______

The Difficulties of Oral Testimonies

An Examination of the Validity of Oral Testimonies as a Source of Historical Documentation
Jared Weber 4/17/2013

In the last century, a large interest has arisen in individuals who have lived through some sort of dramatic event such as the Holocaust, World War II, the Korean War, etc. Grand Valley even has its own oral history project for documenting the experiences of war veterans in the Grand Rapids area. Particularly, people have become interested in the stories of these living pieces of history. As a result of this interest in the stories of individuals of all types and not just the stories of particularly important or wealthy individuals, a number of projects have been begun in an attempt to document the stories of these people through oral histories. Many of the people of interest for these projects are getting old, so there is a rush to try and document their experiences before they die and their tales are lost forever. A number of projects, such as the USC Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education, have turned their attention to collecting the testimonies of the ever dwindling number of Holocaust survivors; documenting their lives before, after, and, probably most importantly, during the tragic loss of life that was a result of the Holocaust. Because the war ended nearly seventy years ago, the survivors are succumbing to age at an exponentially increasing rate, and the attempt to acquire these first-hand accounts of camp life is a race against time. These testimonies help us remember those who went through the Holocaust, either in camps or in hiding, and they also give us some idea of the horrors faced daily by these individuals. However, the fact that these testimonies are given orally and so long after the Holocaust have raised the question for many: can oral testimonies by Holocaust survivors be considered a valid method of historical documentation? Especially since the Holocaust took place seventy years ago. Time can skew memories, so can these histories from the memory of numerous individuals be accurate? Another question that arises from this is whether or not there is a benefit to documenting the life stories of these individuals. While the latter of the questions is generally, but not always, answered in the affirmative, that there is a

benefit, the former has been debated by numerous historians. Some believe that the amount of time between the event and documentation has been too great, and the memories will have been altered too much by time, group discussions with other survivors, and popular culture. Others maintain that these oral histories are just as valid now as they would have been if they were documented right after WWII. I am in agreement with those who believe that the oral histories are a valid, and important, method to document history even though almost seventy years have passed since the Holocaust ended, but I will take time to acknowledge and discuss some of the points raised by the opposition. An important first step is to determine what the purpose of an oral history is since different individuals may have different opinions on what purpose they are to serve. If the purpose of an oral history is to document the facts of the past as they actually happened, then it is extremely important that methods for determining the validity of an oral history are established. If an interviewee is giving facts that are remembered incorrectly, distorted in some way, or flat out false, then, according to this outline of an oral historys purpose, then their tale would not be considered valid. There could be individuals who would be able to give accurate accounts under this definition, but the pool of potential candidates would be severely decreased. Telling the story over and over again might lead the person being documented to leave out insignificant details, enrich more important details, or make other, similar changes to their story, so that a retelling the very next day could be different1. However, to some, the purpose is not a verbatim transcript of past conversations, or even a verbatim transcript of the interview with the person of interest. Some people are of the opinion that if an oral history can reveal general information, such as attitudes toward different policies, about the time under scrutiny or can have some type of

Kirby, R. Kenneth. Phenomenology and the Problems of Oral History. The Oral History Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, 2008. Pg 30.

profound effect on people, then it is a success. These are not the only two opinions. There is a mixing of the two, and other opinions may exist as well. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defining an oral history as valid if the majority of information given is known to be true, verifiable, and not false. Minor mistakes may be accepted, but larger mistakes may cause an oral history to be dismissed as invalid. Some minor mistakes that are often encountered in Holocaust testimony, and that I will accept in a valid account, are mixing up of dates, especially for minor events, and chronological errors. Many Holocaust survivors have a hard time remembering dates and chronology of events. This is so common that perhaps we should not expect valid answers about this kind of information. Indeed, often the survivors [I] interviewed knew that they did not remember dates, chronology of events, and other facts, including names 2. As long as the event, person, or other topic is real, errors in chronological memory are acceptable. One point to examine before looking at Holocaust testimonies specifically is whether or not, in general, oral histories are accepted as valid methods of documenting history. If most other types of oral testimonies, such as those of combat veterans from other periods of history, are not considered to be valid, then it would be highly unlikely that the memories of Holocaust survivors would be treated differently. Holocaust testimonies might be documented more intensely since the event took so many lives, young and old, out of this world in an astounding manner, but documenting more intensely doesnt mean that it is held to be a completely relevant source of information. Just because the specifics one is looking for may not be explicitly stated in the testimony, meaning or enlightenment can come from the recording of and or listening to survivors who speak of the Holocaust. Something one of the interviewees says, whether it be about events in the camp or some other related experience, could prompt an individual to dig

