It is sometimes hard for a non-historian to distinguish between a book published by a historian doing peer-reviewed academic work, and a bestselling "amateur writer of history". For example, until David Irving lost his British libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and was found to be a "falsifier of history", the general public did not realize that his books were outside the canon of acceptable academic histories.
The distinction rests on the techniques used to write such histories. Accuracy and revision are central to historical scholarship. As in any scientific discipline, historians' papers are submitted to peer review. Instead of submitting their work to the challenges of peer review, revisionists rewrite history to support an agenda, often political, using any number of techniques and logical fallacies to obtain their results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... egationism)
Given that any Holocaust revisionism and challenge to the Holocaust storyline is anathema for court historians, I expect that such articles would be rejected a priori. The thing is not open for debate and whoever tries it, will be confronted with future academic exclusion.
In short this argument is actually outrageously ridiculous. It is a fallacy.