USSR REPORT MILITARY AFFAIRS HISTORY TEACHES VIGILANCE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 72
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 2, 2005
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: November 13, 1985
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Releas*'f2R06M6MRLQ1AM40FWT01468R000100110005-2
USSR REPORT
MILITARY AFFAIRS
HISTORY TEACHES VIGILANCE
Moscow ISTORIYA UCHIT BDITELNOSTI in Russian 1985, pp 3-95
[Book "History Teaches Vigilance" by Marshal of the Soviet Union
N. V. Ogarkov, Voyenizdat, 30,000 copies, 93 pages, UDC: 68 0-36.
Passages printed in boldface and italics in source rendered in all
capital letters]
CONTENTS
Page
Annotation .............................................................. 1
Introduction ............................................................ 2
The Exploitative System Is the Source of Wars ........................... 4
Two Worlds -- Two Policies .............................................. 10
Based on the Laws of Science ............................................ 27
Two Doctrines, Two Strategies ........................................... 38
War Can and Must Be Prevented ........................................... 57
Conclusion .............................................................. 64
Footnotes ............................................................... 66
- a - [III - USSR - 4 FOUO]
Approved For Release02005/()6/08 : RA-96P93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
JPRS publications contain information primarily from foreign
newspapers, periodicals and books, but also from news agency
transmissions and broadcasts. Materials'from foreign-language
sources are translated; those from English-language sources
are transcribed or reprinted, with the original phrasing and
other characteristics retained.
Headlines, editorial reports, and material enclosed in brackets
[J are supplied by JPRS. Processing indicators such as [Text]
or [Excerpt] in the first line of each item, or following the
last line of a brief, indicate how the original information'was
processed. Where no processing indicator is given, the infor-
mation was summarized or extracted.
Unfamiliar names rendered phonetically or transliterated are
enclosed in parentheses. Words or names preceded by a ques-
tion mark and enclosed in parentheses were not clear in the
original but have been supplied as appropriate in context.
Other unattributed parenthetical notes within the body of an
item originate with the source. Times within items are as
given by source.
The contents of this publication in no way represent the poli-
cies, views or attitudes of the U.S. Government.
COPYRIGHT LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING OWNERSHIP OF
MATERIALS REPRODUCED HEREIN REQUIRE THAT DISSEMINATION
OF THIS PUBLICATION BE RESTRICTED FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
The book examines the problem of war and peace as the most burning problem of
our time. Based on analyzing the contemporary military-political situation,
the author exposes the aggressive and reactionary nature of the military
policy and military doctrines of the U. S. and its allies and shows the peace
loving essence of the Soviet Union's military doctrine.
The concluding chapter is devoted to substantiating the possibility and
necessity of preventing a new world war.
The book is intended for a wide readership.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release F1885W(F/6iZ lA' DP?~ 01468R000100110005-2
Four decades have passed since the time that Soviet soldiers hoisted the
banner of our Great Victory over the Reichstag of defeated Fascist Germany and
the standards of Hitler's "invincible" army were trampled under the feet of
the Soviet people, the victorious people. This act has gone down in history
forever. It was a worthy conclusion to the heroic feat of the Soviet people
and its Armed Forces, accomplished under the leadership of the Leninist
Communist Party.
Our path to victory was glorious and filled with many difficulties. TIe
armored hordes of fascist invaders perfidiously attacked our Homeland.
Tremendous efforts were required from the Soviet people and its army in order
to stop and then defeat the aggressor in battles of unprecedented scale and
ferocity. In great battles at Moscow and Stalingrad, at the Kursk Salient and
the Dnieper, at the Vistula, in the Berlin Operation and in other battles, the
glorious Soviet soldiers broke the spine of the bloodthirsty fascist beast.
Soldiers from the armies and partisans from Yugoslavia, Poland and
Czechoslovakia, patriots from Bulgaria, Romania, Albania and Hungary and
participants in the Resistance Movement and the anti-fascist underground
fought together with the Soviet Armed Forces against the hated enslavers. In
their front ranks were the communists -- fervent patriots and
internationalists. An important contribution to the victory over the common
enemy was also made by the peoples and armies of the U. S., Great Britai ,
France, China and other states of the anti-Hitler coalition. In this effo t
the Soviet State shouldered the brunt of the battle against fascism. It w s
namely the Soviet people and its army which became the decisive force n
achieving victory over Fascist Germany and its allies, in liberating the
peoples of Europe from Fascist enslavement and in saving world civilization,
and who honorably fulfilled their patriotic and internationalist duty. This
is their most magnificent service to mankind.
Time and life itself demonstrate ever more convincingly the world historical
importance of our victory. "The destruction of German Fascism and then
Japanese militarism," it is rioted in the CPSU Central Committee decree, "On
the 40th Anniversary of the Soviet People in the Great Patriotic War of 19411-
1945," "had the most profound influence on the entire course of world
development. Favorable conditions were created for the struggle of the
laboring masses for their social and national liberation. The positions of
progressive, democratic and peace loving forces were strengthened and the
influence of communist and workers' parties increased. The world social st
system arose and is successfully developing. The disintegration of the
imperialist colonial system was hastened, ending in its destruction."1 All
this led to fundamental changes in the correlation of forces on the world
arena to the advantage of socialism, peace and progress.
In those victorious days of 1945, mankind hoped that with the destruction !of
German Fascism and Japanese militarism an era would arrive free of wars and
bloodshed, an era of friendship and cooperation among countries and peoples.
But the reactionary circles of the Western states, most of all the U. .,
Approved For Release 20 J0Wdh FW99OY1468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
destroyed these hopes. Almost immediately after the end of the 2d World War
they unleashed a "cold war" against the USSR and other socialist countries and
aggravated the international situation. The imperialists intended, at any
price, to achieve military superiority over the USSR, and to reexamine "from a
position of strength" the results of the past war and regain their lost
historical positions.
In the 197Os, owing to the persistent efforts of the socialist states, as well
as the world's other peace loving forces, a certain detente in international
relations was achieved and real prospects appeared for further improvement in
cooperation among states with differing social systems. But reactionary
imperialist circles, most of all the U. S. military-industrial complex, fought
against detente. They desire not peace among peoples but an arms race and
preparations for a new war. It is as though for them what is more important
is not the interests of billions of people on Earth, but an unrestrained
aspiration on the part of a small group of monopolists for unprecedented
enrichment at the cost of the blood and sweat of these billions of workers.
Ever newer arms programs, irresponsible threats against the socialist states,
calls for a "crusade" against them, aggressive actions by imperialism against
the peoples of the liberated countries in various regions of the world, all
indicate that the leaders of the capitalist world learned little from the
experience ofWorld War II. In their anticommunist blindness they are
prepared to embark upon any crime, even the most monstrous, all the way to
unleashing a worldwide nuclear war.
This book makes an attempt to show the influence of the Great Victory of the
Soviet people over fascism on the postwar world; to expose the reactionary
essence of the militarist plans of today's pretenders to world domination; and
to disclose ways of preventing the new world war for which the imperialists
are preparing. The book also emphasizes the importance of high vigilance by
the forces which stand in defense of peace among the peoples and the gains of
socialism.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
The military danger which arose recently through the fault of the imperialism
of the U. S. and other countries of the aggressive NATO bloc is causing deep
concern in ever wider circles of mankind. People of various ages, convictions
and occupations are more and more often thinking about how and why wars arise
and whether they are unavoidable and tragic companions of human progress Or
the ugly fruit of some social formation.
In order to answer these questions it is necessary to look at history. I I t
makes clear that there have not always been wars. In primitive communal
society, for example, they were altogether absent, since there were no reasons
for them. Everything which people obtained from nature at that time was
shared fairly among them.
Wars began with the appearance! of private property in the means of production
and the division of society into antagonistic classes, and with the emergence
of exploiters and exploited.
The appearance of wars made it necessary to develop certain theoretical views
on war and its weapon -- the army. These views expressed most of all the
interests of the ruling classes.
In slaveholding society, which was characterized by the most brutal
exploitation of the oppressed classes, war was considered a natural
phenomenon, since it provided slaves, without which slaveholding society could
not exist.
In the feudal era, when religion was the dominant form of ideology, war as a
rule was interpreted as a "necessary evil," without which there supposedly
could not be the "good of Christian peace and justice." Meanwhile, even then
opinions were already being expressed that the roots of war should be sought
not in heaven, but on earth.
Later, in the stage of early bourgeois society, other theories began to arise
about the origin and causes of wars. There were a lot them. With tLe
development of capitalism, many of them were seized upon by its ideologues,
amplified, and exist today. These are so-called biological, racial, technical
and other theories and concepts, as well as various psychological
interpretations. All basically expressed the ideology of the exploiters, tIe
ideology of capitalism and its highest stage -- imperialism.
ONLY MARXISM-LENINISM, WHICH COMBINES COMMUNIST PARTY-MINDEDNESS WITH STRICT
SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY, PROVIDES THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE ESSENCE OF
WAR AND ITS LAWS AND ROLE IN THE HISTORICAL PROCESS.
Marxism-Leninism teaches that the course of world history, its most important
events and the replacement of social and economic formations are objectively
caused most of all by the development of productive forces and the means of
production. A change in the means of production caused changes in all spher's
Approved For Release 8~~5 6/F0I IAUI r01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
of social life, including the military. Therefore, Marxism-Leninism serves as
the overall theoretical and methodological foundation of Soviet military
science and of the cognitive and practical activity of military cadres. On
the basis of Marxism-Leninism and its theories and methods, Soviet military
science, along with the other sciences, studies war as a complex social and
political phenomenon. Its military technical base and the methods of
preparing for and waging war are studied in close connection with its social
and political aspects, and appropriate recommendations are developed.
Marx and Engels thoroughly disclosed the socio-historical nature of wars and
the reasons that they arise. Exposing the idealistic and anti-scientific
theories of the ideologues of the exploitative classes, Engels demonstrated
that it is not wars which are the cause of the inequality of classes, but, to
the contrary, it is namely economic and social inequality in an antagonistic,
exploitative society which led to the emergence of wars as a socio-political
phenomenon. Consequently, the sources and causes of wars must be sought first
of all in antagonistic socio-economic formations, where private property in
the means of production divided society into opposing classes.
Thus, the need for slaves and a desire to plunder other peoples were the main
causes of wars in the slaveholding world. The battle to acquire riches and
secure the conditions for exploitation of the peoples became the reason for
military campaigns in the feudal era. War is also inherent to capitalism and
its corresponding means of production and the bourgeois type of state, the
government of which, in Marx's definition, is "a committee, managing its
common affairs,""2 and in which the predatory military machine -- "a dirty,
bloody swamp of military bureaucratic institutions, subordinating everything
to itself and suppressing everything,""3 functions as the inevitable arbiter of
this state. The militaristic appetite grew still more in the highest stage of
capitalism, the period of imperialism, when monopolistic plunderers began to
fight to forcibly redivide the world, which was already divided among the
largest exploitative states.
War is an expression of the extreme exacerbation of the contradictions
inherent in exploitative society, and is a specific way of solving them.
Armed force is inherently necessary in this society to plunder other
countries, ensure the domination of the propertied classes and maintain
peoples in subjugation for the purposes of their exploitation. It is namely
for this reason that the history of exploitative society, in the words of
Engels, dragged "its triumphal chariot across a mountain of bodies.""3
Beginning with its first pages it was written in the blood and sweat of the
oppressed and the language of the fire, of the oppressors.
V. I. Lenin, whose name and activity are linked to an entire era in the
development of society, brilliantly continued the work and teaching of Marx
and Engels. He gave answers to the most pressing questions with which mankind
was faced in its new stage of development, when capitalism had attained its
highest stage, that of imperialism. Lenin thoroughly developed and enriched
the theory of the socialist revolution and laid the basis for a new stage in
developing teaching about war and the army under new historical conditions, in
the era of the transition of mankind from capitalism to socialism.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
A dialectical materialist understanding of history makes it possible to see
clearly the close link between war and politics. "...War," noted Lenin, "ig
simply the continuation of politics by other," (namely forcible) "means."{
The nature and aims of war are fully and entirely determined by the nature and
goals of "the policy of given, ipterested powers -- and ,the various classes
within them -- at a given time."
"War," stressed Lenin in 1915, "is a 'terrible' thing.-But it is a terribly
profitable thing."7 In the 1st World War, U. S. imperialists turned from a
debtor to Europe into her creditor, and gained over $35 billion out of t1Ie
peoples' blood. In 6 years of the 2d World War, profits of American
corporations reached $116.8 billion. Considering nothing, they are intensely
tearing toward this "profitable thing" today as well, all the more so because
they have still not really experienced the destructive consequences of modern
warfare. Ruling circles of the U. S. and its allies, expressing and defending
the interests of monopoly capital and its most reactionary part -- the
military-industrial complex -- are prepared in the name of their own aims to
risk the vital interests of all mankind.
In Lenin's apt expression, "politics is the concentrated expression f
economics."8 And the U. S. economy is in the hands of monopoly capital. o
obtain profits, monopolies are in constant need of energy resources, oil,
coal, uranium, non-ferrous metals and many other kinds of raw materials. For
this reason, the regions where they are acquired and the markets for sale of
manufactured goods are impudently declared areas of the "vital interests" of
the leading capitalist states, where their armed forces are sent. For ever
newer acts of robbery, plundering and suppressing of liberation movements, the
imperialist aggressors create military bases everywhere, and dispatch marines,
paratroopers and subunits of other armed forces. It is in no way for the de ense
of freedom and democracy, about which the U. S. so often and so shameless y
speaks of late, that it wages undeclared war against the peoples of El
Salvador, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and other countries. And it was not at all
for the "defense" of American students, whom no one was threatening, that the
U. S. brought down a military machine of tremendous strength on tiny Grenada.
Behind all of this are the material and military-political interests of t e
predatory and greedy U. S. military-industrial complex.
The above confirms again the objective Leninist conclusion that imperialism,
"by virtue of its fundamental ECONOMIC traits, is distinguished by the least
humanity and love of freedom and the greatest and most all-encompass i',ng
militarism,"9 and that "politically imperialism is altogether an aspiration to
force and reaction-"10 This assessment contains a concentrated expression of
one of the most important traits of imperialism.-- its aggressive essence. l
But the predatory aspirations and deeds of imperialism do not pass by with 1 no
impact on it. The steadily worsening general crisis of capitalism in all !of
its manifestations; the exacerbation of internal and inter-imperial st
contradictions; and the increasingly intense struggle for markets and sour es
of raw materials inexorably undermine the underpinnings of the outmo ed
capitalist system. Trying by any means to prolong its existence, i}he
imperialist plunderers resort to total militarization of the economy; caihry
Approved For Release 20~~~6w8I ~IALRDP9T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
out a policy of aggression, pillage and oppression of the peoples of their own
and foreign countries; and unleash unjust, predatory wars.
EVERY ERA HAS CONTRADICTIONS INHERENT SPECIFICALLY TO ITSELF. Particular
types and kinds of wars correspond to them. For example, characteristic of
slaveholding society were wars between slaveholding states and between various
groups of slaveholders, as well as uprisings of slaves against the
slaveholders. In the feudal period, the main types of wars were wars between
feudal states; wars for the creation of centralized feudal states; wars
against foreign invaders; peasant wars -- uprisings of popular masses against
their enslavers, etc. Colonial, anti-feudal, national liberation and civil
wars and uprisings of the proletariat were inherent to wars in the era of pre-
monopoly capitalism. In the imperialist era, acute economic and political
contradictions of monopolies caused military clashes of imperialist powers, as
was already stated, for the forcible redivision of the divided world. In
scale these clashes are becoming universal and worldwide. At the same time,
civil wars between the proletariat and bourgeoisie are becoming extensive in
scale, as are national liberation wars of the peoples of the colonial and
dependent countries.
The modern era, which constitutes primarily the transition from capitalism to
socialism, called forth a complex network of contradictions and the
interweaving of various social and political relations. The main
contradiction of the modern era is that between socialism and imperialism.
One of its sharpest manifestations is the aggressiveness of imperialism with
respect to socialism. Imperialism hopes by the force of arms to turn back the
objective course of history, suffocate the workers' authority and return to
its past global supremacy.
As a consequence of imperialist aggressiveness, its fanatical anticommunism
and the need to defend the revolutionary gains of the peoples against the
imperialist aggressors, a new type of war has arisen: WARS IN DEFENSE OF THE
SOCIALIST HOMELAND. Their causes are not found in the nature and policy of
the socialist states, but in the policy of imperialism and in its aspiration
to retard the legitimate process of society's social development. War in
defense of socialism is aimed not at seizing foreign territories and enslaving
the peoples of other countries, but at defending the freedom and independence
of the state of workers and peasants. Therefore, it is a just war in the
highest degree, and it is consistently revolutionary in nature. The greatest
modern war in defense of the socialist Homeland was the Great Patriotic War by
the Soviet Union in 1941-1945. Defense of the socialist Homeland is one of
the general laws of the socialist revolution and the construction of
socialism, and is not only a national, but also an international cause for the
peoples of the fraternal countries.
The sharp exacerbation of the contradictions between labor and capital and
between the working class and the monopoly bourgeoisie; the unwillingness of
the bourgeoisie voluntarily to leave the historical scene; and its aspiration
to prevent by any means the victory of the new social system are causing CIVIL
WARS for the liberation of the laboring masses from exploitation and
oppression. This type of war represents the most acute and decisive form of
class warfare, and bears for the workers a progressive and revolutionary
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Fpg Qg 6J IAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/8: CIA-RDP?93T01468R000100110005-2
nature. The civil war which was imposed upon the people of our country by,
forces of foreign and domestic counterrevolution after the victory of the'
Great October Socialist Revolution was precisely such a war in its sociaiil
content and nature.
The profound antagonism which divides the imperialist states and countries:
which have achieved national independence and are struggling for their full liberation, and attempts by the imperialist predators to prevent national anc
social liberation and free development of the peoples of colonial and
dependent countries, cause NATIONAL LIBERATION WARS. They represent th~
justified reaction of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America to thel
desire of the imperialists to deprive them of state independence and impose on
them neocolonial, reactionary regimes.
The contradiction between socialism and imperialism does not take away the
contradictions rending the capitalist world. Sharp competition among the main
capitalist powers and the emergence of new centers of capitalist competition
preserve the possibility of IMPERIALIST WARS among the capitalist states or
their coalitions for division of the world and establishment of a dominant
position in the world. In their social nature these are extremely unjust$
predatory wars from both sides, which are foreign to the fundamental interest
of the peoples and are hostile to social progress.
The different types and kinds of wars are closely interrelated, and under
various specific historical conditions a combination of several of them i'
possible. Thus, civil wars by the proletariat and all workers are often
combined with wars against imperialist intervention. Examples of this were
the civil war of the workers against the White Guards and militar
interventionists in our country (1918-1920); the war of the Spanish peopl,
against the fascist insurgents and Italian and German interventionists in!
1936-1939; etc. The 2d World 'War of 1939-1945 also occupies a special place
among modern wars from the point of view of social and political content, in
view of its complex and contradictory nature. Having begun from the side off'
both capitalist groupings as an imperialist, predatory war, especially from
the side of Fascist Germany and its satellites against the Anglo-French bloc,
later, with the forced entry of the USSR in view of the perfidious attack o, i
her by Hitler's aggressors, the war acquired a liberating, just character from
the side of the peoples of the anti-Hitler coalition.
Marxist-Leninist science on war and the army teaches that certain political
and strategic features are characteristic of every war, which stem from its
political aims, class content, scale and means of armed conflict used.
Depending on the political aims and class content, wars from one warring sidle
may be just, and for the other, unjust. But imperialist wars are unjust for
both sides.
According to scale, a war unleashed by imperialism may be a WORLD WAR, with
the participation of a majority or substantial portion of the countries of the
world, or it may be local, with the limited participation of two or a few
states. It is not excluded that a war which began as a local war may grow
into a world war, as was the case in World War II, or a war with the use of
conventional weapons into one with the use of nuclear weapons.
Approved For Release 2 /ffk* &&A-"P 1468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
Thus, Marxist-Leninist teaching on war convincingly, precisely and objectively
discloses the reasons for the origin of wars and their essence. Under any
guise the true source of wars in all times and eras in the final analysis was
the exploitative class. And under modern conditions, war as a socio-political
phenomenon is engendered by no one other than imperialism, led by its main
power, the U. S. The Soviet Union and the other socialist countries are the
true fighters for peace and the consistent fighters against the forces of war.
