This book is a fascinating exposure of the problems of huge costs in defending legal actions, however robust the defence proves to be, and also an interesting comparison of the way UK and US law on libel operates. While initially critical of UK law processes, eventually hugely complimentary about how the leading practitioners perform. Also an important contribution to exposing how obtuse motives can distort the quality of the work of historians, and that blaming sloppiness is not an adequate response to misguided motivations. Also a strong message to those who believe they can act in person rather than through professional legal teams, who will always have more resource and more depth of brain power to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of plaintiff and defence. The subject matter of the litigation, while massively important, is almost secondary to the messages about the structure and processes and strengths and weaknesses exposed. Very well written, an easy read, almost like a regular court room thriller, but with a very serious undercurrent. Opens up many avenues for further research into the underlying subject matter and the absurdity of denying that something happened when there is such a vast array of evidence that says that it did take place. Mr Irving comes across as a later generation King Canute. However, even though this subject was clearly the wrong battleground, the right of a professional historian who does his job thoroughly and properly, without unjustified distortion for which there is no evidence, to have a different opinion from the mainstream, should not be denied. Do read it!!