If some part of the Holocaust story can be proved to be false, should the public be made aware?

Much of the Holocaust writings that I have read seem to have inaccurate elements in them. These may be lies, confused memories, and don't forget our own emotions, world views, bias are built into the prism of our minds and thus any light (truth) that passes thru us is acted upon by the fixed make up of our minds at any given moment. Any good historian will go into his investigation with this and other basic elements of human nature in mind. So yes, these elements should be both scrutinized and disregarded as necessary as we revise our history. Nevertheless, primary sources will reflect not only the history they record but the bias of the recorder as well.


The fear of some (Jewish survivor's of the Holocaust.) that the Holocaust will be forgotten and thus repeated is in many ways an unjustified fear, but for those people that erased the pogroms of yesterday from their minds to embrace the liberalism and its falsehoods of the period were quickly awoken at the trains end in a concentration camp, and once awoken in that manner one finds it hard to fall asleep once more.


Note: Many people who are called Holocaust deniers are in fact not denying that it took place and that millions of Jews as well as other minority groups were murder by the Nazis regime but are arguing that some elements and or numbers don't add up. This kind of problem has both the potential to discredit or exonerate a given element and or event and it should be researched.


Now I know there are 8 guys living in a compound in Idaho which firmly dispute weather or not the Holocaust happened but everyone accepts them as the quaqs that they are. On the other hand when Muslim Zealots for ';The Land of the Arians'; or other parts of the near east say it, it becomes yet another reason why westerners of sound mind disregard everything else Muslims say because they are liars and propagandists and everyone that hears them sees right thru them.


Side note: The Nazis did not persecute Homosexuals for being Homosexuals. The Nazis party as well as the SA-Brown shirts (Including Rom its leader.) were demographically dens of sodomy. The Nazis killed them if they were communists or Nazis that had fallen out of favor. The only two racial groups rounded up for extermination were the Jews and the Roma (Gypsies); the slavers of Poland and the Ukraine were mistreated and even killed in mass but not for the same reason. Baptists, Methodists, and Jehovah Witnesses and were rounded up and their foreign missionaries deported because they resisted Nazism on religious grounds. The Lutheran and Catholic (Majority Religions) generally accepted it (But despised it.) Lutheran Pastors (Individuals) which spoke out were rounded up and several priests until Rome signed a concordance and played both sides of the fence. Communist and non-Nazis unionist leaders and all other political opposition were rounded up and Officers which fell in to disfavor had their pasts dug up as justification and in this was the charge of homosexuality a reason for the camp.


I state this and encourage people research this because (at lease in internet land) I see homosexuals trying to highjack the Holocaust when in reality they as a group held sway in the Nazis higherarchy both Party and government.If some part of the Holocaust story can be proved to be false, should the public be made aware?
Of course we should know whatever the truth is about any part of history.If some part of the Holocaust story can be proved to be false, should the public be made aware?
If any part of history can be proved false, of course it should be made public, however I think that this is very very thin ice to tread upon.


With so many of the survivors passing away, I would hate to see an atrocity of the Holocaust to be put into question because a witness could no longer verify it.
yes and it all happened. so where is the if coming from?
Certainly you should try to set the record straight, but do not rely on one set of sources when doing this. In fact, it is better to go back to primary sources (records made at the time, photographs, etc. and eye-witness reports made as events were happening) than to trust anything written at a later date. Anything written by someone outside the event who was not a witness himself is questionable and would be dismissed in a court of law as hearsay.





The subject you are tackling is a powerful one. Make sure you have everything covered before you make a move.
There might be some individual stories that are not true but they are probably not that important in the bigger scheme of history. What part can you prove is false?
One man's proof is another man's conspiracy or smokescreen. Different people are convinced by different facts, and by different arguments based on them. There will always be sceptics.
Yes but it would take a lot of proof
Every part of history must be open to question. No society can claim to have freedom of speech if it is going to say at the same time that there are legally protected historical 'facts' that cannot be questioned.





I deplore Holocaust deniers utterly, but my personal opinion is that there has been a dangerous precedent set by passing laws against them. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Holocaust happened, and that the numbers killed are around 6 million Jews, and 3 million others. These facts are extremely well supported. They are not so flimsy as to require the protection of law. No one in their right mind, looking at the evidence, would ever deny the Holocaust.





There is still an incredible amount of sensitivity surrounding the Holocaust, but that should not be allowed to obstruct intellectual inquiry. Historians constantly test and scrutinise every incident of mass murder -- the Rwandan genocide in the 1990s, Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia, Stalin's genocide of the Kulaks, the Belgian genocide in the Congo... right back to the many genocides of ancient history. It is absurd that the Nazi genocide should be protected from the same scrutiny. The facts are more than robust enough to stand up. And, if any of them is not, it should be pointed out immediately. As a society, we owe it to the people involved to get as accurate a history as possible.
The first thing I would do is ask, ';Where's my great grandma, then?';. I know it happened, I know that the atrocities can never be forgotten or thought of lightly, or it will happen again. I am 62, and the fact that some teach that it never happened, scares me to death! I was offered money by the govt. because of family having been there. I turned it down. I wasn't there, and I don't believe I deserve or want to be paid for losing my relatives. They are in my heart,.........never in my purse.
Of course the public should be made aware. There are probably thousands of little falsehoods throughout any historical record, either because events were misremembered or people didn't want to own up to their own responsibility for atrocities.


But you also shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water either. Just because there are facts here and there that are wrong in official history doesn't mean that the main thrust of it is wrong.