It is a truism that, after a war, the history books are written by the victors, and so we have a "historical" view of the period before, during and after World War II that may not be 100% accurate. It is therefore important that those who seek the truth should read both sides of the story and make their own minds up. This is particularly so with the German side of the story of the Great Conflict of 1939 - 45. Revisionist writings are an important source of finding the middle ground which may be closer to the truth Due to our history books, works of literature, movies and comic books we have all been convinced that Germany had a "Final Solution" plan for dealing with what they saw as the menace of the Jews. That "Final Solution" was, according to accepted wisdom, extermination of the Jewish race. What if that was not the case, and the "Final Solution" was something much less drastic, and involved giving German Jews a land of their own ? That is what this book proposes, and makes a convincing case for its argument including the testimony of diplomats of the day. A fascinating book. Fascinating indeed, but somewhat let down by a common misconception in the book's nation of origin which rears its head time and time again within the text. The author switches constantly between speaking of "England" and "Britain" as if they were one and the same entity, when in fact nothing could be farther from the truth. This happens throughout the book, but a classic case of this is on page 34 when both terms are used in one sentence ! "Roosevelt confided to Jimmy Warburg his concern that England's struggle with Germany was fast depleting the British treasury". Later in the same paragraph it is stated that "Warburg favoured outright grants - from the American taxpayer - to the English government". Since 1706 at the Union Of The Crowns, when England and Scotland were joined as one nation of Great Britain, ENGLAND HAS NOT HAD A GOVERNMENT ! I have noticed these gross errors of fact in the The Barnes Review, on many occasions. The Barnes Review is the publisher of this book. It seems to be a peculiarly American error, as I constantly hear US citizens speaking of "England" when they mean the UK, and referring to "The Queen of England" when there is no such person, any more than President Obama is just the President of California ! Now follows a short geography lesson aimed at our American cousins. Our Queen is the Queen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland" or the UK as we shorten it to. The UK comprises four nations, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and ..... England. So you see that England is just one equal partner in a partnership of four countries. Britain comprises three of these countries, Scotland, Wales and .... England. England did not fight a war against Hitler ... the UK did. The UK military forces comprised men and women from all four countries, not just "England", and we find it unforgiveable when people speak of "England" fighting Hitler. One worries in case such errors of historical fact mean that the "facts" quoted in support of the book's argument are similarly flawed ! If authors who purport to be historians can't get a simple fact like this right .... how can we be expected to believe their theories. I'm sorry, but these constant errors of fact spoiled this book for me, as much as I like to read competing views of history. The book is seriously flawed. I would still like to recommend that the book is read. The concept behind it is worth consideration, and as I said earlier revisionist writing is a prime source of getting at the truth of WWII, but the factual historical errors would make me have reservations about its veracity. Read with caution.