[enriquto]

I assume that most books must contain some false sentences. They are certainly worrying in a serious scholarly work, but not in the case of "Two Hundred Years Together", which is an informal essay that nobody is expected to use as the ultimate reference on historical facts.

[agsdfgsd]

I don't understand. You assume the book is wrong but that doesn't matter because it isn't serious? It is serious, and I am not aware of anything incorrect in it. The criticism is not its accuracy, it is that it says things you're not allowed to say.

[enriquto]

It is certainly inaccurate (thus, false) in some concrete numbers. Most famously, it says that in the first Soviet government almost all of the ministers were jewish people; in fact it was less than a half of them who were jewish.

I am not saying that the book is not serious. It gives a valuable personal perspective of important historical facts. But it should not be used as a source of factual data.

[agsdfgsd]

>Most famously, it says that in the first Soviet government almost all of the ministers were jewish people; in fact it was less than a half of them who were jewish.

I think you are confusing him with Putin, who actually said that. He said the cheka was mostly jewish. Which is correct.

[andrepd]

It very much has many factual errors pointed out by historians several times since its publication. If you're truly looking for an objective account and not something to stoke emotions and tell you want you want to hear, I think you're better off reading an actual history.

[rjplatte]

Define "What you want to hear"? It's someone's perspective, which is valuable.

[CapitalistCartr]

As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."