Let's have an honest discussion thread about what points revisionists make to directly attack the findings of "mainstream" holocaust historians, Sup Forums
This means:
1) No citing book excerpts written by people that no historian takes seriously in the first place
2) No citing quotes by eye-witnesses no historian takes seriously in the first place
3) Arguing that the Nuremburg trials were "show trials" just because everybody got to speak up and there were some incredulous testimonies among the tens of thousands of papers that form its transcript (deniers cannot cite proof that the phony testimonies like electric plates and steam chambers were used to convict nazis and instead, only point out to the generic IMT statement/guideline/imperative that it doesnt forensically take apart every single thing presented as evidence before conviction)
4) Using some anti-goy quotes by Jews as proof that the holocaust did not happen (mental gymnastics required)
5) Drawing parallels to the present day situation in Israel and Palestine and trying to move the goal posts that way from the debate which is whether the Holocaust is fabricated or not
6) The "Judea declares war on Germany" economic boycott and counter-boycott by the Nazis ("Kauft nicht bei Juden") - this doesnt prove the holocaust didnt happen.
7) Bringing in Talmudic prophecy, numerology, and other religious nonsense into the debate. We're here to discuss WW2 evidence, not the contents of bronze age books.
Once you remove all this from the equation, Holocaust deniers are actually left with very few things they can bring to the table. Usually it is:
1) Auschwitz amenities (post office, theatre, swimming pool, bunny rabbit farm) as "proof" no jew was gassed [NOT AN ARGUMENT]
2) Lack of prussian blue staining
3) Gas chamber and crematory capacity
4) Crematory fuel consumption
5) Gas chambers being in visible distance from the barracks
6) No mass graves in Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, Majdanek