How a neutral courtroom would react to holocaust evidence.

[weffdsv1231]

Everyone knows in order to convict someone in a court of law, you need to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Let's say if a judge and jury who had zero knowledge of what happened in WW2 saw the alleged holocaust evidence and then heard counterarguments from holocaust revisionists, do you think they would convict or acquit the Nazis? or completely dismiss the charges before holding a trial?

[Callafangers]

Everyone knows in order to convict someone in a court of law, you need to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Let's say if a judge and jury who had zero knowledge of what happened in WW2 saw the alleged holocaust evidence and then heard counterarguments from holocaust revisionists, do you think they would convict or acquit the Nazis? or completely dismiss the charges before holding a trial?

This is a great question, perhaps even a "million dollar" question, since this is what should have happened all along. Revisionists are interested and engaged in challenging the core assumptions of the narrative (things like 'gassing' or 'racial extermination' of Jews), which was more or less impossible during the trials ('judicial notice', overall tone/biases, inability to obtain records and evidence for the defense), hence not a defense which attorneys pursued. We can wonder now, where revisionists have abysmal access to historical archives and research opportunities (and even face persecution), just how much could have been refuted, proven, or otherwise exposed in ways that legitimately support/defend the Germans and their reasoning (moral or otherwise) regarding key events and overall interpretations. But this really is a matter of "who knows", since this is not what happened in fact. Instead, Allied powers (and Jewish power) have tightened all of the channels to primary source information, while also heavily promoting their interpretations (exterminationism/orthodoxy) while stifling or even persecuting opposing ones (revisionism). That impact accumulates over time, as we can expect that those interest groups determined and powerful enough to censor these matters in past generations have not fully let up since then. We simply do not know how much information has been buried, destroyed, etc., but we are picking up increasingly on just how much has been shown out-of-context or otherwise distorted.

As for how a judge would respond if reason led the way, here is what former Chief Justices of the US Supreme Court, Harlan F. Stone and William O. Douglas, had to say at the time the Nuremberg trials were being organized:

Justice William O. Douglas complained that the Allies were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nuremberg. He argued that the laws to be applied were created after the fact "to suit the clamor of the time." Chief Justice Harlan Stone was blunter, calling the Nuremberg trials "a fraud" and "a high-grade lynching party." Stone added, "I don't mind what Jackson does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law."
https://famous-trials.com/nuremberg/1901-home

Also worth noting that many of the same files/narratives first developed in Soviet and East German show trials were being carried over into these Western [supposedly "fair"] trials as well.

All in all, the thought of fair trials is nice in the same way that the thought of open dialogue and criticism surrounding the 'Holocaust' is also nice. That's definitely not the state of affairs, though, and never was.

[TlsMS93]

AI will tell you this about Holocaust evidence.

The Holocaust is one of the best-documented events in human history. The claim that "any document has a counterpoint exploited by revisionists" is untenable: this is not historiographical debate, it is denialism. And denialism is not a legitimate current of historical revision—it is pseudohistory.

What exists is not an isolated document, but a converging set of evidence:

Documents produced by the Nazis themselves

Wannsee Protocol (1942), which coordinates the "Final Solution".

Einsatzgruppen reports, which record mass executions in the East.

Höfle Telegram (1943), with numbers of Jews killed in camps such as Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec.

Korherr Report, statistics on the decline of the Jewish population.

Himmler's speeches (such as the one in Posen, 1943), Goebbels' diaries, deportation orders, train timetables, Zyklon B invoices, crematorium plans.

Aktion 1005 itself, created to exhume and burn bodies, is proof that the Nazis knew they were committing a crime and tried to erase traces.

Testimonies and confessions

Survivors, witnesses, local residents, Allied soldiers.

Nazi commanders, such as Rudolf Höss (Auschwitz), gave detailed testimonies.

In the Nuremberg Trials and subsequent trials (Eichmann, Auschwitz, etc.), the existence of the extermination was not refuted; it was documented.

Physical and forensic evidence

Ruins of gas chambers, crematoria, mass graves, human ashes, shoes, hair, personal belongings.

Archaeological studies in Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, and Chelmno.

Demographics and railway records.

The European Jewish population before and after the war; approximately 6 million Jews disappeared.

Records from the Deutsche Reichsbahn charging for deportation tickets.

Independent sources.

Diplomacy, press, international organizations, interceptions of Nazi communications.

Regarding “revisionists”:
Legitimate historical revisionism occurs when new evidence changes interpretations about causes, chronology, or numbers. Holocaust denial does the opposite: it starts from a preconceived conclusion (“there was no extermination”) and then selects phrases, ignores documents, distorts statistics, and invents conspiracies. There is no valid “counterpoint” because no alternative set of evidence capable of explaining all the facts is presented.