Steelman the case for the Holocaust.

[bombsaway]

If you promise to keep it up for a year at least I'll do it. How many words do you want?

[curioussoul]

Nessie, you have no right to demand revisionists steelman the Holocaust when you refused to do the same thing with revisioinsm. Don't be a hypocrite.

[Archie]

If you promise to keep it up for a year at least I'll do it. How many words do you want?

Deal. I intend to leave it up there indefinitely. It's an ongoing, open invitation. Don't worry, I'm not going to do you dirty on this.

See the new sticky. I wrote up some guidelines for it (pretty broad).

Take your time with it. No rush. I want this to be a masterwork.

[Stubble]

Thread title on the sticky seems a little misleading, but, otherwise, bold gambit Archie, this should get some real, bonafide debate going.

[bombsaway]

I wouldn't expect anything new to be there, and I'll probably be quoting and referencing discussions in this forum

Is this intended as a 'case for Holocaust for people who are familiar with revisionism' or in a more general sense?

[Archie]

Thread title on the sticky seems a little misleading, but, otherwise, bold gambit Archie, this should get some real, bonafide debate going.

I just edited the title. The original one was awkward/clunky.

[Archie]

I wouldn't expect anything new to be there, and I'll probably be quoting and referencing discussions in this forum

Is this intended as a 'case for Holocaust for people who are familiar with revisionism' or in a more general sense?

I don't want it to be too restrictive. Do what you want, whatever you think would have the most value. If there are multiple submissions, it wouldn't be a bad thing if people take different approaches.

In the guidelines, I said to target around the level of an "intelligent general reader." Feel free to aim a bit more advanced if you want, but my thinking here is that if you assume advanced prior knowledge, this will lose a large fraction of the potential audience, and it will lose precisely those who would likely be most interested in that sort of overview. More advanced people have heard most of the arguments already and you really need more space/dedicated works to address those topics at an advanced level. But with a more general audience, providing good summaries of the key arguments and pointing them to additional resources is really useful because it can save them a lot of time.

My two cents is that anti-revisionists are usually too focused on attacking revisionists at the expense of putting forth a positive case for their position. The material is usually too reactive and too scattered. I think HC often falls into this trap of being too reactive. It's weird because on the one hand you have the mainstream histories which assume that everyone already believes in the Holocaust and which refuse to acknowledge that revisionism exists (hence you usually get zero discussion of physical evidence for example), and then you have the dedicated anti-revisionist material which is overly focused on critiquing revisionism instead of actually proving their case. The way I would do it (and plan to do it whenever I write mine) is I would focus on proving the Holocaust thesis, with some anticipation of common revisionist arguments.

Again, do whatever you want.

[pilgrimofdark]

I'd submit mine, but it was only ~1,100 words, and I don't think I should force anyone to read another 2,000 words in that style.

But I now regret all the hilariously stupid paragraphs in the draft I deleted.

As is, I give it an F- and 0/10.

But I look forward to anyone taking this idea seriously and their submissions.