It is refreshing to see an article willing to speak about conflicting survivor accounts. Whether it's the holocaust, 9/11, Rwanda, or the killing fields, there is a tendency to treat every account as sacrosanct. Conflicting stories then become ammo for those looking to deny and discredit events. But open discussion and even speculation can increase confidence in a narrative. Apparently conflicting accounts often dovetail into each other, but to get to that point you have to be willing to criticize.
Anyone interested in the life of a dwarf at Auschwitz should read Primo Levi's excellent memoir, whose title has been translated both as "Survival in Auschwitz" and "If this is a man". Levi himself was not a dwarf, but he encountered one in the year he spent in Auschwitz, and the entire book is very well written. http://appliedsciencefreelibraryguide.org/view.php?id=388132
I think he's more concerned about the Guardian, but I don't know why. Holocaust denial is a healthy part of understanding things, just as cranks are in science. Actually the holocaust suffers from a lack of serious objective research because of how strongly politicized it is. Universities don't want their names associated with politically unpopular researchers, and there are laws to stifle public expression of dissent.
They are responding to a flagged comment with a link to a holocaust denial website. Turn on showdead to see it (or rather, don't, because it's not that interesting).
* 6 milion dead Jews is made up number media picked up from Torah and nowhere true.
* War occured because Jew-controlled countries didn't like anti-jew Hitler's administration
* Allies didn't oppose USSR's participation despite their totalitarian goverment because they were Jew-ran too.
* Hitler's foreign policy was completly reasonable and countries like Poland opposed it only because they were Jew-ran countries looking for casus belli against "Jew-free" nation.
