I'd recomment Jean Amery's account of suffering under the Holocaust as an example of consequences and the trauma of a void in understanding. He was born Hans Maier in Austria but after capture and torture and post liberation he renounced all links to a Germanic heritage. He never even felt Jewish before hand but due to a blood-link he was still victimised, and there's an excellent collection of essays he wrote on his experiences "At The Minds Limits" including one titled the necessity and impossibility of being a Jew, which talks about the paradox of identity 'bequeathed' to him. It's a powerful read, and a contrast to some of the attempts not at "reconcilliation that's not correct, but in tone it's just different to some of the well known Holocaust accounts like Primo Levi or Robert Antelme.
I've recently done some reading on the victim-perpetrator debate in Germany which is interesting with respect to sensitivities in this sense, for example there was for a long time - and perhaps still is an issue of Germans private memory focusing on their own particular family history, and less on the totalising environment that created the Holocaust. Of course I think it's perfectly natural that any individual will always have that family loyalty and interest first, and there was a study In German recently that showed a 'cumulative heroisation' of transgenerational memory - the grandchildren wished to make the eyewitness generation into models of anti-Nazism - which whilst proof of a positive model, has the problematic element of eliding a consideration of the conditions that enabled Hitler and co in the first place, where everyone's grandparents were resisters, none complicit etc. It's a tricky situation, as every victim of war, of trauma deserves space for the 'talking-cure' as it were but with an event like the Holocaust, there's an extra moral imperative that's not easily been understood - google Bitburg commemoration controversy and the Historikerstreit ( historians debate ) for more of that.