Plenty of historians have taken a critical look at his work and dismissed it. That doesnt mean things didnt happen, but that his work is not to be used as a fac

Plenty of historians have taken a critical look at his work and dismissed it. That doesnt mean things didnt happen, but that his work is not to be used as a factual account. But somehow this critical look at sources just goes out of the window if it concerns something horrible or if it places an ideological enemy in a bad light. Then it is acceptable to go "well this is sorta right so good enough".