4 ms·

Well, I heard it's rather... controversial, to say the least.

enriquto 8y ago
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.
- ericdykstra 8y ago
  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. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Together-Complete-Volumes-Dvesti/dp/5969707023 https://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Together-Complete-Volumes-Dve...
- egao1980 8y ago
  Antisemitic fiction writer. Made up stories about Gulag as if there were no true stories. One of the creators of 'Stalin killed 50/60/100 millions of Soviet people' myth. His fiction was used by US and Russian government to justify privatization of Soviet industries.
  - patrickg_zill 8y ago
    Do you have any sources that you can share, that you believe give a more accurate count?
  - effry-much 8y ago
    > Antisemitic fiction writer. Correction: Anti-marxist-semitic personal experience writer. (He didn't like only marxist Jews) But it is OK, I do not expect intellectual honesty from a communism apologist.
- agsdfgsd 8y ago
  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!".
  - enriquto 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      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 8y ago
        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 8y ago
        >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 8y ago
- andrepd 8y ago
  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?
  - enriquto 8y ago
    You can read both, and learn more.

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.

ericdykstra 8y ago
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. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Together-Complete-Volumes-Dvesti/dp/5969707023 https://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Together-Complete-Volumes-Dve...
egao1980 8y ago
Antisemitic fiction writer. Made up stories about Gulag as if there were no true stories. One of the creators of 'Stalin killed 50/60/100 millions of Soviet people' myth. His fiction was used by US and Russian government to justify privatization of Soviet industries.
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  Do you have any sources that you can share, that you believe give a more accurate count?
- effry-much 8y ago
  > Antisemitic fiction writer. Correction: Anti-marxist-semitic personal experience writer. (He didn't like only marxist Jews) But it is OK, I do not expect intellectual honesty from a communism apologist.
agsdfgsd 8y ago
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!".
- enriquto 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      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 8y ago
        >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 8y ago
andrepd 8y ago
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?
- enriquto 8y ago
  You can read both, and learn more.