Why do you call this person an "idiot"? Because of what was written about the person by someone else, later? That is an indication of your bias.
An indication of your mendacity is your representation of how historians work. They do not accept any single source but rather compare sources and are as likely to "weed out" as to accept accounts. In general, they do not rely on any single testimony, witness, document, or other piece of evidence but use a wide variety to construct their understanding. You might also lose the quotation marks around scholar, for Clendinnen is undoubtedly a scholar, whether you like her work or not. You did quote selectively from her book on the Holocaust, for the section on Muller raises difficulties she finds with his books, arguing that they are not useful for understanding how camps operated, for example, but that subjective accounts like his have a different kind of value; she explicitly criticizes Bauer for his invocation of metaphysical categories, by the way, without making your error of jettisoning all that the evidence shows on account of a poorly stated opinion.
