Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Subscribe now for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Controlling Nuclear Weapons: Democracy Versus Guardianship, by Robert Dahl

Controlling Nuclear Weapons: Democracy Versus Guardianship, by Robert Dahl 690 I POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY the problem of how Soviet forces could reac hCzechoslovaki and a its conclusion that the Soviet Union at no time made any attempt to solve the problem is a particularl tell y ing one. The alternative to cooperation with Germany was not collective security but isola ­ tion. Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov ’s famous speeche sat Geneva, which so im­ pressed both contemporary wester n intellectua and ls some later historians, were made at a time when he was at least partially, and perhaps fully, familia r with Soviet moves in a totally contrar dir y ectio n. Nor for almost al l the time did the Soviet Union even publicl y distinguish between the “fascist” variety of capitalism and bourgeois democracy. As George Kennan pointed out in a hitherto unpublished memorandum written in Moscow in the spring of 1935 which figures here as an appendix: “The peculiarity of Soviet diplomacy, insofar as it affects all nations outside Outer Mongol ia and Tannu Tuva, is that it is openl y regarded in Moscow as the intercourse between enemie” s (p. 176). Historians who still believe that prejudice and blindnes s prevente d Neville http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Political Science Quarterly Oxford University Press

Controlling Nuclear Weapons: Democracy Versus Guardianship, by Robert Dahl

Political Science Quarterly , Volume 100 (4): 2 – Dec 15, 1985

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/controlling-nuclear-weapons-democracy-versus-guardianship-by-robert-jHWHP3HXur

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Copyright
1985 The Academy of Political Science
ISSN
0032-3195
eISSN
1538-165X
DOI
10.2307/2151548
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

690 I POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY the problem of how Soviet forces could reac hCzechoslovaki and a its conclusion that the Soviet Union at no time made any attempt to solve the problem is a particularl tell y ing one. The alternative to cooperation with Germany was not collective security but isola ­ tion. Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov ’s famous speeche sat Geneva, which so im­ pressed both contemporary wester n intellectua and ls some later historians, were made at a time when he was at least partially, and perhaps fully, familia r with Soviet moves in a totally contrar dir y ectio n. Nor for almost al l the time did the Soviet Union even publicl y distinguish between the “fascist” variety of capitalism and bourgeois democracy. As George Kennan pointed out in a hitherto unpublished memorandum written in Moscow in the spring of 1935 which figures here as an appendix: “The peculiarity of Soviet diplomacy, insofar as it affects all nations outside Outer Mongol ia and Tannu Tuva, is that it is openl y regarded in Moscow as the intercourse between enemie” s (p. 176). Historians who still believe that prejudice and blindnes s prevente d Neville

Journal

Political Science QuarterlyOxford University Press

Published: Dec 15, 1985

There are no references for this article.