There's no "proving wrong". You're thesis is unsound because your analysis is built on/around normative judgments, but "proving wrong" isn't really how it works. It's structural issues with the argumentative approach itself, in addition to less-than-stellar critical analysis (or lack thereof). This is what happens when people "self-educate". That book I recommended, Impending Crisis, would do a lot of good here. You're entitled to whatever historical prerogative you want, but the entire field has left you behind several decades ago in booting out the revisionist, apologist nonsense.