just a few of many student conducted interviews with amazing people who survived the Holocaust either by hiding or by just staying alive for their loved ones. The interviewees are not only survivors but also people who helped other survive and saw what these people went through.
The Kennan Institute and National Public Radio in the USA has established an online audio archive of Soviet and Russian history. "The archive consists of recordings dating back to the earliest years of the Soviet state. Included are the voices and speeches of key political figures, including Lenin, Kerensky, Kirov, Beria, Stalin, Gorbachev, and others. Among the recorded interviews are Anna Larina (Bukharin's widow); Valentin Berezhkov, Stalin's wartime interpreter; Yelena Bonner, Sakharov's widow; and Lev Pevsner, a survivor of the Leningrad Blockade. There is also on-the-scene recorded sound of many events in Soviet history, including: the Russian and American armies meeting at the Elbe; Stalin's funeral; the August 1991 coup against Gorbachev. [...] The material comes from Soviet and Russian sources, the NPR archives, the archives of the BBC, and individual donors. Some of the material is in Russian, some in English. "
The bulk of the audio files are in Russian, however if you scroll down closely there are speeches by significant Western figures too. Yet another excellent set of resources from the Woodrow Wilson Center.
All new history is revisionist history.
This only gets dicey with the Holocaust since Survivors use the term "revisionist" for deniers or justifiers of the Holocaust.
All new history is revisionist history.
This only gets dicey with the Holocaust since Survivors use the term "revisionist" for deniers or justifiers of the Holocaust.
As this definition shows, communist historians can be revisionists and right-wing historians can be revisionist.
All historians should aim to be revisionist if they are writing for academics (i.e. journals) and not the general public, if not there really is no reason to publish and no reason why the historian's work should be published since it is not new and not "revising" what we already know.