Polish Kremlinologist Leopold Labedz criticised Carr for taking the claims of the Soviet government too seriously. Labedz went on to argue that Carr's decision to end the "History of Soviet Russia" series at 1929 reflected an inability and unwillingness to criticize Stalin's Soviet Union. Labedz was very critical of Carr's handling of sources, arguing that Carr was too inclined to accept official Soviet documents at face value and unwilling to admit to systematic falsification of the historical record under Stalin. Finally, Labedz took Carr to task over what he regarded as Carr's tendency to white-wash Soviet crimes "behind an abstract formula which often combines "progressive" stereotypes with the lexicon of Soviet terminology". Norman Stone argued that Carr was guilty of writing in a bland style meant to hide his pro-Soviet sympathies. Walter Laqueur argued that the "History of Soviet Russia" volumes were a dubious historical source that for the most part excluded the unpleasant aspects of Soviet life, reflecting Carr's pro-Soviet tendencies. A major source of criticism of a "History of Soviet Russia" was Carr's decision to ignore the Russian Civil War under the grounds it was unimportant and likewise to his devoting only a few lines to the Kronstadt mutiny of 1921 since Carr considered it only a minor event. Laqueur commented that Carr's ignoring the Russian Civil War while paying an inordinate amount of attention to such subjects as the relations between the Bolshevik and Swedish Communist parties and Soviet diplomatic relations with Outer Mongolia in the 1920s left the "History of Soviet Russia" very unbalanced.