Hello.
Although it is not my profession, I'm interested in history. For now, I'm just reading some historical books but I've encountered with a problem which I could not found a solution yet. For few years I'm interested in both Russian and Soviet history. From old Slavic tribes to Kievan Rus', Russian Empire to Soviet Union and beyond. The problem occurred when I bought a book called A History of Russia by George Vernadsky. Vernadsky is someone who hated Soviet Union and his take on Soviet Union is not really objective. However I don't really trust the hard-line communists' take on Soviet Union's history.
Is there a book written by a pro-soviet/pro-communist take which criticizes and/or shows not really bright side of Soviet Union? Same can be asked for Tsarist Russia and older times. How do historians conclude that some piece of event in history is happened in the way that is happened rather than either sides' praise/vilification?
Hello.
To answer your question about "objective" resources and how do historians work around it, that's one of the very works a historian has to do. Most of the time, if not all the time, historians must work with resources that aren't by any means objective. It's the work of the historian to analyze how the resource's POV affects the overall resource. I personally believe that there isn't such thing as an objective resource.
Regarding your question about Soviet history books, I'm pretty fond of Marc Ferro's and Geoffrey Roberts' works.