Umm...exactly which stories of the Holocaust have been debunked?

Just curious, the broadstrokes of the Holocauset have been based on the maticulous records kept of the event by the German Government at the time. If these records are in error, there are a lot of proud dead german soldiers whose accounting work you are calling into question.

If there is some annecdotal story that you claim has no basis in fact, I guess that's certainly possible. The feeding of prisoners other prisoners for example, is something I had heard from my parents from a survivor, so perhaps that kind of story is more hyperbole than fact. But among the facts of the holocaust, which have been debunked?

Just an obvious point, how is it that the author thinks "professional" historians are above injecting their own cultural and social ideas into hisotry?

There are certainly facts on the ground that can be cited, but once you seek to put those facts into a narative of history, you are going to see the coloration of the writer of that history, even among professionals.

So much of our modern professional historians have made their bones deconstructing and reimagining the work of previous professionals. Whether the intetion was to elevate nonwhites and nonmales into prominance in historical terms, or take a perspective of the defeated instead of the victor, countless professional historians have done the leg work, and dug up new and interesting views of history that other historians are busly working to debunk in favor of their view of history.

History is by it's nature a subjective field. There's just not a real way to confirm things that require broad cultural assent to occur. Certainly you can say that, white wedding gowns were first popularized when Queen so and so wore one at her Royal wedding, but that tells you little about a) why she wore it, or b) why everyone else started to.

When the cultural ascent required is greater than just those getting married, and includes all those who willingly die for a cause, the issues get muddier and muddier.

And since professors hate to tell the class, "I have no idea why all the nations of Europe suddenly decided that a long mechanized trench war was a good idea" they create theories based upon their own assumptions and presumptions about the people and events of the time.

It's easy to say that the problem is the amature historian, but one should realize that the professionals have added to the canon of fancy as much if not more than the dabbler.

Whenever anyone tells you something, immedeatly ask "Why are you telling me this?"

No one gives you information unless they want you to send that information further.

No one wants you to push their information further unless they have an interst in seeing that information move further.

This doesn't necessarily mean the movement of that information is either intended for ill use, or machiavellian on the part of the information pusher. It is simply an aknoweldgement that people put forward their ideas, even ones like "The Treaty of Versailles wasn't nearly as bad as you think" for a reason.

It's an interesting question when you go back and look at history, since all historical reconing is relative and laden with perspective, it is really impossible to make a value judgement about something like the Treaty of Versailles. Perhaps it was purely reasonable, perhaps it was just unreasonable enough, in the end, what it was, was a poor bulwark against WWII, which in it's grandest imagninings it might have been conceived to be.

At the end of the day, any treaty signed at the point of sword, be it a apomatix or versailles is only as good as its acceptance or its enforcement.

If you take a very short view of history, as being or not being about single events, you will likely be wrong. Each single event piles on each other single event to create history, removal of any one of those events might change history subtly or dramaticly, and you can never know which is which.

One can imagine WWI begining without the death of Arch Duke Ferdinand, but would it's motivations been as great, would it's sale have been so easy. WWII might have begun without the Treaty of Versailles, or it might have been squelched had Chamberlin not appeased Hitler, or efforts were made to keep Italy and Germany at odds as they traditionally were.

The lessons we take from history, are invariably the lessons we wish to be true in the future. Even if you think you are being as rational and clear minded as possible, it's just you who think that, and everyone who disagrees with you think they are equally clear in their analysis.