::Rubinstein's "Myth of Rescue" is not respected in most academic circles.  He is primarily known as someone who writes about very wealthy Englishmen, and his book has been repeatedly cited as a polemic and biased apology for the actions (and inactions) of the British government.  The 'cottage industry' that you cite as the responsibility of Wyman includes many reputable academic and popular historical volumes. This include Doris Kearns Goodwin's Pulitzer-prize-winning "No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II" which re-presents and amplifies much of the same material and conclusions Wyman documented (eg the role of Breckinridge Long and his State Dept. associates in blocking rescue of Jews, President Roosevelt's acceptance of Long's rationales and consequent actions, etc.).  In fact, most of the same facts that Rubinstein presents in his book were first presented by Wyman in his books.  The principal difference between them is the interpretation.    

 The "Counter-Arguments" topic of the article has been flagged by two Wikipedia notifications:  
  Question book-new.svg 	 This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2010) 

 This section may stray from the topic of the article. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page. (October 2010)  
 Although all are entitled to their own interpretation of facts, the rules in Wikipedia are Neutral Point of View, Context based on the highest-quality references.  Wikipedia bans 'Original Research' where 'editors' attempt to editorially insert their own biased point of view without adequate references and/or context..  This article, IMHO (and the judgement of other editors  see below) is greatly flawed by the efforts of some editors to rebut Wyman's material, while at the same time misrepresenting the facts and positions he's presented in a very influential and highly-respected book.  I'm not suggesting we delete references to Wyman's critics (eg Rubinstein), just that we establish proper context and don't misrepresent the references.  Where, for instance, does Kranzler *ever* criticize or disagree with the material in "Abandonment of the Jews"?  Yet the manner in which Kranzler's material is presented in this article would improperly and inaccurately give the impression that these two scholars disagree with each other on points about which they actually agree, or that Wyman did not recognize or document the actions of 'Rescuers' (the principal subject matter of Kranzler's work).  In fact, Kranzler eloquently documented the rarity of 'Rescue' and prized the 'Rescuers' as much for their jewel-like scarcity as for their virtues, ethics, and courage.  Both Wyman and Kranzler (and scores of other historians, including Weinstein, et al) recognize and agree on the culpability and consequent loss of life that are the responsibilities of the British Foreign Office (and other British executives)  primarily for their abandonment of the Mandatory responsibility to keep a Palestinian Jewish Homeland open as a refuge for endangered Jews (a point made repeatedly by people like WInston Churchill)  as well as the US State Dept., President Roosevelt, and a number of other salient issues.  Nevertheless, the naive reader would be misled by this article (as it is currently written) into thinking that there is much more controversy to Wyman's positions than there actually is.  This situation should be remedied ASAPractical. 
 I propose we clean up this section.  It lacks proper context, and is somewhat misleading about the nature of and quality of the scholarly criticism of Wyman's work.  It also acts as a 'red herring' insofar as it covers 'rescue' operations that were orthogonal to the subject-matter covered by Wyman, and few of the 'Counter-Argument' points have any relevance to Wyman's arguments, positions, or documentation.  It's as if the editor is saying 'Some people saved Jews, therefore the Jews weren't abandoned; case closed.'  That sort of 'Original Research' does not belong in a Wikipedia article.  Does anyone have any suggestions on how to improve this article, or at least to remedy the obviously misleading statements?