Link to BBC website.Two historians present their views on this. Number one suggests that it should be preserved as long as there is still an Auschwitz survivor alive, and then left to decay and be repossessed by nature. Number two wants it to be left and maintained forever as a grim reminder of one of history's darkest hours. I can understand both sides. It is obviously important to remember the Holocaust and the gravity of the atrocities committed. No generation must ever grow up and not know about it. However, I will add that I don't think there is a huge danger of that being forgotten. The Holocaust is probably the most well known historical event worldwide. The people who have visited that camp describe it as a life altering experience, it certainly made me look differently on life when i went, realizing the scale of what was done there. This should also be taken into consideration. But I also understand the other side. One the one hand, there is the questionable but eventually inevitable process of maintaining and rebuilding parts of the camp, which would become necessary if it is to survive. It's easy to understand why people would have objections to renewing the architecture of this place of death. Also, letting the natural surroundings reclaim the area has a powerful symbolic value. The idea that the greatest human tragedies will pass and the damage heal is understandably attractive. That would be a lengthy but natural process of the camp slowly being covered with new life, as years and decades pass. Altogether, I'm undecided. Thoughts?