Locked topic response

[Nazgul]

A summary of the above. I argue that,
- history is evidenced, not argued.
- the existing evidence is the best case for the Holocaust, despite what so-called revisionists think.
- attempts to revise the existing history have been abject failures, which further strengthens the first argument.
- there is a lack of evidence of a conspiracy to hoax and provided examples of where a hoax is against national interests.
- I give examples of how the evidence is strong, circumstantially, from the eyewitnesses, in terms of motive, opportunity and conduct after the crime and give some specific examples of well evidenced events.

The summary broadly reflects the author’s intended argument, but it is shaped by a particular evaluative stance rather than a strictly neutral description. Its language characterises opposing views and outcomes in a way that signals confidence in the conclusion, rather than distancing the reader to assess the evidence independently. While the emphasis on evidentiary standards and historical methodology is clear, the summary primarily reiterates the author’s interpretation of the evidence rather than outlining how that evidence is weighed, contextualised, or limited. Consequently, it functions effectively as a position summary, but less so as an objective or descriptive abstract of the discussion.