Review: Witness to History, 1929–1969
| DOI | 10.1177/002070207503000121 |
| Date | 01 March 1975 |
| Author | F.H. Soward |
| Published date | 01 March 1975 |
| Subject Matter | Review |
176
INTERNATIONgAL
JOURNAL
judge,
yet
a
polemical
tone
mars
parts
of
his
study. Consider
the
fol-
lowing
sentence:
'By
the
time
Dulles
effectively
transferred
McLeod
[an
ally
of
Senator
Joseph
McCarthy]
to
a
less
strategic
position,
the
damage
had
already
been
done
and
the
Secretary
experienced
a
round
of
execration
not
only from
liberal
and
intellectual
circles
but
also
from
some
moderate
elements.'
Dulles'
critics
are
repeatedly maligned
by
such
egregious
wording.
As
well,
at
least
some
of
Guhin's
assertions
are
open to
question. He
claims,
for
example,
that
Dulles
opposed
crossing
the
3
8th
parallel
in
Korea.
According
to
George
Kennan,
however:
'That
this
view
[Kennan's
opposition
to
the
crossing]
did
not
fail
to
register
was
evident
from
the
fact
that
Mr
John
Foster
Dulles cited
it
(most
importantly
from
the
standpoint
of
governmental
security)
to
a
journalist
as
evidence
of
a
dangerous
waywardness
of
opinion
on
my
part'
(Memoirs,
Ii,
24).
Assuming
that
Kennan
is
not
mistaken,
Dulles
either
approved
of
the
decision
to
seek
reunification
of
Korea,
or
his
behaviour
toward
Kennan
was
patently
dishonest.
But
the
most
serious
difficulty
in
Guhin's
analysis
is
his
habit
of
confidently
dismissing
instances
of
ideological
or
moralistic
rhetoric
or
behaviour
as
not
the
'real' Dulles,
but
as
merely
tactical
manoeuvres
for
coping
with
various
political
pressures.
On the
other
hand,
in-
stances
of
flexibility
in
speech
or
action
are
cited
as
evidence
sup-
porting the
thesis
of
the
'pragmatic
craftsman.'
This
book
deserves
reading
as
a
provocative
interpretation,
but
it
falls
short
of
being
a
rigorous
or
definitive study.
Ole
R.
Holsti/Duke
University
WITNESS
TO
HISTORY,
1929-1969
Charles
E.
Bohlen
New York:
W.W.
Norton
[Toronto:
George
J.
McLeod],
1973,
xiv,
562pp,
$14.50
The
title
of
this
important
book
underrates the
significance
of
the
role
of
the
author.
Although
an
interpreter
may
be
so
described
and
Bohlen
acted
as
such
at
the
first
Moscow
conference
and
at
Teheran,
Yalta,
and
Potsdam, he
was
a
diplomat
unusually
well-trained
in
To continue reading
Request your trial