The thrust of the two political policies on the world arena provides graphic
evidence of this: the peace loving policy of the Soviet Union and other
countries of the socialist community, aimed at preventing wars and confirming
peaceful coexistence of states with opposing social and political systems, and
the aggressive policy of the United States of America, aimed at whipping up
the arms race, promoting military tension and preparing for a new world war.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
TWO WORLDS -- TWO POLICIES
World War I and the Great October Socialist Revolution began the general'
crisis of capitalism. At the highest stage of capitalism -- imperialism --Ii
due to intensified concentration and export of capital; chases after thel
greatest profits; competition and anarchy in production and growing inequality
in the economic and political development of various states, all thej
antagonisms of this antagonistic society were sharpened: those between the
social nature of labor and the private capitalist form of appropriating its
products; between the proletariat and bourgeoisie; among the largest
monopolies or their groupings; between individual imperialist states and
numerous colonies and semi-colonies; and among the capitalist state
themselves. Striving to solve its inherent contradictions through armed
force, imperialism resorts more and more often to wars. They have become it
constant and unavoidable companion.
World War II, and especially its main component, the Great Patriotic War or
the Soviet people, still further intensified the general crisis of the
capitalist system. Victory by the Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic Wad'
created favorable conditions for victorious revolutions in a number or
countries of Europe and Asia; for the formation of the world socialist system;
the extensive spread of national liberation movements; and the struggle of thO
peoples for independence, social progress and peace.
In the post-war period the process of revolutionary and progressive
transformations in the world continued, the scope of the antiwar, anti;
imperialist struggle of the peoples grew, and the sphere of capital investment
steadily diminished. In connection with this there took place a rearrangement,
of forces, not only in the international arena as a whole, but also within the
capitalist world itself. The United States of America occupied the leading
position in this. Along with its allies it directed tremendous efforts at
stopping the world revolutionary process, suffocating the communist, workerls
and national liberation movement, wiping socialism from the face of the earth
and returning to itself the role of undivided ruler of the people's fates.
Ardent anti-communism and anti-Sovietism became the dominant content of their
reactionary policy.
The Aggressive Policy of U. S. Imperialism
The U. S. has existed for a little longer than 200 years, but not a single
capitalist state can compare with it in the number of armed interventions
undertaken. The expansion and use of armed force is an age-old dark tradition
in the U. S. It began with the mass annihilation of the native Indian
population in North America and forcible seizing of their land in the late
18th and early 19th centuries. As a matter of fact, this was one of the most
cruel colonial wars of the period.
In the early 19th Century, the colonial holdings of Britain, France, Germay
and Spain in the Far East, with their huge territories, expansive markets a d
rich natural resources, attracted the attention of the American capitalist
predator. Among the first U. S. colonial adventures were attempts to invade
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01'468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
Korea and the Indonesian islands. In 1853, under the threat of ships' guns,
it forced Japan to conclude a treaty to open a number of her ports and grant
tremendous benefits to American entrepreneurs. Through military force,
beginning in the first half of the 19th Century, the U. S. secured for a long
period of time its predatory interests in China. These and other acts of
plunder by U. S. imperialism were usually cloaked in inventions about "defense
of freedom of trade," "threats to American seafarers and traders," etc.
The U. S. also began the imperialist wars for the redivision of the world. In
1898 American ruling circles inspired the explosion and sinking of one of
their own military vessels near Havana and declared war on Spain, which then
ruled Cuba. In three and a half months it forced Spain to capitulate, having
seized from her Puerto Rico and a number of other islands in Caribbean area.
Although Cuba was declared an independent state, the U. S. established its
military control over her, having created a naval base at Guantanamo Bay
which, by the way, exists today. Soon afterwards it also seized the
Philippines. The Spanish-American War was one of the bloody landmarks by
which the start of the imperialist era was marked, and was indicative of U. S.
entry into the struggle for world hegemony.
Then the U. S. annexed the Hawaiian Islands and blackmailed Panama to take
away the Panama Canal.
At that time, in 1904, U. S. President T. Roosevelt formulated the well-known
principle of aggressive American policy: "Speak softly and carry a big stick
-- then you will achieve success." That is how the U. S. has acted, both in
the past and now. The peoples of dozens of countries have experienced this
American policy. In the 19th Century alone the United States unleashed more
than a hundred predatory wars and its armed forces carried out thousands of
military campaigns and various military actions in many areas of the world.
Right after the imperialist war against Spain, in the early 20th Century the
U. S. carried out extensive operations in China (1900-1905); aggressive wars
against Mexico (1914), Haiti (1914-1916), the Dominican Republic (1916), Cuba
(1917-1922) and other countries; suppressed the national liberation movement
in Guatemala and Nicaragua; and again sent its troops to Cuba, Haiti and the
Dominican Republic (1919-1926).
As a result of the uneven, spasmodic development of the capitalist states in
the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the U. S., Germany and Japan began to
outstrip in economic development and press Great Britain and France,
soliciting redivision of their extensive colonial holdings. This, in
combination with other factors, even led in the final analysis to World War I.
It drew into its orbit 38 states with a combined population of 1.5 billion
people, or about 2/3 the world's population at the time.
The United States of America formally declared its neutrality, but in reality
participated directly in this war, making extensive military deliveries to
both coalitions of warring countries. This enabled the U. S. to obtain
colossal profits, to become much stronger than the enfeebled European
countries which were involved in the war, and to occupy the position of the
leading world power. On this subject, Lenin in his "Letter to the American
Workers," noted: "The American billionaires were nearly richer than everyone
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
else together and were in the most secure geographical position. They gained
the most. They made all countries, even the richest, their debtors They
stole hundreds of billions of dollars...On each dollar is a lump of dirt from
the 'lucrative' military deliveries... On each dollar are traces of blood from the sea of blood which was shed by 10 million killed and 20 million
crippled..."11
The American monopolists believed that future wars would also become not
calamities, but boons to the U. S., and in the future did everything so tha;!t
such wars would serve as a source of their enrichment.
The victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the formation in
Russia of history's first workers' and peasants' state evoked the rage arid
malice of the imperialist predators. Their predatory and inhuman foreign
policy took on most of all an anti-Soviet and anti-communist nature.
Back in November 1917 the Western governments, including the U. S., gage
active, all-round assistance to counterrevolution in Russia. However, son
convinced that the White Guard-s armies would be unable to destroy Soviet
authority, imperialist circles in the U. S., Britain, France, Japan and other
states undertook armed intervention in our country. In spring and summer
1918, British and later also American troops landed in Murmansk and
Arkhangelsk. At the same time, the U. S. made incursions into the Soviet Far
East, landing there along with Japanese interventionists an expeditionary
corps numbering up to 12,000 men. Trying to whitewash the bloody affairs of
the American militarists on the territory of Soviet Russia, the U. S.
government hypocritically portrayed them as "assistance" to the Russian people
"in connection with the disorders and confusion," and as an effort to "secure
American stores, supplies and property located in Russia." Justifying their
banditry, imperialism also resorted to a shameless lie about the "red dangei,"
which even today is widely used in anti-Soviet propaganda. Lenin wrote in
1919: "There are foolish people who shout about red militarism; these are
political swindlers who give the appearance that they believe this foolishness
and throw such accusations to right and left, using their legal gbility Ito
make up false arguments and throw sand in the eyes of the masses."
The direct aggression of the U. S. against the first, and at the time the
only, workers' and peasants' state convincingly showed the anti-populalr,
reactionary policy of American ruling circles and graphically demonstrated the
true nature of "American democracy." The U. S. firmly embarked upon the most
merciless suppression of the workers' liberation struggle in all corners of
the globe, and became the bulwark of anti-popular forces and regimes and the
main designers of "crusades" against everything revolutionary and progressive.
Acting; in concert with other butchers against the Soviet Republic, "Amerian
billionaires, these modern slaveholders," in the words of Lenin, "op ned an
especially tragic page in the bloody history of bloody imperialism..."
Despite the defeat suffered in Soviet Russia, reactionary imperialist circes
stubbornly did not want to reconcile themselves to the existence o a
socialist state. U. S. President Hoover confirmed this with frank cynicismin
1931, stating that his goal was the destruction of the USSR.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL-USE 0~~rr..vv
Approved For Release 2005/06/08: CIA-RD 93TU-1468R000100110005-2
The peoples of the world had hardly healed the bleeding wounds of World War I
when, in the bowels of capitalist society, which was gripped in a severe
economic crisis and torn by acute contradictions in the struggle for a new
division of the world, an expansion of "living space," and world domination,
the evil demon of a new World War had already awakened. Its danger sharply
increased when the fascists seized power in Germany, having openly proclaimed
as their main objective the struggle against communism and to assert their
world domination.
Of course, direct responsibility for unleashing World War II lies mainly on
Fascist Germany, Fascist Italy and militarist Japan. At the same time, the U.
S., Britain, France and the other Western states were no less guilty of its
preparation, either directly or indirectly. Blinded by burning hatred toward
socialism, and not wanting to understand that the expansionist aspirations of
Hitler's clique also represented a danger to their own countries and peoples,
the ruling circles of the Western powers, carrying out the notorious policy of
"appeasement" and "non-interference," tried no matter what to direct fascist
aggression to the East, against the USSR. They gave Hitler's Germany generous
financial and economic assistance in reviving its military-industrial
capability and in deploying and equipping technically its multi-million man
strong army of brigands. For example, in 1930 alone direct U. S. capital
investments in German industry comprised more than $216 million. At
Washington's prompting, Zionist leaders of several other bourgeois countries
also gave Hitler hundreds of millions of dollars soon after he came to power.
As a result of this assistance, military production in Fascist Germany
increased 22-fold from 1934-1940 and the numerical strength of her armed
forces increased 35-fold by comparison with the post-war period.
But it did not turn out as the Washington, London and Paris strategists
thought. The conflagration of World War II first engulfed their own houses.
This forced the Western powers to enter into the anti-Hitler alliance with the
USSR. However, even then they did not change their hostile attitude toward
socialism, and they thirsted for only one thing -- for the Soviet Union by the
end of the war to come to its last breath, at the limit of its forces and
capabilities, so that they could dictate their will to it. After Fascist
Germany attacked the Soviet Union, Senator and later U. S. President Truman
openly expressed his hope for this: "If we see that Germany is winning," he
stated, "then we should help Russia, and if Russia will win then we should
help Germany, and thus let them kill as many as possible... 1114
Namely in this is found the answer to the question of why the second front in
Europe was not opened in 1942 or 1943, but only in mid-1944, when the fate of
Hitler's Germany had already essentially been decided as a result of the
crushing blows by the Soviet Armed Forces.
The World War II cost mankind dearly. It involved in its orbit 61 states,
more than 80 percent of the world's population, and resulted in the loss of
more than 50 million human lives. And again U. S. monopolists profited on the
suffering and blood of the peoples.
As is known, the Soviet Union lost more than 20 million people in the war, and
the U. S. about 300,000. USSR losses from direct destruction and pillaging by
Approved For Release 2005/06/D-u-LGYi rRQF'S-.ST01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93TO1468ROO0100110005-2
the fascists of its material valuables constituted 679 billion rubles. The
U. S. essentially escaped material losses. They constituted only $1.267
billion, or 0.4 percent of the total value of the loss s of all countries in
the zenith of its wealth. Lenin was profoundly correct when he said in 1913 that
"a rain of gold flows directly into the pockets of the bourgeois politicians
who comprise a close-knit international gang, instigating the peoples tol
competition in arms and shearing these ...people like one shears a sheep!"16
The victory of the Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic War largely Whereas de a reined !',
the course of further post-war development on our planet.
of the Great October Socialist Revolution the capitalist chain was broken, the;
world's first socialist state was created and a new era in human history'
began, the victory of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War went down in history
as one of the most important social, political and military events of the 20th
Century, after the Great October Socialist Revolution. As its result the,
positions of imperialism were seriously shaken. The correlation of forces in,
the world arena changed fundamentally in favor of socialism and democracy, and'
favorable conditions were created for an active struggle by the peoples to
root out world wars, and in the future also local wars from human life.
However, the weakening of imperialist positions after the war not only did not
lessen, but still further intensified its aggressiveness. The imperialists
successfully restructured the forms and methods of their struggle against,
socialism and progress. Covering themselves with the false flag of "freedom
and democracy," the American imperialists intensely spread their police order
in the world, not disdaining either threats of direct military intervention or1
the use of military force. Frequently the question of the use of nuclear,
weapons was raised, including four times directly against the USSR. It was,
namely the Soviet State, its main ally, in the anti-Hitler coalition in the
past war, that the U. S. and its partners named "enemy number one."
Having a temporary monopoly on nuclear weapons, the bosses in the White House
embarked upon a path of blackmail and threats against the USSR. The atomic
bomb explosions over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, in
the opinion of Western specialists, not so much the final act of World War II7
as the first act in preparation for war against the Soviet Union.
At the same time, governmental figures in Washington and London such as Truman
and Churchill began to re-orient their policy and public opinion in the
Western countries away from the former positions of the anti-Hitler coalition
to an anti-Soviet "crusade." This served as a signal for a new
intensification of anti-communist hysteria and "cold war," and to the
development of plans for military attack against the USSR such as "Charioteer""
(1948) and later "Dropshot" (19149), according to which it was intended to drop
300 atomic and 250,000 tons of conventional bombs on the Soviet Union and
knock out a large portion of the Soviet military-industrial capability.
At the same time the U. S. feverishly sought new ways of realizing its
notorious policy of "from a position of strength." In practice it was
manifested in the creation in 1949, at U. S. initiative and leadership, of the
aggressive NATO military bloc, and in 1951-1955 of other regional military
E Approved For Release 2F0 /8 /DBC lA-RDP93TO1468ROOO1OO11OOO5-2
 Approved For Release 3 1QAH ?RMT101468R000100110005-2
blocs such as ANZUS, SEATO, CENTO and others.
The list of bloody adventures by American imperialism in the post-war years
significantly expanded. It opened with the war in Korea (1950-1953), in which
more than 1.3 million Koreans fell victim. In 1954 counterrevolutionaries
trained by the CIA invaded Guatemala with American air support and overthrew
the democratic Arbenz Government. In 1958, 14,000 U. S. soldiers along with
British interventionists, supported by the American 6th Fleet, landed in
Lebanon and helped local reactionaries to suffocate the revolutionary actions
of the people. In 1961 an attempt was made to invade Cuba with an assault
landing in the area of (Playa-Khiron) to overthrow its revolutionary
government. This action by the reactionaries threatened to become the
detonator of a new world war. In 1964-1972 the U. S. committed bloody
aggression against the peoples of Viet Nam, Laos and Kampuchea, the results of
which are still felt today. Approximately 600,000 American military personnel
participated there simultaneously, as well as a huge collection of aircraft
and military ships. In 1966 American paratroopers and Marines fiercely
suppressed a popular uprising in the Dominican Republic. In 1973 the U. S.
organized and assisted a military junta in Chili to carry out a fascist coup
in the country. In 1982 the United States, along with its NATO allies,
committed flagrant military intervention in Lebanon. In 1983 it committed an
act of international piracy and terrorism when it attacked defenseless Grenada
with a total population of 100,000 people and an army of less than 1,000. The
Grenadian people still are under the American boot. The list of such bloody
evil deeds of U. S. imperialism could be continued. It is enough to say that,
according to information of the American Brookings Institute, more than 20
million people have already perished in all these crimes and conflicts
unleashed by imperialism in recent years.
The forces of imperialism and reaction headed by the U. S., trying at any cost
to stop the objective course of history and turn it back, are sharply
increasing the ferocity of their aggressiveness. This began to be manifested
especially distinctly with the arrival of the Reagan Administration in the
White House. Raising international terrorism, lying, provocations and slander
to the status of state policy, U. S. ruling circles in their search for the
mirage of world domination declared from the mouth of their President a new
"crusade" against the USSR and socialism as a social and political system.
A wave of aggressiveness is also growing in other regions of the capitalist
world. In the FRG and Western Europe, revanchists and neo-fascists have
recently been raising their heads more and more in the FRG and West Berlin.
High officials in Bonn are clearly shutting their eyes to them and even
directly participating in their assemblages. Neo-fascists, like their
predecessors on the eve of World War II, are becoming more active; are
increasingly whipping up national and racial enmity among the population
toward other peoples; are propagandizing slogans of a "Great Germany;" and are
calling for the restoration of the German Reich to its "historical borders."
It is as though reactionary imperialist forces and Hitler's remnants which
were left after the war have not abandoned their hopes of altering the results
of World War II. Having taken up a course of confrontation and direct
conflict with the USSR and other countries of the socialist community, the
U. S. and its NATO partners conducted, essentially, a full-blown offensive
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
against socialism, literally in all directions -- political, economicll,
ideological and military, all the way to balancing on the brink of war.
Under the deepening general crisis of capitalism, White House politicians are
attempting, no matter what, to limit the influence of socialism on the world
revolutionary process; shake loose the foundations of the socialist system
where they believe they can count on success; drive a wedge between the USSR
and other countries of the socialist community; weaken and split their unity;
and sow dissension in the international communist and workers movement.
At the same time, Washington ruling circles are whipping up a costly arms
race, applying various kinds of "sanctions" against the socialist countries;
unleashing a currency war; and curtailing and even halting scientifid-
technical, trade, cultural and sports relations with the USSR and its allies;
In recent years, highly placed figures in the U. S. and NATO countries hate
unleashed an especially broad undermining campaign against the USSR in the
field of ideology. Fearing honest ideological competition with socialism,
reactionary imperialist forces have shifted, essentially, to direct
psychological warfare against the USSR and its allies, not shying away from
any methods and techniques, and are trying to instill hatred toward socialism
and communism. Printed publications, films and radio and television programs
in the West serve these criminal objectives.
An especially dangerous thrust in the policy of American imperialism and is
followers is its direct material preparation for a new world war. This is
based on the policy of achieving U. S. and NATO military superiority over the
Soviet Union and Warsaw Treaty Organization countries. With this aim in mind,
imperialist "hawks" are implementing large-scale military programs which
provide fabulous profits to the monopolies and harm the vital interests of the
peoples of their own countries. A particular threat to peace is presented by
unrestrained U. S. development and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, attempt to
shift the arms race into space and intensive development of weapons of mass
destruction based on new physical principles. Contrary to good sense and he
will of the peoples, Pentagon strategists continue to fill the territory o a
number of Western European countries with first strike nuclear weapons -- the
Pershing-2 and cruise missiles. Work is also being carried out on a broad
front to make conventional weapons close to nuclear in terms of military
characteristics and effectiveness.
In the early 1980's, the United States, iconfront confrontof the other ation" the NATO
and
countries, proclaimed a strategy of "direct
it is intensively whipping up tension in relations with the socialist
countries and destabilizing the world situation. With this aim in mind, the
U. S. is organizing flagrant provocations and campaigns of threats;
encouraging state terrorism and committing diversions and unconcealed acts~of
banditry and piracy against the sovereign countries of the Middle East, Afr.ca
and Central America.
A vivid example of such flagrant provocation was the violation of the USSR
state border in the Far East on the night of 1 September 1983, organized! by
the U. S. intelligence services, which was carried out by a Boeing 147
Approved For Release 20d5/v6/08 I CIiiRDP93T0 468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 2600 ' C 14AMMM1468R000100110005-2
aircraft belonging to a South Korean airline. As has already been irrefutably
proven, the incursion of this aircraft into Soviet air space was an
intentional, carefully planned, provocative reconnaissance action, which for
its entire duration was precisely controlled from certain centers on the
territory of the U. S. and Japan.
The American rulers are striving to draw the European NATO countries, as well
as Japan and South Korea, into the orbit of its adventuristic plans. At the
same time, everywhere that it is possible, the U. S. is expanding its own
military presence and trying to exert coarse pressure against those who oppose
its will. Using its mercenaries it is essentially waging an undeclared war
against the peoples of Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique and Nicaragua, and is
threatening with bloody reprisals Syria, Cuba and many other countries not
wanting to live according to orders from Washington.
Thus, history irrefutably proves that the main trait of imperialism is its
militant aggressiveness and desire to achieve world hegemony. Imperialism was
and remains the source of wars. "World domination," noted Lenin, "is in brief
the substance of imperialist policy, the continuation of which is imperialist
war."17
Anti-Sovietism, anti-communism and violent hatred toward the forces of
freedom, democracy, social progress and peace, today give the policy of the
most reactionary imperialist circles, most of all the American, an
unprecedented evil and extremely adventuristic nature and constitute its
primary thrust. The Leninist peace loving foreign policy of the Soviet Union
and other countries of the socialist community is firmly and unshakably
opposed to this policy.
The Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia, the main event of the 20th
Century, opened up fundamentally new and unprecedented opportunities for
solving the problems of war and peace. Soviet Russia in its first foreign
policy document proclaimed Lenin's decree on peace, adopted by the 2d All-
Russian Congress of Soviets on 8 November 1917. In this most important
historical document, the Soviet government condemned imperialistic war as a
most great crime against mankind and appealed to the peoples and governments
of the warring countries to put an end to the world war and conclude a just,
democratic peace. The Western states not only did not support these
constructive, peace loving proposals by the Soviet Republic, but even fell
upon her with a "crusade," which concluded in their total defeat.
Despite fierce opposition from international imperialism, the peaceful foreign
policy of the Soviet State persistently opened its own way. Strictly adhering
to the provisions of the Decree on Peace and Lenin's principle of peaceful
coexistence of states, the Soviet delegation to the Genoa Conference in 1922
advanced for the first time in history a large scale program of general arms
reduction. However, its proposal was not accepted.
Demonstrating its love of peace not in words, but in deeds, the Soviet Union,
although in hostile capitalist encirclement, by the end of 192+ unilaterally
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 0 YAW ' dX E-ROMT01468R000100110005-2
reduced its more than 5 million man army to 560,000 men; i.e., by almost 90
{
percent.
In 1927, at the fourth session of the preparatorycom mission of the conferenca
on disarmament in Geneva, the USSR, true to Lenin's foreign policy,
developed program of general and complete disarmament as the best guarantee ofl
international security. The Western powers rejected this proposal as well.
In February 1932 the worldwide conference on arms reduction and limitation
opened in Geneva. In it participated delegates from 60 states. The Soviet,
delegation, striving persistently to make war impossible, presented their
conference a new and detailed plan for universal and total disarmament. But,
again this time the imperialist states demonstrated their manifest lack of,
desire to solve in a practical way the problems of preventing war, centers of
which by that time had appeared in both West and East.
At the end of 1933, the Soviet Government, realistically assessing the
ta onco in the Far East an I
steadily increasing threat of
regional collectavensecurity~
appealed to the U. S. Government pact in the Pacific Ocean area with the participation of the USSR, U. S.~
China and Japan. The ruling circles of the bourgeois states again ignored the
Soviet proposals, thereby granting the aggressors freedom in preparing for
their predatory actions. In 1935, Italy invaded Abyssinia (today Ethiopia)!;
in 1936) Germany and Italy intervened in the Spanish Civil War on the side of
the fascists; and in 1938 Germany seized Austria.
In those uneasy years the Communist Party and Soviet Government, persistently
frequent
struggling to preserve and ectivegsecurity systemton thenEur~opeaneContineni,
initiatives to create a Coll
capable of cooling the hot heads of Hitler's maniacs and localizing the threat
of a second world war. However, ruling circles in Britain and Franc 9
encouraged by the U. S?, sabotaged the Soviet into proposals
againstevery
the USSR. ~
and pushed the German and Japanese aggressors
A culminating point in the events on the eve of World War II was the Munich
Agreement by the governments of Britain and France with Hitler and Mussolini
in 1936, as a result of which Czechoslovakia was given away to be torn o
pieces by the fascist barbarians. The Anglo-German and Franco-German
declarations in 1938 were the logical consequence of this policy of
"appeasing" the aggressor. They wrepresend ith essentially an attempt to
and grant theflatt~r
alliance of the Western powers w
freedom to act with impunity against the USSR.
Under a heightened threat of war, the Soviet Union was forced gst no 9
to accept the repeated German proposals and undertake to conclude
aggression treaty with her. In April 1941, a neutrality pact with Japan w s
signed.. This enabled our country to gain some time to strengthen its defense
and avoid a simultaneous strike by the combined forces of imperialism from
West and East.
On 1 September 1939, Fascist Germany unleashed
countries were its
perfidious attack against Poland. The European capitalist
Approved For Release 20i ~& A4& 468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release f6ft/?tF(WTCLiAuKB01468R000100110005-2
first victims. Right after Poland the Hitlerites seized Denmark, Norway,
Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Yugoslavia and Greece, and quickly occupied
France. Britain was also threatened by fascist invasion.
The Communist Party and Soviet Government foresaw the inevitability of
military clashes with the forces of imperialism and prepared the country and
people for defense. Owing to significant successes in socialist construction,
the USSR in a historically short period of time created a powerful defense
industry, which enabled it to increase substantially the output of then modern
kinds of weapons and military equipment. The 3d Five-Year Plan, adopted in
1939 at the 18th Party Congress, provided for solving many important tasks of
further increasing the country's economic and defense capability. The overall
strength of the Soviet Armed Forces grew by 2.8 times between 1939 and June
1941. During this time 125 new divisions were formed. In spring 1941, T-34
and KV tanks, the best in the world at the time, began to enter the mechanized
corps. New models of artillery and mortar weapons were developed, including
the famous "katyushas." The number of air regiments in the Air Force
increased more than 80 percent. The military strength of the navy increased
significantly. During 1938-1940 it acquired 265 new combatant ships.
Measures were taken to develop air defense, airborne, engineer and other
specialized forces.
Unfortunately, history allotted us very little time. Not everything planned
to strengthen further the country's defense could be accomplished. On 22 June
1941, a perfidious strike by the 5.5 million man strong aggressor army, which
contained more than 4,000 tanks and assault guns, almost 5,000 aircraft and
more than 47,000 guns and mortars, was made upon our Homeland-18
The Soviet people, under the leadership of the Communist Party, rose up as one
man to defend the socialist Homeland. The sacred Great Patriotic War of the
Soviet people against the fascist invaders began.
The USSR entry into armed conflict with Nazi Germany marked the turning point
in the course of World War II. The peoples looked with hope to our Homeland
as the only real force capable of destroying the brown plague and saving them
from fascist enslavement. The governments of Britain and the U. S. were
forced to declare their support and assistance to the USSR it its struggle
against German Fascism back in the first days of the Great Patriotic War. Of
course, they did not hurry to fulfill this commitment. Our country fought
Hitler's Germany and its allies alone for three years.
The main event of the first period of the Great Patriotic War is rightly
considered to be the historic Battle for Moscow. The victory of Soviet forces
in the fields outside Moscow destroyed totally Hitler's plan for a
"blitzkrieg," was a tremendous moral boost for the Soviet people and
solidified the foundations of the anti-Hitler coalition. The defeat of the
"invincible" Nazi army at Moscow strained relations within the fascist camp,
prevented an attack by Japan and Turkey against the USSR and contributed to
strengthening the national liberation movement of the peoples of Europe
against fascism. It was namely here at Moscow in the winter of 1941-1942 that
dawn broke on our Great Victory.
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 RR1 %06/D8 : CIA-R DP93TO1468R000100110005-2
Approved For Relea
A still more crushing blow was dealt to Hitler's Germany at Stalingrad. This
victory of the Soviet Armed Forces made a decisive contribution to achieving a
fundamental turning point in the course not only of the Great Patriotic War,
but also of the entire World War II. The mass expulsion of the enemy from
Soviet soil began. Soon the German Fascist troops suffered a still more
i.ch
serious defeat the to Kursk
its foundationdanin the battle for the d confronted her with Dnieper,
catastrophe
shhookk Fascist Germany
In 1944, brilliantly carrying out a number of major strategic operations on
the Ukraine Right Bank, at Leningrad, in Kareliya, the Crimea, Belorussia,
Moldavia, the Baltic and the Polar Region, the Soviet Armed Forces completely
cleared their home soil of the fascist invaders and, developing a offensive to the west, began to liberate the other peoples of Europe from the
yoke of Hitler's occupation.
The victorious finale of the Great Patriotic War was the defeat of the German',
Fascist forces in the grand Berlin Operation, during which the Soviet Army
destroyed almost a million man enemy grouping. Then, the thunder of artillery,
hel
againstlfascism.
salvos in Moscow and the vactthe oriouslend of the
Prague Operation and t
Immediately thereafter, to eliminate the center of World War II in the Far'
East, ensure the security of the Soviet Union and most rapidly establish peace',
on the planet, the Soviet Armed Forces, honorably fulfilling their alliance
commitments to the anti-Hitler coalition, routed the Kwantung Army, the maim
force of militarist Japan on the continent.
Victory over Fascist Germany and militarist Japan was achieved bythee combined
efforts of many countries and peoples. However, the Soviet people,
Communist Party, became the main force which barred German Fascism's road to
world domination. It was namely they who shouldered the main burden of the war
and played the decisive role in defeating Hitler's Germany and militarist
Japan and in ridding many peoples of Europe and Asia of a foreign yoke. An
no one can erase this historical truth from human memory.
During four years of military operations, the Soviet-German Front was the main
front of World War II. In various periods of the war, from 190 to 270 selec
fascist bloc divisions operated simultaneously against the Soviet Arme
Forces, while Anglo-American forces, even after opening the second front i
Europe, opposed only 56 to 75 divisions. During the war the USSR Armed Forces
destroyed and captured the enemy's main forces -- 607 divisions, and our
allies -- 176 divisions. Soviet troops destroyed and seized more than 75
percent of the enemy's weapons and military equipment-19
The results of World War II demonstrated most convincingly that there is np
force in the world which could destroy socialism and subjugate the Soviet
people, true to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, loyal to the socialist Homelad
and closely united around the Leninist party. The war completely disclosed to
the peoples of the world the true aggressor -- imperialism -- and most sharply
put the question of the inadmissibility of a new, still more bloody worldwi e
armed conflict.
Approved For Release 2bbB/ /b 1A- P95%1468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 2dM0@9tA-K&1468R000100110005-2
But with the end of World War II the peoples of the planet, unfortunately, did
not obtain permanent peace. The United States, obsessed with a desire for
world domination, immediately and for many long years plunged the peoples into
the abyss of "cold war." It was based on the same naked anti-Sovietism,
"atomic diplomacy," and a policy of "brinksmanship."
The Soviet Union, whose international authority and influence immeasurably
increased and was strengthened as a result of its victory in the Great
Patriotic War, resolutely acted against the U. S. expansionist policy and
hegemonism, against those who would kindle a new world war, and in defense of
peace and international security. The Communist Party and Soviet Government
saw the direct path to this as, first of all, banning and destroying nuclear
weapons and limiting and halting the arms race.
Back in June 1946 the USSR introduced for examination of the United Nations
Commission on Atomic Energy a proposal to conclude an international convention
on banning the production and use of atomic weapons. It was proposed, in
particular, that the governments participating in the convention undertake a
commitment not to use atomic weapons under any circumstances, to ban their
production and storage, and, most importantly, to destroy their reserves
within a three month period. This peaceloving initiative of the USSR opened
up a real possibility to curtail in its infancy the nuclear arms race, every
spiral of which, as life later showed, brought the peoples not a new degree of
security, but ever more threatening danger. This proposal, however, was
rejected. Washington advanced its so-called "Baruch Plan," in accordance with
which the U. S. alone would be in charge of the raw materials, production and
scientific research base of the atomic industry in all countries.
The Soviet Union, having developed its own nuclear weapons in 1949 in
response, nevertheless continued persistently to favor banning weapons of mass
destruction under strict international control, and using atomic energy
exclusively for peaceful purposes. Seeking a ban on the production and use of
nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union at the same time carried out a purposeful
struggle for the reduction of armed forces and conventional weapons, for
universal and complete disarmament and for eliminating military danger
entirely from human life. Beginning with the first session of the UN General
Assembly, our country repeatedly advanced constructive proposals on these
vitally important problems. The Soviet State not only called upon the Western
powers to reduce their armed forces and arms, but also demonstrated its peace
loving nature by practical deeds. During the post-war period the Soviet Union
unilaterally carried out four major reductions in its Armed Forces; eliminated
its naval bases in Porkkala Udd (Finland) and Port Arthur (China) and
completely removed its troops from Romania and Austria.
How did the ruling circles of the U. S. and the other Western states respond
to all this? Exaggerating in every possible way the well-worn myth about a
"Soviet military threat," they began to knock together aggressive blocs, and
in December 1954 agreed to equip the NATO armies with nuclear weapons.
On 4 October 1957 the Soviet Union, as is well-known, launched the world's
first artificial satellite, which was indicative of the increased might of our
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 468R000100110005-2
Homeland. But we did not plan to use this scientific and technological:'
achievement for military purposes. This act was carried out exclusively in
the interests of the peaceful mastery of space. Back in March 1958 the Soviet
Government proposed a ban on the militarization of space and international
cooperation in the field of space research for peaceful purposes. However,
the Western powers also rejected this Soviet initiative.
Through the consistent and unwavering struggle by the Soviet Union to
implement its Peace Program, advanced by the 24th CPSU Congress and developed
by the 25th Congress, and the coordinated foreign policy activity of they
countries of the socialist community, and owing to the USSR's achievement of:
approximate parity in strategic nuclear forces with the U. S., at the cost of
tremendous efforts by all progressive mankind, the development of'
international relations in the :1970's succeeded in turning toward detente and
peaceful cooperation of states with different social systems. After long
years of "cold war," agreements were achieved for the first time on a number:
of vitally important questions, including the non-proliferation of nuclear',
weapons (1968); banning the deployment of nuclear weapons and other types of
weapons of mass destruction on sea and ocean beds and within their depths
(1971); and banning the development, production and stockpiling of reserves of
bacteriological (biological) and toxic weapons and their destruction (1972).
The agreements on a number of questions between the USSR and U. S. were
especially important steps toward reducing tension and improving the
international climate. Thus, in May 1972 the Soviet-American permanent
agreement on limiting anti-ballistic missile systems, and the interim
agreement on certain measures in the area of limiting strategic offensive
arms (SALT-1) were signed. It is true that this agreement provided for
solving only the initial problem -- it established only some limitations on
the development of strategic nuclear forces by the two sides, and did not yet
touch the matter of their reduction, let alone their elimination. However, in
this agreement the governments of the USSR and U. S. expressed their intention
to continue joint efforts to limit further and reduce strategic arms. At this
time one more important document was signed -- The Basic Principles of
Relations Between the USSR and USA -- which stated that differences in the
ideology and social systems of these countries are not an obstacle to the
development of normal relations between them, based on the principles Of
equality, non-interference in internal affairs and mutual advantage.
In developing this document between the USSR and the U. S., agreements were
concluded on preventing nuclear war, on cooperation in the field of protecting
the environment, on cooperation in the field of medical science and health, on
cooperating in the exploration and use of space for peaceful purposes, on
cooperation in the field of science and technology and on preventing.incidents
on the open seas and in the air space above them. Also developed and signed
(but not ratified) were treaties on limiting underground nuclear weapons tests
and on underground nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes.
These Soviet-American agreements, based on parity of military forces on the
two sides, greatly promoted a positive advance in the strengthening of
peaceful relations between the USSR and the U. S. and created a favorable
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 2 /89)Wz YA- y01468R000100110005-2
basis for the further development of broad and mutually advantageous
cooperation among them in various fields.
In 1974, negotiations began between the USSR and U. S. for the purpose of
further developing the SALT-1 Treaty. And five years later, in 1979, the
heads of state of the USSR and U. S. signed in Vienna a new strategic arms
limitation document, the SALT-2 Treaty. It contained a solution to a more
complex task -- not only limiting the quantitative and qualitative development
of strategic nuclear forces on the two sides, but also the start of their
reduction. Moreover, the Treaty opened a direct path to new Soviet-American
agreements (in SALT-3) for the purpose of more substantial and all-
encompassing reduction of strategic arms. The detente process was becoming
more extensive.
It goes without saying that in the West this process had many enemies in the
person of the henchmen of the military-industrial complexes. To support their
narrow, mercenary aims they did everything to maintain and intensify tension
in the world and develop a new spiral in the arms race. The positions of
these forces were particularly strengthened in the early 1980s, when circles
came to power in the highest echelons of the U. S. and other NATO countries
which did not want to take into account the historically mandated realities of
the modern world -- the strengthened positions of socialism, successes of the
national liberation movement and overall increase in democratic forces. They
made up their mind, no matter what, to hold back the development of positive
processes in social life, solve to their advantage by force the historical
dispute between capitalism and socialism, and regain the positions lost by
imperialism. As a result, there took place an abrupt turn in the policy of
these Western states against detente. Thus, the U. S. Government refused to
ratify the SALT-2 Treaty, underground nuclear test ban treaty (1974) and the
treaty on nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes (1976), which were already
signed by the heads of state. It also decided not to renew the trilateral
treaties with the USSR and Britain on the complete and universal banning of
nuclear weapons tests. In 1982 the U. S. was the only state which voted
against the UN General Assembly resolution which called upon all countries to
refrain from the production and deployment of new types of chemical weapons.
The U. S. unilaterally broke off negotiations on limiting and later reducing
military activity in the Indian Ocean and on limiting international weapons
trade and deliveries of conventional arms, and caused the breakoff of
negotiations on the mutual reduction of armed forces and weapons in Central
Europe.
Persistent efforts by the USSR and powerful pressure by the peace loving
forces in the countries of Western Europe and the American continent, at the
end of 1981 brought the U. S. back to the negotiating table with the Soviet
Union on limiting nuclear weapons in Europe (INF) and on limiting and reducing
strategic weapons (START). However, from their very beginning U. S. ruling
circles demonstrated that in reality they did not desire any mutually
acceptable agreements, but did everything to prevent them.
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
At the very outset of negotiations the Soviet Union made a fundamental
proposal -- to completely eliminate nuclear weapons in Europe, both inter-
mediate range and tactical. This proposal was rejected by the U. S. Then
the USSR proposed that the number of nuclear weapons launchers be reduced
by approximately two-thirds (to 300). At the same time it agreed to elimi-
nate its reduced missiles in Europe (called SS-20 in the West) and freeze
their number in the eastern part of the USSR. Later the Soviet Union went
still further. It agreed that not only the number of our missiles, but also
the number of warheads on them be no greater than Britain and France have on
their missiles; i.e., on the order of 420-430.
And what did the U. S. propose? According to its so-called "zero" option
the Soviet Union was to eliminate all of its intermediate range missiles, not
which
f the USSR
,
only in the European part, but also in the eastern part o
retain
had no relationship to the INF negotiations. We were "permitted"
deploy
only 465 bombers. In this case the NATO bloc, agreeing not
missiles in Europe, would retain all of its 857 nuclear weapons and thereby
gain a twofold superiority over the USSR in launchers, and almost a three-
fold superiority in warheads. It is true that according to the so-called
"interim" American variant, the USSR, with U. S. agreement, was "permitted"
to retain a certain number of its missiles, but only given the mandatory
deployment of the same number of American missiles in Europe. And in this
case NATO again would gain a twofold superiority. The American side had a
ch at the START negotiations. Moreover, con-
similar unconstructive approa
in November 1983 the
trary to good sense and the will of millions of people,
U. S. began deploying its first-strike nuclear missiles in Western Europe.
Under these circumstances the negotiations lost all meaning.
In connection with the breaking off of the INF and START negotiations by the
administration in the White House, and taking into account the heightened
nuclear threat, the Soviet Government was forced, as is known, to take
appropriate measures in response, with respect both to the U. S. itself and
to the European states which deployed the new American missiles on their
territory. The stubbornness of the U. S. and its partners in saturating
Europe with nuclear missiles led to a situation in which, through the fault
of imperialism, the danger of to
grow worse with the appearance
As for the Soviet Union, its ideal is a permanent and stable peace. The
Soviet Peace Program for the 1980's, worked out by the 26th CPSU Congress,
is aimed at achieving such a peace among the peoples. The whole system of
constructive measures recently advanced by the leaders of the Communist Party
and Soviet State is aimed at this. This concerns, first of all, halting the
quantitative and qualitative growth of all components of nuclear arsenals,
including all kinds of nuclear munitions and their delivery means; a substan-
tial limitation and radical reduction of both strategic and other types of
nuclear weapons; the complete and universal banning of nuclear weapons
testing; freeing Europe from nuclear weapons of all types, as well as
chemical weapons; and preventing the militarization of outer space.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release ?8%56 (F IAFIe DoPa3101468R000100110005-2
The Soviet Union, for whom the main aim is preventing war, favors regulating
relations among the nuclear powers by a system of definite norms. In par-
ticular, it already committed itself not to use nuclear weapons first, and
appealed to all nuclear states to follow its example. Moreover, our state
undertook a commitment not to be first to use conventional weapons as well.