Tec, Nechama. Diaries and Oral History: Some Methodological Considerations. Religion and the Arts, Vol. 4 No. 1, 2000. 90-91.

deeper into this topic and lead to a new point of view or new facts that would never have been discovered without an oral testimony. So, can oral testimonies be considered valid sources of documentation? Many researchers have found the answer to this question to be yes, they can be considered valid, even if they are given decades later. One group from which we have oral testimonies given decades later is British soldiers who fought on the Western Front during World War I. The Liddle Collection was a project going on in England where veterans who fought on the Western Front during World War I were asked to give an account of their lives, particularly in regards to the war. The Collection also attempted to acquire as much World War I memorabilia as it could, including weapons, pictures, letters, and many other things. While the war is fairly well documented by the militaries and governments involved, there is much that slips between the cracks in official reports. One of the key things that this project found was that these reports might mention something outstanding that happened, but no in-depth details are given because there is no room or time for that. Including large amounts of detail would make the jobs of the officials who have to go through reports much more time consuming, inefficient, and difficult. Other documents written at the time of whichever event is being documented, such as letters, journal entries, diaries, etc., can help give us this basic framework as well. It is unlikely that the individual who wrote a journal entry or letter back home included every detail of the event because it would be very time consuming. We can further expand on the stories these documents tell when we it has an oral testimony to go with it. One of the areas where oral testimonies are extremely useful is in elaborating on these types of documents, or even getting the stories and experiences of the men who might not have any documents mentioning them. Our historical knowledge becomes stronger and much more accurate, and we can more easily validate

oral testimonies, if an individuals tape-recorded testimony sixty or seventy years after the event can be checked against a letter or diary entry actually written at the time. There are a large number of instances where this is possible within the Liddle Collection and the oral evidence bears up well. Sometimes it does not just bear up well but amplifies the contemporary evidence3. Making the lives of those who have gone through some type of important event as complete as possible is especially important to those who wish to make the past as relatable and personal as they can to anyone who wishes to study it in the future. The more someone studying history knows about a certain person, the more involved they can get in that persons life. A prime example of a soldier whose story is far more interesting than the official report describes is the case of a man named Tom Dresser who was a Private when he received a Victoria Cross. The Victoria Cross is the highest military decoration for valor in combat that members of the British Commonwealth can receive. The official report as to why Private Dresser received the Victoria Cross stated: Tom Dresser, No 24297, Private, 7th Battn. Yorkshire Regt. For most conspicuous bravery and devotion to duty. Private Dresser, in spite of being twice wounded on the way and suffering great pain, succeeded in conveying an important message from battalion headquarters to the front line of the trenches, which he eventually reached in an exhausted condition. His fearlessness and determination to deliver his message at any cost proved of the greatest value to his battalion at a critical period.4 All we know from this is that he delivered a message to the trenches at a key moment and received two wounds while doing this. We know nothing of whether the wounds were in critical

Liddle, P., & Richardson, M. (October 1996). Voices from the Past: An Evaluation of Oral History as a Source for Research into the Western Front Experience of the British Soldier, 1914-18. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp 665-66. 4 Liddle and Richardson. Voices from the Past. pp 671.

places or not. He could have been shot in the foot and the hand, neither likely to be fatal. Or, he could have been shot in the shoulder and the face, both of which could very easily be fatal injuries. We also are in the dark about why these messages were so valuable. Did the messages warn them about a possible attack that they were then able to prepare for? Did it give them orders that led to a turning point in a particular battle? Did it tell them to fall back resulting in them narrowly missing being shelled by an artillery barrage? There is no way to be sure from the information provided to us by the official commendation report. Private Dresser was interviewed in 1975, and the topic of how he received his Victoria Cross was discussed. When we examine a bit of the transcript from the testimony of Private Dresser that is provided by Liddle and Richardon5, we find that the latter pair of injuries was actually what happened during the battle. While delivering the messages that ordered his platoon to move more to the right with Mills Bombs resulting in a successful clearing of German occupied trenches, he was shot in the shoulder and the face. The shoulder wound also struck bone which, generally, is much more painful than just a flesh wound. A quick side note that might clear up questions from those who do not know much about military technology and might be wondering what a Mills Bomb is: the Mills Bomb was the very first type of modern fragmentation grenade in the world, and it was developed and manufactured at the Mills Munitions Factory, hence the name Mills Bomb, beginning in 1915. The information that Private Dresser provides in his testimony gives much more to anyone who might come across his recounting of his experiences than the official report does. Because Private Dresser never wrote anything regarding his experiences on the front line, his inspiring tale of determination and success would be limited to only the bare-bones information provided by the official document. Cases like this not only shows that oral testimonies are
5

