Several of those are worth reading. Anne Frank's diary is perhaps a bit of a girlish view as opposed to Sobibor (which I believe have been filmed).
Also worth reading is "Behind the Urals - an american worker in Russia's city of steel" by John Scott which can bring some insight on what preconditions that can have people to enter into such societies.
If you would have been able to read swedish you could have read
"Ulrike and the war" and "Ulrike and the peace" by Vibeke Olsson which are novels but with historical facts about a young girl who grows up in Germany during the years when the nazis came to power.
She has also written a book called "Molnfri bombnatt" ( approx. "Clear night for bombing") which is about an elderly woman in sweden who have been at concentrationcamp and remembers and are concerned when she notices signs of increasing intolerance.
I had a teacher in social sciences in junior high who had been at concentrationcamp and he was very metaculious about the preconditions that enabled societies as nazi Germany and the Sovietunion to take place and he expressed as somewhat frustrating that so many seemed to think that it was a result of a couple of evil guys and herds of fools.
And he didn't hold those views for making it excusable but rather from the point that if you are effectively to combat something (tyranny) then you must have some understanding of it (i.e. not in the sense of any strive for identificationprocess with the tyrants or their followers but more like from where they arise).
And also, what is described as "The Golden Years" in most of US economic history books (the 20s) were not golden at all for the vast majority in Europe.
But you can pose any view. John Hiatt muses over TIMEs nomination of Putin, for instance:
In fact, crime worsened after Putin succeeded Yeltsin as president in 2000, as did corruption
Has it really, or is it so that the number in statistics are up due to people are more eager to report crimes and abuse in form of corruption now than compared to Yeltsin's years?
Why would a leader of such steely confidence, heroic achievement and massive popularity be so afraid of political competition?
Given how Russian/Soviet leaders have been treated by their successors since Czar Nikolaus was removed would have you think that based on historical empirical evidence it would be a good idea to have some sense of caution.
Far too often reason becomes the domisticated serf of purpose.