At the Stockholm Conference (1984), the USSR and its allies made specific
and businesslike proposals for building trust and ensuring European and
international security. The May 1984 appeal by the Warsaw Treaty Organiza-
tion member states to the NATO countries about concluding a treaty on mutual
nonuse of military force and maintaining peaceful relations was aimed at
improving the international situation in Europe and throughout the world.
In today's difficult international environment, made worse through the fault
of imperialism, the Soviet Union, along with.its friends and allies, is
forced to take necessary retaliatory defensive measures to ensure security
and preserve peace under any circumstances. The many-sided activity of the
Soviet State and its Armed Forces is so directed.
And so, even a brief excursion through history irrefutably proves that it is
namely imperialism, led by the U. S. which strives for maximum enrichment at
the expense of other countries and peoples, and which invariably caused and
continues to cause bloody wars and armed conflicts.. The chronicle of
American imperialism is a chronicle of its bloody evil deeds in Europe,
Asia, Africa and Latin America. Now U. S. ruling circles are nurturing
plans to unleash a new nuclear war, still more fatal for mankind, with a
criminal and completely unfounded hope of winning and surviving it.
The foreign policy of the Soviet Union is diametrically opposite that of
U. S. imperialism. In all stages of development the constant thread of its
policy is protection of the socialist Homeland; peaceful coexistence of
states with different social and political systems; constant struggle for
peace; and conviction that with good will war as such can and must be pre-
vented. Soviet policy is open and understandable for all peoples, expresses
their innermost hopes, and therefore meets with widespread response from
them. The peoples of the world, which experienced the horrors of bloody
World War II, unanimously support the peace loving policy of the USSR and
its foreign policy initiatives, which open a real prospect for the total
elimination of military threat from the lives of this and future generations
of people. The future is for the forces of peace, democracy and social
progress.
At the same time, struggling for peace, the Communist Party and Soviet
Government realistically assess the processes taking place in international
life and are forced constantly to maintain in the center of their attention
questions of providing reliable security for the USSR and its allies and
friends, and maintaining the Soviet Armed Forces in a state of high combat
readiness. The unity of the building of communism, love of peace and con-
stant readiness to give a decisive rebuff to aggression was bequeathed to
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 205VQ /I8IACIPNR96M3ff01468R000100110005-2
us by the great Lenin and constitutes the foundation of the policy of the
Soviet State. "...Our cause is firm...," stated Vladimir Il'ich, "...and
there will still, no doubt, be more such attempts, but we-know that all
these attempts will crumble into dust."20
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 2Q Q P J$1468R000100110005-2
The Communist Party and Soviet people, fulfilling Lenin's behests, display
constant vigilance toward the intrigues of the reactionary circles in the
imperialist states, most of all the U. S., for which, judging by the
blasphemous statements of its leaders, "there are things more important than
peace." The Soviet people are doing everything necessary so that the defense
capability of the Soviet State will always be at a high level, and that its
Armed Forces will always be on guard.
Preparation of the Armed Forces to defend the socialist Homeland, and all
Soviet military construction, are based on an immutable, time-tested, truly
scientific world view and methodological basis -- Marxist-Leninist theory --
which makes it possible not only to understand the past and present, but
also to foresee the future. V. I. Lenin noted that Marx' teaching has
meaning, "not only in the sense of explaining the past, but also in the
sense of confident prediction of the future and courageous practical
activity, aimed at its realization..."21
The history of wars and military art indicates that the level of production
achieved at a given moment has decisive influence in military affairs.
Changes which take place in weapons and military equipment are of particular
importance in its development. "...Successes in equipment," wrote Engels,
"as soon as they are applied and actually used in military affairs, immedi-
ately, almost forcibly, and often against the will of the military command,
cause changes and even revolutions in the method of waging war..."22 Funda-
mental transformations in military art occurred, as is well known, as a
result of the invention of gunpowder in the 13th Century and the subsequent
appearance of firearms. The creation of rifled weapons in the 19th Century,
and especially the invention of automatic weapons at the start of the 20th
Century, caused major changes in the military field. The mass use of strike
weapons -- tanks, aircraft, submarines and other new models of combat equip-
ment -- in the 2d World War changed the nature of conducting battles and
operations, and the appearance and widespread introduction of rocket systems
and nuclear missile weapons after the war even changed war as a whole.
A profound and, in the full sense of the word, revolutionary change in mili-
tary affairs is continuing in our day in connection with the further develop-
ment and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons, rapid development of
electronics, and in connection with the significant qualitative improvement
of conventional means and methods of armed conflict. This, in turn, has
decisive influence on all other aspects of military affairs, most of all on
the development and improvement of forms and methods of military operations
and, consequently, on the organizational structure of troop units and naval
forces and on improvement of control systems and organs. A correct and
timely understanding of this makes it possible to foresee possible direc-
tions of changes in military affairs.
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 210ON/01VWDMA36 DR83 O1468R000100110005-2
It is well-known that the classics of Marxism-Leninism themselves had
examples of scientific forecasting of social events, including in the area
of war and military affairs. Thus, Engels, who was very knowledgeable in
military matters, almost 30 years before the start of the 1st World War,
based on thorough analysis of the developmental tendencies of capitalism
and its root contradictions, economics and the means of armed conflict,
foresaw that in Europe, "it is already now impossible to have any war other
than a world war. And this would be a world war of unprecedented scale,
unprecedented force. ...Only one result is absolutely assured: universal
exhaustion and the creation of the conditions for the final victory of the
working class."23 The subsequent events of World War II completely con-
firmed these scientific forecasts of his.
V. I. Lenin, the leader of the proletarian revolution and creator of the
Communist Party and Soviet State, acted on the historical arena not only as
a great political and state figure, but also as a talented military leader
and prominent strategist, who was brilliantly knowledgeable in questions of
war and the army. Stemming from the nature and specific features of the new
historical era and the objective conditions of the development of military
affairs, Lenin in his works creatively developed and substantially enriched
the postulates of Marxism on military questions and created the teaching
about defending the socialist Homeland. Guided by the laws of materialist
dialectics, he thoroughly analyzed the main laws and particularities of wars
in the era of imperialism; worked out the principles of constructing the army
of the socialist state and lay the foundations of Soviet military science.
Taking into account the objective conditions of the phenomena of military
affairs is a most important, but not the only, requirement for its correct
understanding. For this it is necessary to know and apply ably the theory
of Marxism-Leninism and its logic of consciousness and dialectics, which are,
according to Lenin, the soul of Marxism.
The general law of materialist dialectics is that various articles,
phenomena and processes, both in nature and in society do not exist in isola-
tion, in and of themselves. They are organically linked and constantly
interact, and are in constant development. "In order truly to know a sub-
ject," wrote Lenin, "it is necessary to comprehend and study all of its
aspects, all its relationships and 'instrumentalities,'"`24 and to approach
each phenomenon from the point of view of how and under what conditions it
arose in the past, what it is in the present and what it will become in the
future. Military affairs are no exception. Their development convincingly
confirms the action of this general law of dialectics.
The scientific nature of military theory and results of practical activity
are largely determined by the degree to which the increased military capabil-
ities of the armed forces and their individual services and branches of armo
are understood and taken into account; the interaction of material and
spiritual factors; and the full diversity of linkages and relationships in
war. It is important to disclose internal and external relationships, as
well as important and unimportant ties and relationships.
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
4
 Approved For Release pg%56WPAA?1WW01468R000100110005-2
Such factors as the economic system and capabilities of a state, the level
of development of science and technology, etc., are external factors, but
which are, at the same time, determining with respect to war. Internal
linkages and relationships in war are, most of all, the correlation of
forces of the warring parties; the technical level of their equipment; the
conditions and degree of interaction of the armed services and branches of
arms during the course of military operations, and several other methods of
conducting military operations which directly determine their success or
failure.
The correct disclosure of important and unimportant linkages and relation-
ships in war and military construction makes it possible to determine pre-
cisely the main link in a complex chain of events, which when grasped may
pull the entire chain; i.e., successfully accomplish a whole aggregate of
practical problems which arose. And, on the other hand, failure to under-
stand the nature of such relationships leads to errors with very grave
consequences.
Thus, analyzing the experience of World War I, Soviet military thought
(S. M. Ammosov; K. I. Velichko; A. I. Yegorov; K. B. Kalinovskiy; V. K.
Triandafillov; M. N. Tukhachevskiy; I. A. Khalepskiy and others) correctly
foresaw the important role of tanks in a future war, as the means of
developing tactical success into operational. Taking this into account,
back in 1932 the Soviet Armed Forces became the first in the world to
create major large units of armored forces -- the mechanized corps. By
1936 there were already four of them, which were later reorganized into tank
corps. Unfortunately, later, due to incorrect conclusions about the use of
tanks, made on the basis of the limited experience of combat operations in
Spain, where tanks were used only as means of NPP (direct support to infan-
try), in 1939 these corps were dissolved and it was envisioned that, as in
the Civil War, cavalry would be used as the echelon for developing success
in operations. This was a consequence of the fact that partial and unimpor-
tant relationships were considered, and main, important ones were not. In
1941 this error was corrected, and in 1942 not only tank corps, but also
tank armies were created in the Soviet Army.
In determining the external and internal relationships among various
phenomena, and distinguishing important relationships from unimportant or
secondary ones, they, naturally, cannot be considered stagnant and formed
once and for all. It is always necessary to have in mind their mobility
and dialectical interrelationship and interdependence. External relation-
ships in one system may become internal in another, and vice versa;
unimportant relationships under certain conditions may become primary and
important under other conditions. Such is the dialectic of real life.
History knows many examples when the armed forces of individual countries
prepared for a future war, taking into account only the clearly manifested
relationships of the past war, without examining the dialectical relation-
ships and their dependence on changes which are taking place in the world.
Such an approach usually led to major errors.
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For ReleasX9 0 J?d LCIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
For example, before World War II, in France, as a result of mechanical copy-
ing of the internal relationships of the 1st World War, the army's and
country's preparation for a new war was based only on what had been reliably
tested and confirmed by past experience. As a result, the capabilities of
defense were exaggerated. The Maginot Line was built along the border, con-
sisting of seemingly impregnable permanent fortifications. Taking this into
account, the troops were also trained primarily for defense. This was caused
by ignoring the opportunities which had arisen at the time for the conduct of
highly maneuverable operations, based on the wide use of major tank forces
and aviation, the role of which was insignificant in the 1st World War, but
which by the start of World War LI had become determining and primary.
Namely this erroneous approach to evaluating the defense was one of the
causes which led in 1940 to the rapid defeat of France and the Benelux
countries: the Wehrmacht required less than 40 days for this.
Apropos of this, the absence of a dialectical approach and a certain stagna-
be observed in our day as well. This is
thought can
tion in French military
seen, particularly, in the extreme confidence in the "impenetrability" of the
"atomic umbella," which France is developing in every possible way in the
1980's, which is to a considerable extent similar to the French General
Staff's fetish about the "all-powerfulness" of the notorious Maginot Line
in the 1930's.
The development by Soviet military scholars and command cadres of the theory
of the "deep operation" can serve as an example of thorough understanding by
military cadres of the law of universal relationships and development, and
the ability to distinguish relationships which are primary and important
from those which are accidental and unimportant and finding optimal deci-
sions.
Taking into account the experience of World War II, the armed forces of the
world's main countries persistently sought ways, right up to World War wII, ere to
escape the so-called "positional blind alley." Various points
expressed about the possible nature of future war and methods for achieving
superiority of the offense over the defense, which the armies could not
overcome throughout the course of World War II. Bourgeois military
theoreticians advanced at the time a number of one-sided concepts: "tank
war" by J. F. G. Fuller and "air war" by Douhet, but as a result of limita-
tions of class and the metaphysics of their theory and methodology, were
unable to solve this problem.
Only Soviet military science and our military shos and command cadres
back during the pre-war years, guided by the postulates
tics, made a well-founded and correct forecast of the nature of World War II
and of the forms and methods of its conduct. Greatly surpassing bourgeois
military thinking, Soviet military science in the 1930's, based on thorough
analysis of the developmental tendencies of military affairs, fundamentally
developed what' was at the time the leading theory of "deep operations" massive, aeenncaly
new method of conducting active offensive operations by
equipped armies. The Great Patriotic War convincingly showed the correctness
of this theory.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 20 6(W1(jl bRQMTfQY468R000100110005-2
DIALECTICS REQUIRES AN APPROACH TO EACH PHENOMENON WHICH TAKES INTO ACCOUNT
ITS DEVELOPMENT AND IS HISTORICAL. The forms of conducting military opera-
tions and related changes in the organizational structure of the armed
forces may serve as a confirmation of this. As is well known, before the
16th Century the highest form of military operations was the battle, and the
armies of a majority of states consisted of regiments. Later, as military
affairs developed, brigades began to be created (17th Century), and later
also divisions (18th Century). The rapid development of weapons, equipment
and routes of transportation at the end of the 18th and start of the 19th
centuries, caused by the increased economic capabilities of many countries,
led to a substantial increase in the size of armed forces and to the
emergence of problems in the command and control of combat operations of
large masses of troops. As a result of this, ground forces were organiza-
tionally divided into armies. Armies first appeared in Russia as opera-
tional formations before the Patriotic War of 1812. Later they arose in
other countries: in France in 1813; Prussia in 1866; Japan in 1904-1905.
Later, with the increase in the number of armies in one theater of military
operations, and the increased complexity of combat missions, and intensity
and duration of military operations, the need appeared for centralized
command and control of large masses of troops. Therefore, several armies
began to be combined into fronts. In Russia the idea of creating fronts
appeared in 1900. Its correctness was proven by the experience of the
Russo-Japanese war. Fronts were further developed in World War I, and
especially World War II.
In turn the increase in size of armed forces led to increasing the spatial
scope of military operations [deystviy]. As a result there arose a new form
of military actions -- the operation [operatsiya] as an aggregate of battles
and engagements, separate in time and space, but unified by a single concept
and directed toward fulfilling a partial goal of the war. War began to
consist not of a number of battles and engagements, but of an aggregate of
operations and campaigns. Of course, the operation as a form of military
operations did not develop immediately. The rudiments or some elements
existed back in the Patriotic War of 1812 and in the Franco-Prussian War of
1870-1871. The most important encounters in the Russo-Japanese War of
1904-1905, with some stipulations, can with full justification be called
operations. Finally, army and then even front scale operations were formed
in the 1st World War, and were fully developed in World War II.
During the years of the Great Patriotic War the. main form of military opera-
tions of our Armed Forces at the operational level was the front operation.
Front troops attacked in a zone an average of 200-300 km wide or more, and
with a depth of from 100 to 300-400 km. After completing a front operation
there was usually a pause, and frequently an extended period of preparations
for the next front operation. At the time this was justified and corre-
sponded to the then existing means of destruction and movement.
However, during the Great Patriotic War, especially in its second and third
periods, to achieve major military and political objectives the forces and
resources of one front often were inadequate. The combined efforts of
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 200gM/ ?1A1 1Y468R000100110005-2
several fronts, two or more, were required. Accordingly the need arose foie
the simultaneous conduct of several front operations, combined by a single
concept and plan, under the leadership of representatives of the Headquarters
of the Supreme High Command. Thus, a new form of military operations was
born, which differed substantially from the front operation. This was the''
operation of a group of fronts. A number of such operations were prepared''
and 'brilliantly carried out in the Great Patriotic War. They included the
Stalingrad, Kursk, Belorussia, Yassk-Kishinev, Vistula-Oder, Berlin,
Manchurian and other operations, which rightfully entered the treasure-house
not only of Soviet, but also of worldwide military art. In the post-war
years the theory of operations by a group of fronts was further developed.)
At present the military capabilities of troops, aircraft and the navy, the)
long range of their weapons and their maneuverability have sharply increased.
The periods required to concentrate strike groupings and obtain replenish-~
ments of material resources have been reduced, and the conditions and methods
of accomplishing operational and strategic missions by large units
[soyedineniyami] and formations [obyedineniyami] of.armed services have
changed. The military leadership at the highest level has obtained the
capability of directly and decisively influencing the course and outcome of
war. As a result, the past forms of using large units and formations of
armed services have already largely ceased to correspond to modern condi-',
tions. In connection with this, it is customary to view as basic no longer
the frontal operation or even the operation of a group of fronts, but a mare
modern, perfected and large-scale form -- the operation in a theater of
military operations. During the course of such an operation, each front
(fleet) can carry out, in sequence, with short pauses and even without them,
two or more front (fleet) operations.
It is particularly important to understand the dialectical process of develop-
ing military affairs at the present stage, under conditions of rapid scien-
tific and technological progress. Tardiness in restructuring views, and
stagnation in working out and implementing new questions of military art
and military construction are fraught with serious consequence.
THE LAW OF UNITY AND THE STRUGGLE OF OPPOSITES, WHICH COMPRISES, IN LENIN'S
DEFINITION, THE CORE OF DIALECTICS, IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTANDING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETY, INCLUDING THE PHENOMENA OF WAR AND MILITARY
AFFAIRS. Like the other laws and categories of dialectics, it is universal
in nature and is fully applicable to military activity. The law derives
from a recognition that contradictions, opposing sides and tendencies, fund
in a state of interrelation and mutual negation, are characteristic of a 1
objects, phenomena and processes. The struggle of these opposites and
exacerbation of the contradictions give an internal impulse to the develop-
ment, which at a certain stage leads to the disappearance of the old andll
emergence of the new.
Armed conflict is especially complex and contradictory. It is most of a.l
interrelations and contradictions between the opposing sides and their
political and strategic objectives, and between the demands of the armed''
forces and the economic capabilities of the countries. It is also constant
Approved For Release 2005/06FM$ P IA DP 93TO1468R000100110005-2
 Approved For ReI@WPPp,9iQOgRPP93T01468R000100110005-2
conflict between the means of attack and defense; i.e., between various types
of weapons and military equipment. For example, the appearance and develop-
ment of tanks, aircraft, submarines, and radioelectronics immediately caused
the emergence of correspondent antitank, antiaircraft and antisubmarine
weapons and means of radioelectronic warfare, and the conduct of air and
assault operations caused the development and conduct of corresponding
antiair and antiassault operations; i.e., new forms and methods of carrying
out military operations. In other words, an unceasing conflict between the
defense and the offense goes on.
Let us refer again to history. Thus, the experience of the Anglo-Boer War
(1899-1902) and especially the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) showed the
effectiveness of the use of the automatic weapons (machineguns), and other
firepower and engineer weapons of close combat support, to increasing troop
stability. The advantage of using these weapons was incontestible. Their
intensive development and introduction into troop units began. And it had a
prompt impact on the course and outcome of combat operations. In World War I
(1914-1918) the use of automatic weapons, artillery and engineer weapons in
large numbers with the then existing forms and methods of carrying out combat
operations led to the defense being stronger than the offense. Troop actions
mainly acquired a positional, defensive nature and offensive actions were
virtually conducted only episodically. The most frequent report of the
Russian press buro of the Stavka of the Supreme High Commander was: "No
change on the Western Front." And it is no accident that the 1st World War
is sometimes called "four years in a blind alley."
In the inter-war period there was an intense search for ways to overcome the
contradictions which had arisen. And they were found. In World War II there
appeared in mass numbers means of breaking through and developing success
(tanks, self-propelled artillery, aircraft, submarines and aircraft carriers),
and from the very outset gave an active, offensive character to combat opera-
tions on land, sea and air. A tactical breakthrough immediately developed
into an operational. A new contradiction arose -- offensive weapons were
stronger than defensive. As a result of this, during the war and especially
in the post-war period means of defense began to be developed at increased
rates (antitank artillery, antitank mines, antitank guided missiles, various
types of missile and air defense missile systems, fighter aviation, anti-
submarine ships, etc.), the able use of which at a certain stage balanced
to some extent offensive and defensive weapons.
In other words, constant conflict between means of attack and defense is an
internal source of development of military affairs. The appearance of new
means of attack always unavoidably led to the creation of corresponding
countermeasures, and in the end to the development of new methods of con-
ducting battles, engagements, operations and war as a whole. Therefore,
under present-day conditions, when an active change from one generation of
weapons to another is taking place, it is extremely important that military
cadres approach the examination of all aspects of the development of military
affairs not in a one-sided way but in an all-round manner, on the basis of
thorough understanding of the basic law, the core of dialectics -- the law of
unity and the struggle of opposites. Thorough study, inquiry and knowledge
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Relea O /W.. tM-ftbR3T01468R000100110005-2
of the optimal methods of solving the contradictions of military activity
is a most important condition for successfully managing the complex and
contradictory processes in the field of military construction and military
art.
