Almost every friggin' hustory is "alternate", written by the victors and, mostly, having no more than a nodding acquaintance with reality. People have made a lot of money re-writing "The True History of . . ." according, usually, to their agenda. Presidents have thrived on promoting some, maybe true, maybe not, maybe exagerated, maybe not, aspect of what the nasty colonials did way back when to boost support for his "reforms" (often to ensure the cash ends up in his pocket.) Whole countries gave been fucked this way by their leaders. Betcha Chump is reeling in some cash somehow, if only by hiring out his venues for state business. At a premium.
Anything written, even by proper scholars, should be viewed with at least a little scepticism. Great to review and analyse opposing perceptions of current events and come to a conclusion that fits things - as you have them, be sure something is geing kept hidden. Great when the 30 year rule applies and secret government documents are ooen to public gaze. Keeps 'em a bit honest but, since they are usually retired by that time, why should a politician give a shit? His or her history, their "heritage", has already been written to their advantage and the "people who count" will ignore the counter-history written by the opposition. Neither will be 100% accurate except where there are publicly available documents to check agsinst. Assuming those do not have ambiguous wording.
I think I have made my views on this before . . .