Sure, I agree, but there are different standards for books which claim to expose a history than there are for books which are replies and polemics to other poin

Sure, I agree, but there are different standards for books which claim to expose a history than there are for books which are replies and polemics to other points of view. A history book shouldn't be the place to argue a point of view, and if it is, it shouldn't be so blatant as to be sourced as one of the main places where Russell does make his polemics. I don't intend to get into a discussion about how everything written carries with it a point of view and bias, but with a book like that, you can come away with the impression you have an accurate picture of Western philosophy when really you've just got one philosopher's view, and from a book written by someone with such esteem as Russell you come out parroting objections to Hegelianism that were refuted sixty years ago. And for the record, I wouldn't recommend Hegel's History of Philosophy lectures for the same reason.