Bla bla bla. Of course some books are better than others. I have in my library stuff whose author I would like to shake hard, but which is useful because of the material it contains. But there is a difference between even decent error, error that is aware of the issues, and quackery. I may think that Ian Kershaw wrote better on Hitler than, say, Lothar Machtan; I do not share Machtan's conclusions, but I do admit that he raised some very pertinent points. But both Kershaw and Machtan are on another level as compared to, say, David Irving. Irving is a quack. And the worst thing is that he is a quack with the potential of being something else. What, except a really vicious inner twist, can possibly justify his ignoring of millions of pages of evidence, and his attemtp to use a few, feeble misreading to disprove what everyone in Europe knows to have been true since 1945? There is hardly a family in continental Europe that has not had victims at the hands of the Nazis (including mine); how could Irving possibly hope to rewrite facts so widely testified, tried, and proved? A quack is someone who writes outside reality, and that is the problem with dealing with them. Anyone who comes to tell me that there were huge bodies of Pagans in Europe after the eleventh century is too ignorant to know what evidence is, how facts are established, how research is done. Period.