Dmitri,
Your "comments" here -- as in the others you put forward on this theme -- demonstrate an appalling case of misplaced arrogance. You should have it looked into. I recommend reading a good book or two, especially the ones you denounce or toss aside with disdain without having looked at them.
For people like you who apparently do not want to hear uncomfortable truths, it is easy to say there's nothing new under the sun and we've heard it all before. Every new book can easily be dismissed without ever bothering to thumb through them.
You seem to be captive of the idea that there is a fixed sum of "historical facts" out there that are gathered up like wheat at harvest time. In truth, most of the new and most successful books coming out about the Russian Revolutiion, Lenin, Stalin, or Hitler, do not provide sensational new revelations. When they make such claims the books often turn out to provide rather less than they promised. Most books deal with the same finite set of documents -- for example, on the Cold War. However, there are dramatic differences in the interpretation of these documents, which is as it should be, given their complexity and the fact that they are always incomplete.
With the passage of time since 1917, and with new generations, there have arisen many new perspectives and new research interests. Above all we raise new questions about the documents and, indeed, some new documents emerge. We see connections that other researchers were not interested in, ignored or overlooked. We also provide new interpretations. We are interested not merely in what Lenin or Stalin said, but the significance of what they said.
All of these factors and more cause us to write and re-write history in an on-going conversation of the present with the past. In that sense, all history in contemporary history, it never reaches a final "finished product" that everyone accepts. For no sooner is there wide agreement or even consensus on some topic such as the Russian Revolution or the fall of Communism, then the consensus begins to be questioned, new interpretations are offered, and the process continues.
The events that opened with the war in 1914 and more or less concluded in 1945 were so complex that questions about them will go on being asked long into the future. Anyone who has read just the published works of Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler will be humble enough to say, as I do, that the most I could do was to attempt an understanding these complex figures. However, my interpreation differs substantially from those provided before and it may not be to everyone's taste who actually reads the book.
Historians are driven by many motives, and mine can be stated simply: I have a passion for justice and truth and I am interested in improving our understanding of the past. I am drawn to what seem to me to be life and death questions, like injustice, repression, mass murder, racism, and those who support it. It is a fallacy to assume that our understanding of these matters cannot be improved or that we "know it all already."