Request: a summary of the revisionist case (no strawman)

How is that a summary of the revisionist case?  At best you have simply stated a revisionist conclusion (no gassings, which is not even the main one imo) without any explanation of how that conclusion was reached.  When I say revisionist "case," I mean the evidence and arguments supporting the position, not just a bare conclusion.  I doubt you could find a single revisionist who would endorse your post as a good summary of "the revisionist case."

Despite your miserable failure, I will give my own summary of the orthodox case.  There are of course counterpoints and naturally I do not agree with many of these interpretations but out of fairness I will refrain from offering any of my own commentary here.  I think by comparing my answer with Nessie's, it will be abundantly obvious who is strawmanning who.  I will also point out here that the orthodox side is usually resistant to presenting their side and insist that the Holocaust does not need to be proved.  

Demographics
-Prewar statistics of global Jewish population were generally around 16.7M.  Some estimates a bit lower in the 15-16M range.  The postwar figures are usually around 11M.  Revisionist figures from Sanning and others often rely on selective/cherrypicked numbers and assumptions.  
-Much evidence of Jews being registered, concentrated, and deported from Western Europe, from Poland, from Hungary and other places. Korherr, internal Hungarian deportation figures.  
-By all accounts the Jewish population of Poland dropped dramatically.  
-Lack of evidence of resettlement on the scale that would be required.
-Hoefle telegram indicates over 1M Jews were sent to the AR camps.

Final Solution
-Abundant evidence of anti-Semitic ideology and anti-Semitic laws.  Belief in eugenics, euthanasia, racial hierarchy.  
-Himmler's Posen speech and others, speaks of extermination of the Jews as a dark secret.  
-Goebbels diary says 60% of the Jews would probably have to be "liquidated." 
-Hitler, in his last will and testament, says he made good on his promise (which he made repeatedly) that "the real culprits would have to pay for their guilt," i.e., the Jews would be made to pay for starting another war. 
-Eichmann's confessions, including recordings from before he was in Israeli custody (which would nullify most of the common revisionist arguments about forced confessions etc). 

Einsatzgruppen
-Huge amount of documentary evidence.  The OSRs, 180-L, PS-212, Jager report, etc.  
-Confessions of Ohlendorf, Blobel, and others.  

Euthanasia
-Euthanasia program well-documented and not disputed.  
-NMT Case I evidence, including confessions of Brack, along with documentary evidence such as NO-205, NO-365, NO-249
-Confessions of Widmann and Nebe at later trials.  
-T4 personnel reassigned to AR program.

Gassings
-Gas vans: PS-501, Just document
-Pressac's criminal traces.  Morgues outfitted with gas tight doors, etc.  
-Kremer Diary
-Testimonies by Hoess and many others.  
-Trace amounts of cyanide in Auschwitz wall samples suggests some exposure to HCN.  

Philosophical Points
-That the Soviets, Americans, British, etc exaggerated things for propaganda and made many inaccurate claims does not mean the Germans were innocent.  By analogy, if a prosecutor presents planted evidence or engages in misconduct, that does not necessarily mean the defendant is innocent.  
-Many of the less supportable claims such as 4M at Auschwitz and the soap factories and other easy targets for revisionists had already long been discounted by orthodox scholars like Hilberg and Reitlinger pretty early on.  
-The standards of evidence demanded by revisionists is far higher than what would ordinarily be demanded.  Few genocides and other atrocities could be demonstrated to the degree revisionists demand, yet surely things like this have and do happen.  This overly skeptical approach will generally bias you toward disbelieving atrocity stories in general even though atrocities are common. 
-Circumstantially, if we have a regime known to be anti-Semitic, if we know they gathered up Jews and sent them off to unknown locations, and if we have large populations drops, the standard explanation that was generally accepted at the time becomes the most probable.  The alternative explanation would have required falsification of demographic and immigration data, tremendous amounts of false testimony, and forgery of documents.  

You failed utterly to present the revisionist case and you damn well know it.  You are probably not capable of summarizing the revisionist side coherently and even if you could you would not do so because you are a hack and you have no intellectual discipline or curiosity.  

Case (noun) - a set of arguments supporting a particular action, cause, etc.

You say that I am "lying" when I say that the orthodox side generally doesn't try to prove the holocaust.  Okay, so cite me some orthodox books that try to prove the holocaust and that lay out the arguments the way I just did.  You will find some of that scattered in books like Hilberg but in no sense is this their goal to prove it in a comprehensive and convincing way.  Rather they take virtually all of it for granted.  Professors like Lipstadt explicitly say that the holocaust is not to be debated.  The only books that try to even try to present something resembling proof were written as damage control in response to revisionism.  

That's a very shallow understanding of revisionism.  Forensic arguments are only one aspect and you didn't really do justice even to that.  Hoax of the Twentieth Century, for example, an early foundational revisionist text, relies on completely different arguments.  The arguments about the difficulties of burying, digging up, and burning all the bodies at the AR camps didn't even become popular until the 2000s.  

www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=863163

Hilberg's book is enormous.  You will find some relevant documents scattered throughout, but he clearly did not feel any onus to prove the fundamental claims.  And more recent books take it even more for granted.  My post above is a better summary of the orthodox case than Hilberg's book.  

For Lipstadt's philosophy, read the early pages of her book Denying the Holocaust.  From Chapter 1,

If you read the rest of the book (which you clearly have not read), you will see that her "analysis" of revisionism is 99% ad hominem.  

Ok, Nessie.  I'm done with you.  You don't have a sufficient grasp on reality for worthwhile discussion to be possible. 

"If you were expecting me to provide a similar list of evidence that makes up the "revisionist case", I cannot, because there is none."

This same guy complains about being "strawmanned."  What a clown.  

Nessie, I've given you every chance and you've repeatedly shown yourself to be uninformed, overly stubborn, and not worth talking to.  If you want any interaction from me, frankly, you will need to start doing some better quality posting.  And be more intellectually honest.