So, it's a coffee table book, maybe I should have lower expectations.
This isn't really 'history' - it's more a very general narrative framing of a whole period of history in the most monotone and dry storytelling possible. It's reminiscent of a war veteran who details his payroll processing and meals, and can't focus on the battles, the drama, the excitement.
The book tries to make up for its school textbook style writing with vivid photographs, but several are either out of place, or I found out later, had been flipped in the negative for one reason or another. There's a picture at Yalta in the book, with the big three seated, and it just looked off, and sure enough they had flipped it. This is a minor thing, but it represents a certain textbook-dishonesty to the many controversies of the topic.
There aren't moderates on questions like Alger Hiss. You either believe he was a spy, or that he was an innocent man who suffered a great injustice. There's no middle ground on the Rosenbergs, either. As well, there are many who have no middle ground for Communism: you either believed or worked to their ends, or you were in opposition and ultimately doing the work of the capitalists. Communism was an idea, and ideas can't be easily conquered. The Cold War was the geopolitical and physical manifestation of these competing systems, these competing ideas, and there were no moderates. You either helped Moscow, or Washington.
What was missing in this book, and in its parent product of the CNN documentary, was more explanation and exposition about these ideas and their competing nature. The philosophy of the various systems are almost subsumed in the minutiae of almost silly anecdotes strewn throughout the book. It also ignores the question of how many died in the Soviet system, both from executions and as possibly official starvation/famine policy.
The book covers that which are 'safe' topics, free from major political divisiveness today. So you don't get much about the Holomodor, except to say that "the West didn't know!" Which isn't true. And you get passing references to the Gulag system, and I don't believe Kolyma is referenced once. The KGB is documented, but its roots in the Cheka from the very start of the regime are very lightly touched. Was Allende executed or did he kill himself? The book suggests the former but briefly says the latter is also possible.
The topic is enormous, and perhaps any book of this sort is going to take some criticism no matter what. But there were so many opportunities to annotate some of their simplifications with just another sentence of context, to explain a controversy, or at least just admit to the reader that some of these issues have vicious opinions on both sides decades later.