For a while, we've contended with this problem, although we've mostly looked it from the perspective of questions, which were bad-but-not-bad-enough-to-get-closed.

I think we decided to just apply the higher standard unofficially, and be more harsh with the downvotes on questions which didn't get there. Can't we just do that with answers too?

That said, I'm uncomfortable with setting a higher bar just because it's a sensitive subject. Practically all of our questions have something to do with wars, plagues, and other natural and unnatural shocks that flesh is heir to. It's probably true in practice to say that for the majority of the stack's visitors the holocaust is a more sensitive subject than, say, the Cultural Revolution, but, really, should it be? Why?

If we do this, it should do it because we have a specific problem of high-volume, low-quality answers.

For a while, we've contended with this problem, although we've mostly looked it from the perspective of questions, which were bad-but-not-bad-enough-to-get-closed.

I think we decided to just apply the higher standard unofficially, and be more harsh with the downvotes on questions which didn't get there. Can't we just do that with answers too?

That said, I'm uncomfortable with setting a higher bar just because it's a sensitive subject. Practically all of our questions have something to do with wars, plagues, and other natural and unnatural shocks that flesh is heir to. It's probably true in practice to say that for the majority of the stack's visitors the holocaust is a more sensitive subject than, say, the Cultural Revolution, but, really, should it be? Why?

If we do this, it should do it because we have a specific problem of high-volume, low-quality answers. Edit: According to the link you posted

Holocaust denial is an attempt to negate the established facts of the Nazi genocide of European Jewry.

I don't see any attempt to negate established facts in the answer under discussion.