Yes, I am well aware of this. But the average person is not going to be making this kind of nuanced distinction in semantics. When the NYT writes articles saying such and such an app or person was doing holocaust denial, the readers are definitely not aware of this distinction, and assume these people must be completely insane, because to them the holocaust just means 'The Germans rounded them up, robbed them, put them in camps, and a very large amount of them died' which is unquestionably true. You call this the 'natural consequence of war' but I'm not sure this is really an accurate depiction when a country is doing this internally, this is not 'war' in the colloquial sense that most people would use this word.

If you want the facts to ever be anything more than fringe, I just don't think presenting it in this way is likely to be effective, people have been propagandized, they aren't going to be receptive to the framing of that argument unless they have already been radicalized against establishment narratives