Sorry, I assumed you were American because you used "US servicemen" as the alternative to Soviets. My apologies.
My point still stands, though. Depending on what country they're published in, history books will always have some form of bias. However, they have a lot of ground to cover, and it just isn't practical to give every point of view the same amount of attention- especially when the researchers and audience are much closer to a certain one. I'm not saying this is exactly fair, but it's understandable, and probably not deliberately exclusive.

When you talk about "pro-western bias" relating to textbooks, you may be mistaking this common and arguably necessary form for a more propaganda-like one. Maybe not, of course- I haven't read your book, and I'm not sure what to make of your assertion that your book 'didn't even save a paragraph for the Soviets', although I'm tempted to think it's hyperbole. Plus, we could debate all day about what 'spending space on' entails in terms of textbook war coverage.
However, unless you have some sort of inside scoop with your local textbook industry, I'd be willing to wager it's not as badly nationalized as you think.

I'd also like to mention again that as remarkable as Petrov's decision may be to you or me, it was barely a footnote in history. I'd be willing to bet that it's not taught in many Russian textbooks either.