In Reds in Blue, Louis Howard Porter explores the twists and turns in the relationship between the Soviet Union and UNESCO from Iosif Stalin’s death to the eve of détente. Through this impressive and important study, Porter highlights several themes that defined the Soviet relationship with the body, from one of refused involvement to notable supporter. In doing so, Porter has added to our growing knowledge of Soviet internationalism and Soviet foreign policy during the Cold War era, especially during the Khrushchev years.

Porter’s study is one “from below” focusing on the bureaucrats that make up UNESCO and, in the second half of the book, Soviet figures who attempted to navigate the international organization. For Soviet citizens employed in UNESCO, Porter argues they were figures limited by their need to politically support Soviet ideology, yet many became firm believers in the internationalist vision promoted by UNESCO. The result is several push and pull forces—for example, the Soviet Union, upon taking UNESCO more seriously in the 1960s, folding its efforts into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, crafted platforms for Soviets involved in UNESCO to subvert western goals in favour of Soviet ones. With decolonization becoming increasingly important to the United Nations and its efforts, the Soviet Union saw UNESCO as a way to extend its propaganda to regions where it had a limited foothold. When looking at cultural or educational development, it had mixed success, sometimes operating bilaterally and thus angering its UNESCO partners, while in other cases, showcasing its abilities to offer a path for what many bureaucrats termed “weakly developed nations,” especially those in Asia.

Another factor in Soviet involvement also came from the realities of the bureaucratic makeup of UNESCO; by foregoing involvement upon its establishment in 1945, much of the bureaucracy thus came from liberal democracies or western nations, and thus, there was an inherent animus towards Soviet or socialist hires and employees. Soviet systems limited available options too. Those who were hired often had to navigate these existing bureaucracies and with a variety of success. Some, like A.K. Zhegalova, became symbols for women’s rights and Soviet education policies abroad under the flag of UNESCO, especially in Asia. Others, like A. A. Zvorykin, saw the opportunity to take advantage of the thawing of Stalinism under Nikita Khrushchev to encourage Soviet scholars to engage with their western counterparts seriously to enhance Soviet standing abroad. What Porter describes effectively in his study is that Soviet individuals in UNESCO took matters seriously and even if UNESCO ideas of internationalism challenged Soviet visions, many found ways to merge the two trains of thought or found UNESCO the best way forward to developing a global community.

Curiously, for a book that highlights the role Stalin’s death played in opening the door to Soviet involvement, Soviet leaders play a very limited part in this study. Stalin’s foreign policy, particularly his emphasis of a clash with the west in the early Cold War, is a key reason for Soviet intransigence. Porter notes that some Soviet individuals feared holdovers from Stalinist ways of thinking in their early interactions with UNESCO. It would have been a welcome discussion to explain those shifts from the higher levels to further contextualize the unique environment these Soviet members had to work in, shifting from speaking Bolshevik to appreciating interaction with and through UNESCO.

The book ends with a sweeping conclusion covering the UN’s importance in Mikhail Gorbachev’s “new thinking,” including how the Soviet leader saw UNESCO as a vehicle for a new global order. Nonetheless, Porter ends on a pessimistic note highlighting the limited popularity of the UN at the end of the Soviet Union, and its increasing unpopularity in the Russian Federation since. The shift from UNESCO to UN needs more discussion given the variety of different organizations under the UN umbrella. Moreover, the 1970s, which Porter notes is a high point of Soviet involvement in UNESCO is not really discussed; naturally, this is outside the scope of the book, but by opening the door, it whetted the appetite for this reader for more.

These are not serious issues and more fall into problems that reflect “the book this reviewer wanted” or issues that lead to more questions. In recent years, the field has welcomed several good books looking at Soviet Cold War policies in the Global South and on Soviet internationalism. Few have focused on Soviet involvement in international organizations. Porter has written a fantastic entry linking both topics and one that deserves to be read not only by Soviet historians, but those of international organizations.