ChronoMachete wrote:What historians would actually consider legitimate would actually be to look at the NS and Hitler: What is the evidence for the extermination plan in their documents? Something like that would be a great starting point, then revisionists could just work their way down to the camps and such.
I couldn't agree with this if I wanted to.
First there are major problems with the chain of evidence regarding documents in general being that they were put in the custody of jewish prosecutors conducting show trials.
Obviously there is a need to discredit false claims, to challenge the authenticity and interpretation of 'documentary evidence'.
Revisionists can't allow exterminations to run rampant without response but they can't get trapped there.
That would play right into the hands of exterminationists because the focus would be away from where it should be...the physical evidence.
As far as David Irving, is he a revisionist?
Whatever he did in the past has been largely negated by his current 'work'.
Exterminationists are doing an effective job of employing debate tactics and ad hominem attacks and moralising to bury any effort by revisionists to move the focus to physical evidence and forensic investigation.
1. Revisionists need to refine the manner in which they present their argument. They need to captivate the audience
2. And they need to destroy the false image of jew innocence which has been cultivated over decades.
That is the holocaust industry's iron dome.
Revisionists need to engage in moralising of their own and win the war of emotion before they can hope to get an wide audience to look at the evidence rationally.