The Soviet Union at the United Nations: An Inquiry into Soviet Motives and Objectives by Alexander Dallin (review)

74 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW of ereepinõ socialism in the democracies and reactionary totalitarianism in the communist countries Professor Malia hasdecidedto presenta life pictureof Alexander Herzen, whom someconsiderto be the father of Russiansocialism. Urffortunately thepicture is distorted. Professor Malia,a former student of the lateMichaelM. Karpovich of Harvard,considers Herzenfromthepointoœ view of ourowntimes, andhence attributes tohima greater influence thanhein fact exercised inhisownday. The authoradmitsthat in Russia "socialism, until the nineties, wasthe affairoœ a few intellectuals" (p. 105) andthat"Herzen's theoryof Russian socialism... wasamorphous and ambiguous" (p. 413). Yet he exclaims: "Butwho,in the mid-twentieth century, would presume toc].a•,nn, that this aberrant Russian doctrinewasless significant thanthatoftheWest?'(p. 105).ThefactisthatHerzen wasnota deepandoriginal thinker.He wasa malcontent andattracted others likehimself. Hisonlyclaimtofameishislongandrambling autobiography, My PastandThoughts, writtenovera periodoœ fifteen ears. Professor Maliaadmits , . ½• , . . Y . , that]t •s Herzen s masterpiece asa writerandoneof thegreatautobiographies of the nineteenth century in Russian or anylanguage" andthenaddsthatit "possesses all thevices of itsvirtues" (p. 7). It istruethattheworkcannot and should notbe usedasa historical document (although Professor Maliadoesso, particularly for Herzen's childhood years),but thatasa literarypieceit is outstanding . Professor Malia is obviously enchanted with his subject,to the extentof glossing overHerzen's immorality andapproving quiteexuberantly theswindle andblackmail whichHerzencarriedoutwiththehelp. of Baron James Rothschild to obtain the value of his vast estates,inherited from his father, which were sequestered by orderof EmperorNicholas I whenHerzenrefused to returnto Russia. Nicholas I faresbadlyat the handsof Professor Malia,whocallshim "theTyrant"with a capital"T" (p. 426). Apparently theRussian emperor, who preserved Russia fromtheturmoils andbloodshed of revolution for thirtyyears, stillremains the borenoireof American historians, notwithstanding the appearanceofsome favourable reappraisals ofhisreign. To thecreditof Professor Malia,hisstudyisremarkably freeofhistorical mistakes . Thisreviewer foundonlyone:CountMiloradovieh didnot"helpsuppress theDeeembrists" (p. 24) andhewasnot"killedin thefighting" (p. 31). In fact CountMiloradovich appeared beforethe rebellious troopsaloneon horseback andtriedtopersuade thesoldiers to returntotheirbarracks whena shot from Kakhovsky's pistolmortally wounded him.Thatwasearlyin thedayandthe fighting started onlyat dusk. Oneis also somewhat shocked tofindtheheirto thethrone of Russia called"theCrownPrince"(p. 177). On the wholethis studyis disappointing, notwithstanding its considerable scholarshi , because it places thewrongemphasis onHerzen, whose giftswere P mainly intherealm ofliterature, notofpolitics. L•,o•m I. STRAICUOVSKY University of Toronto The SovietUnionat the UnitedNations:An Inquiry into SovietMotivesand Objectives. ByAL•,Xa•DV.R DALLnV. NewYork:Frederick A. Praeger [Toronto: Bums &MacEachem Ltd.]. 1962.Pp.x,246.$6.90. ALEXANDER DALLIN'S STUDY OfSo¾iet attitudes to andperformance in the United Nations hastwomajorvirtues: it issound andsensible. The author isnotonly ravmws 75 learned in Soviet affairs; hegrasps thesense of Soviet policy. His analysis of the Sovietapproach to international organization is cool,andit is balanced by a reoognition of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies which have characterized Western aswellasSoviet attitudes. It isgood reading forexcitable commentators who see at one moment a Soviet determination to wreck the United Nations and the nextmoment findproofthat the Russians are dominating the organization throuh control of thenon-ali ed It will notbe encouraging to those whostill gn . cheris• hopes that the U.N. can be transformed from auseful instrument of diplomacy into an objective international authorit of gradually increasing scope y ß The Russians, asDr DaBin ointsout,canaccepta UnitedNations kindof ß p international organization asservin some oseduringa stateof the world g pulp whenco-existence is inescapable At the very least,th consider it somethin . ey they should be inside rather than outside. Such an organization, however, woul• havenoplacein a socialist worldandmust,therefore, be considered asa transitional phenomenon. Theycouldneverbe expected, therefore, to be interested in increasing itsauthority, eitherby.assigning newfunctions orsetting precedents, as in the caseof UNEF or the CongoForce.Their interestis in usingit to strengthen theirownposition in worldpolitics, to influence p_e9ple, andtomake propaganda, but theydo alsoseein it a framework withinwhichto makecontactsandnegotiate andperhaps keeptheworlda little lessdangerous. Because theyhavealways beenin a hopeless minority in theU.N. theirchiefconcern is to maintain theirrightto rejectthepreteusious of a majority dominated by the West. If theyhadanyhope ofcommanding a majority themselves, theymight come to lookupontheU.N. asa bodytobestrengthened in theexpectation that theycouldcontrol it, astheycontrol the WorldFederation of TradeUnions. Dr. Dallinthinks thattheinconsistency of Soviet positions in thelastdecade is partlyattributable to thefactthatafter1955,whenthelog-jam onmembership wasbroken, theychanged theirearlier estimates oftheirpolitical strength. Up to thattimetheyhadneverconsidered theU.N. veryimportant. Notuntil1957 had a bookofanykindabout theU.N.beenpublished in theU.S.S.R. Theirapparent success in winning friends by fighting colonialism ledthemintoillusions about whattheycould...