Which one of them is the one you recommend the most, and have you read any analysis on them and on their authors, please?
The more I read analysis of these books the more interested I'm in reading them properly to see if the AI analysis below is accurate.
So, please, which one should I start with, which one is the best and most accurate and complete?
Or is there anyone else here who has a recommendation?
All of the titles you listed are canonical Holocaust-denial texts. Different authors, same architecture. The pattern is consistent and mechanically predictable.
First: argument from selective skepticism. They treat every survivor testimony, Nazi document, demographic study, and forensic excavation as suspect, forged, exaggerated, or mistranslated. But they apply zero equivalent skepticism to their own fringe sources. Skepticism is weaponized asymmetrically. That is not critical thinking; that is motivated reasoning.
Second: cherry-picking and quote mining. A stray Red Cross report line. A mistranslated Talmud passage. A single early postwar estimate that differs from later demographic reconstructions. These fragments are pulled out of context and treated as decisive while the overwhelming corpus of converging evidence is ignored. Converging evidence matters because independent lines of data reinforcing each other reduce error probability.
Third: conspiracy inflation. The thesis requires tens of thousands of historians, archivists, demographers, forensic scientists, multiple governments (including former Nazi officials), and even rival Cold War blocs to sustain a unified fabrication for eight decades. Large conspiracies decay under defection, documentation leaks, and incentive misalignment. The theory demands sociological impossibility.
Fourth: impossible standards of proof. They demand architectural blueprints for every gas chamber, chemical residues at levels consistent with ideal laboratory conditions decades later, or mathematically perfect transport records during wartime collapse. Absence of perfect data is framed as proof of absence. That reverses burden of proof.
Fifth: demographic distortion. Population losses are misrepresented by confusing prewar census categories, migration flows, border changes, and postwar displacement. Serious demographic work reconstructs losses via multiple datasets: prewar census, deportation records, Einsatzgruppen reports, camp documents, postwar survivor counts, and independent national archives. The ~5.5–6 million estimate is not a slogan; it is a synthesis of independent accounting streams.
Sixth: technical misrepresentation of gas chamber chemistry. Authors like Arthur R. Butz argue that cyanide residue should be comparable to delousing chambers. This ignores differences in exposure time, concentration, humidity, wall materials, and ventilation. Short, lethal concentrations do not produce the same iron-cyanide compounds as prolonged delousing operations. That distinction is basic chemistry.
Seventh: fabricated authority. David Hoggan and Eustace Mullins present themselves as revisionist scholars while operating outside peer-reviewed historical methodology. Their works are not cited in mainstream Holocaust scholarship except as examples of denial literature. Scholarly consensus is not infallible, but wholesale rejection requires stronger evidence than rhetorical suspicion.
Eighth: antisemitic premise smuggled as conclusion. Texts like “Kill the Best Gentiles” reinterpret rabbinic literature through tendentious translation to imply genocidal Jewish doctrine. They ignore centuries of Talmudic commentary explaining legal context, metaphor, and hyperbole. The argument structure begins with an assumption of collective Jewish malevolence and works backward to textual justification. That is confirmation bias fused with ethnic essentialism.
Ninth: false equivalence between propaganda exaggerations and systematic genocide. Early wartime casualty claims varied. That is normal in war reporting. Variability in early numbers does not invalidate later archival reconstruction. Science corrects estimates; propaganda freezes early uncertainty as eternal doubt.
Tenth: methodological isolation. Holocaust denial literature is self-referential. The same small circle of authors cite one another. Contrast that with mainstream Holocaust historiography, which integrates German military archives, SS documents, Polish records, Soviet investigations, Allied intercepts, survivor testimony, and physical site archaeology such as at Auschwitz-Birkenau and Treblinka. Independent convergence is the core epistemic test. Denial texts fail it.
The most damning problem: the documentary record from the perpetrators themselves. Einsatzgruppen situation reports detailing mass shootings. Himmler’s speeches referencing extermination. Deportation timetables. Camp construction orders. Intercepted communications. These are German records, not postwar inventions. To dismiss them requires alleging either total forgery across multiple archives in different countries or coordinated fabrication beginning before Germany’s defeat. That collapses under logistical scrutiny.
Another fatal flaw: physical evidence. Mass graves identified by forensic archaeology in Eastern Europe. Structural remains of gas chambers destroyed by retreating SS. Zyklon B procurement records. Crematoria capacity calculations that match deportation flows. Denial literature must either ignore or redefine these material findings.
Finally: incentive analysis. Who benefits from inventing an atrocity of this magnitude immediately after a world war in which the perpetrators left extensive paperwork? Postwar Germany did not benefit from inventing crimes against itself. The Cold War powers had conflicting interests. The idea that all parties converged on a false narrative without durable whistleblowers is structurally incoherent.
Holocaust denial is not a competing historical model. It is a political narrative using the appearance of forensic rigor to launder ideological hostility. Its common fallacies are selective skepticism, conspiratorial inflation, demographic manipulation, chemical misunderstanding, and asymmetrical standards of evidence. Its central failure is that it cannot explain the totality of converging documentary, demographic, and physical data without invoking an implausibly vast, perfectly synchronized fabrication.