There's no way WNs can allow such a colossal lie as the holyhoax to stand. Somehow, because jews died in WW2 at the hands of the Germans, Johnson implies the jews have a case, they've been wronged, so WNs should move on. He even uses the term, "innocent" jews.
That's another theme and another term you see used a lot lately over at CODOH - especially from those filthy, castrated Brits that write for - "Inconvenient History."
It's seems to be the direction that "revisionism" as a whole is being pushed towards. (There are many exceptions of course - but I'm talking about a general theme that can be seen at Codoh. And these "ceders" are getting plenty of help from CODOH's censors - er, "moderators.")
Here is someone at CODOH named "Hannover" who basically sees the same thing I'm seeing:
I generally agree with Clem that there are times when Revisionists try to appear 'reasonable' in their assessments by throwing Jewish supremacists a bone. My analysis in those cases has shown that 'concessions' are not warranted by the evidence at hand. Dalton seems to accept some of Colls statements, with qualifications. I don't buy thoses concessions.
Johnson's article is just more of the same. (It seems the traitor David Irving started a trend.)