Liddle and Richardson. Voices from the Past. pp 671-72.

important because they provide us with far more information than we would otherwise have, but they also show that oral testimonies can be true. While we cant validate every detail of the story because the only other record we have of it is the skimpy official report, we can validate the story as a whole because we know that the basic facts of the story are the same: Private Dresser received two injuries while delivering messages to his platoon, and the delivery of the messages resulted in his squad completing an objective. While these accounts can provide us with important information regarding how something occurred and expand on information that we might already have, they can also explain why something happened or introduce us to unique perspectives. Sometimes, when giving an oral testimony, the interviewee might provide us with a glimpse into why people did what they did. For example, a Holocaust survivor might explain why they didnt fight back. Information like this provides us with a more diverse knowledge of the past. While personal feelings or explanations of why one common individual did what they did might seem somewhat irrelevant in the grand scope of history, it is likely that they were not alone in their actions and beliefs. If one person felt that way, then other people probably did too, and future historians can more easily put themselves in the shoes of those who may have lived long before them. However, if this is one person giving their own opinions, how can we validate them? There are instances in which no written documents exist that express the views that are being given, and there is nothing to reference them against except, possibly, other oral testimonies. People could twist the story or give fake opinions to try and make themselves or others look better for when future generations look back on them. A devout believer of the Nazi ideology, someone who truly believed that the Jews needed to be eliminated, could very easily claim that he only supported the Hitler regime and worked in the camps because he was afraid

for his life. How does one test whether a statement like this is valid or not? This statement would be much more difficult to validate, and it might be considered a false account due to the difficulties one would face in checking the facts, but a Jew recounting why certain things happened in the camps could be more easily checked, especially because of the sheer number of people that could be interviewed about this. In a study about police culture, this very dilemma is approached. When the interviewers were interviewing former police officers, some of which had been retired for several decades, they were afraid that the officers might exhibit[ing] excessive discretion when recalling events which might make them appear, for example, disloyal or portray their actions in a negative light. The interviewee could distort facts discussing illegal activities that could tarnish the reputations of other officers out of respect for them or because many officers feel a strong bond for others on the force. In this situation, the fact that the interviews were on actions long in the past actually helped to validate the testimonies. The interviewers were relieved when the former officers were willing to discuss examples of police racism, police sexism (including sexual assault), police theft (including burglary), policy perjury, and, unauthorized use of police force (including, in one case, the systematic beating of an individual arrested in connection with a charge of child rape and murder). The former officers were comfortable talking about these topics because the fact that all the interviewees had retired from the police force and may therefore not have feared professional repercussions.6 The fact that numerous former officers were willing to discuss these matters with the interviewers seems to validate their claims, as well as the lack of need to worry that there might be repercussions. While some people worry about time invalidating the testimonies of some, here we see an excellent example of it actually strengthening oral testimonies. Some of the former officers also go on to explain that most of the crimes that they committed were done in a way that they
6

Cockcroft, Tom. (11 July 2005). Using Oral History to Investigate Police Culture. Qualitative Research, Vol. 5, pp 378.

thought, at the time, would be for the greater good but now knew were wrong 7. Admitting things like this give us a deeper understanding of the mindset of particular groups throughout history. When examining the cases of the former police officers and World War I veterans, it would seem that oral testimonies given decades later can still be trusted. However, there are some gross differences between these two cases and those of Holocaust survivors that could still lead to distrust for the testimonies of Holocaust survivors. While there is a fair amount of documentation on the Holocaust, most of it came from either recollections written after the war or from official German documents, but much of the latter was destroyed in the closing days of the war in an attempt to cover up what was done to a large portion of Europes Jewish population. Even though there was not a long period of time between the end of the war and when a number of survivors began to write their experiences down, there was still a passing of time, sometimes a period of years or even decades. For many of the World War I veterans and former officers, there was documentation, whether personal or official, from the same time that events were taking place. This delay in time could have been enough to distort memory, only for it to become more distorted over time. A further distortion of personal memories of the Holocaust can be affected by documents produced after the war or from the sheer number of stories that have been told about Holocaust survivors, particularly if they are older and suffering from something like dementia or Alzheimers. There is also the matter of the amount of media and literature about each of the topics. Not much popular literature, or at least not nearly as much as on the Holocaust, has been produced on the topics of World War I and police corruption. There is more exposure to police culture in the field of media, particularly in film, but often it is entirely fictionalized and not reflective of actual police culture. The relative isolation of police culture and of World War I personal histories as compared to the seemingly overflowing amount
7

