Conclusion

The changes that have taken place in world politics since 1945 have been enormous. Assessing their sig­nificance raises many complex issues about the nature of international history and international relations. The question of who won the cold war, and how, and with what implications, are matters on which fierce controversy has been generated. Several points are emphasized in this conclusion concerning the relationship between the three trends explored in the chapter (end of empire, cold war, and the bomb). The period of history since 1945 has wit­nessed the end of European empires constructed before, and in the early part of, the twentieth cen­tury, and has also witnessed the rise and fall of the cold war. The end of the cold war has also been fol­lowed by the demise of one of the two principal protagonists in that conflict, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The relationship between the end of empire and cold war conflicts in the "Third World' is a close though problematic one. In some cases cold war involvement of the superpowers helped bring about change. In others, where the superpowers became directly involved it resulted in the escalation and prolongation of the conflict. Marxist ideology in various forms provided inspir­ation to many 'Third World' liberation movements, but provocation to the United States and others. The example of Vietnam is most obvious in these respects, but in a range of anti-colonial struggles the cold war played a major part. Precisely how the cold war influenced decolonization is best assessed on a case by case basis. One key issue is how far the values and objectives of revolutionary leaders and their movements were nationalist rather than Marxist. It is claimed that both Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam and Fidel Castro in Cuba were primarily nationalists who could have been won over to the West, but turned to Moscow and to communism in the face of American and Western hostility. The divisions between the USSR and the People's Republic of China also dem­onstrate the diverging trends within the practice of Marxism. In several instances conflict between communists became as bitter as conflict between communists and capitalists.

Similarly, the relationship between the cold war and the history of nuclear weapons is a close though problematic one. Some historians contend that the use of atomic weapons by the United States played a decisive part in the origins of the cold war. Others would see the paranoia created by the threat of total annihilation to be central to understanding Soviet defence and foreign policy: the unprecedented threat of devastation provides the key to understand­ing the mutual hostility and fear of both sets of lead­ers in the nuclear age. It is also argued that without nuclear weapons direct Soviet-American conflict would have been much more likely, and that had nuclear weapons not acted as a deterrent then war in Europe would have been much more likely. On the other hand there are those who contend that nuclear weapons have played a relatively limited role in East-West relations, and that in political terms their importance is exaggerated.

Nuclear weapons have been a focus for political agreement, and during detente nuclear arms agree­ments acted as the currency of international politics. How far and why nuclear weapons have helped keep the peace (if indeed they have) raises very important questions not only for assessing the cold war but for contemplating the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction into the twenty-first century. How close we came to nuclear war in 1961 (Berlin) or 1962 (Cuba) or 1973 (Arab-Israeli war) or 1983 (Exercise 'Able Archer') and what lessons might be learned from these events are crucial questions for historians and policy-makers alike. One central issue is how far cold war perspectives and the involvement of nuclear-armed superpowers imposed stability in regions where previous instability had led to war and conflict. The cold war may have led to unprecedented concentrations of military and nuclear forces in Europe, but this was a period char­acterized by stability and great economic prosperity, certainly in the West. How far this stability was bought at the risk of an ever-present danger of nuclear confrontation is a question historians are still exploring and debating.

Both the cold war and the age of empire are over, though across the globe their legacies, good and bad, seen and unseen, persist. The age of 'the bomb', and of other weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological) continues. How far the clash of commun­ist and liberal/capitalist ideologies helped facilitate and/or retard the process of globalization is a matter for debate. Despite the limitations of the human imagination the global consequences of nuclear war remain all too real. The accident at the Soviet nuclear reactor at Chernobyl in 1986 showed that radioactiv­ity knows no boundaries. In the 1980s some scien­tists suggested that a only a fraction of the world's nuclear weapons exploded over a fraction of the world's cities could bring an end to life itself in the northern hemisphere. While the threat of strategic nuclear war has receded the global problem of nuclear weapons remains a common and urgent concern as humanity addresses the next millennium.

QUESTIONS

1 Was Harry Truman to blame for the collapse of the wartime alliance after 1945 and the onset of the cold war?

2 Why did the United States become involved in wars in Asia after 1945? Illustrate your answer by reference to either the Korean or Vietnam wars.

3 Did detente succeed?

4 Should Ronald Reagan or Mikhail Gorbachev claim the greater credit for the ending of the cold war?

5 Why did France try to remain an imperial power in Indo-China and Algeria?

6 What were the consequences of the collapse of the Portuguese empire in Africa?

7 Were the British successful at decolonization after 1945?

8 Compare and contrast the end of Empire in Africa with that in Asia after 1945.

9 Why were atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

10 Did nuclear weapons help prevent war in Europe after 1945?

11 How close did we come to nuclear war during either the Berlin crisis (1961) or the Cuban missile crisis (1962)?

12 What role did nuclear weapons play in Soviet-American relations during the 1980s?

GUIDE TO FURTHER READING