I didn't know it was considered immoral, although the only people I have ever heard questioning the facts - in other words denying that it happened or suggesting that the scale has been exaggerated, have been members of neo-nazi organisations.

You told you it was immoral? Questions are the catalyst to answers.

It's not. The people who do are invariable neo-nazis or other people with an interest in disproving it. I personally know several GIs who were there. It happened. The photos and the films are real. Question individual stories, sure. No one is against the truth.

I have never heard of such a thing. Did you make that up or what? There are books, movies, documentaries, and museums about the holocaust. Would that give you a clue that it isn't immoral to ask questions about it? People who were in it want everyone to remember it so that it is not repeated.

1) It is not. But it is wrong to *deny* the Shoah (as the Jewish people prefer to call it) or to try to minimize it. And that were not only Jewish people, by the way. Further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust 2) "Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II — usually referred to as the Holocaust — did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by current scholarship. Key elements of this claim are the rejection of any of the following: that the Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting Jews and people of Jewish ancestry for extermination as a people; that between five and seven million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies; and that genocide was carried out at extermination camps using tools of mass murder, such as gas chambers. Holocaust deniers do not accept the term "denial" as an appropriate description of their point of view, and use the term Holocaust revisionism instead. Scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from historical revisionists, who use established historical methodologies. Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory. The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial 3) "Holocaust denial is widely viewed as unreasonable because it fails to adhere to rules for the treatment of evidence, rules that are recognized as basic to rational inquiry. To support a proposition or allegation, a claimant must offer evidence. The merits of this evidence, and the conclusion it can support, will depend on its nature; for example, hearsay would not normally be considered good evidence, but an eyewitness account would be. A second-hand story would not, but an official, dated and signed document testifying to the alleged incident would be. After evidence has been adduced, the claimant's case is then considered to have been made, and the evidence can be evaluated. The claimant's burden of proof has been carried. If an interlocutor would then like to call the claimant's evidence into question, that interlocutor will have to make a claim of his own — for example, that this or that piece of evidence is a forgery. The burden of proof then shifts to the interlocutor, and the standard of proof will be commensurate with the surety with which the original claim was established. The claimant's evidence has, prima facie, whatever force it has in virtue of its merit as evidence. The interlocutor cannot simply continue demanding more proof to answer any conceivable skeptical conjecture or hypothetical possibility he can invent to challenge the claimant; this raises the claimant's burden of proof to an unreasonable level. In the case of the Holocaust, the survivors, eye witnesses, and historians may collectively be considered the claimants. The prevailing consensus among the informed is that their evidence is overwhelming, and that it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Holocaust occurred, and that it occurred as they say it occurred. It is unreasonable to ask the claimants to prove that their evidence is "really real" any more than they already have, unless there is some particular demonstrably credible reason for thinking that it is suspect. If Holocaust deniers would like to cast doubt on this evidence, the burden of proof shifts to them, and they will have a very high standard to meet. They would have to prove, at least with a balance of probabilities, that the greater part of the entire body of evidence attesting to the Holocaust has been fabricated, misrepresented, or misconstrued by thousands upon thousands of critical evaluators. Until they can do that, they have not satisfied the rules for the treatment of evidence recognized to be integral to reason. In the meantime, Holocaust denial will continue to be recognized as an unreasonable position. All of this makes Holocaust denial different from conspiracy theories generally speaking, since the latter aspire to play by the rules of evidence, but the evidence they adduce is judged poor. Holocaust deniers attempt to set unreasonable standards for evidence, so that they can judge the historian's evidence as poor. This is why Holocaust deniers portray Holocaust scholarship as a conspiracy theory. Still, Holocaust denial is often accompanied by a conspiracy theory of a different sort, namely that Holocaust scholars are conspiring to depict what the deniers allege to be a fictional event as if it were fact." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial

It's not the "to question" that is viewed as immoral...it's the perceived motivation behind it, i.e., hate, following such overwhelming proofs over its actuality.

