some chocolate. However, due to the situation of the building marked by the author as the administrative building, Lale could not have met with Gita at the back of the building. Firstly, to get there they would have to go beyond the camp gate, and furthermore, this building is adjacent to the SS barrack. Hiding behind it out of sight of the SS men was merely impossible.
These are only selected examples of errors and irregularities contained in the book. It should be stated that 'The Tattooist of Auschwitz' is based on the authentic history of a prisoner, whose stay and function in the camp can be documented. It also presents verifiable facts from Ludovit Eisenberg’s biography. Nonetheless, upon reading the content of the novel and analysing the image of the camp depicted in it, one must conclude that his connection with the authentic history is very loose. Much of the information presented in the book is not confirmed in sources and literature on the subject. The book should, therefore, be perceived as an impression devoid of documentary value on the topic of Auschwitz, only inspired by authentic events. The proportion between testimony and factography and the narrative fiction are definitely shifted towards literariness.