SOVIET MILITARY SCIENCE IS ALSO GUIDED BY THE LAW OF THE TRANSITION OF
QUANTITATIVE CHANGES INTO QUALITATIVE IN UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE AND FORMS
OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARMED FORCES AND THE METHODS OF PREPARING FOR AND
CONDUCTING MILITARY OPERATIONS.
This law of dialectics teaches that the development of all subjects and
phenomena of nature, society and thinking occurs by way of the gradual
accumulation of quantitative changes and their transformation at a certain
ualitative changes. Development, being the unity
l
, q
stage into fundamenta
of quantitative and qualitative changes, is at the same time also the unity
of continuity and discontinuity. "...Life and development in2nature," noted
11
V. I. Lenin, "include both slow evolution and rapid jumps...
Thus, the creation of new weapons and military equipment, as was already
stated, also entails corresponding transformations in the methods of con-
ducting military operations. But this does not take place immediately upon
the appearance of new means of combat, but only when they begin to be used
in a quantity which inevitably causes a new qualitative state of the
phenomenon. As long as the new weapons and military equipment are used in
limited numbers, they are most often merely adapted to the existing methods
of armed conflict or, at best, introduce in them only a few partial adjust-
ments.
As was already stated, machineguns were used in the Anglo-Boer War (1899-
1902). However, their limited number (40) and poor military characteristics
did not then lead to a fundamental break in the method of conducting battle,
but introduced only a few changes in the structure of troop combat forma-
tions. Later the rapid development of automatic weapons and their large-
scale introduction into troop units had an incomparably greater effect.
During the course of World War I the use by the warring sides of automatic
weapons in massive numbers, in combination with the increased power of
artillery, engineer fortifications and obstacles, led, essentially, to the
positional nature of fronts, to their becoming frozen; i.e., changed the
qualitative aspect of the phenomenon.
f eared and began to be used back in
Another example. Tanks and ai.rc.ra L. app
I. But in connection with their insignificant number. and technical''
World War I
imperfection, their use could not and did not lead to qualitative changes in d the nature of military operations. At the time the infantry, rtilleryrand a'
cavalry continued to solve the main tasks in battles, operations
whole. In World War II, when mass production of tanks and aircraft had been
erevcreated in th~
shwere
set up, and large tank and^air,large units }andcformations
r -- the
ce
fo
r
, ----
aimed
qualitative aspect of the phenomenon changed.
ARM/ of ICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 08: CIA-RDP93TO1468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release /$ jAq1W8gTD1468R000100110005-2
A more vivid manifestation of the dialectical law of the transition of
gradual quantitative changes into fundamental, qualitative changes can be
observed in our day based on the example of the development of views on the
use of nuclear weapons. Thus, in the 1950's and 1960's, when nuclear
weapons were still few, they were viewed merely as a means capable of
sharply increasing the firepower of the troops. Every effort was made to
adapt nuclear weapons to then existing forms and methods of conducting mili-
tary operations, and in the first place to accomplishing strategic missions.
Later, in the 1970's and 1980's, the rapid quantitative increase in nuclear
weapons of various yields, development of numerous long range and highly
accurate delivery means and their widespread introduction into the troops
and naval forces. led to a fundamental reexamination of the role of these
weapons and to overturning former views on their place and significance in
war; on the methods of waging battles and operations; and even on the over-
all possibility of conducting war with the use of nuclear weapons.
The dialectical law of the transition of qualitative changes into qualita-
tive requires, in particular, increased attention to those changes which take
place in arming the troops and their organizational structure; in the quanti-
tative correlations of.new types of weapons and military equipment entering
the troop units and naval forces; and in the timely determination of possible
qualitative prospects caused by these quantitative changes. Under modern
conditions only comprehensive theoretical and practical research permits the
most reliable determination. of the optimal correlations between quantitative
and qualitative indices of various systems of weapons and military equipment,
as well as of groupings of armed forces in theaters of military operations,
and can introduce timely necessary adjustments to the existing forms and
methods of military operations.
THE LAW OF THE NEGATION OF NEGATION IS IMPORTANT FOR A DIALECTICAL UNDER-
STANDING OF THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT. It reflects the progressive nature
of development, its direction and the process of giving birth to the new.
Characterizing the essence of this law, Lenin wrote that dialectical nega-
tion is "not naked negation. . .but negation as a moment of linkage, a moment
of development, with retention of the positive..."26
New equipment and weapons supplant and negate old equipment and weapons
generation after generation. This is a graphic manifestation of the law of
the negation of negation. Thus, smooth-bored weapons appeared in. Europe in
the 14th Century and existed for several centuries. The swift development
of industry and the achievements of science and technology in the 19th
Century made it possible to create rifled single-shot weapons. Having better
military characteristics, they almost completely overshadowed smooth-bored
weapons. The negation of one type of weapon by another took place. How-
ever, during the 2d World War, and especially in the post-war period, a new
type of weapon -- non-rifled (rocket launchers, antitank guided missiles,
missiles of all other types) -- began to enter the armaments of troop units
and naval forces in ever-growing numbers. Distinguished by high military
and maneuver qualities, they are already beginning to replace and even to
some extent force out rifled weapons. In other words, the action of a law
of materialist dialectics, the dialectical chain of negation, is observed
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
when one type of weapon is negated by another, although everything positive
that was inherent in the old is retained and still further developed in
the new.
Experience shows that the extent of negation may differ. In some cases the
elimination of that which is obsolete, out-of-date and retarding further
progress is accomplished while retaining some foundations of the existing.
The development of military organizational structure serves as a graphic
example of this. Let us take such organizational elements as the regiment,
division and corps. They originated long ago; however, they exist in our
day. It goes without saying that their structure and content has changed
over the course of a long period of time, depending on the nature of the
means of armed conflict, through the negation of out-of-date, obsolete
elements of organization in the interests of more complete and effective use
of the military characteristics of new weapons and military equipment, while
retaining the external traits of organizational structure. In other cases
the negation is more profound and fundamental. A departure from the very
foundation of the existing and the formation of a new quality on a funda-
mentally new base takes place, since modifications no longer give the
desired result.
The development of armed services and branches of arms may serve as an
illustration. Thus, during the Feudal Era the knight cavalry was consid-
ered the main strike force in the armies of the European countries. The
horsemen were protected by armor and the horses were covered with metal
armor plates. With the invention of firearms, when in Engels' expression,
on,
the bullets from the burgher guns began to penetrate the knight's
mail,27 this mounted cavalry lost its former importance and ceased being
the main strike force. It was replaced by cavalry freed from the heavy,
no longer useful, protective garb. It became more mobile and maneuverable,
and the presence of firearms permitted the cavalrymen to conduct a success-
ful battle not only mounted but also on foot. During the 1st World War
and especially the Civil War in our country, mobile cavalry was widely used
to develop success in the offensive, to make counterattacks in the defensive'
as well as for actions in the enemy rear area and to destroy his lines of
communication. A negation of the negation took place with the retention of
the existing foundations.
However, with the appearance of rapid fire automatic weapons and in connec-
tion with the swift development of aviation and tanks, the importance of
cavalry began to decline sharply. Under the new conditions of World War II
it could no longer display its qualities with the past success or fulfill
the role of a highly effective and maneuverable weapon. The cavalry had
exhausted itself as a branch of arms. Therefore, it was entirely natural
that it was replaced by a new branch of arms -- armored and mechanized
forces -- having a qualitatively different, technical, basis and possessing
incomparably greater firepower, striking force and maneuverability. As we
see, a negation had taken place with the replacement of the very basis of
that which had existed.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
The action of the law of the negation of the negation is also clearly traced
using the navy as an example. It went from oars to sails, from sails to
steamships, diesel powered ships and finally to modern nuclear powered
missile carrying ships.
The process of dialectical negation is continuing in military affairs. At
the present time, various means of combat with tanks, aircraft, and to a
large degree also ships, including aerial means, are rapidly developing.
They have already reached a quantitative and qualitative state which, taking
into account the action of the laws of dialectics, insistently requires
careful study of these new tendencies and the possible consequences of
their development. It is dangerous to ignore these tendencies.
The law of the negation of the negation -- the birth of the new and the
death of the old -- is universal in nature. However, this law, like all the
other laws of dialectics, is manifested in various ways. In nature it is
involuntary; in society, and consequently also in military affairs, it is
manifested as a tendency, and necessarily through the activity of people.
Nor are the leaps from the old to the new standard in terms of time. For
the barleycorn sown in the soil, the negation of the negation begins with
the ear of the new harvest just a few months later, but wars, which appeared
at the dawn of class society, have been blazing for millenia and are not
dying away to this day. However, this in no way indicates that wars are
eternal, as bourgeois historians and politicians claim. No. They are also
subject to the action of the dialectical laws of development. And the law
of the negation of the negation precisely underscroes this thought -- one
must not think in absolutes either in military theory or in practical
military affairs.
The theory of military art and the practice of conducting operations in
wars are entirely subordinated to the laws of materialist dialectics. This
is also convincingly affirmed by the changes of military doctrines of states
in accordance with their politics and with the specific historical situation.
37
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
TWO DOCTRINES, TWO STRATEGIES
The military doctrines of the states in the opposing socio-political systems
attract particular attention in the present difficult and explosive inter-
national environment. Bourgeois idealogues strive in every way possible to
conceal the aggressive nature of the military doctrines of imperialism and
are always crudely falsifying the defensive essence and thrust of Soviet
military doctrine. Unceremoniously distorting the Marxist-Leninist under-
standing of the essence of war, they are intensively disseminating slander-
ous versions to the effect that the sources of war in the modern eraaarecally
supposedly not found in the aggressive nature of imperialism, but
in the ideology of communism. Western idealogues propagandize in every way
possible the malicious myth about the "Soviet military threat," and about
the desire of the Soviet government to "export revolution" to other coun-
tries, and they present Soviet military doctrine in an "aggressive-
offensive" light.
The truth about who is threatening whom in reality, what are the essence and
thrust of the military doctrines and military strategies of the capitalist
and socialist states, and where the true sources for the origin of wars may
be found can be correctly understood only from the positions of dialectical
materialism.
The Essence of Military Doctrine and Strategy
The history of the origin of military doctrine and military strategy goes
back to the distant past, to those times when antagonistic classes appeared,
exploitative states were formed and wars began. Their initial formation
the place empirically, based on the direct requirements of military po
tice, and not as a result of revealing and thoroughly analyzing the objec-
tive laws of war. Preference was given to observing the principles for
waging war which were already known from experience and seemed unchanging
and immutable, and to exaggerating the factor of spontaneity and the role
of the military leader.
The emergence of the rudiments of military doctrinal postulates and the
bases of strategy go back to the slaveholding era. The first information
about them is contained in a few works which describe the basic require-
ments for solving the problems of preparing for and waging wars; organizing
military campaigns and training armies; determining the methods for con-
ducting individual engagements which won the war (surprise invasion, laying
siege to and storming fortresses, naval blockades), a sChina,
ndtcr atinn powerful, etc.'
border fortifications such as the Great Wall
Military-theoretical thinking and military practice also were not greatly
developed during the feudal era, since wars were waged primarily with
limited objectives, comparatively small armies (knights) and were small in
scale. During the period of the formation of the centralized absolutist
states (15th and 16th centuries) and the expansion of their economic
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
capabilities, standing professional armies began to emerge, firearms became
widespread and artillery appeared. The methods of conducting armed con-
flict were developed, the theory for the use of forces and weapons in wars
and battles emerged and military strategy began taking into account these
fundamental changes.
Military thought and the systematization of military knowledge began to
develop more fruitfully in the 18th Century, when capitalism was confirmed
in a number of countries of Western Europe. The development of the politi-
cal, economic and natural sciences and the generalization of the experience
of the Seven Years War (1756-1763), the French Revolutionary Wars (1792-
1801), etc., enlivened military theoretical thinking. In this time the
fundamental works of Henry Lloyd, "History of the Seven Years War" and
H. von Bulow, "The Spirit of the Latest Military System" were published,
which set forth systematically the views then existing on the preparations
for and methods of waging war, structuring the army, training reserves and
preparing theaters of military operations. But these words were idealistic
and metaphysical in nature.
The theory of bourgeois military doctrines began to take shape mainly in
Western Europe in the 19th Century. During this period weapons and military
equipment (especially artillery) were widely developed; military obligation
was introduced in many countries; the numerical strength of armies increased
and the working out of questions of conducting wars and structuring armed
forces, and training and indoctrinating troops began. The works of
Napoleon I; A. Jomini; K. Clausewitz; H. Moltke, Sr.; A. Schliffen and
others were important contributions to the development of bourgeois mili-
tary thinking. However, in their works, they usually did not go further
than to systematize historical facts and bring to light individual aspects
of the development of military affairs and waging of wars, which reflected
primarily the political views of the ruling classes.
The establishment and development of doctrinal instructions in Russia took
place independently with critical consideration for worldwide experience
under conditions in which the Russian people frequently had to conduct wars
for the freedom and independence of their country. Peter I was a true
reformer of military affairs. He made a great contribution to the develop-
ment of military thinking, strategy and tactics, carried out a number of
major military reforms and developed effective methods of military training.
P. A. Rumyantsev; A. V. Suvorov; M. I. Kutuzov; F. F. Ushakov; P. S. Nakhimov
and other prominent military leaders and naval leaders, as well as the mili-
tary scholars A. I. Astaf'yev; N. P. Mikhnevich; D. A. Milyutin; M. I.
Dragomirov; F. 0. Makorov and others contributed a great deal to the develop-
ment of Russian military theory and practice. They courageously threw out
obsolete theoretical concepts and advanced new ones, and persistently over-
came the stagnation and routine which reigned in the official military views
of the time.
In its present understanding, MILITARY DOCTRINE is the system of views
adopted in a given state at a given (particular) time on the objectives and
nature of possible future war, on the preparation of the country and armed
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For q Qp, /B Q~jN 4-RDP93TO1468R000100110005-2
forces for it and on the methods of waging it. Military doctrine usually
defines: what is the probability of future war and with what enemy will.
it be necessary to deal; what nature will the war take which the country
and its armed forces are to wage; what are the objectives and tasks which
may be assigned to the armed forces in anticipation of such a war; what
armed forces are required in order to achieve the established objectives;
how, stemming from this, military structuring should be achieved and the
army and country prepared for war; and, finally, by what methodswar is to
be conducted if it breaks out.
MILITARY STRATEGY is an integral part of military art, and its highest
area, encompasses the theory and practice of preparing the armed forces for
war, and the planning and conduct of strategic operations and the war as a
whole. In accomplishing its practical tasks it is completely guided by the
fundamental directives of military doctrine. In turn, the basic postulates
of military strategy, taking into account the developing views and new
tendencies in military affairs, are used to refine doctrinal views and
directives.
In a number of imperialist countries, including the United States, these
two concepts are often equated and set forth in some cases as "military
doctrine" or its partial conceptions ("naval doctrine," "tank doctrine,"
"nuclear doctrine," etc.) and in others as "grand strategy" or "national
strategy," the substance of which essentially coincides with military
doctrine. In all cases these different terms serve as veiled expressions
of the military-political objectives of the state and methods of achieving
them.
IN THE MILITARY DOCTRINE OF ANY STATE TWO CLOSELY LINKED AND INTERRELATED
ASPECTS ARE DISTINGUISHED -- SOCIO-POLITICAL AND MILITARY-TECHNICAL. The
first encompasses questions concerning the political objectives and nature
of a forthcoming war, their economic, social, methodological and legal. bases
and the direction for structuring the armed forces and preparing the country
for war. The second includes questions of military construction, technical
equipping and material. support for the armed forces and maintaining their
combat readiness, and the methods of preparing for and conducting operations
and the war as a whole.
The socio-political and military-technical aspects of doctrine are found in
close dialectical interrelationship and interdependence. They are indivisi-
ble one from another and exist together only when there is a correct inter-
relationship. The political objectives of the war must fully correspond to
the military potential of the state, the military capabilities of the armed
forces and the methods of conducting military operations which they are
using. The latter must reliably ensure the achievement of the established
objectives.
Both aspects of military doctrine constantly influence one another, and the
socio-political aspect occupies the leading and determining position.
"...The main condition for the vitality of military doctrine," noted M. V.
Frunze, "is its strict correspondence to the overall objectives of the state
and to the material and spiritual resources which it possesses."28
40
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06(x: TMR9@~@'A?,11000100110005-2
The views expressed in military doctrine are periodically clarified and
changed and new elements appear in them. Provisions related to the socio-
political aspect of doctrine are distinguished by the greatest stability.
This is explained by the fact that they reflect the class essence and
political objective of a given state, which remain unchanged over a long
period of time. The military-technical aspect of military doctrine is more
changeable, for it depends decisively on the means and methods of waging
armed conflict, which are constantly changing and improving.
There are a number of features in common in the content of this aspect of
doctrine between the socialist and capitalist countries, which are stipu-
lated by the general tendencies of development of military affairs and stem
from the level of scientific and technical progress achieved and the use of
the experience of past wars. However, the methodology for solving the prob-
lems of military affairs and the general thrust of the military structuring
of these states are contradictory in their class objectives.
The Military Doctrines of the Capitalist States
V. I. Lenin stressed that the highest and last stage of capitalism, imperial-
ism, is distinguished by the least love of peace and the greatest aggressive-
ness. These imperialist traits, both in the past and the present, are
clearly expressed in the military doctrines of the leading capitalist states.
TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, WORLD WAR I. When it began in 1914 as a result of the
existing sharp contradictions in the camp of the capitalist states, each
country nurtured its own political objectives and had its own views on the
nature of and methods of conducting the imminent war.
The desire to redivide the world by force and seize new colonies, with open
pretensions to world domination, comprised the political basis of the mili-
tary doctrine of the Kaiser's Germany. The German military machine was
developed, militarization of the country took place and the armed forces
were prepared taking this into account. However, the political objectives
of German military doctrine did not correspond to the real military and
economic capabilities of the country, which did not provide for fulfilling
the plans of the German General Staff for conducting war simultaneously on
two fronts against the Entente countries. And, as is known, as a result the
Kaiser's Germany and its adventuristic military doctrine suffered a crushing
defeat.
France on the eve of the 1st World War also had nothing against receiving a
"tidbit" at the expense of Germany and the other countries of the world.
However, a lack of confidence in its strength and an absence of active and
decisive plans were inherent in its military doctrine. The main thing which
constituted the essence of French doctrine was to occupy an assembly area,
discover the enemy's plan, and only then, taking the situation into account,
to make the necessary decision. From this the approach itself to preparing
for war and to structuring the army had a mark of passivity and boiled down
to creating strong fortifications along the borders and stockpiling reserves
of materiel for war.
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
Britain at the time was a huge colonial power, and therefore the basis of its
political mission was a desire to strengthen its authority in every way
possible over previously seized territories. In view of the great distance
of the colonies from the mother state, the navy was the leading force in
accomplishing this mission. This necessarily had an impact on the content
of military doctrine and on the main thrust of British military strategy,
which gives priority to the creation and development of the navy.
The military doctrine of Tsarist Russia on the eve of World War I also
reflected in a political sense the predatory aspirations of the ruling
classes of this bourgeois-landholder state and provided for accomplishing
military missions by numerically large armed forces. The doctrine, how-
ever, underestimated and did not fully take into account the relatively low
technical level of the Russian Army.
The United States did not participate directly in World War I, but did not
remain on the sidelines. The main objective of the American imperialists
was, at minimal material expenses, to enrich themselves to the maximum
extent at the cost of the bloody carnage between the major European powers
and at the same time to take part in the postwar redivision of the world.
It is no accident that while war was underway in Europe the United States
carried out a large scale expansion in Latin America, the Far East and the
Pacific Ocean basin.
Therefore, a common trait of the military doctrines of the main states
participating in the 1st World War was expansionism and a desire to seize
foreign lands. Underestimation of the role of social and political factors,
errors in assessing their own military and economic capabilities and
adventurism in planning and carrying out the war were overlooked in their
doctrines, which in the end also predetermined. their nature and outcome -- the'
strategic objectives of the war were not achieved for almost any of the
warring countries.
THE THUNDER OF GUNS OF WORLD WAR I HAD BARELY QUIETED, WHEN IN THE BOWELS OF
IMPERIALISM THE STORM CLOUDS OF WORLD WAR II HAD ALREADY BEGUN TO GATHER.
