Any WW2 or WW1 historians, might be interested in Soviet drama documentary about each war

[Igel]

1. Typically with Russian sources the problem isn't so much with what's said

as with what's not said and the relative importance of Russian whatever.

Thus it's always been. There's the occasional falsehood, but often if you dig you find that the falsehood is itself based on a half-truth that was misinterpreted.

So Russia had troops in the Western front and in Greece. But their casualties (dead + wounded) are typically less than just the deaths for any other country in a given campaign or offensive, and sometimes their casualties are a pittance compared to western allies' casualties. They didn't need to be there, except that they were allies and had large numbers of men and not so much materiel. So they contributed men in exchange for materiel. Both in WWI and in WWII. From the Russian perspective, they just contributed men without compensation--instead, they were met with betrayal. The Russian contribution on the Western front was only huge in Russian estimations. Their contribution on the Eastern front was, of course, huge. But a bloodbath.

Similarly with the USSR and Germany before WWII and with the western Allies during WWII.