ROLE OF MILITARY STRATEGY IN PREPARING A COUNTRY FOR WAR

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 2, 2005
• Sequence Number: 10
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
The army's troops conducted the defensive actively. Several counterthrusts
were prepared and carried out. The experience of conducting them showed that
the aims of the counterthrusts were achieved more completely in those in-
stances when the necessary time was allocated to prepare for them.
The combat practice of defensive oeprations by the 64th Army at Stalingrad
disclosed that with the gradual deployment of the troops it was essential to
organize and send forward over significant distances strong forward detach-
ments in the aim of occupying and holding advantageous lines ahead of the
main defensive zone. This made it possible to gain time to reinforce the de-
fenses, to cause the enemy losses and force it to deploy its main forces be-
fore approaching the main defensive line.
Also instructive is the fact that for countering enemy tanks, in addition to
antitank artillery, use was also made of the regimental antiaircraft artillery,
a significant portion of the divisional antiaircraft artillery, ground attack
aviation, mixed minefields, antitank brigades and Molotov cocktails. However,
the insufficient development of the tactical zone as well as the lack in cer-
tain instances of troops on the defensive lines located in depth impeded the
consistent repelling of enemy infantry and tank attacks on each line. This,
naturally, told negatively on the course of the defensive actions by the forma-
tions and units of the 64th Army.
As a whole, the formations and units of the 64th Army during the period of the
defense of Stalingrad gained valuable experience in conducting defensive oper-
ations and this experience was successfully employed by the Soviet troops in
the further course of the war.
1 The Stalingrad Front was set up on 12 July 1942. The commanders of the
front were: Mar SU S. K. Timoshenko from 12 July, Lt Gen V. N. Gordov from
23 July and Col Gen A. I. Yeremenko from 13 August.
2 [Not in report.]
3 TsAMO [Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense], folio 341, inv. 6217,
file 145, sheet 21.
4 Ibid., folio 342, inv. 53.12, file 9, sheets 62, 63.
5 "Velikaya pobeda na Volge" [The Great Victory on the Volga], Voyenizdat,
1965, p 85.
6 Quoted from the book by A. M. Samsonov, "Stalingradskaya bitva" [The Stalin-
grad Battle], Moscow, Nauka, 1968, p 120.
7 [Not in report.]
8 TsAMO, folio 341, inv. 5312, file 45, sheet 5.
9 Ibid., sheet 14.
COPYRIGHT: "Voyenno-istoricheskiy zhurnal", 1982,
10272 47
CSO: 8144/1841
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
ROLE OF MILITARY STRATEGY IN PREPARING A COUNTRY FOR WAR
Moscow VOYENNO-ISTORICHESKIY ZHURNAL in Russian No 7, Jul 82 (signed to
press 23 Jun 82) pp 46-53
[Article, title as above and "Based on the Experience of World War I and
World War II," by Candidate of Military Sciences, Maj Gen L. Korzun]
[Text] In Soviet military art, by military strategy which is the highest area
of this art, one understands that component part which encompasses the theory
and practice of readying a nation and its armed forces for a war, the planning
and conduct of the war and the strategic operations. Among other problems,
military strategy, as a system of scientific knowledge, works out the theoreti-
cal bases of the planning, preparation and conduct of a war, while in the area
of practical activity it is concerned with the elaboration and implementation
of measures to prepare both the armed forces as well as the theaters of mili-
tary operations, the nation's economy and population for the war.1
Thus, the elaboration of the theoretical bases and the practical activities to
ready a nation for war is one of the most important functions of military
strategy. To a'signific:ant degree, the success of the course and outcome of
a war depends upon its solution. In this'-regard a study and analysis of the
experience of strategy's involvement in the preparation of the world's major
states for?World Wars I;.-ar,&.II and the disclosure of definite trends and direcrt
tions in this area are of undoubted theoretical and practical interest.
A definite involvement of strategy- in the preparation of any state for a war
has occurred since its appearance,, that is-,-'With the rise of wars and armies.
Here over a long historical period,.'b'o'th the significance and scale of the
very preparations of a nation for war as well as the degree of strategy's in-
volvement in this were comparatively restricted, although these were constantlT
rising. Their role and'scale began.-to increase more quickly and significantly
in the 19~h Century, particularly with the entry of capitalism into the stage
of imperialism, in keeping with the sharp quantitative and qualitative de-
velopment of weaponry and the transition to mass armies.
