Good points. I'm aware that he has skirted around the issue, and backpedaled too, possibly because of the draconian laws in the United Kingdom too.
I actually checked and the term is used only three times during the book:
PDF page 12
"Travelling around the
world I have found that it has split the community of academic historians
from top to bottom, particularly in the controversy around ‘the Holocaust.’
In Australia alone, students from the universities of New South Wales and
Western Australia have told me that there they are penalised for citing Hitler’s
War ; at the universities of Wollongong and Canberra students are disciplined
if they don’t."
"Of course, in assessing the real value of such negotiations and of Hitler’s
publicly stated intentions it is salutary to know that on June 2, 1941, he
admitted to Walther Hewel: ‘For myself personally I would never tell a lie;
but there is no falsehood I would not perpetrate for Germany’s sake!’
Nevertheless one wonders how much suﬀering might have been spared if
both sides had pursued the negotiations – might all that happened after
1940, the saturation bombing, the population movements, the epidemics,
even the Holocaust itself, have been avoided? Great are the questions, yet
modern historiography has chosen to ignore the possibility, calling it heresy.
The facts revealed here concerning Hitler’s recorded actions, motivations,
and opinions should provide a basis for fresh debate. Americans will ﬁnd
much that is new about the months leading up to Pearl Harbor."
"Historians have searched, and will search, in vain for a clear directive
for what has been called since the early 1970s ‘the Holocaust.’ Taken in the
context of the increasingly savage guerrilla war raging behind the eastern
front, even the topic which Himmler jotted down on his recently discovered
agenda for a further meeting with Hitler in East Prussia on December 18, 1941
(‘jewish problem’) cannot be safely interpreted as referring to
the European context, particularly given what was quite possibly Hitler’s
decision as recorded by the Reichsführer at the time: ‘Als Partisanen
auszurotten’ – root out, or wipe out, like partisans."
And it seems that the German word for "rooting out" has been deliberately in all media (one expection is this book) been translated into something sinister, which it isn't. Example of "rooting out",
" ‘On August 13, 1920, the police reports show, he devoted a speech for the
ﬁrst time solely to the jews. He accused them of responsibility for the war and of proﬁteering. The
Nazi Party, he declared, must open a crusade against the jews. ‘We do not
want to whip up a pogrom atmosphere,’ he warned. ‘We must however be
ﬁred with a remorseless determination to grasp this evil at its roots and to exterminate it,
root and branch.’ A few weeks later he stated explicitly, ‘We
cannot skirt around the jewish problem. It has got to be solved.’ "
Clearly he used a figure of speech here as well. I'll of course continue reading/listening, I own a physical copy of the book as well (Millennium Edition). I probably just overreact.