758 SEER, 8 i, 4, 2003 to visit POWs, and did distribute aid to them. However, it provided substantiallyless aid per man than did the Germans. The fact that the Russians, Germans, and Austro-Hungarians permitted representativesof each others'governmentsto visitprisonersis proof that the belligerentpowers were in generalkeen to treatprisonersdecently. Rachamimov makesaverygood case thatthe ruleslaiddown in the Hague Conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners had a positive effect. He devotes an important section of his book to challenging the view put forward by the historianPeterPastorthat Russian POW camps of the FirstWorldWar'could be considered prototypes of those set up later by the communists' and the Nazis (p. 67). According to Pastor,the camps played an importantrole in 'the acclimatization of the European mind to the existence of the concentration camps' (p. 8o). Rachamimov destroys this argument very effectively. He showsthat manyprisonersspentmuch of theirtime workingoutsideof camps. Although therewere 'atrocious'conditions at some sites,these 'do not seem to be the rule' (p. II5), and were in part a consequence of the lack of infrastructureat the startof the war. The Russianshad never expected to take so many prisoners.From I9I6, conditions improvedmarkedly. Rachamimov puts forward a well-researched and well-argued case, in which there are no obvious weaknesses.On page nine he statesthat there are seven stages in capture narratives,but lists only six. Other than this, there is little to criticize in this original and interestingwork, which in 2001 won the FraenkelPrizefor ContemporaryHistory. Centrefor Security Studies P. F. ROBINSON University ofHull Healey, Dan. Homosexual Desirein Revolutionagy Russia. TheRegulation of Sexual andGender Dissent.Universityof Chicago Press,Chicago, IL, and London, 200I. xvi + 392 pp. Illustrations. Appendix. Notes. Bibliography. ?40?00. DAN HEALEY'S latest contribution to the study of same-sex love in RussoSoviet historyisthefirstserioushistoricalworkon the questionof homosexuality in Russia ever. Availing himself of records and archives accessible only since the fall of Communism, he looks afresh at the rich subcultures of St Petersburg and Moscow, charting, with empirical aplomb, the ambiguous attitudeof the late tsaristregime and revolutionaryrulerstowardgay men and lesbians. But ratherthan merely plotting the course of his chosen terrain,the author inspiresconfidence by openly confessingto certain limitations.Already in the introduction to his Homosexual Desirein Revolutionagy Russia. TheRegulation of Sexualand Gender Dissent,he cautions that the available sources reflect a masculinity-orientedhistoriographyof sexuality,wherein attention to women has usuallybeen grosslyneglected. Nevertheless,Healey proceeds to integrate Russian histories of female as well as male same-sex love, trying to establish the interrelationshipbetween male and female homosexuality made by the structures'thatsought to regulate, control and to cure them' (p. 13).Another REVIEWS 759 caveat pointed out isthe generalrestrictionson researchin post-Soviet Russia, notably the inaccessibility of material held in major archives, for instance those of Russia'sMinistryof InternalAffairsand the FederalSecurityService. As a consequence, Healey has chosen to confine his investigations to the recordsofvarious'humbler'institutions,which, in the opinion of thisreviewer, have yielded unusuallyrich and illuminatingresults. Preceded by a well-administeredintroduction, where the author, amongst other things, acknowledges his debt to the seminal work of Laura Engelstein and Simon Karlinsky(hetakesissuewith the latteron severalpoints),the book is coherently divided into three thematic parts: i. 'Same-Sex Eros in Modernizing Russia'; 2. 'Regulating Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia';and, 3. 'Homosexual Existence and ExistingSocialism'.Fromvarious perspectives, Healey investigates here the private worlds of sexual dissidents during the pivotal decades before and after the 19I7 Bolshevik revolution. Through meticulous reading of medical case histories, legal records, courtroom transcripts,and debates within the Commissariatsof Justice and Health, he scrutinizes the tsarist policing of homosexuality, successive proposals to decriminalize sodomy, the keen attention of Soviet physiciansto same-sex love, and, not least, the cruel fate of sexual dissidents during the political reign of Stalin. While exploring the lives of men and women who were categorized as sexuallyabnormal(sodomit- 'sodomite';lesbiianka /gomoseksualistka 'lesbian'; zheneonenavistnik 'women hater'; germafrodit-zhena 'hermaphroditewoman '; srednii pol 'the intermediate sex'; and so on), or who defined themselves in unconventional sexual or gender terms, Healey demonstrates why it is impossibleto understandgender as a form of power without keeping homosexuality in our gaze. Especially startling in this connection is his discussion of the syncretized Stalinist family policy of the I930s, which, depending very...