However, regardless of the obvious existence and constant development of strat,-
egy's function in the preparation of a nation for war, for a long time strategy
was not put by military theory into an independent category and, in essence,
was concealed' behind the general formula of strategy's involvement in the
"preparation of a war." As strategy became more concrete, it still, as a rule,
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
was reduced at best to the preparation of the theaters of military operations
or remained within the confines of the preparation of the armed forces. Even
in articles devoted to military strategy in all three editions of the
"Bol'shaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya" [Great Soviet Encyclopedia], the role
of military strategy in essence was restricted to the preparation of the
armed forces for a war. However, military art has developed continuously.
"The development of military art," pointed out the member of the Politburo of
the CPSU Central Committee and USSR Minister of Defense, Mar SU D. F. Ustinov,
"represents an ongoing and complex process encompassing all its parts....
The scope of strategy has been increasing and the contents of its tasks have
become more complex.i2
The necessity of preparing a state for war, the increased significance of this
task and the strengthening of strategy's role in carrying it out are determined
by many factors and primarily by the very close reciprocal link between strate-
gy, politics and the economy., This linkage was first disclosed and very clear-
ly defined by the founders of Marxism-Leninism. F. Engels from the positions
of materialistic dialectics directly pointed out that "an act of violence... is
a political act." He pointed to the dependence of strategy upon the level of
production achieved at a given moment and that "all the organization of armies
and the methods of conducting combat employed by them and at the same time the
victories and defeats are dependent upon the material, that is, the economic
conditions: upon the human material and upon the weapons and, consequently,
upon the quality and quantity of the population and upon technology. ,3
V. I. Lenin emphasized that "strategy is subordinate to policy and both are in-
separably interlinked."4 This Leninist thesis has been convincingly confirmed
by the experience of World Wars I and II. In preparing for them and in the
course of armed combat, policy set the goals of the opposing coalitions and
each individual nation involved in them, the methods of preparing and conduct-
ing the war, it set for strategy specific tasks and endeavored to create the
best conditions for carrying them out. But policy itself utilized the ideas
and conclusions of military strategy in relation to the probable nature, scope
and duration of the forthcoming wars, the most effective methods of conducting
them, the military-strategic estimates of the situation in the world as a whole
and in the probable enemy states as well as the recommendations on the best
preparations to achieve the set political goals in the course of the war and
so forth.
Before World War I, German imperialism set the overall political goal of achiev-
ing a reapportionment of the already divided world, winning away colonies from
its basic imperialist rivals and establishing its own rule in them. The nature
and content of this political goal determined the essence of the demands on
military strategy. These were disclosed by F. Engels who in 1887 wrote that
"for Prussia--Germany, at present any other war but a world war is impossible.
This would be a universal war of previously unprecedented scope and unprece-
dented force."5 Then he gave an amazingly accurate prediction of the nature,
scope and outcome of a war which commenced 27 years later. Such was the
strength of his irreproachably class analysis, in the expression of V. I. Lenin.
The particular features of Germany's preparations for war in many ways were de-
termined by the prospect of waging it simultaneously on two fronts. The chief
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
of the German General Staff, Field Mar von Moltke, even in 1871 had written
that "the most dangerous testing for the existence of the young German Empire
would be a simultaneous war against Russia and France and since the possibility
of such a combination cannot be excluded, then it is essential ahead of time
to take into consideration the means for defense under such conditions."6
The German political leadership and the General Staff planned a pre-emptive at-
tack. Here a successive defeat of the enemies in the West and East was con-
sidered the most effective. In accord with the von Schlieffen Plan of 1905,
the main thrust was to be made initially against France. Several weeks were
assigned to carry out this mission after which the major forces were to be
shifted'from the Western Front against Russia to defeat it.
German preparations for World War I were actually organized and carried out on
the basis of this plan. The adventuristic nature underlying the von Schlieffen
Plan was ultimately felt in those major miscalculations in the nation's prep-
arations for war and which were disclosed in the course of it. Having greatly
miscalculated in estimating the real forces and potential capabilities of the
enemies, German strategy defined a future war as short-lived which, having been
commenced. in the summer, could be completed before the fall.
Plan it would be essential to have a mass
For carrying out the von Schlieffen
army which possessed significant superiority over the enemy and was prepared
for a powerful pre-emptive strike. Since the extended conduct of a war was
not anticipated, no provision was made for a major development of mass military
production in the course of the war, the shifting of the entire economy to a
wartime footing and so forth. Incidentally, an analogous miscalculation was
also made by Germany's ally, Austro-Hungary, and by its opponents, England,
France and Russia.
Thus, German strategy on the eve of World War I, having been given its tasks by,ll
the political leadership and the imperialist monopolies standing behind it,
proposed a plan for carrying out these tasks and after its approval determined
its needs for preparing the nation for war. Germany endeavored to get a jump
on its opponents in the quantitative and qualitative growth of weapons, in
training a mass army and in creating conditions for its rapid mobilization.
