Apologies to good HNers for feeding the troll here, but I've always been curious about how holocaust deniers could have the balls to carry through with their opinions despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
I would argue that the holocaust has afforded the Jews enough to warrant motive.
To say "it did not happen", though, I wouldn't take such a stance. I personally would dispute its scope, greatly, in regard to the specific slaughter of Jews, and more relevantly, the constant reminder (read: disproportionately, as mentioned by other commenters) to sympathize with them.
Also, I'm with you on the [citation needed]. I've too little interest to contribute, myself.