REVIEWS 567 make peace with the post-Ottoman leadership as quickly as possible, not least in order to setde outstanding territorial issues in the south Caucasus. The goal of spreading the Communist revolution and undermining nationalists thus took second place to the need to protect Soviet foreign policy interests. On the other hand, from itsearliest days, republican Turkey had a sizeable number of vocal leftistactivists. The Communist Party ofTurkey was found ed in 1920, and its leaders often looked loyally to the Soviet Union for support. Balancing relations between theTurkish state and theTurkish Communists proved to be one of the thorniest challenges for Moscow's 'eastern' ? or 'southern' ? policy for most of the Soviet Union's existence. Gokay clearly illustrates the vicissitudes of relations between Moscow and theTurkish left. There is insufficientspace in a volume of under 200 pages to go into great detail, but any one of the various scenes the author paints might well become the subject of a volume in itsown right ? especially given access to new archival documents, which he uses to good effect. British and Soviet intelligence agents vie for influence in the southCaucasus and across Anatolia. Turkish Communists are assassinated on the Black Sea. Nazim Hikmet, Turkey's unofficial national poet, struggles to place his own patriotism within an internationalist frame. Soviet and American broadcasters seek to woo audiences inTurkey with propaganda programmes launched fromEurope. Gokay describes what was in fact a foreign policy sideshow for most parties concerned. Once the Soviets had effectively made peace with thenew Turkish state ? a state that would also become a NATO ally ? efforts to undermine the Ankara government from within were never pursued in a serious way. Still, there isno more thorough analysis of theways inwhich the liberationist rhetoric of Bolshevism in the 1920s became transformed into the more sober geopolitical calculus of Soviet foreign policy makers later in the century. Despite a few annoying textual mistakes and some unclear choices on usage (why the hypercorrect 'Komintern' rather than the standard Comintern?), this volume provides a useful narrative of one of the lost causes of Soviet foreign policy: the effort to support pro-Soviet leftistsinside the territoryof a solidly Western ally. School ofForeign Service Charles King Georgetown University Kang-Bohr, Youngok. Stalinismus in der landlichen Provinz. Das Gebiet Voronez I934~I94I- Klartext, Essen, 2006. 301 pp. Notes. Tables. Appendices. Bibliography. Glossary. 34.00 (paperback). This book examines two of the darkest facets of Stalinism, the party purges in the terrorof the 1930s and the poor situation, criminalization and repression of homeless children during thisperiod. Based almost exclusively on materi als from the local archives ofVoronezh oblast' (Obkom, NKVD and KPK records, official correspondence of party organs as well as popular appeals and petitions), the book is a regional study on one of the traditionally and, in the 1930s, still largely agricultural areas that had suffered severely from famine, de-kulakization and collectivization. This regional focus is the book's great 568 SEER, 86, 3, JULY 2008 merit. Not only does it call attention to the fact that Soviet territory was vast and Soviet society diverse; Kang-Bohr holds as her main argument through out her book that decision-making and crucial turns in the policies of the centre cannot be explained adequately without a close look at the periphery. If the aim is to grasp the dynamics that led to terror, that forced it in 1937-38 and eventually relieved it,one has to study the interaction of central and lo cal party organs on all levels and in particular that of central and local elites with the party rank-and-file and the local population in general. If one wants to explain what ledMoscow to its excessive liquidation policies, one has to get an idea of how effectiveparty control might have been in the periphery and how reliably provincial society functioned in the eyes of the Soviet lead ers. How popular was the Soviet regime in the countryside? Was the local nomenklatura simply the agent that carried out the centre's plans, or did they defend any interestsof the people? What were themechanisms of repression and the content of accusations? And what about the prosecuted? Who...