How has the underrepresentation of Holocaust research conducted during the decades of the Cold War affected scholarly approaches to the phenomenon in the last two decades? Born out of the second stage of a European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI) project on archival materials, the volume The Holocaust in South-Eastern Europe: Historiography, Archive Resources and Remembrance strives to bring together scholars with expertise in different yet complementary fields of analysis. They set out to reevaluate the motivations of local perpetrators in light of an emerging field in Holocaust studies that emphasizes archival access as a tool for overcoming essentialist theoretical approaches. The volume was edited by Adina Babeș-Fruchter and Ana Bărbulescu and grew out of a workshop in Bucharest dedicated to Holocaust research in borderland countries. It is divided into three parts, each consisting of several chapters, with ten chapters overall. The work begins with a historical contextualization of the archives, from historiography and archival access, and proceeds on to studies of documents on the Romanian authorities’ role during the Holocaust as well as resource materials on the Northern Transylvanian stage of the genocide. This first part is followed by a second that combines studies on rescue efforts, recorded accounts of discrimination, and accounts of the destruction of local communities. The third part deals with the politics of memory and initiatives that bring the issue of identity to the forefront of Holocaust research.In the introduction to the volume, Alexandru Florian, the director of the Elie Wiesel National Institute for the Study of the Holocaust in Romania (one of the co-organizers of the workshop), stresses that both research phases aimed to explore new patterns of discussing Holocaust archives in light of a developing methodology and framed in light of various fields of study in the social sciences and humanities. He also emphasizes the importance of archives for studying all of the contemporary realities of the history of the Holocaust, noting that the work does not dwell on traditional approaches to reconstructing history and events. Rather, it focuses more on a synchronic approach toward diverse archival tools used by researchers from multiple areas of study, rather than insisting on a diachronic recounting of events. Florian lists three key themes that recur throughout the chapters: historiography, archival materials, and memory. The themes of historiography and archival materials are exemplified by Adina-Babeș-Fruchter and Ana Bărbulescu’s piece, which discusses the evolution of archival access to the Romanian National archives on the Holocaust, combined with a focus on how Romanian historiography has changed since 1989. Attila Gidó’s work provides another example of these themes by offering detailed information about the types of archival access that are available for material on the Holocaust in Northern Transylvania, thus bringing to light important information about the fates of victims and the motivations of the perpetrators. The third key theme of memory features in articles such as Alona Bidenko’s piece on the formation of Ukrainian national identity, as well as how remembrance initiatives in Ukraine after 1989 are linked to a nationalist paradigm of discussing history. Petre Matei’s article offers an additional example of the issue of memory with a discussion of how memorial patterns and identity have developed in post-1989 Romania with respect to the Roma genocide. Here, Matei focuses on the perceptions of discrimination as experienced by the Roma themselves while also emphasizing reasons for the lack of studies within this field. These three themes coalesce extremely well and help bring to light the lesser-emphasized relation between archiving, which is seen as a strictly practical endeavor, and historiography, which is often described from purely theoretical standpoints.I focused, however, on two other themes that appeared to be present across the book. The first is that of emphasizing the primacy of Holocaust archives over dialectical approaches to theory, in the sense of how researchers must account for Holocaust documentation in their research beyond theoretical models from sociology or political science. The second is that of the relationship between commemoration and the issue of perpetration, meaning that looking at what archives tell us about perpetrators can be in sharp contrast with society’s romanticized view of fascist figures. Allow me to provide some examples from the articles. Gilles Bennett, Charlotte Hauwaert, Dorien Styven, and Veerle Vanden Daelen present the importance of the EHRI Portal in bringing together primary sources and historiography in Western Europe, thus situating access to documentation at the very center of Holocaust research. Also, their piece discusses how the political situation in German, Dutch, and Belgium societies has changed the nature of archival access, providing a comparative contrast with South-Eastern Europe, where nationalist politics of memory have romanticized fascist perpetrators and blocked access to the archives. Daniela Ozacky-Stern’s piece on original Jewish documents in the Moreshet Archive presents an overview of the materials therein while discussing the conundrums that archivists and researchers alike face when choosing the online medium as an archive. This is not only driven by practical factors but also by how society might respond to this kind of open access. Iryna Radchenko’s study of international charities in Romania and Transnistria during the Holocaust brings to light a lesser-known aspect of study: how charitable organizations were present in Transnistria and the role they played in saving Jews from extermination. She stresses the importance of providing enhanced documentation of files on charitable organizations during the Holocaust while also providing geographical details and critical commentaries. This raises the question of the reasons behind the lack of study on such a topic, which not only brings the survivors’ experience to light but can also reconstruct the destructive nature of perpetrators’ actions toward targeted populations. On this note, Iemima Daniela Ploscariu’s article on the Holocaust and neo-Protestant groups touches upon a subject that has been somewhat taboo in Holocaust historiography until recently. The persecution of neo-Protestants under Ion Antonescu was motivated by the Romanian dictator’s marking of them as a threat to national security. This piece emphasizes the importance of the field because it helps us to study the societies’ response to these persecutions. Why has this aspect been underresearched? As I see it, one answer could lie in the prominent social view that the alterity of neo-Protestants made them a danger to a unified state that was defined by Christian Orthodoxy. The view of a unified Orthodox Romania goes back to fascist organizations and figures of the interwar period, and a future study could draw these aspects into focus. Ionuț Biliuță’s article on Orthodox perpetrators in contemporary Romania discusses key interrelated aspects: on the one hand, the role of ecclesiastical archives and what they reveal about a conspiracy to keep access to them as limited as possible, and on the other hand, the ways in which Orthodox clergymen participated in the Holocaust. Biliuță also discusses the actions of the Romanian Orthodox Church to obscure this participation. This important piece greatly complements other parts of Biliuță’s research because it addresses the motivations of Holocaust perpetrators within Romania’s Orthodox Church. On another note, László Bernát Veszprémy discusses various cases of Zionist organizations that saved Jews during the Shoah. This study is important because it brings to the surface the significance of the archives for discussing rescue operations during the Second World War and tries to bridge the gap in knowledge concerning rescue strategies and Jewish solidarity therein.The three main themes presented in this book speak volumes about the importance of archives in historical research on the Holocaust. When researchers combine the use of materials with different approaches to historiography, they can enhance the field of Holocaust studies overall. This volume does a particularly good job of presenting different approaches and scholarly methodologies for discussing it. I think that on top of the existing introduction, an additional foreword by the two editors would have benefitted the volume considerably because it would have presented the research in the words of the researchers who compiled it. Although the work is cohesive and fits well together, an added explanation of the choice of topics and a bridge between the different works would have made it a near-perfect resource for any researcher. Still, the introduction is consistent, and the three parts are thematically organized in such a way as to draw in anyone who is interested in Holocaust studies, regardless of their specific focus. Overall, this is a monumental contribution to the methodology of analyzing the Holocaust in South-Eastern Europe, an area that has yet to receive sufficient study with respect to its analytical apparatuses, archival resources, and overall research potential.