THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR DEBATING EITHER THE EXISTENCE OR THE EXTENT OF ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY THE NAZIS OR ANY OTHER PARTY. THIS IS FOR DISCUSSING THE VALIDITY OF HISTORICAL ACCURACY AND REACTIONS TO REVISIONISM. What this thread is about is this question: why is it that while it's acceptable to revise our understanding of history in the name of truth and accuracy when adding Troy to the map, studying human migration, or discussing almost anything else, WW2 and the associated atrocities are taboo? Why is any questioning of the means of slaughter used in any given location, the time-line, or the total number of persons massacred met with with such anger? Is it not important to remember the atrocities of the past accurately? If the numbers on record are not accurate, isn't it right to correct them? Inflated numbers seem to devalue the persons massacred, implying that their deaths are less of a tragedy is there are less of them, while if the numbers are too low, it minimalizes the crimes committed and seems to treat some of the people murdered as not worthy of counting. Why is there such a strong knee-jerk emotional reaction to anyone who questions the details?