What is the role of historians in the "Holocaust hoax"?

Here is an example of what I consider to be the confirmation bias that permits approved ’historians’ to themselves be hoaxed and to perpetuate the hoax in order to further their careers in this their chosen field of ’holocaust studies’.

The way our systems work is that once someone pursuing a career in academia has chosen to focus their academic credentials on studying a particular historical subject, they improve their reputation, economic situation and career prospects by pandering to and garnering favourable reviews from society at large but most importantly from their peers.
This is therefore what intellectuals, historians and academics focused on ’holocaust history’ also do.

Should any of them ever suspect (or discover) that they have been studying an elaborate hoax, and they choose to reveal it, then all of society, academia and the media will be marshalled to ridicule them, demonise them, impoverish them, ostracise them and remove them from accepted societal discourse and dialogue.
This is what happened to Canadian Professor of Tenure, Anthony Hall just for asking for open debate on ’the holocaust’.
This is what happened to distinguished academic Nick Kollerstrom for challenging accepted paradigms and for publishing abook on the holocaust mass-gassing hoax with the appropriate title of ’Breaking the spell’.
This is what happened before him to Joel Hayward, and to his University, and to his tutors, for daring to investigate fairly and write a PHd thesis on revisionist arguments.
This is what happened before him to Prof Ernst Nolte. 
This is what happened before him to Roques, Stäglich and Lüftl.

The ’hoax’ is perpetuated in academic circles by setting such examples to others. In this way, anyone in academia who does ’break the spell’ and sees that the Emperor is parading in public with no clothes on, will not dare say so. 
They have few options:
i.) speak/publish and face the consequences,
ii.) publish/correspond anonymously (e.g. Thomas Dalton, Samuel Crowell),
iii.) remain silent.
iv.) assume they were wrong and practice self-delusion.

Most historians/academics will never face such situations as they operate from a subconscious, self-censoring, confirmation bias that transforms every chink of penetrating light into a part of the sacrosanct mosaic. 

Here is an example of Christian Gerlach doing that (and/or option iv. from the above list).
He appears to have discovered and been convinced of the holocaust-refuting reality that there is absolutely zero evidence of Himmler and Heydrich having any kind of practical policy and methodology for ”exterminating” the approx. 4.5 million Jews who came under Third Reich control.
Which had there been such an ’extermination’ policy, is difficult to reconcile with reality.
Here is what Gerlach admitted:
Erm... the problem with this speculation, were it accurate, is that this doesn’t fit the accepted timeline. 
For example the Einsatzgruppen supposedly began extermination operations in June 1941. So part of who’s ”workable plan” was that supposed to be?

Herr Gerlach goes on to write:

Hmmmm? So how ”quick and direct” do you think the alleged ”killing” was at Babi Yarr in September 1941, Christian?