Having strengthened themselves in the years of the 1st World War, the
American imperialists began to lay claim to the colonies of their competi-
tors -- the European capitalist countries. The antagonistic contradictions
among the United States, Britain, France and Germany were not eliminated, but
to the contrary, took on forms still more dangerous to the world. A new and
serious military conflict between Britain, France and the United States on
the one hand and Germany on the other was gathering force. As was noted
above, World War I and the Great: October Socialist Revolution in Russia
caused the start of the general crisis of capitalism. The unified capitalist
system split and the irreversible process of its collapse began. And
although imperialism still possessed tremendous military and economic
capabilities and as before imagined itself the ruler on Earth, its global
positions were hopelessly undermined and could not support the realization
of its pretenses to world domination.
42
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release /B IA(ilt-0kD8RJP1468R000100110005-2
,In connection with this, there were two approaches to the Soviet Union in
the ruling circles of the capitalist state. One consisted of the desire to
destroy the young Soviet Republic by force of arms. The military interven-
tion against our country was a perfect manifestation of this policy. Great
hopes were also placed on restoring capitalism in Russia by way of economic
blockade, political diktat, and active ideological struggle and diversions.
The military doctrines and strategic concepts of the capitalist countries
were determined taking this into account. Needless to say, the intensive
process of developing arms and military equipment; massive equipping of the
armed forces with tanks, aircraft and submarines; increasing motorization
and mechanization of the troops; and application of better means of troop
command and control had a definite influence on them.
Fascist Germany was distinguished by the greatest aggressiveness and desire
for world domination. With the coming to power of the Hitlerites in Fascist
Germany there developed a feverish preparation for war, which became the
main substance of the activity of the state. Everything was subordinated
to total militarization: foreign and domestic policy, the economy, science
and culture, the educational system, sports and the gigantic propaganda
machine. The German imperialists set as their objective crushing their
capitalist competitors, destroying the Soviet Union and gaining world domi-
nation, having created a global colonial empire.
This objective also determined the views of the Nazi leaders and the
Wehrmacht Command on the nature of the war, the methods of its preparation
and conduct and the principles of structuring the military. The theory of
total war, developed by German military theoreticians back in the 1920's and
later generalized by Ludendorff in his book, "Total War," served as the
nucleus of German military doctrine. Fascist theoreticians understood this
war as all encompassing, in which all means and methods were permitted to
defeat and destroy not only the armed forces but also the population of the
enemy.
German military theoreticians viewed the war as an unavoidable and vitally
necessary phenomenon. At the same time they were aware that a protracted war
might end in catastrophe for them. The strategic concept of "lightning war"
appeared in connection with this. Accordingly, it was considered that the
active use of large groupings of tank and mechanized forces, aviation and
naval forces would secure victory in the war in the. shortest period of time,
before the enemy could completely deploy his armed forces and military and
economic potential. It should immediately be noted that these concepts were
in their essence adventuristic, since they were built on underestimating the
economic, military and moral capabilities of the probable enemies, most of
all the USSR, and on clear overestimation of their own capabilities.
The main objective of militarist Japan, as a confederate of Fascist Germany,
was to establish undivided domination in Asia, the Far East and the Pacific
Ocean basin and to strengthen its role in the whole world arena. The. most
important objectives of its aggressive aspirations were China, the Soviet
Far East, and the colonial holdings of the United States and Britain in the
Pacific Ocean basin. To achieve these aims by war, surprise strong
43
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For ReleIROt 11D.81S9lA*W93T01468R000100110005-2
(destructive) strikes by carrier and shore based aviation were planned
against the main groupings of the opposing side, with subsequent battles on
the broad water areas and territories by the main naval and ground forces.
However, the plans and military policy of militarist Japan did not corre-
spond to its economic capabilities, were not supported either in their
political or military and technical respects and, like Fascist Germany,
were fundamentally adventuristic.
Italian military doctrine on the eve of World War II was determined by the
aggressive essence of fascism, the level of economic development of the
state and the specifics of its geographical and strategic situation. The
country's relative economic and military weakness prompted the Italian
fascists to maneuver between the stronger imperialist states, to give
preference to Hitler's concept of "lightning war" and to place great hopes
on the victorious conduct of the war by Fascist Germany, which was in and
of itself erroneous and unrealistic, since the Hitlerites themselves were
interested in seizing the same areas to which Italy lay claim.
Just before the start of World War II another grouping of capitalist states
took shape to oppose the Fascist b:Loc. Britain, France and the United States
played a leading role in this grouping. The desire of each of these coun-
tries to stabilize and expand its influence in the world arena and a general
anti-Soviet: thrust to its policy had great influence on the forming of the
military and political views of these countries.
Britain's military doctrine was developed under the influence of the many
centuries old process of development of this colonial power and the particu-
lar nature of its geographical position. Therefore, its political content
boiled down to the need to maintain and expand domination in far-flung
colonial holdings and retain its leading position among the European coun-
tries. In connection with this the main tasks of its imperial strategy were
to ensure the security of the country's naval lines of communication and air
defenses; to suppress the liberation movement in the colonies and to fulfill
limited alliance commitments in Europe.
The military and technical aspect of British military doctrine was also
determined taking this into account. This involved the priority given to
the development of the navy, primarily to major surface ships, as well as to
aviation as a primary strategic means of waging war. Ground forces played a
secondary role and were viewed merely as a means to conduct predatory
colonial wars.
On the whole British military doctrine and military strategy were conserva-
tive and did not fully take into account the appearance of new means of
armed conflict.
The political content of France's military doctrine reflected a desire to
preserve its advantageous political and strategic position in Europe which
was created as a result of the defeat of Germany and its allies in World
War II. It assumed that future war, like the 1st World War, would neces-
sarily become a positional war with two periods of military operations:
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 20 Q f0 MICIMA} 11:Q1468R000100110005-2
a defensive period in which the forces of the enemy would be exhausted, and
an offensive period during which the allied armies would decisively defeat
him. The military-technical aspect of doctrine also corresponded to this
idea. It found its practical embodiment in the construction of strong,
permanent fortified positions, called the Maginot Line, along the entire
eastern border of the country and part of its seacoast. The ground forces
were traditionally considered the main armed service. The role of aviation
and tanks in future war were underestimated. The navy was used primarily
for defensive purposes. By this strategy France actually gave away the
initiative in waging war to Germany, which as a result led to the tragedy
of 1940.
United States military doctrine on the eve of World War II stemmed from the
fact that the geographical position of the country fully ensured its security,
and its developed economy was creating favorable opportunities for military,
economic and political influence on other countries. It provided for using
its armed forces only in the concluding stage of the war, when terms of
peace advantageous to the United States could easily be dictated to an
exhausted enemy. Military construction was also subordinated to this.
Thus, the imperialist powers intensively prepared for a new armed clash for
redivision of markets and spheres of influence. THEY ALSO ENTERED WORLD
WAR II WITH WELL DEVELOPED MILITARY DOCTRINES AND STRATEGIES. The military
doctrine and military strategy of Fascist Germany and its allies suffered
complete defeat in conflict primarily with the USSR and its armed forces.
As for the United States and Great Britain, overall World War II did not
change their basic fundamental military views. The main objectives of these
countries were to defeat their economic competitors, Germany and Japan,
weaken the Soviet Union in every way possible, and ensure a dominant posi-
tion in the world and military superiority. Accordingly, the strategic
plans and actions of these states were duplicitous and contradictory over
the course of the entire war. The war also again graphically and convincingly
showed the clearly expressed anti-Soviet thrust of their policies.
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE END OF WORLD WAR II, international imperialism came out
against those positive changes in the world which had taken place as a result
of the defeat of Fascist Germany and militarist Japan, and against the forma-
tion of the world socialist system. It was mainly at this time that the
United States based its policy on the idea of undermining and eliminating the
socialist system, suppressing the national liberation movement and in the end
establishing world domination. U. S. President Truman expressed with particu-
lar clarity the essence of the post-war policy of the United States when he
stated that victory in the 2d World War confronted the American people with
the "constant and vital need for world leadership," and that "the Russians
soon would be put in their place." And this statement was soon embodied in
actual aggressive U. S. plans.
Thus, in September 1945 the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved the document,
"Bases for the Formulation of American Military Policy," and in October
approved the "Strategic Concepts and Plan for the Use of United States
Armed Forces," which laid the basis for subsequent aggressive military
doctrines and strategic concepts.
45
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
IN THE EARLY 1950'S, the United States, although it had lost its monopoly
on nuclear weapons, still had substantial superiority in the number of war-
retaliatory
f
or a
heads and to some extent still remained unaccessible
strike. Therefore it developed A STRATEGY OF "MASSIVE RETALIATION," which
provided for conducting only general nuclear war against the USSR and other
socialist countries. At the time the United States considered powerful
strategic aviation, capable of making nuclear strikes deep in the rear
areas of the Soviet Union, to be the main means of warfare. Therefore, the
Pentagon viewed war as the unilateral. use of strategic nuclear weapons,
without retribution upon the United States.
BY THE BEGINNING OF THE 1960'S, in connection with the development of inter-
continental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and a reliable system to combat
strategic aviation in the USSR, the military and political leaders in
Washington were forced to acknowledge that the United States could no
longer count on attacking with impunity in a war against the USSR. In con-
nection with this, a new strategy, that of "FLEXIBLE RESPONSE,"" came to
light. The central place in it was again given to general nuclear war, but
already with a "measured" use of nuclear weapons comparable with the "scale
of military danger" and the possibility of waging a limited war by conven-
tional means. Land based ICBM's began to be considered the main means of
nuclear attack. For this purpose, 1,054 Minuteman and Titan ICBM launchers
were built in the United States and a large scale program of building sub-
marines with Polaris missiles was developed. Along with this, the deploy-
ment of powerful general purpose forces with conventional weapons was pro-
vided for. It was planned to wage war in Europe against the USSR and the
other socialist countries first with conventional weapons, then with the use
of tactical and in a critical situation also strategic nuclear weapons.
BY THE BEGINNING OF THE 1970'S, as is known, parity was achieved in the
quantitative correlation of United States and USSR strategic weapons. This
forced the White House leaders to reexamine their former views and to adopt
a new strategy, that of "REALISTIC DETERRENCE," which was based on a desire
strategic arms.
the whole complex of
to achieve qualitative superiority over
For these purposes,. numerous programs for further increasing the power of a11_
types of armed forces, first of all strategic offensive forces, were inten-
sively developed and implemented in the United States.
AT THE START OF THE 1980'S, the Reagan Administration which had come to power
in the United States undertook from its very first dangerous
aggressive policy and adopted a new military
OF "DIRECT CONFRONTATION" with the Soviet Union on a global oandhreg strategy
on
scale. The United States formulated the specific purposes ? placed
at
in the Pentagon document, "Defense Directives for 1984-1988." It p
primary reliance on ensuring the ability of United States strategic forces
to make a surprise "preemptive first strike" against the USSR and to prepare
at the same time for a protracted nuclear and/or conventional war in any
region of the world where the notorious "threat to the vital interests" of
the United States arose.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 2600ONc'6!AtO&MM 468R000100110005-2
The directives emphasized that in nuclear war "the United States must have
the capability of forcing the USSR to cease military operations on U. S.
conditions in a short period of time," and if it refuses, to "decapitate
the structure of USSR military and political authority and nuclear and
conventional forces"; destroy industrial branches which determine military
capability; and at the same time to the extent possible minimize the damage
inflicted against the United States and its allies. The strategic offensive
forces, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM); nuclear
missile submarines (SSBN) and strategic aviation comprise the basis of the
United States nuclear capability.
Thus, United States military doctrine stems from a desire to develop to the
maximum its strategic nuclear forces (SYaS) for conducting a general nuclear
war and achieving the primary objectives of the war by carrying out (at least
in its first stage) a so-called "limited" nuclear war in Europe, using its
strategic nuclear forces as a potential threat. Taking this into account,
beginning in 1983 the United States has been intensively deploying American
Pershing II missiles and land based cruise missiles on the territories of a
number of West European NATO countries, which, by the way, substantially
enhance United States nuclear capability as a first strike weapon, since
they are capable of reaching targets in the European USSR more rapidly than
strategic missiles launched from the North American continent.
In the opinion of the Pentagon, the existence of powerful strategic nuclear
forces in the United States, as well as the development of so-called
"Eurostrategic" nuclear forces, increases the possibility of achieving U. S.
political and military aims in a "limited" nuclear war in the European
theater of war without its growing to a worldwide war. Of course these hopes
are pure utopia. Any attempt to bring nuclear weapons into play would
unavoidably lead to catastrophe, which would place in doubt the fate of life
itself on the whole earth. Judging by everything, the unpredictable conse-
quences of a nuclear conflagration in no way disturb Washington's "optimists."
In its new military strategy, the United States also envisions training its
armed forces to wage a war with the use of only conventional means of
destruction. In accordance with the so-called conception of "geographical
escalation," it is stated that in the event conventional war arises in any
theater, the United States and its allies must be prepared to expand mili-
tary operations with the use of conventional means of destruction to other
theaters as well, "where the enemy is more vulnerable." In other words,
such a war, in Washington's view, may encompass not only Europe, but also
the Near, Middle and Far East and all the naval and ocean theaters of mili-
tary operations.
Taking this into account, in August 1982 the Pentagon adopted a new concept
of the "air-land operation (battle)," within the framework of the strategy of
"direct confrontation," which defines the foundations for the use of com-
bined NATO armed forces in the European theaters of military operations
during the conduct of wars with conventional weapons. The concept assumes
the sudden unleashing of combat operations simultaneously by air, naval and
ground forces with the wide use of the latest conventional, highly accurate
47
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
weapons and reconnaissance-strike systems to great depth to inflict maximal
losses upon enemy troops, achieving an overwhelming superiority over them
in a short period of time and subsequently attacking to seize their terri-
tory. For these purposes, United States and NATO ground, air and naval
forces are being intensively reequipped with new, highly accurate weapons
systems and their organizational structures are being improved. Joint com-
mands in Europe, the Near and Middle East, the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean
areas and Central and South America have already been deployed. Prepara-
tion by U. S. armed forces, with large scale maneuvering of groupings of
their forces to different theaters of military operations has become
appreciably more intense.
The number of major military exercises and maneuvers with the participation
of large contingents of troops and forces has increased significantly. This
is far from a complete list of direct United States military preparations.
Even a cursory examination of the evolution of United States postwar
strategic concepts shows that all are based on the idea of aggressive,
predatory wars against the Soviet Union and other countries of the socialist
community. They reflect as in a mirror the predatory essence. of the policy
of American imperialism, which thirsts for any means of achieving global
superiority over the USSR, not disdaining any methods, and the lack of
desire to evaluate soberly the correlation of forces existing in the world
and the forecasted unprecedented consequences of general nuclear war, if the
imperialist "hawks" nevertheless unleash one.
Britain acts in close alliance with the United States. Its military doc-
trine is linked with the military doctrines of the other NATO countries,
first of all the United States, and reflects the main political conception
of the British bourgeoisie -- to maintain for Great Britain the status of a
great power, having its own nuclear missile capability and sufficient
economic strength to consolidate its military and political positions in the
world arena. In all aggressive anti-Soviet, anti-democratic acts it fully
and completely supports the United States and the NATO coalition strategy.
British military doctrine acknowledges both unlimited use of nuclear weapons
in a general war and the possibility of conducting a "limited" war in Central
Europe, although not in the British Isles.
The socio-political essence of the FRG's military doctrine stems from the
class nature of this revanchist state, which is one of the main NATO partners
of the United States. It consists of aggressive anti-Communism, aimed at
preparing for war against the countries of the Warsaw Treaty Organization,
and striving most of all to weaken the position of socialism in the GDR and
the other European states and to solve the so-called "German question" to its
advantage. A characteristic of the military-technical aspect of FRG doctrine
is the further militarization of the country's economy and the growth of its
military capability. The aggressive reactionary traditions of German
imperialism and apro-American thrust in its foreign and military policy
have a significant influence on this condition. Its main substance is
determined by the NATO-approved strategy of "flexible response" and by the
possible waging of either a nuclear or conventional war in Europe. Not having
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
its own nuclear weapons, the FRG favors strengthening the nuclear capability
of the North Atlantic Bloc and is nurturing plans for its production. It
has created the most. powerful armed forces among the European NATO countries,
numbering approximately 500,000 and after the United States, Britain and
France is the next largest exporter of weapons. The removal of the last
limitations on the FRG for the production of heavy non-nuclear arms creates
the preconditions for turning the Bundeswehr into a NATO offensive strike
force within the framework of the aggressive American strategy of "air-land
battles."
A dangerous evolution has taken place in the last few years in France's
military doctrine and strategy. As is known, in 1966 when de Gaulle was
President of France, it left the NATO military organization and its troops
were removed from subordination to the NATO command. This was a positive
step in providing a certain guarantee that France would not be dragged into
war. At present they prefer not to recall this in official Paris. To make
up for it, at all levels, including the highest, France's allegiance to its
NATO commitments and resolve to strengthen its aggressive alliance are
emphasized. Claiming the role of a third power in the capitalist world,
France along with England opposes having its nuclear missiles counted in the
overall balance of NATO nuclear forces, and is intensively developing its
own "atomic umbrella," shortsightedly relying on it as a kind of "atomic
Maginot Line."
France's turn toward Atlanticism is accompanied by stronger anti-Soviet
emphasis in its military policy. Its armed forces are structured based on
"an expanded security zone," which was officially approved by the government
in its 5 year military program for 1984-1988. For the first time in the
history of the Fifth Republic, this document directly named the USSR as a
potential enemy, which is entirely in keeping with the new American military
strategy of "direct confrontation." France's "rapid deployment forces" are
also being developed on the American model. The matter of the participation
of French armed forces in NATO operations in a "crisis" is being actively
worked on. This is the highly dangerous substance. of French military doc-
trine, which is being supported by Washington in every possible way.
The socio-political and military-technical content of Japan's military
doctrine is being formed under the influence of the country's growing
economic might, reviving militarism and desire to strengthen its influence
in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Ocean Basin. Expanding military and
political cooperation with the United States, China and South Korea is
heating up in Japan expansionist aspirations with respect to the USSR and
its allies, and is advancing to the forefront the task of increasing the
state's military might.
Thus the present military doctrines of the leading imperialist powers,.
especially the United States, are based on a sharply expressed anti-Soviet,
anti-socialist and anti-democratic thrust, increased economic militariza-
tion and direct material preparations for a new world war for the purpose of
achieving world domination. However, many centuries of historical develop-
ment have already repeatedly proven the absolute bankruptcy and doom of such
hegemonistic designs.
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For ReleaMBMBt1CM:UA 3T01468R000100110005-2
Soviet military doctrine and Soviet military strategy are completely opposite
the military doctrines and military strategies of the capitalist states in
their essence and thrust.
Soviet Military Doctrine -- A Doctrine for the Defense of Peace and Socialism
Soviet military doctrine is a system of guiding principles and scientifically
based views of the CPSU and the Soviet Government on the essence, nature and
methods of waging war, which may be unleashed by the imperialists against the
Soviet Union, as well as on military construction and the preparation of the
armed forces and the country to destroy the aggressor.
Marxism-Leninism is the ideological theoretical base of Soviet military
doctrine. Its content derives from the objective need to defend the social-
ist homeland from the imperialist aggressors. Soviet military doctrine is
based on the laws and postulates of historical and dialectical materialism,
Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army and the conclusions of Soviet
military science. The military doctrines of the USSR and other countries in
the socialist community are based on progressive and just ideas of defending
the socialist gains of the workers and the peace and security of the peoples.
In contrast to the military doctrines of the imperialist states, their
essence and nature are set forth with maximum clarity in the declaration of
Warsaw Treaty Organization member states of 15 May 1980, which states clearly
that "we do not have, never have had and never will have any strategic
doctrine other than a defensive one."
The heroic history of our homeland and its armed forces is a convincing
confirmation of the defensive nature of Soviet military doctrine. From its
first days the young Soviet Republic countered the imperialist policy of war
with Lenin's policy of peace and peaceful coexistence. "...All of our policy
and propaganda," emphasized Lenin, "are not at all directed at drawing the
people into war, but at putting an end to war."29
IN THE YEARS OF THE MILITARY INTERVENTION AND CIVIL WAR IN THE USSR, our main
task was to defend the revolutionary gains and maintain the integrity and
independence of the world's first state of workers and peasants and the con-
ditions for the peaceful construction of socialism. These years were a
period of formation of Soviet military doctrine, establishment of Soviet
military art and military science as a whole and development and strengthen-
ing of an army of a new type -- the Red Army. Guided by the theoretical
foundations for building the Soviet armed forces, which had been worked out
by this time by Lenin and the Communist Party, our army and navy utterly
defeated the combined forces of foreign and internal counterrevolution.