The size of the army grew. From 1874, it doubled in the peacetime ground
forces.8 In response the size of the Russian and French armies also grew.
The Entente states also intended to carry out their tasks in a war by an offen-I
sive and carried out the corresponding preparations of the armed forces and the1,
nations. Here France, in counting on the diverting role of a Russian offensives
at the outset of the war, in essence, even in the planning of the war surrender-
ed strategic initiative to the enemy. England, considering its main task to be'
the winning of victory at sea, assigned an auxiliary role to its own ground
forces.
Proceeding from the military-political and strategic goals, a campaign was
started up for ideologically influencing the armed forces personnel and the
entire population. Its essence and role subsequently, in 1921, were very pre-
cisely stated by the prominent proletarian military leader and theoretician
M. V. Frunze: "The bourgeois class which rules in Germany has subordinated all!
50
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
the life of the nation to the basic state goal of victory over competitors.
The press, science, art, education and the army--everything is organized and
focused by the bourgeoisie on a single spot. The bourgeoisie has succeeded in
distorting and subordinating even significant strata of the German proletariat
to its influence.... On this basis, in this atmosphere of universal obedience
to the Army and Navy and on the basis of a more active foreign policy which has
given the army definitely offensive tasks, no other German military doctrine
could be created except for the one we see at present. In the personnel of the
General Staff and the entire German Army... better than anywhere else is re-
flected the entire Germany of the complacent bourgeoisie and landowners confi-
dent of their strength and lulled with the dreams of world power. 'Germany
Over All' is the motto which has poisoned the conscience of a majority of the
German people in the age of imperialist war. And the German regiments loyal
to this motto, in confidently following the principles of their doctrine, in a
destructive wave flooded onto the plains of Belgium in 1914.i9
An analogous picture can also be observed, in truth, in a less "total" varia-
tion in the other major imperialist states. The military contributed a good
deal. to creating a true bacchanalia of chauvinism and mutual hate, while the
politicians intended to reap its fruits for their own purposes. In conducting
more intense preparations for war, Germany outstripped its rivals in the tech-
nical equipping of the army as defined by the requirements of strategy. For
this reason, France and Russia, seeing their lag in the development of weapons
and armed forces as a whole, adopted new extensive armament programs.
But significant time was needed to carry them out.
The German military, in considering the preparations for war to be complete,
began to work intensely to accelerate the outbreak of war. In the book pub-
lished in 1913 entitled "Germany and the Future War," Gen Bernhardi expressed
its aspirations in writing: "We should... constantly realize that under no
circumstances should we avoid a war for our status as a world power and the
task is not to put it off as long as possible but, on the contrary, to start it
under the best conditions .i10 In endeavoring to accelerate the starting of a
war in accord with its military-political and strategic assessment of the sit-
uation in the world, the German leadership literally provoked it. Thus, Kaiser
Wilhelm in the margin of a report from Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg on the con-
flict situation in the Balkans, made a note that ultimately a provocation
would be needed to obtain an opportunity to make an attack and that with
adroit diplomacy and a cleverly controlled press it would be possible to create
this provocation and hold it in constant readiness.
In characterizing the choice by Germany of the moment for initiating a war,
V. I.. Lenin wrote that it found "the most convenient, from its viewpoint,
moment for the war, employing its last advancements in military equipment and
anticipating the new weapons already planned and undertaken by Russia and
France." 11
The role of strategy in the preparations for World War I is most clearly seen
from the example of Germany. This role was analogously apparent also in the
preparations of the other imperialist powers.
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
It is essential to point out that in turn strategy was constantly influenced by
politics and the economy in the course of war preparations. This was reflected
primarily in strategic planning. For example, the successor of von Schlieffen
in the post of chief of the German Staff, von Moltke the Younger, under the
pressure of the Ruhr industrialists and Prussian Junkers strengthened the Ger-
man troop grouping on the left wing of the Western Front and in East Prussiay
having weakened it in the sector of the main thrust. As a result, in the sec-
tor of this thrust against France, it was possible to create only a 3-fold
superority instead of a 7-fold one and this was one of the reasons for the col-
lapse of Germany's strategic plans.
