When people complain about political correctness
it's usually because they associate political
correctness with being able to act and behave as
they please. Oftentimes people who practice
political correctness are accused of denying other
people the right to free speech.

So, what is political correctness?
In a nutshell political correctness means avoiding
language and actions that insult, exclude, or harm
people who are already experiencing disadvantage or
discrimination.

The argument that political correctness prevents
freedom of speech is flawed.

Freedom of speech gives a person the right to say what
they feel, but it also gives other people the right to
point out if they are being offensive. Freedom of speech
does not mean your words can't be criticised.

Some people also ignore political correctness for the
sake of having a laugh, trying to demean people they
don't approve of, or have a limited vocabulary and
using derogatory language is part and parcel of their
everyday speech. They simply don't know any better.

When someone says something derogatory about a group
they're not a part of, those words can contribute to
discrimination against that group. The person who's
making those comments does not have a lot to lose.
But the people who are the butt of those comments
often do.

//Unfortunately those links have passed on.//

Yes, sadly most of those who lived through Nazism have passed away, but there still remains a great deal of archival footage, historical records, regular reprintings of books like 'Mein Kampf' and 'The Diary of Anne Frank', etc.... really quite a lot of evidence detailing the Nazi regime. Surely you can find some scrap in amongst all that information showing that the Nazis were in favour of political correctness?

I have, in the past said I am a realist, cynic, pessimist and all the categories that make up an informed, aware human being.
I do not shy away from anything, for whatever reason.
I will not promote an untruth.
I abhor those who hide behind PC, for whatever reason.
They are not being honest, either with themselves or anyone else.
If someone says something which someone else finds offensive or hurtful, it is not relevant to the speaker.
If the person intended to offend or upset, then that is also their right to do so.
NO-ONE must ever dictate to others, HOW they should conduct themselves.
If someone feels the need to intentionally attack or abuse someone, there is obviously a damn good reason to, in the mind of the attacker/abuser.
To expect someone to do otherwise is discriminating against the attackers/abusers right to a free and frank delivery of his/her freedom of expression and tantamount to censorship.
To not see that the PC mantra is oppressive and restrictive, thereby forcing the change of narrative, is selfish or petulant, in that the listener is attempting to direct the conversation and not allow the truth, to be uttered.
In doing so the listener is attempting to hi-jack the conversation, by the introduction of emotions, which are irrelevant in a debate or conversation, unless the narrative requires it so.
To those who fear free speach and being insulted or abused by what someone says, it is you who needs to change your attitude, because you are attempting to empower the weak and the mild, and dis-empower the more self assured and confident people in society.
Instead of pushing the moronic and gutless stance of bringing a strong and confident person down to your level, how about you promote the betterment of these Nannies to grow up and be productive, confident members of society, with mature outlooks.

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a
duty to respect other people's rights. A person's
freedom of speech is limited by the rights of others -
for example their right to maintain their good
reputation and their right to privacy.

All societies put various
limitations on what people may say. They prohibit
certain types of speech they believe might harm
the governments or the people.

Most democratic countries have major restrictions
on free expression. We have things like:

Laws covering libel and slander.
Laws covering public decency.
Laws against urging violence.
Laws against urging hatred.

There are however countries (and people) who believe that
they alone hold the "truth." Therefore, they
say that any opposition must be based on falsehoods
and regarded as dangerous.

The rulers of China
and Iran for example, severely limit freedom of speech. It's
either their way or the highway. They simply ignore
or have taken away constitutional guarantees of
freedom of speech. These people do not tolerate
any opposing opinions.
Their own are what matter to them.
History has shown us that the world has been full of
those kind of people. Luckily for us - in this country,
we do have laws that still protect us.

but there still remains a great deal of archival footage, historical records,
Toni lavis,
Yes, but you left out the words 'selective' & 'sanitised'.

Individual,

That's where historians come in.

Historians who can look at primary sources
and critically examine motivation,
circumstances, context, or any other such
considerations. Of course this often becomes
unacceptable for one or another group -
especially those who are more interested in
condemnation rather than explanation.