SOVIET MILITARY DOCTRINE WAS FURTHER DEVELOPED IN THE YEARS OF PEACEFUL
CONSTRUCTION IN THE USSR (1921-1941). Already by 1921 the theoretical
postulates of a unified Soviet military doctrine were developed, based on
the theory of Marxism-Leninism and thorough analysis and generalization of
the experience of the Ist World War and the civil war in our country. This
doctrine, as M. V. Frunze noted, must be built "first, on a clear and accu-
rate view of the nature of future war; second, on a correct and precise
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
calculation of those forces and those means which our possible enemies will
possess; and third on the same calculation of our own resources."30
A well founded conclusion was made that future war, if the imperialists
unleash one, will be protracted and will demand the maximum intensity of all
the country's material and spiritual resources, and that maneuver and pri-
marily offensive forms of battle will predominate and military operations
will take place over tremendous expanses. This made it possible to clarify
the socio-political aspect of Soviet military doctrine and to determine
correctly the corresponding directions for the building of the armed forces
and the preparation of them and the country as a whole for a possible
future war.
In the1930's,'in connection with the increased danger that imperialism
would unleash a new world war, the need arose to refine the military techni-
cal aspect of Soviet military doctrine, and on the basis of new tendencies in
the nature of future war and the directions of development of military
affairs, to work out well grounded recommendations for improving military
equipment and methods of preparing for and conducting operations, and for
strengthening the capability of the country to defend the gains of the Great
October Revolution. The development in those days of the theory of the deep
operation and battle by Soviet military thinking had great importance for
this. Its essence consisted of determining the possibilities for simultane-
ously suppressing the enemy defense throughout its entire depth by artillery
fire and air strikes, decisively breaking through the tactical zone of his
defense by massing forces and weapons on selected axes, and swiftly develop-
ing tactical success into operational by way of introducing into the battle
powerful mobile large units of tanks, motorized infantry, cavalry and.air-
borne assaults. At the same time, the combat effectiveness of the Soviet
Armed Forces was increased, modernization was carried out and the system for
indoctrinating and training military cadres to repulse possible aggression
was improved. The basic provisions of Soviet military doctrine were repeat-
edly subjected to practical testing in the defense of the state interests of
our homeland, in battles against the Chinese militarists on the Chinese
Eastern Railroad (1929); the Japanese imperialists in the Lake Khasan region
(1938); on the Khalkhin-Gol (1939) and especially during the Great Patriotic
War. WAR CONFIRMED THE VITALITY OF SOVIET MILITARY DOCTRINE, enriched the
Soviet Armed Forces with combat experience and facilitated the development of
military science and military art.
During the post-war period, Soviet military doctrine completely retained its
defensive thrust. Its further development was caused by the fundamental
change in the correlation of forces in the world arena to the advantage of
socialism; by the achievements of the world socialist system; and by the
need for collective defense of the community of socialist countries against
the aggressive aspirations of the combined forces of the imperialist states
and blocs.
Soviet military doctrine also thoroughly took into account the latest
achievements of scientific and technical progress and the growth in the
economic capabilities of the USSR and the other Warsaw Treaty Organization
states.
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Releasee WONDB1081 ROPUT01468R000100110005-2
At present our policy continues to be based on the integral unity of love of
peace and constant readiness for active defense of the socialist homeland and
the community of socialist countries. The defensive nature of Soviet military
doctrine is clearly expressed in the decisions of CPSU congresses and is set
forth legislatively in the USSR Constitution. It is based on defending
socialist gains, the peaceful work of the Soviet people, and the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of the Soviet state and its allies. The provisions
of Soviet military doctrine are thoroughly developed in party and state
decisions as well. as in military regulations.
THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTENT OF SOVIET MILITARY DOCTRINE is based on Marxist-
Leninist teachings and stems from the nature of the USSR state and social
system, the policies of the Communist Party and Soviet State and the funda-
mental interests of the Soviet people. These are also the bases for the
fundamental principles of military construction in the USSR, which is imple-
mented in strict accord with CPSU policy in the military sphere, taking into
account the development of the country's economic, scientific and moral-
political capabilities and the cultural level and traditions of the Soviet
people.
Under present conditions the essence of Soviet military doctrine consists of
blocking the path of the exceptionally dangerous policy of imperialism, halt-
ing the arms race and securing a peaceful life for the peoples. "...We do
not strive to achieve unilateral advantages over the United States and the
NATO countries or for military superiority over them," stated Comrade M. S.
Gorbachev, general secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, at the 11 March
1985 special CPSU Central Committee plenum, "we wish to cease and not to
continue the arms race..." "But everyone must know," he emphasized, "that we
will never forego the interests of our homeland and its allies."31
Soviet military doctrine predetermines that the USSR and its armed forces will;
defend equally the freedom and independence of friendly socialist states with
which we are linked by appropriate treaties. In connection with this, our
military doctrine fully takes into account the socio-political, economic and
military capabilities of the countries of the socialist community and the
need for their collective defense against possible aggressive aspirations of
the forces of imperialism and reaction.
Scientifically based postulates on the moral-political and psychological
preparation of the Soviet people are a most important component of the
socio-political content of Soviet military doctrine. Our military doctrine
views the high level of moral-political capability of the Soviet state, along:
with the advantages of the political and economic system of a society of
developed socialism, as one of the life giving sources of our superiority
over the forces of aggression.
Lenin stated that, "the construction of our army could lead to successful
results only because it was created in the spirit of overall Soviet construc-
tion, on the basis of class relations which affect the area of any construc-
tion."32 It is namely this in the final analysis which has always determined
and today determines the nature of the Soviet Armed Forces and their might an
invincibility.
52
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 20b/ bbI 4A-h k' Wt 1468R000100110005-2
THE MILITARY TECHNICAL CONTENT OF SOVIET MILITARY DOCTRINE encompasses a
wide range of matters concerning construction, training and maintaining the
armed forces at a high level of combat readiness. It includes improving
their technical equipment, organizational structure and command and control
systems; raising the level of field, air and naval training of the troop
units, aviation and naval forces, taking into account the nature and special
features of modern warfare; and the further development of Soviet military
art. In other words, this aspect of doctrine determines the ways, means and
methods of fulfilling the tasks of reliable defense of the socialist home-
land, which the country's political leadership assigns to the armed forces.
One of the fundamental provisions of the military-technical aspect of doc-
trine is determining the nature of forthcoming armed conflict, taking into
account the development of the military-technical resources of the opposing
side and the main traits and features of strategic operations and of national
and joint (coalition) armed forces. Stemming from this, Soviet military
doctrine presumes that modern world war, if the imperialists unleash it,
will acquire unprecedented spatial scope, encompass entire continents and
ocean expanses and unavoidably drag into its orbit the majority of the
countries of the world. It will have an unprecedented destructive nature.
Military operations will be carried out simultaneously in vast zones, will
be distinguished by unprecedented ferocity, will be highly maneuverable and
dynamic and will continue until total victory over the enemy.
The most important requirements of Soviet military doctrine are to maintain
the USSR armed forces at a high state of combat readiness which ensures
their timely deployment to repulse a surprise enemy attack; make powerful
retaliatory strikes and successfully fulfill the assigned task of defending
the socialist homeland. Stemming from this, Soviet military doctrine
requires not merely defending ourselves, confronting the aggressor with
passive means and methods of defense, but also the ability to inflict upon
him crushing retaliatory strikes and to destroy him in any situation.
Soviet military doctrine has always stemmed from and continues to stem from
the principle of retaliatory; i.e., defensive operations. The USSR views a
nuclear attack as the gravest crime against humanity. USSR strategic nuclear
forces have never been called "strategic offensive forces," as they are
eloquently named in the United States. Soviet military doctrine is based on
the postulate that THE SOVIET UNION WILL NOT BE FIRST TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
This commitment was taken unilaterally and was stated to the entire world.
An important aspect of improving military readiness of the armed forces is
their high level of technical equipping; i.e., providing the forces and naval
forces with modern military equipment and weapons. Soviet military doctrine
believes that the present level of development of the Socialist economy makes
it possible to solve successfully the most technically complex defensive
tasks and to develop quickly any type of weapon necessary to defend the
homeland.
Great attention in the military-technical aspect of Soviet military doctrine
is paid to improving the organizational structure of the armed forces and the
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR 20
Approved For Release 0 ICIAL USE ONLY
5/06/08: CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
appropriate relationship among armed services, branches of arms and services,
combat and support forces, as well as their manning, personnel training and
cadres preparation, and to improving constantly the systems and organs of j-
command, control and communications. Questions concerning the economic and
mobilization preparation of the country, shifting the economy from a peace-
time status to a military status and organizing and carrying out territorial
and civil defense are closely linked with these provisions of military
doctrine.
The military-technical content of Soviet military doctrine also includes the
basic provisions of Soviet military art on the methods and forms of con
ducting military operations under various wartime conditions, and it provides
for carrying out active and decisive combat operations, with the use of the
armed might of the state and its armed forces, to the complete defeat of the
aggressor if he tries to encroach on our country.
The provisions of the military-technical aspect of doctrine also determine
the most fundamental bases for the organization of command and control of the
armed forces in peacetime and wartime. In this `regard the most fundamental
provision is the principle of the unity of political and military leadership
of the war and the centralized. command and control of the army and navy, with
the granting of broad initiative and necessary operational independence to
all control organs on their own levels, in the interests of achieving the
objectives of the battle, operation and war. An important role is allotted
to thorough support of combat operations of troops (forces) and to reserves
of various categories.
In accordance with doctrinal directives, strategic and operational tasks in
wartime must be accomplished by the combined efforts of all the Soviet armed
services, jointly with the armies of the fraternal socialist countries, since
their views on the nature and objectives of future war. and the fundamental
questions of military construction and military art have the same socio-
economic, political and moral bases.
SOVIET MILITARY STRATEGY, as the highest area of military art, is closely
interrelated in content with Soviet military doctrine, is subordinated to it,
reflects CPSU and Soviet Government policy in the area of national defense,
and derives from tasks defined by the USSR Constitution for the armed
defense of socialist accomplishments. "Strategy," stated Lenin, "is subordi-
nated to policy, and they are inseparably linked."33
Soviet military strategy derives from the objective laws of war revealed by
the founders of scientific Communism, formulates on their basis the principles
of preparing for and carrying out strategic operations, the construction of
the armed forces and leadership of them, and is constantly improved under the
influence of changing political, economic, scientific-technical, military and {
other factors. It is involved in working out and implementing measures for
preparing the armed forces, theaters of military operations, the economy and
the country's population for possible war, and for planning the war and
strategic operations. It is also involved in organizing the deployment of
the armed forces and command and control of them when conducting strategic
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 200 ' &I4M-I 901N@,V468R000100110005-2
operations, as well as for solving questions related to defining under
specific wartime conditions the strategic tasks of the army and navy and
the forces and resources necessary for accomplishing them, taking into
account the capabilities of the probable enemy for waging war and conducting
operations. In military art, strategy occupies the dominant position with
respect to operational art and tactics, and in turn relies upon their
capabilities in accomplishing its tasks.
Thus, the content and thrust of Soviet military doctrine and Soviet military
strategy in their most general aspect boil down to the fact that predatory
wars are foreign to the USSR as a socialist state and to its armed forces.
Our country never attacked and does not intend to attack a single state
either in West, East, North or South to change their existing social system.
Nor does the Soviet Union need to expand its borders. But it will defend
with full resolve, actively and uncompromisingly, that which belongs to the
Soviet people and was created by its labor. Therefore, the peace loving
nature of the foreign policy of our state and its constant readiness to give
a crushing rebuff to any aggressor, under any circumstances, are fused
together in Soviet military doctrine and Soviet military strategy.
The countries of the socialist community have a single goal -- to defend their
countries and the gains of socialism and to preserve peace on earth. The
fraternal alliance of the peoples and the military comradeship of the armies
of the countries of the Warsaw Treaty Organization serve namely this purpose.
As a result of this, the doctrinal tenets and the questions which their
military strategy solve in the main coincide. Needless to say, national
particularities of the corresponding countries, which are related to the
level of development which they have achieved, their geographical position
and possible nature of actions of the probable enemy, are taken into account.
It is an objective, vital necessity to strengthen the defense capability of
the USSR and its allies in a situation of growing threat and military
preparations from the United States and NATO bloc. And the more serious
these threats, the higher must be our defense capability, which is a power-
ful factor for peace. The Soviet people, the peoples of the other countries
of the socialist community, and the soldiers of their armies do not forget for
a minute that the aggressive essence of imperialism has not changed, and,
moreover, that its aggressiveness is increasing and that it is therefore
necessary to display high political and military vigilance, to assess
realistically the actions of reactionary circles in imperialist states and
to keep our powder dry constantly, so that no eventuality can catch us
unawares.
The peoples of the countries of the socialist community, taking into account
the current situation, are doing and will do everything to make their defense
still stronger and still more effective. And let the fanciers of military
adventures and the new pretenders to world domination not forget about this.
In the words of the great Lenin, "we will stand up for ourselves. We were
not beaten, and we will not be beaten, and will not be deceived."34 The
Soviet armed forces and the armies of the countries of the socialist com-
munity have everything necessary to give a decisive rebuff to any aggression,
no matter from where it may come.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
These, then, are the essence and the thrust of the military doctrines and
military strategies of the capitalist and socialist states. Comparing them,
it is easy to see that the former are clearly aggressive in nature, directed
toward the arms race, and embody a serious danger of unleashing a new world
war. The latter are the direct opposite and have one single goal -- to
defend the socialist gains of the peoples and peace on earth, and to ensure
the readiness to inflict a crushing retaliatory blow to the aggressor.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : A-RDP9 1Y68R000100110005-2
WAR CAN AND MUST BE PREVENTED
The peoples of the earth have from time immemorial struggled for peace and
for a life without military shocks. However, contrary to their desires,
wars not only have not ceased, but have taken on ever greater scale and in
the 20th century reached the apogee -- they became world wars. And today
millions of people on earth are. concerned by the most burning question: Is
there a real possibility of preventing a new world war and can war be
excluded from life of human society altogether? In striving to answer this
question, they cast their gaze with hope first to the Soviet Union and the
countries of socialism.
In the unforgettable May days of 1945, people believed that.fascism and war
had been destroyed forever and that, celebrating the great victory attained
at an unbelievably high cost, they were beginning a new stage in history, a
stage of peace and friendship among the peoples. Peaceloving peoples did
not even dream that after the bloody 2d World War maniacs would be found
who would try to push mankind into the abyss of a new, still more destruc-
tive war. In those days this seemed absurd.
The 2d World War did not eliminate the main source of military danger in our
time -- imperialism. The general crisis of capitalism continued to intensify
and the aggressiveness of imperialist policy continued to grow. The United
States imperialists, the new pretenders to world domination, learned nothing
from the experience of Fascist Germany. Having enriched themselves on the
blood and suffering of millions and blackmailing the world with nuclear
weapons, they considered world domination and removing from the political
arena all who would oppose them to be practically their lawful right.
United States militarism grew especially sharp in the 1980's with the
arrival in the White House of the Reagan Administration, he being a henchman
of the most reactionary and aggressive circles of American imperialism. To
please them the arms race is being whipped up without restraint in the
United States, and irresponsible preparations for a worldwide nuclear war
are being carried out. The U.S. President openly declared a "crusade"
against socialism, and cynically "Jokes" about possible atomic bombings of
the USSR at his command. Militaristic circles in the United States, with
the support of their European allies, are deploying nuclear first strike
weapons on their territories.
One asks, how is this to be understood? Does such behavior by the repre-
sentatives of the ruling circles in the United States mean that the fate of
war and peace is entirely in their hands and mankind can only submissively
bow their heads and await their fate without a murmur? Does this mean that
there is no force in the world capable of stopping those who have raised the
nuclear sword over the world? There is one answer to this: No it does not
mean this! The imperial designs of the White House and reality are far from
one and the same, and present day imperialism is not all powerful. The
forces arrayed against it are immeasurably stronger. War can and must be
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Releg-WidtF5%~1R93T01468R000100110005-2
prevented. Today there exist both the socio-political and the military-
technical prerequisites for this. The lessons of history also demand this.
As is known, the 1st World War began a decade after the Russo-Japanese War
of 1904-1905 -- one of the first large armed. confrontations of the imperial-
ist era. It was virtually impossible to prevent it at the time. It broke
out under conditions in which capitalism was a single, all encompassing
system, and when the bourgeoisie, who ruled undivided in the world arena,
completely determined the political policy of the leading capitalist states.
Peaceloving forces were still extremely weak and disunited, and the leaders
of the Social Democratic Parties in most of the countries of Europe had
betrayed the interests of their peoples and embarked on the path of chauvin-
ism and open support to the militaristic policy of the bourgeoisie. The 1st
World War continued for more than four years and took away approximately
10 million human lives.
Two decades separated the 2d World War from the 1st. And although capital-
ism at the time was already no longer an all encompassing system, it was
still not possible to ward off its threat. The Soviet Union, the world's
first and at the time only socialist state, consistently carried out a
policy of peace, and in the prewar years resolutely favored curbing the
fascist aggressors and creating a system of collective security. However,
all the efforts of the USSR to preserve peace hit up against the short-
sighted anti-Soviet policy of the United States, Britain, France and a num-
ber of other capitalist countries, which encouraged the Nazi aggressors to
unleash war in Eastern Europe and to undertake a "crusade" against the USSR.
The 2d World War lasted six years and took away more than 50 million human
lives.
Four decades passed since the 2d World War. Profound changes took place in
the world arena. The defeat of Fascist Germany and militaristic Japan in
1945; the socialist revolutions in a number of countries which led to the
formation of a worldwide socialist system; the building of developed social-
ism in the USSR and successful construction of new societies in the other
fraternal countries; and the rise of the national liberation movement and
complete collapse of the colonial system fundamentally changed the worldwide
picture and the correlation of class socio-political forces in the inter-
national arena to the advantage of socialism, peace and progress. The
sphere of influence of capital is inexorably narrowing. Capitalism, includ-
ing American capitalism, despite the substantial reserves which it still
possesses, is no longer the dominant: economic, political and military force
in the modern world and cannot simply determine the fate of mankind.
In our day the imperialist bourgeoisie has become, as Lenin noted, a class
which is "degenerating, decadent and internally dead.',That is why the
unprecedented impudence of its monopolistic leaders, who threateningly
brandish the "nuclear bludgeon" and loudly proclaim "crusades" against
socialism, including against the Soviet Union, which only four decades ago
saved mankind from the brown obscurantism, is far from a sign of strength
but is a manifestation of weakness and the historical irreparability of the
capitalist system. As a result of the fundamental change in the correlation
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFpIICIAA 11~~~~~~
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : C P93Ti1468R0O0100110005-2
of forces in the world arena to the advantage of socialism, peace and social
progress, REAL OBJECTIVE PREREQUISITES FOR ELIMINATING WAR FROM THE LIFE OF
SOCIETY HAVE TAKEN SHAPE.
The theoretical and practical activity of V. I. Lenin, great leader of the
worldwide proletariat, and his creative development under new historical
conditions of the teaching of Marx and Engels, serve in the historical plane
as a classic model of the profoundly scientific approach to solving the
questions of development of society, including the vitally important prob-
lem of war and peace.
In our time, the Communist Party, guided by Marxist-Leninist theory,
creatively developing and enriching it as it applies to the present situa-
tion, has concluded that wars are not fatally inevitable. The aggressive
essence and class nature of imperialism, it goes without saying, remain
unchanged, however the deepening of the general crisis of capitalism and
strengthening of the role of socialism in international life; the creation
and steady development of the world socialist system; the increased defense
capability of the countries of the socialist community to the level of guar-
anteed destruction of any aggressor; the growing communist and workers move-
ment; as well as the stronger cohesion and activeness of the non-aligned
movement and other peaceloving forces significantly limit the opportunities
for imperialism to unleash aggressive wars. This conclusion is especially
correct with respect to imperialist wars against the socialist countries.
In other words, under modern conditions the socio-political and military-
technical prerequisites are being created for the prevention of a new world
war and, in the future, for the complete eradication of wars from the life of
society even before the complete victory of socialism on earth, while capi-
talism still remains for some time in a number of countries. Of course,
during this period the military threat still remains, but it will be possible
to neutralize it.
