While this potentially highlights some lesser known parts of history, at it's heart it is a failed documentary trying to add speculative additions to history based sketchy and unverified 'evidence'.
Now admitedly it would seem the point of the 'documentary' was to try to investigate some of that speculation and 'evidence' but they were denied the ability to dig up areas they wanted to investigate but they had obviously been contracted to make a documentary so they had to release something.
What makes me suspicious is not the fact they were denied permission to dig by the authorities 'who are trying to hide something' especially as the island was totally evacuated by the British so the islanders have no part in anything that happened during that time period but the fact the presenter never mentions why they were denied permission then tries to make out that it was because the island was being obstructive or hiding something.
I suspect the reason they were denied permission was because their case was extremely poor and tbh if I was in a position to decide if they should be given permission to dig up the island, from the 'evidence' provided and the fact the island had already been looked over with a fine tooth comb while investigating war crimes i would have said no also.
Usually you are given permission to dig in cases like this when you find new evidence. I saw no new evidence presented, only old evidence with new speculations attached, trying to make the evidence fit the story rather than the story fit the evidence.
Sadly if they had just concentrated on telling the already (but not widely) known story rather than trying to make up a new one it could have been an interesting documentary.