Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What primary sources and archival records do researchers use to determine the number of Jewish victims?
Executive summary
Researchers determining how many Jewish people were murdered in the Holocaust rely on vast, overlapping archival collections: institutional databases (Yad Vashem’s Central Database, USHMM’s Holocaust Survivors and Victims Database, Arolsen Archives/ITS), community and organizational records (JDC archives, local cemetery and synagogue lists), Nazi-era administration files (deportation lists, camp prisoner cards) and thousands of personal testimonies, Pages of Testimony, diaries and legal documents — all of which Yad Vashem and others say underpin the identification of millions of victims [1] [2] [3] [4]. Coverage in the available reporting emphasizes both the scale of surviving records (millions of entries) and the limits — many names likely cannot be recovered because they never entered surviving documentary records [3] [5].
1. Institutional name-lists and central databases drive identification
Major memorial and research institutions compile names and files into searchable central databases used by historians and relatives: Yad Vashem’s Central Database of Shoah Victims’ Names (now reported at ~5 million identified names), the US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Database of Holocaust Survivor and Victim Names, and the Arolsen Archives’ collection that holds records on millions of people; these databases aggregate Pages of Testimony, camp lists, deportation manifests and other records to produce individual entries [1] [2] [3] [6] [4].
2. Nazi-era bureaucratic records are core “primary” evidence
Researchers use original Nazi and collaborator paperwork — registration forms, ghetto and deportation lists, camp prisoner cards, death notices and other administrative records — because they directly document processes of persecution and killing; institutions such as the ITS/Arolsen and collections in the USHMM include these camp and administrative records and make them searchable for name reconciliation and counting [6] [2] [4].
3. Pages of Testimony, survivor lists and community records supply personal detail
Family-submitted Pages of Testimony, survivor registries, community memorial books and JDC client lists fill gaps in official records and provide biographical data that enable matching and verification; Yad Vashem describes Pages of Testimony as symbolic headstones and a key part of the Central Database; the JDC Archives likewise hold hundreds of thousands of names used in reconstruction [7] [8] [9].
4. Eyewitness testimony, diaries, oral histories and photographs corroborate identities and fates
Oral histories (e.g., USC Shoah Foundation and Fortunoff collections), diaries, letters and photographs let researchers confirm individuals’ existence, movements and deaths when bureaucratic documentation is incomplete; USHMM and other repositories emphasize their primary-source collections of testimonies, photos and documents as essential for individual-level reconstruction [6] [10] [11].
5. Legal records, trials and postwar documentation help reconstruct victim lists
Trials, postwar investigations and legal claims generated evidence — lists, affidavits, interrogations and restitution documents — that researchers mine to name victims and tie names to places and dates; reporting notes that documentation from proceedings against Nazi criminals and collaborators is among the sources Yad Vashem and others consult [7] [6].
6. Genealogical and local sources expand reach into fragmented records
Genealogy platforms (JewishGen), local archives, cemetery surveys, synagogue plaques, Yizkor books and volunteer projects uncover names not present in central registers; Yad Vashem’s campaign explicitly uses partnerships with genealogical societies and community archives to add hundreds of thousands of personal files [7] [12] [4].
7. Digital aggregation and new tools (including AI) accelerate matching — but cannot create missing records
Institutions report using algorithms and AI to scan and match millions of digitized images and documents, enabling the recent identification milestones; reporting stresses that AI speeds reconciliation of existing records but cannot invent names where no historical record survives, leaving an estimated portion of victims permanently anonymous [3] [1] [5].
8. Scale, overlaps and limits: why precise counting remains complex
Available reporting and institutional descriptions show enormous coverage — ITS/Arolsen’s holdings cover information on roughly 17.5 million people and major databases hold millions of entries — but also show duplication across sources, variable completeness by region, lost records, and methodological choices about who to count (Jewish-only counts versus broader victim lists). Yad Vashem and USHMM combine sources to reduce duplication and increase precision, yet they acknowledge many victims will likely never be identified by name [2] [4] [3].
9. Practical research approach for scholars and family researchers
Researchers combine primary documentary evidence (Nazi and local administrative records, camp files), institutional databases (Yad Vashem, USHMM, Arolsen Archives), organizational archives (JDC, local Jewish archives), and personal testimonies/Pages of Testimony; they cross-check variants of names, places and dates using genealogical tools and digitized collections to build and verify individual identities [2] [8] [12] [6].
Limitations and gaps in available reporting: the provided sources document which archives and record-types are used and the scale of databases, but available sources do not detail specific methodological formulas researchers use to convert named records into aggregate death totals or to reconcile overlapping entries beyond noting de-duplication and matching efforts [2] [3].