I recently checked it out from the library (first time someone has done so since 1975, in fact) and while the topic is one I'm interested in, I have to question the translator/publisher's story of how they got it.
They essentially have no real proof that Nikita Khrushchev actually wrote the book as his memoirs.
Is this book considered credible by historians, or should I take it with a grain of salt?
If it's not considered credible, are there any other books I should look into? I'm primarily interested in seeing that period of history from a Soviet perspective, as opposed to a foreigner writing about it after the fact.
The Khrushchev era isn't really my speciality so I may yet be corrected, but here goes:
In terms of whether Khrushchev Remembers actually represents Khrushchev's memoirs, I think we can reasonably say they are credible. The original tapes Khrushchev dictated that formed the memoirs were in the archives and have been accessed since the fall of the Soviet Union. The original book was based off copies smuggled out of the Soviet Union but there might be revised editions based off the 'originals'? I suppose one indication that the memoir was real may simply be that the KGB seized the tapes in the first place. IIRC William Taubman in his book Khruschev: The Man, His Era referenced the tapes and the text separately as there was some variation between them.
As to their credibility as an accurate representation of what happened? From my reading of it, Khrushchev Remembers was fairly self serving, not the sort of memoir where someone reflects back on what happened and acknowledged the whole truth or expressed regrets about those decisions. So for example Khrushchev Remembers follows Khrushchev's public line that leading party members who were involved in the great purges were just as much victims as everyone else, that they had to do it or they would be executed etc. The text is interesting as an insight into Khrushchev's character and does give some insight, but it probably shouldn't be a sole source.