Nothing against the OP, but s/he did remark that this scholar is absent of bodhicitta.
First, that sounds judgmental, even if it turns out to be accurate.
Second, the historian's job is always to set the record straight, regardless of what that does to human sentiment. I only watched Part One, but I detected no anti-Semitism in that section. Is he anti-the Holocaust Industry? Likely, but then again many Jews are against the manipulative playing of the Holocause card (among them Norman Finkelstein).
Third, he makes a historian's distinction between what really happened vs. the mythic reinterpretation of what happened. He outright states that Hitler was a rabid anti-Semite who passed his annihilation orders to a faithful henchman and from there to specialized groups who would "do the job". He seems correct in his evaluation of the term "Holocaust" being a post-war interpretation as well as a cover-word for a "new religion", complete with heroes, miracles, martyrs, prophets, heretics, and persecutions.
Fourth, far from being a Holocaust denier, he lists a few of those separately and clearly does not number himself among them.
Fifth, he acts (at least in Part One) as a historian, separating history from sentiment and myth. Historians are always re-evaluatng history. For example, it has been found that not as many Jews died in WW II as had previously been claimed. Signs on ex-concentration camp sites and memorials were adjusted to accommodate this new historical data. Of course, this does not lessen the Third Reich's criminality, first, because even one death resulting from Hitler's racial policies would have been one too many; and second, because the numbers still remain in the millions.
It has been a question in Little Big Horn research ("Custer's Last Stand") whether or not any part of Custer's regiment ever crossed the Little Big Horn into the Indian encampment. Resolution of this issue depends on ongoing research on the Battlefield. The issues concerning Hitler's anti-Semitic policies are no different. As long as historians scan the evidence, the interpretations and conclusions are open to modification and even falsification.
Therefore, to pre-judge Christian Lindtner as lacking in bodhicitta is, perhaps, to already surrender one's critical faculties to the myopic constrictions of a new religion based on a parochial and specially-pleading "packaging" of the Hitlerian near-extermination of Europe's Jews.
Now, I may change my tune after I've watched all the vids on You Tube, in which case I'll be back with a re-assessment. But for now, and based only on Part One, I don't feel entitled to deny Lindtner access to his bodhicitta.