He's a writer, not an historian. Thus his non-fiction works do not have to be read like history books, more like journalistic opinion pieces. In that sense, the factual errors on this book are mostly irrelevant, and the work is still very interesting and insightful.
Indeed. There's not a history book that is without some critique or alternative theories, anyway. Solzhenitsyn spent a long time compiling the information he presents in Two Hundred Years Together (1120 pages in the original Russian)[1], and I would like to read a professional translation of the entire work more than the small excerpt that's in The Solzhenitsyn Reader.
But if it is not factual, what makes it insightful? If you're looking for insights, aren't you better off reading an actual history, rather than the text of an anti-semitic, nationalist, Putin apologist?
Are there factual errors in it? I haven't seen any actual valid criticism of the factual content of the book, just "its antisemitic ban it don't let anyone read it!".
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
