The first so far, of course, has been Auschwitz. Accepting 'everything but Auschwitz' is a trademark of "semi-revisionism", which arguably began (at least by intent) with David Cole, who admits in his book, "Republican Party Animal", essentially that he joined revisionism as a disingenuous infiltration effort, claims he never "denied the Holocaust", and disavows many of his former Revisionist peers, regarding them as senseless "deniers", suggesting that only semi-revisionists like himself, Irving, and Weber, are "true" Revisionists.
The following article has valuable insight about the intellectual bankruptcy of "semi-revisionism":
Semi-Revisionism is Dead
Putting David Cole’s “Denial is Dead” into Context
By Hadding Scott
Without going too far off-topic, I want to add that I think the appeal for backpedaling into "semi-revisionism" is easy to observe. Suddenly, one can make a substantial argument that they are no longer a "denier" and perhaps restore a portion of social and professional opportunities they had been shut out from. One might lost a bit of their soul in doing so, but, hey, "walk a mile...".....
Anyway, my question is... what to expect next from "semi-revisionism"? What does Semi-Revisionism 2.0 look like? My best guess is that this is what we will find in David Baddiel's upcoming documentary. There is no way any producer could provide even a modestly critical history of Revisionism while making it appear honest and well-intentioned, without making some significant concessions along the way.
My best guess is that we are delving further into stage three (see below)... the question becomes: how to handle it?
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
- German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer