Full disclosure: I have not read the article. Though, I have read a lot of history books, primarily the classics, such as the “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, David Hume’s “History of England”, and permit me to say for brevity, several on the specific histories of the individual European nations, including eastern Europe (I used to fly a lot for work and used that time to read).
Let me start by saying “History is written by the victors”. In terms of hard truths, history is pretty much a matter of perspective, and often reflective of the author’s notion of what the “historical facts” are, or were at the time of writing. History is unlike the physical sciences where proofs can be independently verified. Histories are many times written based upon faulty memories, conjecture, and/or sometimes on outright falsehoods.
A good understanding of history requires the consideration of numerous viewpoints, an understanding of the issues, and the culture of the era that is under study. Introducing alternate theories is beneficial, if they are provided for comparison, but not if they become the focal point, and in essence become propaganda.
In short, I don’t thing that anyone can ever “get it right”, given that what is “right” is personalized, and not universally applicable.
A long, long time ago, my grandfather bought for me a set of books called, “the Harvard classics”, because I was an avid bookworm. I still have most of them. One of the best sources of American History was “Original American historical documehnts”, a collection of papers and letters as written hundreds of years ago. As a teen, my family was transferred from VA to PA, where I discovered history was a fiction.