As a whole, the role of strategy on the eve of the war was noticeably broadened
and intensified. Undoubtedly this was one of the elements in the overall mil-
itarization of all aspects of social life in the imperialist states. However,
during that period the role of strategy was not yet fully apparent in a number
of problems and primarily in the area of the military-economic preparations of
the states. Previously we have already mentioned the mistake of the German
and other general staffs in determining the duration of the war. This was also
reflected in the creation of mobilization reserves. The weapons and ammunition
which the leading capitalist nations had at the start of the war were suffi-
cient only for several months. For example, the French General Staff set the
mobilization supply of artillery shells at approximately 6.5 million units
while actually 305 million were expended.12 This was the price of just one
miscalculation by strategy in the area of the preparation?of the states for
the war.
Prior to World War II, all the actual data and the theoretical views on the
problem of the preparation of nations for World War I were carefully studied
and analyzed. For example, it was recognized that one of the reasons for
serious miscalculations in the military-economic preparations was the lack
of special bodies which would plan, organize and direct such preparations. In
Germany the question was even raised of creating a special economic General
Staff.
Although after World War I and particularly as a result of the victory of
Great October, imperialism began to fear mass armies and because of this vari-
ous theories about small professional armies became somewhat widespread, in
official military policy of the major imperialist states, however, the emphasisl
was put on creating mass armed forces and preparing a large group of reservists,
who could be called up into the Army and Navy on the eve of or immediately with{~
the start of a war.
The Communist Party, in steadily carrying out a Leninist peace-loving foreign
policy, was forced to adopt the necessary measures to ensuring the secure de-
fense capability of our motherland and for complete preparations of the Soviet
state for a future war in the event that the imperialists would start it. The!
General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and Chairman of the Presidium
of the USSR Supreme Soviet, Comrade L. I. Brezhnev, has emphasized that "our
party anticipated the possibility of a military clash with the forces of im-
perialism and prepared the nation and people for defense. The socioeconomic {
victories of the prewar five-year plans and the ideological-political unity of
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
Soviet society forged in the course of building socialism put down the founda-
tions for the victory won by our people during the Great Patriotic War."13
Soviet military strategy played an essential role in preparing our nation for
World War II in which Nazi Germany acted at the attack force of world imperial-
ism. As a whole, Soviet strategy correctly defined the nature and scale of
the coming m}litary conflict, the particular features of conducting military
operations, the role and relationship of the economic, moral-political and
specifically military factors,_he basic directions of military organizational
development and so forth. Fundamental for it were Lenin's ideas on the nature
of the war and on the close link between the military organization of a nation
and its entire economic and cultural system and the Leninist principles of the
organizational development of the Armed Forces including the most important of
them, the total control of this organizational development and the entire
question of strengthening the state's defense capability by the Communist Party.
In relying on these Leninist theses, in their works and practical activities
M. V. Frunze, M. N. Tukhachevskiy, B. M. Shaposhnikov, V. K. Triandafillov and
others devoted great attention to the problem of the preparation of the USSR
for war. For example, M. N. Tukhachevskiy emphasized: "Each m_should cor-
respond to the economic capabilities of a nation, for only on these capabili-
ties can it actua eplo~ y^ its combat force and, achieve those combat results
which politics demands from strategy."14
Among the works devoted to the problem of the nation's preparations for war,
a special place is held by the work of M. V. Frunze entitled "Front i tyl v
voyne budushchego" [The Front and Rear in a Future War] published in 1925. In
it the outstanding Soviet military leader and theoretician wrote: "The basic
and most important conclusion from the experience of the last imperialist war
of 1914-1918 is the reassessment of the question of the role and importance of
the rear in the general course of military operations." He drew attention to
the fact that the inevitability of a revision in the very principles of strat-
egy stemmed from the changes in the nature of warfare. With a clash of first-
rate enemies, a victory cannot be achieved by a single blow. The war will as-
sume the nature of an extended and fierce contest which tests all the economic
and political underpinnings of the belligerents. In such a war, the rear now
0 9 is combined with the front. Hence, the new tasks and new methods for preparing
national defense. In emphasizing that the task of preparing the nation for
defense under present-day conditions extends far beyond the available capabili-
ties of the army and the military department alone, he set as an imperative,
)!vital and essential task "the organizing of the nation even in peacetime so
that it could be quickly, easily and painlessly shifted to a wartime footing."15
3
Soviet military theory in a fundamentally correct manner also defined the role
and place of the superior military control bodies in the preparation of the
nation for war. In the work "Mozg Armii" [The Brain of the Army], B. M.
