The following is not a direct reply to you but a more general guideline that I suggest historiography nerds try to follow.

The key issue is not what is cited, but how its cited.

A book could exclusively cite communists, with 100% accurate citations to all primary sources, yet twist it in bias to present itself from the mild moralistic misinformation meandering to outright malicious fabrications of intent.

A person would have to make an explicit effort to read what was written, read the citations themselves to see their relevance to what was written, then keep looking back through all the citations of citations of citations until you find verifiable primary sources that through its own chain of primary evidence around it can either reinforce or undermine the original statement you read. And if you can't find primary source material that should spark your interest to dig deeper to find the truth. (Example: William Randolph Hearst's newspaper article written by Thomas Walker / Robert Green on his travels through the Ukraine during the famine of 32-33 have been cited as primary sources, even though other primary sources that recorded his locations reveal he spent the majority of his time on the trans-siberian railway heading to the Manchurian border, and prior to that he spent around a week in Moscow.)

But that's a lot of work as is, so barely anyone does it and just goes off of vibes of how many layers they can be bothered to peel back until they either satisfy whatever internal bias they have or they get bored.