Good question. You can say "I don't believe in the moon." "I don't believe in Australia." "I don't believe in Jesus." "I don't believe in God." - No problem. But if you say "I don't believe in the Holocaust." you can actually be put in prison in many countries. Ironically, this might give you some insight into why there was a holocaust in the first place. (Oh no ... there goes my point score forever ....) I don't deny it myself. I have seen the pictures and the newsreels and visited the remains of the camps. I have a friend with a tattoo on his arm. (Actually, I'm sorry to say that he died recently.) These are things that can't be "denied." So ... back to your question ... Why?

People that believe this are called "revisionists". I even went undercover as one of them and applied to be on their mailing list, it was an assignment for school at the time. They pass out propaganda denying the holocaust, saying the photos of the emaciated jews in the camps were staged. All the shoes and glasses they collected never happened. Its an outrageous claim and downright insulting to a lot of people to deny this part of history even existed. I wouldn't call it immoral, I'd call it insulting.

Who called it immoral? Stupidity isn't immoral. The people who commit stupidity may be immoral. Facts ARE. That's what makes them facts. Opinions may vary. But facts stay the same. So if someone has an opinion that the holocaust never happened, it makes them stupid, but not necessarily immoral.

Zionist jews created the anti-semitism myth to shield themselves from criticism of any kind. My 2 cents. http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/zionismpromotes.cfm

Because millions of people were murdered, and there are survivors with numbers tattoed on their arms to prove it...

I don't know about immoral, but I'd say its pretty dumb. The holocaust is one of the most well-documented events in history. The Nazi's obsessively documented everything they did. The shoes and teeth are still piled up in warehouses. The documents still exist. The death camps are largely still standing. You'd have to get into some pretty funky existential arguments to try to explain away the mountains of evidence.

We are here to answer and educate when possible, and many of us didn't live though those days, so no I don't think it is.

What evidence are you talking about?

There's nothing wrong with questioning anything. However the people propagating ideas that it never happened are, much like creationistes who intentionally propagate bogus ideas about evolution,are doing so for their own ends. Usually to inflame ignorant young ultra-nationalists so as to gain some measure of political influence or feelings of fame. The simple fact is that it did happen. Conspiracy theories are transparently BS. I have known people who were in concentration camps and remember them first hand. I have been to a couple myself. There were thousands of eye witnesses. There is film footage shot by both the Nazis and the Allies. The Nazis kept their own records of it. So... honest open questioning is fine. But the motives behind it often aren't and ignoring or denying the first hand reports - in essence calling a vast number of people liars with no evidence - just may be. +5

not immoral just insensitive, its like questioning if slavery happened, or racial, religious discrimination

I personally believe that holocaust has happened, but I have a question for you? is that the only holocaust that has happened in the world? what about the Rape of Nanking? what about IRAQ? what about Afghanistan? what about Cameron? what about Vietnam? , so why we only talk about Nazi Camps all the time? I am sure when you mention holocaust, every body's mind goes to Nazi's camp. This is dangerous. This is discrimination. If killing people is bad, therefore it does not matter if the people who are killed are Jews, Muslims, Christians, or whoever. We must educate people. we must teach people that holocaust means "a great or complete devastation or destruction" not Nazi's CAMPS and it is not referred to JEWS people only

It's not immoral to question the facts. I think you mean is it immoral to question whether or not it happened. No, it's not immoral - just uninformed. You don't have to look very far to find opposing views on anything. For that one, however, you'll have to check those white supremacist/nazi sites. You'll be able to recognize them by all their member's diplomas, showing they graduated from the third grade.

It is not immoral to do so - if you have real contrary facts to show. The Holocaust is well documented. As well as the physical evidence of the camps, of bones, of eye-witness accounts from survivors and of liberators, because of the nature of the Nazi regime there is copious documentary evidence. If you can find solid reasons to disprove this mountain of evidence, it would be correct to do so. But the Holocaust deniers are unable to do so. They depend on belittling the evidence of those who have suffered, and of those who rescued them, on reading the written evidence in a truly improbable way. Because the Holocaust actually happened, any attempt to deny it involves denigrating honourable and truthful people, some of whom suffered appallingly, and other who were traumatized by what they saw. De facto, because it did actually happen, would-be deniers are forced to immoral actions to justify their unpleasant beliefs.

