The well-known German social scientist examines tendencies in the development of historical research in relation to historiography and other social sciences (economic science, sociology, politology) and concludes that the distance between them increased again in the second half of the 20th century. Nevertheless, a horizon for a new cooperation is emerging now, which is gradually getting into practice. Scientific methodological problems are deeply embedded in the process of fighting for social alternatives.

The article examines the question how specific the holocaust was and how can it be compared to other genocides – the fate of Armenians or the German repression of soviet peoples also resulting in millions of victims. According to the author, the specificity is that the holocaust was not limited to one country only, as it happened in Turkey before, and offered no escape for the Jews, while it offered the chance for collaboration for other citizens of the Baltic states and the Soviet Union.

The article presents the origination of the so-called Auschwitz Protocols and its reception, as well as its influence on later literature and historical memory. The protocols also question the responsibility of the ruling Hungarian elite in the tragedy of the rural Jews in Hungary, since this document was presented to the Hungarian leaders including the circles of Horthy.

This study reveals an area of the holocaust, which is less discussed in the scientific literature in Hungary. The Nazis set up ghettos in the occupied soviet areas immediately. The author presents the conditions of establishing these ghettos, their way of operation and movingly depicts their life: the hardships facing inmates, and what could they achieve concerning education and health care.