Unlike most scholars or investigators, Michael Shermer does not consider Holocaust denial to be an issue that should concern only the Jewish population; he believes it is an attack on history in general. What does he mean by this? Well, he explains his belief by explaining the difference between skepticism and denial.
Skepticism is a natural phenomenon and can actually lead to a better understanding of history. Sometimes, history that is only passed from one generation to another verbally, or even in documents written by an individual who witnessed it, can become somewhat like the traditional fishing story that when told enough times changes the identity of the fish that has been caught from a minnow to a great white shark. It is natural to be skeptical about historical "facts" that have very little evidence. It is natural to investigate, to try to find supporting documentation. It is perhaps something that will find that although the fish caught was not a minnow, it was certainly not a great white shark either, but the catching of it seemed like a task worthy of the latter because of weather conditions, the physique of the fisherman and the flimsy nature of the fishing pole. By investigating further a skeptical historian can actually inform the situation so that although a traditionally accepted version of history might be revised a little, the basic facts remain the same. So, in the case of the fishing example, a big fish was caught by a little fisherman with terribly insubstantial equipment.
Skepticism in the case of Holocaust history can also inform a situation; originally, it was thought to be solely Jewish people who were taken to the death camps; further study and evidence-seeking showed that millions of gypsies, homosexuals and Christians were also murdered. This additional fact seeking does not look to minimize what was done to the Jewish population but it informs us as to the murderous intent of the Germans who were determined to wipe out literally any group of people or individuals they felt did not personify their idea of the Hitler-worshiping master race.
Shermer contends that this is completely different to denial. Denial means, simply, that a person claims that something that is accepted in history did not happen. It is not to say that the "denier" actually believes that something did not happen. It means more that they know it happened, and accept it as historical fact, but that it suits their ends and intentions to perpetuate the historical happening as a lie. In the case of the Holocaust, denial gives neo-Nazi sympathizers a platform for spreading the message of hate. It is a shield for hate speech because according to Shermer is hides behind the mantle of free speech. Sherman contends that skeptics seek to learn more about history by making sure the version of it that we know about is as correct and as detailed as it can possibly by; deniers seek to re-write history to suit their own, usually bigoted, ends and objectives.
