>>18139592
Historical revisionism of the holocaust has been around since the initial accounts of "Six million" were recorded. Every single time somebody goes against the record they're branded a holocaust denier, racist, antisemite, and various other labels even if they've been accounted as honest and truthful historian in the past. An example of this is David Irving, the man best known for his works on the WW2 era and the German view of the war - the minute he claimed that the six million figure was unlikely and probably falsified, he was taken to court and stripped of all his possessions, his career, and a bit after that he was arrested and sent to prison in Austria.
Irving spent a decade speaking to both sides of the war, spoke to survivors and correspondents from all across the world and came to estimate the real figure of the holocaust was about 1-2 million Jews primarily from disease and localised (Not sanctioned) shootings, not systematic extermination.
So no, it's not something historians agree on when every dissenting voice had been shot down and executed Old Keller style.
If we consistently relied on the same sources which were ideologically opposed to the holocaust, then by principle, we'd be forced to accept that Israel *isn't* committing a genocide in Gaza, per IDF sources. It's stupid to consistently rely on sources which come from the opposing side, for they're far more likely to omit and misconstrue the real values and facts to favour themselves, as the people who could've spoke against the falsehoods they spewed were all dead, in prison, or were in hiding from international courts or Mossad.
