Why work with testimonies of persecuted people?
To this day, the history of persecution processes of all kinds is often reconstructed mainly through sources left behind by perpetrators. Indeed, these documents can provide a deep insight into the planning and execution of persecution. However, as historiography on the history of the Holocaust has shown in recent decades, it is not enough to base the research into a persecution process purely on the sources of perpetrators. In addition to the individual experiences of the persecuted, the focus on perpetrator sources fails to recognize the complexity of persecution practices. Saul Friedländer heavily influenced this change of perspective within the historiography of the Holocaust, which argues that the history of persecution should no longer be written only from the side of the perpetrators, but also from the one of the victims. He coined the term “integrated history” for this.1 The following will briefly outline the potential for insight that lies in the testimonies of persecuted people and how one can work with such sources.
What knowledge potential does working with testimonies have?
Working with self-testimonies of persecution victims provides the opportunity to analyse the individual experiences, during the persecution process. This can include, for example, their hopes, fears, perceptions and emotions as well as their everyday lives. Often the efforts to maintain an everyday life within the difficult living conditions are evident. These are all aspects that we are unable to deduce from the perpetrators’ documents. In them, the reality of the victims’ lives, their scope for action and their plans for the future remain largely hidden from us. The inclusion of personal testimonies give the persecuted a voice and face, so to speak. Extended biographical research thus makes a whole life story visible and does not reduce the victims to a phase of persecution.
Last but not least, the victims’ perspective also helps us to better understand persecution processes. The sources left behind by the victims often give us much deeper insights into the behaviour of collaborators, bystanders and neighbours than other sources can.2 In recent decades, the historiography has shown the extent to which the perpetrators were depended on assistance from local institutions, but also from residents who denounced their neighbours out of opportunism, ideological conviction and other reasons. In this way, the dynamics of persecution processes at the micro level can be better understood and a more accurate picture of the practices of perpetrators and the “bystander community ”3 ( Mary Fulbrook) can be drawn.4
How to work with testimonies?
The basic tool for working with testimonies is the same as for any other type of source in historical studies: a specific question directed at the source as well as source critique. This is divided into external critique, which deals with the origin of the source, and internal critique, which focuses more on the content of the source.
For external source critique, the origin of the source is determined first: When does it come from? Where was it written? Who is the author? Does the source have an addressee or an intention for transmission? Why was the source created? And to which source genre can we assign it?
In the next step, we try to determine the transmission history of the source: Is the stated author really the author? How was the source handed down? Are there several versions or parallel traditions of it? Is it authentic or possibly a forgery? Has the source been handed down in its entirety or are segments of the source missing?
We then subject the source to internal source critique, i.e. a precise analysis of the content. To do this, we first work out the content and internal structure of the source. In the next step, we try to find out as much as possible about the biographical background of the author(s). What kind of political/ socio-economic/ cultural background did the author have? Was he or she part of an institution or organization? What was the reason for producing the source and to whom was it addressed? What exactly does the author tell us and what does he or she not tell us?
We then try to embed the source in its historical context: In what political/ social/ societal/ economic framework did it emerge? Which of the contemporary historical processes are depicted by the author and which are not? What does it tell us that some processes are perhaps deliberately not depicted? How can the representations of the source be contextualized with the knowledge from historiography?
Finally, we try to bring together the individual insights gained from the source to form an interpretation of the source that relates to the question formulated at the beginning and incorporates the knowledge from the historiography. In this way, we can also examine the extent to which the source work can provide new knowledge and offer a corrective to previous historiography.
References
- For more details see: Saul Friedländer, Eine integrierte Geschichte des Holocaust, in: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung online, 23.03.2007, https://www.bpb.de/themen/nationalsozialismus-zweiter-weltkrieg/dossier-nationalsozialismus/39637/eine-integrierte-geschichte-des-holocaust/, accessed on 06.12.2022.
- On the concept of bystanders, see: Raul Hilberg, Täter, Opfer, Zuschauer. Die Vernichtung der Juden 1933–1945, Frankfurt am Main 2011, 5th ed. [1996].
- For Mary Fulbrook’s reflections on a “bystander community”, see: Mary Fulbrook: Bystanders. Catchall Concept, Alluring Alibi, or Crucial Clue?, in: Christina Morina, Krijn Thijs (eds.): Probing the Limits of Categorization. The Bystander in Holocaust History, New York and Oxford 2019, p. 15–35.
- For an example of current research on the microhistory of the Holocaust, see Claire Zalc, Tal Bruttmann (eds.): Microhistories of the Holocaust, New York and Oxford 2017.