THE DECISIVE FACTOR IN PREVENTING WAR AND THE MAIN SUPPORT TO THE PEOPLES OF
THE EARTH IN THEIR STRUGGLE FOR PEACE ARE THE COUNTRIES OF THE SOCIALIST
COMMUNITY, FIRST OF ALL THE SOVIET UNION, which like no other state knows the
true cost of war and, therefore, is struggling for a stable peace with par-
ticular persistence. Its Leninist foreign policy is not subject to any
infections of the marketplace and is directed at achieving this great goal.
The Communist Party has always opposed militarism. War is foreign to the
very nature of socialism. It is well known that right up to the October
Socialist Revolution the party program did not provide. at all for a regular
army. Voluntary formations, the Red Guards and the revolutionary units in
the old army were sufficient for the.Russian working people to overthrow
tsarism and the bourgeois Interim Government in 1917. Only the danger of
military intervention and the appearance of internal counterrevolution,
supported by foreign capital, and the threat to the existence of Soviet
authority forced Lenin and the Communist Party to undertake the creation of
the regular Red Army with the single purpose of "safeguarding the gains of
the revolution-from all the enemies of the people .... "36
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Relel&WW8~M)-93T01468R000100110005-2
A consistent struggle for peace and for strengthening international security
constitutes the general policy of the foreign political activity of the
Communist Party and Soviet state. The economic and defense might of the
Soviet Union and other countries of the socialist community and the constant
high combat readiness of their armed forces are a reliable roadblock against
the aspirations of the aggressor to start the fires of a new world war.
This is precisely why the defense capability of the USSR is not only a guar-
antee of the creative labor of the Soviet people, but also guarantees
universal peace on earth.
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST AND WORKERS MOVEMENT HAS TURNED INTO A POWERFUL
AND INFLUENTIAL FORCE OF OUR TIME IN THE STRUGGLE FOR PEACE AND SOCIAL
PROGRESS. It now numbers approximately a hundred parties in its -ranks.
Expressing the moods and aspirations of the broadest strata of peoples, the
Communist and workers parties come out in favor of preserving the fruits of
detente and advancing the cause of disarmament, and raise up the popular
masses to all-round activization of the antiwar movement and to the struggle
to rid mankind of the threat of a nuclear war. Participation of the organized
working class in the antiwar movement is increasing. This is giving the anti-
war movement a more resolute nature and is increasing its self-discipline.
THE NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENT, AS WELL AS THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT, ARE
IMPORTANT FACTORS IN THE STRUGGLE TO PREVENT WAR AND FOR PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE.
By the beginning of the 1980's there were already more than 110 developing
states in Asia, Africa and Latin America which had achieved national inde-
pendence. Of these some 20 states had selected the path of socialist
orientation. Being an integral part of the peace movement, the struggle of
peoples for independence and social progress invariably leads to the steady
weakening of the positions of worldwide imperialism, to the narrowing of its
social base and to the further deepening of its general crisis. All this
contributes to preventing wars.
THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD ARE RESPONDING TO THE INTENSIFIED MILITARY DANGER
WITH A POWERFUL UPSURGE OF THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT AND THE STRUGGLE FOR PEACE.
The populations of Britain, the FRG, France, Italy and many other countries
greeted with mass protest demonstrations the deployment of American Pershing
and cruise missiles in Western Europe. They encompass literally all social
strata, from workers and students to clergymen, parliamentarians and home-
makers. The struggle of the peoples against United States acts of aggression
in the Middle East and Central America have become widespread. The increasingi
size of the antiwar and anti-imperialist struggle throughout the world is a
reflection of the general history of social development -- the increased role
of the people as the maker of history.
As Lenin noted, under present conditions wars are conducted by the peoples.
The entire burden of the war and all the human and material losses in it are
placed namely on, the working masses. Therefore, the peoples themselves are
ever more persistently and actively becoming involved in solving the most
important and burning issue of our time, the prevention of a nuclear
catastrophe. There is no doubt that as the people become still more con-
scious of the existing danger of a thermo-nuclear conflict and its true
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
source -- imperialism headed by the United States -- the size of this move-
ment will steadily grow. This already cannot be ignored. Of course, the
antiwar movement can still not by itself solve the problems of war and peace
in their entirety. However, it is capable of limiting significantly the
freedom of action of the extremist bourgeois leaders and their monopolist
masters. Lenin indicated that the force of pressure and the consciousness
of the working masses has often "broken off the spear point of the mili-
taristic policy of the imperialists."37
ALONG WITH THE SOCIO-POLITICAL FACTORS WHICH HAVE BEEN ENUMERATED, TODAY
THERE ALSO EXIST OTHER, PURELY MILITARY PRECONDITIONS WHICH LIMIT THE
CAPABILITY OF IMPERIALISM TO UNLEASH NEW WARS. These preconditions stem
from rapid scientific and technical progress which led to a dialectical
jump into a true revolution in military affairs. The appearance in 1945 and
the rapid subsequent improvement of nuclear weapons which have unbelievable
destructive force, raised the question anew about the utility of war as a
means of achieving a political objective. Only having totally taken leave
of one's senses is it possible to try to find arguments and to find a goal
which would justify unleashing a world nuclear war and thereby threaten total
destruction of human civilization. This leads to the indisputable conclu-
sion that it is criminal to view thermonuclear war as a rational and prac-
tically "lawful" means of the continuation of policies.
Today, through the fault of the United States which unleashed an unrestrained
arms race, such stockpiles of nuclear weapons have been accumulated on earth
which from a military point of view already seem truly absurd. For example,
United States strategic nuclear forces in one first strike alone can use
today more than 12,000 nuclear warheads, the aggregate yield of which is
hundreds of times greater than the total yield of all the explosives and
munitions used by all the states of the world in six years of World War II.
And this, we again emphasize, is in the United States strategic nuclear
arsenal alone. If the operational-tactical nuclear capability is also
counted, as well as the rough parity in nuclear weapons between the United
States and the USSR, one need not be a military specialist in order to
understand that further stockpiling of nuclear weapons is becoming simply
senseless. Ultra maximal reserves of nuclear weapons not only do not guar-
antee security, but rather, increase the possibility of even an accidental,
unsanctioned or provocative nuclear launch or strike from imperialist "hawks"
and the danger for this aggressor state of being subjected to a devastating
retaliatory strike. In this regard, the solemn commitment made by the Soviet
Union at the United Nations not to use nuclear weapons first, with its simul-
taneous appeal to the United States and the other nuclear powers to follow
this example, expresses the deep concern of world society about the existing
situation in the world and the insistent need finally to bring a halt to the
nuclear arms race. Further delay in this is already becoming intolerable.
Thus, for the first time in history the main opposing sides have created a
surplus of military and especially nuclear capabilities. And this is already
changing the qualitative aspect of military affairs. As a result a paradox
has arisen. On the one hand, seemingly a process is underway giving a
nuclear power a steadily increasing capability for destroying the enemy, and
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
on the other hand the capability for an aggressor to make a so-called
"preemptive" strike on his main opponent is being reduced just as steadily
and, perhaps still more sharply.
The fact is that, given the quantity and variety of nuclear missile weapons
which have been achieved, it is simply impossible for an aggressor to com-
pletely destroy the analogous weapons on the other side with a single strike.
And an immediate crushing response even by a limited number of nuclear
weapons which the defender has remaining -- a response which deprives the
aggressor of the capability of waging not only the war thereafter but also
any sort of serious operations is becoming inevitable under modern
conditions.
As for the hopes of U. S. strategists for the possibility of waging a
"limited" nuclear war, today these hopes are completely unjustified and are
meant for simpletons. To restrain a nuclear war which has begun within some
limited framework will be virtually impossible. No matter how limited the
use of nuclear weapons may be, it will inevitably lead to the. immediate use
of the entire nuclear arsenal of both sides. This is the harsh logic of war.
The dreams of the Pentagon about the possibility of a, so-called, "mild
limited" nuclear strike on the-main centers and control points of the enemy
are even more unfounded. Such adventuristic and militarily incompetent
views are entirely groundless. It is necessary to uncover those who hold
such ignorant views. They are dangerous.
Everything which has been said is indicative of the fact that Lenin's con-
clusion, according to which the military danger."will not cease as long as
world imperialism exists,"38 remains relevant even today. Moreover, such
danger may increase. However, the above-noted qualitatively new socio-
political and military-technical preconditions and circumstances, which have
taken shape in the modern world, are objectively already creating conditions
and possibilities for eliminating world wars from the life of society, which
contain the threat of destruction of world civilization, and subsequently, as
advances are made, will even create the conditions for eliminating local wars.
However, possibilities are not yet reality. An unremitting. and stubborn
struggle, consolidating and further all-round strengthening of the activity
of antiwar and progressive forces and increasing the economic and defense
capabilities of the peace-loving states are necessary for their realization.
Peace cannot be achieved without, struggle. The lessons of the past war have
exceptionally important and permanent significance in this regard and the
"main one of these," as it is emphasized in the CPSU Central Committee decree,
"On the 40th Anniversary of the Victory of the Soviet People in the Great
Patriotic War of 1941-1945," "is that it is necessary to struggle against
war before it has begun."39 Historical experience teaches that in order to
defend peace, cohesive, coordinated and active actions by all peace-loving
forces against the aggressive, adventuristic policy of imperialism are
required. It is necessary to increase the peoples' vigilance and safeguard
and multiply the gains of socialism.
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
Forces for the struggle against war, and substantial forces capable of
eliminating the threat of nuclear war, are in evidence at the present time.
The aggressive imperialist circles can no longer fail to take heed of the
growing weight and influence of these forces, the forces of socialism,
progress and peace.
But the Soviet people are realists. They clearly understand that as long as
the military threat exists from imperialism it is necessary to safeguard as
the apple of one's eye the security of our homeland and our friends and
allies. The Communist Party, its Central Committee and the Soviet Government
take care tirelessly to ensure that the gains of socialism are always reli-
ably protected. "In a difficult international situation," noted M. S.
Gorbachev, CPSU Central Committee general secretary, in a speech at the
Special CPSU Central Committee plenum on 11 March 1985, "it is important as
never before to maintain the defense capability of our homeland at a level
at which potential aggressors know well that encroachment on the security
of the Soviet Union and its allies, and on the peaceful life of the Soviet
people will be met with a crushing retaliatory strike. Our glorious armed
forces will continue in the future to possess everything necessary for
this."40
There is today no more important task than to prevent war and to safeguard
the peoples of the planet from nuclear catastrophe. This is the key problem
of our time.
The strategic policy of the Soviet Union on strengthening peace has been and
remains unchanged. Our state truly desires and persistently seeks a halt to
the arms race and the complete elimination of the threat of nuclear war.
Nuclear weapons were developed and used by the American imperialists in 1945.
During the years following that inhuman act nuclear weapons have developed
to the extent that, in the hands of the imperialists, they have created a
real threat to the existence of all mankind. The need for a complete ban
and destruction of this super weapon for waging war has become most critical.
The Soviet people are firmly convinced that this key problem of our time can
and will be solved.
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
The victory of the Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic War was truly a great
victory in the name of peace and life on earth and in the name of the triumph
of freedom, democracy and social progress. And today, from the perspective
of the 1980's, the world historical importance of this event is being
revealed still more vividly and completely.
The victory of the Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic War disclosed the
fundamental advantages of socialism and its tremendous economic, socio-
political and spiritual capabilities. The war convincingly demonstrated the
monolithic unity of party and people, the indissoluble alliance of the work-
ing class, the ko:lkhoz peasantry and the working intelligentsia, as well as
the friendship and brotherhood of the peoples of the USSR.
The mighty vital force of Marxist-Leninist ideology was vividly confirmed by
the outcome of the most difficult solitary battle against fascism and mili-
tarism. Unshakable ideological conviction and unlimited faith in the
correctness of the great Leninist cause served as inexhaustible sources of
the spiritual forces of the Soviet people and its moral and political cohe-
sion.
Victory over the fascist bloc was a most vivid indication of the superiority
of Soviet military science and military art and of the high level of strate-
gic leadership and military skill of our military cadres. Army and navy
personnel, fighters in the peoples'. militia, Soviet partisans and members of
the underground displayed massive heroism and utter devotion to the homeland,
party and people in the fierce clash with the enemy.. In the rear area,
workers and peasants, scientists, engineers and designers selflessly forged
victory over the fascist barbarians. They accomplished a great labor feat,
and won an unprecedented battle for metal, bread, fuel and raw materials,
and for creating powerful Soviet weapons.
The remarkable Soviet women displayed unprecedented staunchness and labor
heroism. The Leninist Komsomol accomplished a heroic feat. It was the
fighting assistant of the party in solving problems at the front and in the
rear. During the war, Soviet cultural figures made a worthy contribution to
the overall cause of the struggle against fascism.
The Communist Party was the inspiration and organizer of the victory of the
Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War. Taking upon itself the complete
responsibility for the fate of the socialist homeland, it quickly turned the
country into a single military camp and brought into action all the powerful
material and spiritual forces of Soviet society.
The defeat of German fascism and Japanese militarism became a historic water-
shed in the fates of the earth's peoples. The victory of the forces of peace
and progress facilitated the emergence and successful development of the
worldwide socialist system, the activization of the international workers and
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/DS! ctA-901468R000100110005-2
communist movement, and the liberation of the peoples of Asia, Africa and
Latin America from the colonial yoke.
Today, four decades following the defeat of the forces of reaction and dark-
ness, the international environment has, unfortunately, again become sharply
exacerbated. To a certain extent this recalls the years preceding World
War II. Today the peoples of the planet are faced with a common deadly
enemy, the threat of worldwide nuclear war from imperialism. People ever
more profoundly understand the fundamental difference between the two main
directions in international policy: the policy of the USSR and other coun-
tries of the socialist community, directed at improving the international
situation and preventing war, and the policy of the United States and other
NATO states aimed at an arms race and preparations for a new world war.
This is namely the reason for the growing scale of the struggle by broad
strata of the popular masses for peace, freedom and social progress, and
against the militarist intrigues of imperialism. The struggle to rid man-
kind of the costly arms race with its unprecedented danger, and to prevent
a new world war, is the equivalent in today's conditions of a struggle to
preserve life on earth. This is truly a task of world historical scale and
importance.
At the present time, the attention of worldwide progressive society is
riveted on the new negotiations with the United States, begun at the initia-
tive of the Soviet Union, on nuclear and space weapons. Today it is impossi-
ble to limit, and even.less so to reduce, nuclear weapons without taking
effective measures to block reliably the paths to the militarization of space.
Success in these negotiations depends primarily on the positions of the
United States, and on the sincerity of its desire to achieve an agreement
on the most important question of our time. Positive results in these nego-
tiations would strengthen mankind's hope of achieving its age old dream -- to
live in a world without wars and without fear for the fate of future genera-
tions.
As for our country, it has always opposed the arms race and favored disarma-
ment. It has never desired and does not now desire to achieve unilateral
advantages over the United States and the other NATO countries, or military
superiority over them. World domination is not our objective. Our ideal is
peace and cooperation. Comrade M. S. Gorbachev, general secretary of the
CPSU Central Committee, stated at the special March 1985 CPSU Central Com-
mittee plenum: "The Soviet Union always answers good will with good will
and trust with trust." But he who takes our true interest in halting the
arms race and strengthening peace as a sign of weakness is making a most
serious mistake. We will never forego the interests of the socialist home-
land and our friends and allies.
The Soviet Union believes that broad, mutually advantageous cooperation
between states of opposing social systems is possible on the basis of
equality, mutual respect and noninterference in the internal affairs of one
another. History itself convinces us of this.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
As is known, in the grave years of World War II, the USSR, the United States,
Great Britain and other countries were able to combine their effort in the
struggle against the most evil enemy of mankind -- Hitler's fascism and
Japanese militarism. For the first time in history following the Great
October Socialist Revolution, during those days large scale, fruitful alli-
ance relations were formed between leading states of different social
systems. They were based on recognition of what was most important: that
for the sake of saving mankind it was necessary to unite all forces in the
name of destroying fascism and establishing a lasting peace. This is truly
a permanent lesson of history. It irrefutably shows that cooperation among
states with different social systems in solving global, general human prob-
lems is not only desirable, not only necessary, but also possible.
In the 1970's, the Soviet Union, United States of America and other coun-
tries of the two social systems cooperated fruitfully on matters of limiting
the arms race and improving the international environment. Relations among
the former allies in the anti-Hitler coalition, mainly the USSR, the United
States and Great Britain, seemed to have continued and developed the spirit
of the Crimean Conference (February 1944), at which it was proclaimed: "Only
with continuing and growing cooperation and mutual understanding among our
three countries and among all peace-loving peoples can mankind's highest
aspiration, a stable and lasting peace, be realized..." Comprehensive
cooperation among the states of the socialist and capitalist systems is
vitally important today, when through the fault of the most reactionary
imperialist forces the ominous storm clouds of a new war are gathering over
the planet. And, no matter what our attitude toward one another, no matter
what divides us, we are obligated to be guided by the main thing -- to do
everything necessary to prevent a nuclear conflagration and to preserve life
itself on the planet. No matter how difficult and no matter how aggravated
the present international situation, today it is still possible to preserve
peace. We must not miss this chance. An end must be put to the nuclear
mindlessness of the imperialist "hawks."
Struggling for peace, the Soviet Union and other states of the socialist
community at the same time take into account the aggressiveness of modern
imperialism and its unconcealed aspiration toward world domination. They
are maintaining the vigilance and combat readiness of their armies at a
level which will ensure the crushing defeat of any aggressor who is
emboldened to attack the socialist countries.
History itself teaches the need for high vigilance and combat readiness.
1. PRAVDA, 17 June 1984.
2. K. Marx, F. Engels, "Sochineniya" [Collected Works], 2d Edition, Vol 6,
p 270.
3. V. I. Lenin, "Polnoye Sobraniye Sochineniy" [Complete Works], Vol 33, p 3811.
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release 20 F0PfCak-&@1468R000100110005-2
4. K. Marx, F. Engels, op. cit., Vol 39, p 35.
5. Lenin, op. cit., Vol 26, p 224.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., p 377..
8. Ibid., Vol 42, p 278.
9. Ibid., Vol 37, p 248.
10. Ibid., Vol 27, p 388.
11. Ibid., Vol 37, p 50.
12. Ibid., Vol.38,.p 50.
13. Ibid., Vol 37, p 48.
14. Cited in "Istoriya Vtoroy Mirovoy Voyny" [History of World War II],
Moscow, 1975, Vol 4, p 34.
15. See: I.bid.,.Vol 12, p 149.
16. Lenin, op. cit., Vol 23, p 175.
17. Ibid., Vol 30, p 85.
18. See: "Sovetkaya Voyennaya Entsiklpediya" [Soviet Military Encyclo-
pedia], Moscow, 1978, Vol 2, p 412.
19. See: Ibid., Vol 2, p 66.
20. Lenin, op. cit., Vol 42, p 356.
21. Ibid., Vol 26, p 75.
22. K. Marx, F. Engels, op. cit., Vol 20, p 176.
23. Ibid., Vol 21, p 361.
24. Lenin, op. cit., Vol 42, p 290.
25. Lenin, Ibid., Vol 20, p 66.
26. Lenin, Ibid., Vol 29, p 207.
27. K. Marx, F. Engels, op. cit., 2d Edition, Vol 20, p 171.
28. M. V. Frunze, "Izbr. Proizv." [Selected Works], Moscow, 1964, p 47.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
29.
Lenin, Ibid., Vol 42, p 99.
30.
Frunze, op. cit., Moscow, 1957, Vol 2, p 342.
31.
PRAVDA, 12 March 1985.
32.
Lenin, op. cit., Vol 40, pp 76-77.
33.
Cited in "Vladimir Ilich Lenin: Biografiya" [Vladimir Ilich Lenin:
Biography], 4th Edition, Moscow, 1970,
p 505.
34.
Lenin, op. cit., Vol 45, p 409.
35.
Lenin, Ibid., Vol 26, p 145.
36.
Lenin, Ibid., Vol 35, p 216.
37.
Lenin, Ibid., Vol 42, p 134.
38.
Lenin, Ibid., Vol 42, p 173.
39.
PRAVDA, 17 June 1984.
40.
Ibid., 12 March 1985.
COPYRIGHT: Voyenizdat, 1985
9069
CSO: 8144/1712 END
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 Approved For Release Y6&IYd9%1AWbP?1:Pb1468R000100110005-2
JPRS-UMA-85-02 1 -L-CORREC T E D
13 November 1985
USSR Report
MILITARY AFFAIRS
HISTORY TEACHES VIGILANCE
W / 0 c. *e-lrc~ L--
FBIS I FOREIGN BROADCAST INFORMATION SERVICE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110005-2