Logically, I don't see how the Holocaust could be a fabrication.
Consider how difficult it would be to fake something like this. All the pictures, the videos of so many people. Eyewitness testimony by Jewish people, German people, etc. Physical evidence such as prisoner fatigues, burial grounds, etc. Trials based on the atrocities where I don't think anyone stepped forward and said "The Jews are lying, this never happened."
I could go on...
I don't think history could become so distorted in so short a time frame. At least, it seems illogical to think that it's possible.
Edit:
ShaggyJebus wrote...
I think I understand where Arizth is coming from. It's skepticism, and there's nothing wrong with it. In fact, people could stand to be a bit more skeptical.
Holocaust denial is far too extreme to be called "skepticism." There's nothing wrong with skepticism, there is a major problem with denying overwhelming evidence in favor of preconceived notions.
I can't check if most of what I read in a physics or chemistry book is real. Is nuclear fission real or just a sham? I'll never find out directly, I can only assume it's real based on overwhelming evidence and little reason to believe it's not.
Would disbelieving in nuclear fission make me a skeptic? I think there's another, harsher word that it would make me.
Just an example.