2-17-2017 This thread is a remarkable example of bullshit. People say it's not forbidden, just don't do it. Well,. here is a flash: in Germany IT IS A FELONY TO QUESTION THE OFFICIAL STORY. In USA, any time the subject comes up in conversation IT IS A SOCIAL CRIME TO QUESTION IT IN ANY WAY. Like the responses here, for example. You can't even ask why you can't ask why.

It is claimed that it is disrespectful of those who died in the Nazi camps. Laws have been passed to ensure that the narrative is maintained. But I believe that it's more disrespectful to those victims to deny the opportunity to find the truth about what really happened. There are too many unanswered questions that are being swept under the rug and too many false facts that are being promoted as truth.

It has happened all the time, that persons that argue with proven facts of history, they are just too stupid to allow to talk.

My father's first cousin married a woman from Germany who survived Auschwitz. She was one of the few members of her family that did. I know a man whose parents died in the nazi holocaust. A woman's sister perished because of 'Shitler" The Allies liberating the camps prove the Holocaust happened. Statistics show that one third of Jews lost their lives in those extermination camps and earlier events. Myriad number of other minorities including people with disabilities were victims too.

It's not "immoral," dear, merely stupid, since any intelligent and well-educated person knows how to research and study the facts, which are easily available. Take it from a historian.

Why do Holocaust deniers insist on being intellectually dishonest? You people ignore the real facts of what happened in favor of your own narrative. You create straw man arguments like "six million Jews were burned in the ovens", which would be physically impossible, and also no one is saying that. That's what's immoral.

It's not "immoral" to question the facts. It's ignorant. We have the living witness of the survivors, the testimony of the soldiers who liberated the camps, and most importantly, the meticulous records the nazi's kept on their atrocities that were captured by the allies. There is no denying it except by neo nazis and supremacists, and Islamic enemies of Judaism

I would say it depends on whether you're questioning HONESTLY or DISHONESTLY. The fact is that the evidence in favor of the holocaust is massive, overwhelming, and beyond the doubt of any honest questioning. In order for it to be fake you would need literally TENS OF MILLIONS of co-conspirators to have lied their entire lives to perpetuate it. The sheer volume of documents produced makes it one of the best documented crimes in world history. Photographic evidence, video evidence, eyewitness testimony, bodies, physical and forensic evidence. The evidence is so overwhelming and one-sided that no HONEST person insists that it was faked. Only people who are lying in furtherance of a racist agenda and those who blindly follow them without having looked into the topic in their own honest inquiry. If you really want to go digging, by all mean, I invite you to do so. But only if you do so as an honest investigator. Don't just read books by dishonest people who cherry pick and misrepresent facts.

Perhaps not immoral, but foolish since we have the physical evidence of the camps in Germany, and many eyewitness firsthand accounts.

There is no documented proof that anyone died in gas chambers. No one "knew" about gas chambers until the Soviets liberated Auschwitz. No western allies were allowed to investigate the supposed atrocities in Poland - they just took the Soviets' word for it. There is not a court of law in all of America that will render a verdict in the absence of evidence, but this is just what the western allies did where Auschwitz was concerned. The reason they accepted it so readily was that they, along with the Soviets, hated Germans to the point that they would do anything necessary to prove them guilty of every atrocity imaginable.

I have never heard of it being immoral. Learning about the Holocaust is appropriate for effective teaching in general. Education can play a key role in preventing genocide by providing a forum to address past violence.

It's censorship. The "Holocaust" is the only subject in the world that is not open to debate. Considering there are two sides to every story, when you're prohibited from questioning facts that don't add up, it becomes obvious that a specific narrative has been set in place and must be protected at all costs.

Another reason I find the arrogance of Jews offensive when they are telling straight out lies and refuse to even let you comment because they were victims of the holocaust. The way some of them carry on its a pity Hilter didn't kill every last one of them. Ive seen too many Jews have kittens over $5. Majourity of them will fight you for a dollar.