I've always heard that a lot of historians don't agree with 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'. And I've always wondered why. I've never read the book, but I've always been interested. However I don't know if it's worth my time, however.

Do historians have a problem with the georgrapic determinism it proposes? If so, why, and what's the alternative? Or is the whole overarching theory of history Diamond proposes? Or something else entirely?

Thanks in advance.