Its great from a historical point of view that a senior SS person has penned the war in the east from their vantage point as one of the protangists.
Your completely missing the point. Paul Karl Schmidt (aka Paul Carrell) was a Nazi propagandist, that is not history, but slanted one sided racist socialism. After World War Two all the Nazi German Generals (yes there were thousands of them and don't let them fool you with "I was just a poor German Soldier/Officer doing my duty and carrying out my orders" blind you to the truth of the matter) that surrendered to the West influenced 80% of the West history books with their 'one-sided' German viewpoints. It was not until the likes of Erickson, Ziemke and Glantz came along to open up the Russian archives did we get anything of a more realistic viewpoint from the correct winning side, yes the Russians defeated the Germans in World War Two, plain and simple.
Well, while I agree that there has been a great adjustment in how we look at the WW2 in the east, I think you are over-stating it quite a bit.
The German accounds, by an large, were not nearly as grossly biased as you are making them out to be. In fact, I would say that the Soviet accounts of WW2 prior to some historians getting into source materials and giving more rational Soviet views of the war, were MUCH more biased. That is part of the reason the German viewpoint dominated - the Soviet "history" was pretty universally seen as just utter crap, and it largely was.
The Soviets, IMO, have nobody to blame but themselves at the German/Western domination of scholarship post war - it was the only real alternative. And while there certainly was plenty of bias, it was largely known and understood, and accounted for. The Germans, furthermore, were generally pretty meticulous at record keeping, and since they lost, those records were very available. The Soviets kept their records under lock and key for a very, very long time.
The relatively recent scholarship from the Soviet side (meaning driven by Soviet primary sources, but not Soviet propaganda) has done much to address this, but there is some sense of it being over-done, and there is still plenty of now Russian nationalism creeping into some of the scholarship, with the role of the non-Eastern Fronts, Lend-Lease, etc., etc., being intentionally de-emphasized as either non-decisive, or even completely irrelevant.
I am confident that we will end up with a reasonable balance, once all is said and done though.