+ N Y Times p24 O 3 ’20 620w
“It would be the better for compression and it is rather too somber in its treatment.”
+ − Outlook 126:378 O 27 ’20 30w
“As in all his stories, Ridgwell Cullum has an excellent plot for his latest book. But with equal ease he mars the telling with a cumbersome, prolix style.”
+ − Springf’d Republican p5a Ja 23 ’21 160w The Times [London] Lit Sup p602 S 16 ’20 40w
CUMMING, CAROLINE KING, and PETTIT, WALTER WILLIAM, comps. and eds. Russian-American relations, March 1917–March 1920. *$3.50 Harcourt 327
20–11098
The documents and papers have been compiled under the direction of John A. Ryan, J. Henry Scattergood, and William Allen White at the request of the League of free nations association. They cover three years beginning with the first declaration issued by the Provisional government of Russia after the revolution, March 16, 1917, and ending with the statement made by the supreme council at Paris, February 24, 1920. Their object is to facilitate an inquiry into the relations between the United States and Russia since the revolution of March 1917, the general purport of which is indicated by an extract from a letter by the chairman of the association: “It is not intended that this study should go into the question of the relative merits of Bolshevism or of the forces fighting Bolshevism in Russia, but that it should be merely an attempt to make clear to the American people what the actual facts have been in our governmental dealings with the various groups in what was the Russian empire.” The documents fall into three main categories: (1) Documents already published in English in Senate reports, State department publications, the New York Times, Current History Magazine, the Nation, etc.; (2) Original translations from various Russian official and unofficial newspapers; (3) Materials hitherto unpublished, contributed by Colonel Raymond Robins and others. There is an index.
“Gratitude for the publication should not impose silence as to its faults, which are of such a character as to impair greatly its usefulness. First of all, the selection of documents, besides being very slight for the period of the provisional and Kerensky governments, has also somewhat of an ex parte character. The reader will not fail to be struck with the entire absence of papers derived directly from the State department, except for five that are taken from one of its publications.”