182 Reviews changed, with the passing decades. But more explicitly, the editor's introduc- tion also offers a concise history of the Canadian Historical Review (CHR), the premiere historical journal in Canada. Here, although Professor Shore has pre- viously written on similar subjects, the introduction falls a bit short. My complaint is that the introduction is a simple narrative, revealing few glimpses of discussions behind the scenes. Perhaps the CHR's double-blind assessment process prevents revealing too much, but surely this could be accommodated. Simply put, the introduction glosses over contentious issues and is largely uncritical. As one example, although Shore repeatedly informs the reader that the editors tried to bridge the divide between French and English Canadians, it is difficult to perceive just how this was tried prior to the Quiet Revolution. The CHR remained firmly English in its conception, only awak- ening to the other solitude in the 1950s under John Saywell. Its first French- language article, appearing in 1962, was a curiously political choice - Femand Ouellet's analysis of the historical roots of QuCbecois separatism - that reflect- ed Anglophone apprehensions about Quebec and Canada more than French- language scholarship of the day. All of this receives little comment from Shore. There are other examples that reflect, not so much a contested past, but an exercise in consensus building. This is not the fault of Marlene Shore. It would have been irresponsible to portray, for instance, a tradition of bilingualism where none really existed. But silences can be deafening, and informative. Where were the rebels and outsiders in this story? Were there no dissatisfied contributors? The CHR may be open to new methods today, but it is unfortu- nate that Shore does not explore the politics behind editorial decisions of the past. Editors and editorial boards sometimes have agendas (as might reviewers) and the rejected might reveal more than the published. An analysis of the rea- sons given for rejecting submissions, or perhaps some figures on the kinds of papers and authors most often turned down, might have revealed a greater but hidden contest to frame our collective memories. This is not investigated in the book Marlene Shore has given us. Instead we are shown a past contested, but only within the general consensus of mainstream academic historians. Alan Gordon University of Guelph David Brandenberger, National Bolshevism: Stalinist Mass Culture and the Formation of Modern Russian National Identity, 1931-1956 (Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2002). David Brandenberger's National Bolshevism focuses on history and historical narrative as key to understanding how a particular national identity was creat-