Cockcroft, Using Oral History to Investigate Police Culture, pp 379.

of information, factual or fictionalized, discussing the Holocaust means that there is a significantly lower chance that the memories of the interviewees could be tainted by this popular media. This possible mixture of true and false memory leads us to further question the oral testimonies of Holocaust survivors. Even those who take most oral testimonies put forth to be valid sometimes legitimately ask how much credence can be given to a recollection told more than forty years after the events had happened8. In some cases, emotion is considered to be a clue as to whether or not an individuals memory has been tainted by other inputs since the Holocaust. It is unlikely that a false memory would be able to invoke emotion on a similar level to a true memory because the mind doesnt actually remember seeing the events and the feelings that they invoked in the body. In an interview discussed by Beim and Fine with a survivor discussing her childhood, the interviewer was of the opinion that her testimony was pure because her anguish gainsays the truth of the evidence presented, instead of suggesting the possibility of transformation or repression 9. While this is a much more subjective manner of determining validity, some scholars believe that it is indeed a viable method. Other determiners of validity of Holocaust survivor oral testimonies are the nature of the Holocaust itself and the sheer number of testimonies all describing the same, or mostly the same, events. While memory of common events might easily be obscured as time goes on due to the regularity of their nature, time is less likely to rob us of memory about extraordinary experiences. Those who had survived the Holocaust have lived with their memories and know that they cannot be erased10. Primo Levi, a Holocaust survivor who has written several books, wrote an entire chapter about it in one of his books. He states that some survivors may distort
8 9

Tec, Diaries and Oral History, pp 88. Beim, & Fine, Trust in Testimonies, pp 69. 10 Tec, Diaries and Oral History, pp 89.

memory, consciously and unconsciously, and for many complex reasons. Specifically, with respect to Holocaust survivors, he thinks that t hey experience a drifting of memory. Fraud, he argues, is generally not involved in the process. However, in respect to his own memories, Levi claimed that even though his have been faded by time, they are nevertheless validated: 1) by what had happened to other victims like him, 2) by collaboration, voluntary or not, of the culprits of that time11. So, even though the memories of survivors may have drifted or been distorted through time, the extraordinary nature of the Holocaust has kept the events mostly clear in the minds of survivors. The sheer number of survivors who all testify to the same events also supports the idea that, though minor distinctions between stories might occur, they are valid overall. However, there is one area that survivors almost always make mistakes when discussing. The remembrance of dates has been a difficult point for Holocaust survivors. When giving testimonies, survivors tend to mix up dates More specifically too those who were children during the Holocaust, more so than adults, may find it hard to identify dates and are less likely to give an accurate chronology of events 12. In many situations, the survivors knew that they did not remember dates, chronology of events, and other facts including names. 13 If the survivors supplied dates and chronology of events to the interviewer as factual information, then there could be some cause for concern as to whether or not the testimony could be considered valid or not, but since they recognize that their memory has distorted the specifics, they are making sure to keep the information as valid by not supplying false time frames as fact. However, even if they were to give false dates and mix up the chronology of events, they might still have a mostly intact memory with which they can supply other valid information. As Tec states, we should not assume that a mistake or a distortion in one part of an interview
11 12

Tec, Diaries and Oral History, pp 89. Tec, Diaries and Oral History, pp 89. 13 Tec, Diaries and Oral History, pp 91.

