After Khrushchev was deposed in October 1964, it soon became apparent that his successors were in no hurry to dismantle his handiwork in the field of defense policy or to introduce major military policy innovations of their own. One may surmise that this tendency to mark time was the natural product of succession politics within the new collective leadership arrangement. As in most other major policy areas, Brezhnev and Kosygin no doubt felt the need for a breathing spell while in the process of consolidating their new regime.

Let Peary seek his Arctic goal;
His countrymen prefer a Pole
Less brumal and uncertain;
And Roe and Howells the prolix
Must bow to Henry Sienkiewicz,
Democratized by Curtin.
Anonymous, "Columbus Sienkiewicz,"
The Outlook, New York,
March 12, 1898

The subject of Henryk Sienkiewicz and America is hardly exhausted with the acknowledgment of the enormous popularity of Quo Vadis in the United States. Sienkiewicz himself visited America in 1876, in fact traveled extensively through the country and recorded his impressions at some length in his Listy z Ameryki (Letters from America), a large part of which was translated into English and published in 1959. Sienkiewicz's relations with Helena Modrzejewska (Modjeska) and her debut in the American theater at the time of his visit add to the interest of his sojourn in the United States. Another phase of Sienkiewicz's relations with this country embraces the fascinating career of his American translator, Jeremiah Curtin, whose name remains as intimately linked with translations from Polish literature, particularly the works of Sienkiewicz, as Constance Garnett's has been with English renditions of the Russian masters of the nineteenth century.

To Westerners one of the most confusing aspects of the Soviet administrative system has been the role played by lower officials of the Communist Party. It has long been clear that the top policy decisions are made within the central Party organs, but the relationship between the lower Party officials and the governmental administrators has been obscured by a number of seeming ambiguities and inconsistencies in Soviet administrative theory. The Party apparatus has been assigned the duty of supervising and controlling the state administration, but the mandates and powers of the two hierarchies appear ill-defined and overlapping.

In June 1964, when Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker, at that time “shadow” minister on the opposition benches, returned to Britain from a short visit to Rumania, he denned the new policies of the Rumanian Workers Party as “national communism.” This definition is generally accepted. The term, coined some seventeen years ago on the occasion of Titoist Yugoslavia's defiance of Stalinist Russia and serving ever since to describe the policies of any small Communist power in quest of national independence, corresponds almost perfectly to the twin objectives of the Rumanian Workers Party's new policies. As far as “communism” is concerned, its conception is essentially the triple dogma of speedy industrialization, total collectivization, and the full maintenance of the state and the functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat under the monolithic guidance of the party. But as far as the “national” side of the term is concerned, this previously servile party has distinguished itself by the bold and steady way it has progressively affirmed the desire of the Rumanian People's Republic for independence from any individual state or group of powers.

Although the study of Ukrainian historiography is rather new, it can boast of three distinguished names: Dmytro Doroshenko, Oleksander Ohloblyn, and M. I. Marchenko. To Doroshenko goes credit for the first work on Ukrainian historical writing ever published. His study, the only comprehensive survey, covers the period from the eleventh century to 1920. Doroshenko's book was supplemented and updated to 1956 by another Ukrainian historian, Ohloblyn