Does the book "Boy in the Striped Pajamas" work well as a historical document?

Whether the book "Boy in the Striped Pajamas" works well as a historical document depends on your definition of "works well."  In the sense that it calls attention to the Holocaust, and portrays the horror of the concentration camp, it works well.   Does it work well as a "historically accurate history?"  Not as much, but it is not that far away.

First, there was indeed a real concentration camp called Auschwitz.  That part is true.  It was surrounded by a fence.  That part was true.  And horrible things happened inside.  That much was true as well.

Critics take issue with the things that are stretching history.  First, take Schmuel.  In the real Auschwitz little children like that didn't last long.  They were too young and weak to accomplish any work and were therefore killed quickly.  That pretty much knocks the premise of the book on its head.

Secondly, the fence ouside of Aushwitz was electrified.  Bruno would have been zapped had he tried to get under it.

Third, the fence was frequently checked for the type of "escape route" that Bruno used to get in...a hole to crawl under.  The guards would not have overlooked something like that.  It would not have been as simple to get into, or back out of, the camp.

Fourth, Bruno himself.  He is impossibly naive in the book.  He is depicted as an eight year old yet he has no understanding of what the camp is.  He thinks its a farm.  I know that 8 year-olds are  not exactly geniuses (well, most of them,) but most critics feel that Bruno would have had some inkling of what the nature of the camp was and that the condition of the people there would have provided him with ample clues to be wary of the place.

Critics also complain about the supposed ignorance of everyone in the book.  Even when the fires are burning and the smoke is rising from the stacks the people still won't accept that anything is going on at the camp and think that they are just burning old clothes.  Most people feel that anyone within a certain radius of the place would have had to have been blind in order to not have an idea of what was going on there.

Lastly, Schmuel.  Why does he never articulate his situation to his friend?  You would think that the boy would attempt to use Bruno in some way to help him (and others) escape.

So, there you have it.  Which side wins the argument?  Are the inaccuracies worth the exposure of a new generation to the horrors of the Holocaust?  How accurate must something be in order to be called a "historically accurate book?"  Isn't fiction, by definition, more or less made up?  That's for the reader (and the critics) to decide, so I'll leave that up to you!