invalidates the entire document14. While the experiences recounted by the interviewee might be mostly valid, there are ways in which the interview itself has the potential to invalidate the testimonies given. In some instances, responses to an interviewers question could be influenced by numerous aspects of the interview. For instance, the way an interviewer asks his questions can heavily affect the responses given. An interviewer who has less -than-relevant questions can encourage a broad range of unreliable responses from the informant, but When statements of fact and other observations accompany the interviewers question, the informants memory can be stimulated, but the interviewer must be careful not to allow such statements to distort or improperly influence the responses15. It would seem that the best way in which to present the questions is with very general statements of fact accompanying a more direct question. In this manner, you restrict the places the discussion could go while, hopefully, stimulating memory. Some more factors that can affect the responses of the interviewee are how much the interviewee trusts the interviewer and the location of the interview. The more comfortable the person giving their oral testimony is in the location and or with the interviewer, the more likely they will provide in-depth information and reveal more personal responses. A strange factor that can have an effect on the responses given by older adults is whether something has happened that leads the interviewee to believe that active life is over, achievement is completed In situations where this is the case, it is found that long-term memory may become even more reliable16. This can be triggered by things like retirement or the loss of a spouse. More reliable memory means that responses are more likely to be valid recollections of the past. This can be extremely important when considering interviews with Holocaust survivors since, most likely, every single one of
14 15

Tec, Diaries and Oral History, pp 91. Kirby, Phenomenology, pp 24. 16 Kirby, Phenomenology, pp 25.

them lost someone who they loved dearly. Attempting to determine the validity of oral testimonies is a difficult task, especially in situations where supporting evidence is difficult to come by. While a testimony is powerful by itself, just like with other forms of historical documentation, life histories are most valuable when used in conjunction with as many other sources as possible17. One must be careful when using oral testimonies of Holocaust survivors because there are some whose memories may have drifted much farther than others or who might have false memories mixed in with real ones. However, using oral testimonies, the ones given by Holocaust survivors in particular, is not that much different from using any other historical source. Every version of a story has its own particular bias given by the person who is either relating the information or who created the document under scrutiny. When examining oral testimonies, The necessary precautions are no more elaborate or burdensome than those required by many other types of sources [he] is accustomed to use. All historical sources have their shortcomings 18. Each individual has their own perspective of certain matters, and these can easily be portrayed through an oral testimony. When collecting information on some particular field, especially the stories of Holocaust victims who experienced extreme tragedy, there can never be a superabundance of evidence 19. Despite all of the potential difficulties that must be dealt with when collecting the oral testimony of a Holocaust survivor, especially time, these testimonies are still valid forms of historical documentation and are important to understanding history.

17 18

Terrill & Hirsch, Replies to Leonard Rapports, pp 86. Terrill & Hirsch, Replies to Leonard Rapports, pp 89. 19 Liddle & Richardson, Voices from the Past, pp 653.

Works Cited Beim, A., & Fine, G. (2007). Trust in Testimony: The Institutional Embeddedness of Holocaust Survivor Narratives. Archives Europennes de Sociologie, Vol 48 Iss. 1, pp 55-75. Cockcroft, Tom. (11 July 2005). Using Oral History to Investigate Police Culture. Qualitative Research, Vol. 5, pp 365-384. DOI: 10.1177/1468794105054460. Hartman, Geoffrey. (May/June 2001). Holocaust, Videography, Oral History, and Education. Tikkun, Vol. 16 Iss. 3, pp 51-53. Johnson, Malcolm. (February 2011). Oral History and Aging. Aging and Society, Vol. 31 Iss. 2, pp 348-350. Kirby, Kenneth R. (2008). Phenomenology and the Problems of Oral History. The Oral History Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp 22-38. DOI: 10.1093/ohr/ohm001. Liddle, P., & Richardson, M. (October 1996). Voices from the Past: An Evaluation of Oral History as a Source for Research into the Western Front Experience of the British Soldier, 1914-18. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp 651-674. Rapport, F., & Hartill, G. (2010). Poetics of Memory: In Defence of Literary Experimentation with Holocaust Survivor Testimony. Anthropology and Humanism, Vol. 35 Iss. 1, pp 20-37. Rapport, Leonard. How Valid Are the Federal Writers Project Life Stories: An Iconoclast among the True Believers. The Oral History Review, Vol. 7, pp 6-17. Tec, Nechama. (2000). Diaries and Oral History: Some Methodological Considerations. Religion and the Arts, Vol. 4 Iss. 1, pp 87-95. Terrill, T., & Hirsch, J. (1980). Replies to Leanord Rapports How Valid Are the Federal Writers Project Life Stories: An Iconoclast among the True Believers. The Oral History Review, Vol. 8, pp 81-89.