The Impossible Triangle: Mexico, Soviet Russia, and the United States in the 1920s

2000 ◽  
Vol 105 (2) ◽  
pp. 520
Author(s):  
William Richardson ◽  
Daniela Spenser
Slavic Review ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 276-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin M. Weissman

In March 1921 Lenin predicted, “If there is a harvest, everybody will hunger a little and the government will be saved. Otherwise, since we cannot take anything from people who do not have the means to satisfy their own hunger, the government will perish.“ By early summer, Russia was in the grip of one of the worst famines in its history. Lenin's gloomy forecast, however, was never put to the test. At almost the last moment, substantial help in the form of food, clothing, and medical supplies arrived from a most unexpected source —U.S. Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover.Hoover undertook the relief of Soviet Russia not as an official representative of the United States government but as the head of a private agency —the American Relief Administration (A.R.A.).


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-102
Author(s):  
Anthony Glinoer

Abstract Simultaneously an emblematic and ambiguous case of engaged literature, proletarian and revolutionary writings from 1920–1940 have been the focus of numerous studies: whether they be in Germany, France, the United States or Soviet Russia, the principal actors have been identified, certain works have been republished, and the ways in which these movements were first encouraged and then dismantled by the Communist International in the interest of the only accepted socialist realism have been demonstrated. However, the transnational and even global dimensions of this movement and the profound similarities among institutional processes carried out in different countries have been overlooked. Drawing on little-known critical sources from the Francophone world, this article reworks the terrain and presents the state of institutional sites of proletarian and revolutionary literature. To this end, small groups, magazines, and associations will be considered in order to shed new light on this era when, across the globe, workers turned into writers.


Daedalus ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 146 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-141
Author(s):  
Keith A. Darden

Has the development of post-Soviet Russia in an international system dominated by a democracy-promoting United States bred an authoritarian reaction in Russia as a response to perceived threats from the West? Beginning with the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, Russian elites have increasingly seen the United States as a distinctively threatening power, one with a strategy to exploit civic organizations, ethnic groups, and other forms of domestic pluralism as “fifth columns” in an effort to overthrow unfriendly regimes. With each new crisis in U.S.-Russian relations – Ukraine 2004, Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014 – the Russian leadership has tightened controls over society, the press, and the state. The result is that the United States’ muscular promotion of democracy abroad has produced the opposite of its intended effect on Russia, leading successive Russian governments to balance the perceived threat from the United States by pursuing greater military and intelligence capacity to intervene abroad, and by tightening internal authoritarian controls at home to prevent foreign exploitation of the nascent internal pluralism that emerged in the wake of Communism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document