Rethinking Theory and History in the Cold War: The State, Military Power and Social Revolution (review)

Reviewing a book involves judging it not merely on the standard grounds (research, writing, organization, originality, importance, and so forth) but also asking oneself more informal questions: Does this teach me much? Is it changing my thinking? Would it be worth finishing were I not reviewing it? The answers, often difficult and nuanced, are clear in this case: No.

This is not because the book attempts too little. It promises nothing less than "an alternative understanding of the Cold War based on a reconceptualization of existing theoretical categories through an engagement with history and sociology" (p.209)—more concretely, a revitalized Marxist, historical-materialist interpretation of the Cold War. This interpretation purports to show that the Cold War resulted from the transformation of international politics wrought by the Bolshevik Revolution and the totally new kind of state founded by it, as well as the ensuing clash between two fundamentally different brands of internationalist politics pursued by it and by capitalist states.

More than half the book pursues this reconceptualization theoretically. After attempting to redefine the Cold War, Saull reviews existing schools of international relations theory, loosely categorized as realist, pluralist and ideas based, and historical- materialist in approach, all being found more or less inadequate (or, as he likes to say, "problematic"). Three long theoretical chapters reconceptualize the politics of the state, military power and strategic conflict, and social revolution in the Cold War. A briefer historical section analyzes the international relations of the Soviet Union andthe United States in the Cuban and Vietnamese revolutions, respectively—events that the author contends both defined the Cold War and demonstrated its true dynamics. A concluding chapter sums up how this Marxist analysis illuminates both the Cold War and the nature of modern international politics under the capitalist world order.

Unfortunately, the book fulfills none of its claims, for various reasons. The research is a contributing factor. The book is based on fairly wide reading, but all in English-language secondary literature, mainly political science and international relations works of the English school, above all the left. This provides no basis for serious engagement with realist theory or its alternatives (liberal institutionalism, social constructivism, etc.) and makes for major distortions and omissions. The situation in regard to history is far worse. Most of the major works on the history of the Cold War are simply missing from Saull's bibliography.

Style is another problem. Unlike many British works on international relations notable for incisive aperçus, clear exposition, and readable style, this one is verbose, tedious, repetitive, given to relentless abstractions and generalization devoid of concrete example and illustration, and riddled with obfuscating, irritating jargon, whether Marxist or otherwise.

The suspicion that the emphasis on theorizing and generalization means inadequate treatment of various elements of the Cold War is fully justified. No one of course expects the book to be a compendium of facts or a narrative history. But if the Cold War is to be reconceptualized, this surely requires the reinterpretation of elements universally seen as central to it. What can one make of a theoretical and historical "rethinking" of the Cold War that (despite disclaimers to the contrary) reduces it to a confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, treating everything else as a function of this standoff? Although the book purports to "globalize" the conflict, it in fact almost totally ignores Europe and the North Atlantic and discusses China mainly and France solely in relation to Vietnam. Japan and Korea play no role at all in the book, which also barely mentions Germany and never examines the German question. Nor does Great Britain (which British historians have shown to be an important independent actor throughout the Cold War) ever get mentioned.

The main problem with the book, however...