I began reading The Monuments Men by Robert M. Edsel about the men and women who worked to save cultural and art treasures from the Nazis during and after WWII.  I'm reading peacefully along on page 37 when the words I read cause me a doubletake:  "Churchill wanted to attack immediately across the English Channel" after the Allies had run the Axis powers out of Africa in January 1943.  Everything I've ever read or heard from historians about WWII agrees that Churchill promoted the "soft underbelly" approach instead. 

My question to you here is whether such a glaring inaccuracy would be a deal breaker to you for an author.  How can I read any more of this story without calling every unsourced comment into question. Has this happened to anyone else here?

That kind of thing drives me batty.  We can all have different opinions in terms of interpretation, but when people get factual things wrong, I lose alll respect.

When I encounter a mistake like that, it immediately makes me question everything else in the book.