Book Review: U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe: Contemporary History in the Soviet Mirror
| Date | 01 December 1964 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070206401900433 |
| Published date | 01 December 1964 |
| Author | Robert H. McNeal |
| Subject Matter | Book Review |
586
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
can
not
be
mechanically
compared
with
other
economies
in
terms
of
such
indices
(pp.
247, 249
and
252).
Yet his
chapter
13
("Why
have
they
grown
faster?")
compares
Soviet
rates
of
growth
with
Western
rates.
Again,
while
admitting
the
importance
of
input-reduction
to
econ-
omic
growth,
Wiles
denies
that
"investment
in
steel
and
machinery
is
somehow
more
growth promoting
than
investment
elsewhere"
(p.
289),
e.g.
in
threads
or
dresses
(p.
300).
Also,
while
declaring
that
"growth
is
enhanced
by
a
greater
volume
of
investment
than
the market
would
render
profitable"
(p.
301),
Wiles
denies
that
this requires
increased
capital
intensity
as
well.
He
even
asserts
that
"the
Soviet
authorities
behaved
very
rationally
[by]
refusing
to
recognize
obsolescence
at
all
until
1956"
(p.
311).
A
reader, nurtured
on
the
monotonous
diet
of
assumption-ridden
computations
of
Soviet
Gross
National
Product will
find
Dr.
Wiles'
book
a
refreshing
and
provocative
experience.
University
of
British
Columbia
H.
E.
RoN•IoIs
CONTEMPORARY
HISTORY
IN
THE
SovIET
MIRROR.
Edited
by
John
Keep
and
and
Liliana
Brisby.
1964.
(New
York:
Frederick
A.
Praeger.
Tor-
onto:
Thomas
Nelson.
331pp.
$10.50)
Learned
conferences
are
by
nature
susceptible
to
various
ailments,
and
a
number
of
these
are
evident
in
this
volume,
which
is
based
on
papers
presented
to
a
meeting
of
eminent specialists
in
Soviet
affairs
in
1961.
Coordination
generally
poses
a
difficulty,
and
in
this
symposium
it
appears
that
the authors
of
papers
were allowed
to
follow
their
individual inclinations
with
little
thought
for
the
attainment
of
sym-
metry
and
cohesiveness
in
the
total
result.
Essays
overlap
one
another
a
good
deal,
provide
almost
no
attention
to some
major
aspects
of
con-
temporary
history,
and
at
times
embark
on
discussions
that
concern
history
only
in
the
sense
that
all the
social
sciences
are
history.
Often
it
is
easier
to
induce
distinguished
scholars to
participate
in
conferences
than
it
is
to
arrange
for
such
busy
persons
to
find
the
time
to
prepare
original
and
carefully
researched
papers,
and
this
seems to
have
been
a
problem in
the
present
case.
Some
portions
of
the
book-for
example,
Bertram
Wolfe's
discussion
of
early
Bolshevik
histories
of
the party
and
George
Katkov's
treatment
of Soviet
historical
sources
since
Stalin-provide
fresh
material
for
specialists,
but
a
num-
ber
of
the
essays
seem
to
be
based
on
little
new
research.
In
particular
the
crisis
of Soviet
historians
in
1956
and
the
new
official
party
history
of
1959
are
treated
in
several
articles
in
this
symposium
without
adding
much
to
previous
analyses.
Most
learned
conferences include
discussion
of
the
papers
presented
to
them,
but
rarely
are
these deliberations
sufficiently
succinct
and
co-
herent
to
merit
general
publication.
However,
ten
such
discussions
are
included
in
this
volume,
each
including
some
introductory
remarks
by
the
author
of
the
paper
under
discussion, which
usually
add
little
to
the
paper
itself,
and
each
transcribed
in
the
unattractive
form
of
in-
direct quotation
often
used
in
minutes.
To continue reading
Request your trial