You know a history debunking book is good when all the 'critical' reviews boil down to "yeah well but it's not really considering <extremely widespread and already widely-believed narrative> so it's rather one-sided"
(And I can immediately think of two books for which this is the case)
It's like, how much more obvious can you make it that you as a reviewer are just deeply uncomfortable with anything that challenges the status quo, and you don't *really* have any credible criticisms