Shaposhnikov, in drawing attention to the fact that the General Staff should
hold an appropriate place in the control of the war and in the preparations
for it, wrote: "Generally and as a whole, not the General Staff, but rather
the government of a state prepares for a war, conducts it and bears responsi-
bility for its success or failure.... As for the General Staff, it through its
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
representatives in the "combat bodies" in charge of the preparations for the
war on various fronts, should be informed of their work, it must make various
proposals in the sense of best satisfying operational needs but not be dictator-i
ial, remembering that...the overstraining of a state's economic force is
fraught with the threat of losing the war, no matter how brilliant the battle-
field victories might be."16
Soviet military theory, in emphasizing the dependence of strategy upon the
economy, has always also considered its reverse influence, that is, the role
of the effect of Armed forces development on the economy. Even F. Engels drew
attention to the fact that the army itself plays an important role in economic
development. This thesis has been concretized and developed by Soviet military
science in terms of the new historical conditions and has been practically
realized in Soviet military organizational development.
Thus, military strategy, in posing demands in terms of the quantity and quality
of the means of armed combat, substantially influences the volume and
scientific-technical level of industrial production, as well as the development
of transportation and the means of control. In addition, as the experience of
both world wars has shown, it should, and rather accurately, determine the
needs of the armed forces for materiel as well as the possible volume of its
consumption, losses and so forth. The role of strategy becomes evermore essen-
tial in organizing the defense of the economy against armed actions by the
enemy.
The experience of World War II fully confirmed the fundamental provisions of
Soviet military doctrine on the problem of preparing the nation for war.
In the interwar period, the given problem became one of the central ones as
well for bourgeois military theory and the practical preparation for a new
world war by the major imperialist states. The importance of this for bour-
geois military theory was determined by the fact that the preparations for a
new world war by the imperialist powers were carried out on a significantly
broader scale than previously.as well as on a quantitatively and qualitatively
different technical and material basis. Naturally, for each nation the basic
directions, scale, nature and specific content of the preparatory measures
were determined by their political goals.
For the British Empire, according to the assertion of the well-known English
military theoretician Fuller, the immediate strategic tasks were "the conduct
of small wars and the maintaining of calm in the nations which were backward
in military and political terms (that is, the colonies.--L. K.).i17 For Ger-
many, immediately after the defeat in World War I, the question of revanche be-
came fundamental. And with the coming of Hitler to power, the goal of winning
world domination was turned from a remote prospect into the immediate main
political task. But in the preparations of all the imperialist
world war, there was also a fundamentally new factor namely the
stroy the Soviet Union by common efforts. Nazi Germany as well
powers for a
desire to de-
as militaristic]
Japan were chosen by imperialism as the main assault forces for carrying out
this task. This played a bitter joke on a number of imperialist states, pri-
marily France and England. Although they had spent colossal amounts and
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
carried out numerous various diplomatic, economic and specifically military
measures, when World War II broke out, their unpreparedness for it was dis-
closed.
Germany prepared most intensely and purposefully for war, particularly after
the seizure of power by the Nazis. These preparations were based upon the
ideas of a so-called "tote r" formulated by Gen Ludendar#f in his book by
the same name. These consisted in the fact that all aspects of a state's life
in peacetime should be subordinate to the preparations; deceit blackmail and
terror were to be widely used; mass armed forces were to be trained ahead of
time and deployed covertly, the war was to be started by a surprise attack for
the enemy, the attacks were to be made not only against the armed forces, but
also against the peaceful population in order, by terrorizing it, to more
quickly break the will to resist, and so forth.
The ongoing further militarization of imperialism had a significant impact on
strengthening the role of strategy in the preparations of the imperialist
states for World War II. One of the most vivid manifestations of this was
the coming to power of the reactionary military in a number of states and the
overall strengthening of its influence. The most prominent representative of
German militarism, Field Mar von Hindenburg was elected in 1925 and in 1932 was
reelected the president of Germany. With his blessings in 1933, the Nazi coup
was carried out. In Japan during the 1920's and 1930's, the militaristic
governments were repeatedly he by the most prominent representatives of
the reactionary military and they also held the key ministerial posts. Inci-
dentally an analogous picture has been observed in the United States since
World War II.
The development of the military-industrial complexes assumed ever-greater sig-
nificance in the imperialist powers. This term was introduced by Gen D. Eisen-
hower in 1961 when he left the position of U.S. president. But this complex,
in presently representing the main threat to peace in the world, began to de-
velop long before this and not only in the United States. For example, in
Nazi Germany ma rs. .pro es-s-ional militarn held leadi ng..._po t on the oards
of various industrial corporations. Gen Milch was a member of the supervisory
council of Junkers and Gen Leeb at the Goering plants. The chief of the mili-
tary economics staff, Gen Thomas, was simultaneously on the supervisory council
of the Rheinmetall-Borsig Firm and on the board of the Goering plants.
The dream of the German militarists of setting up a special "military-economic
general staff" did not come about before World War II. In essence, this role
was filled by the military-economic staff of the 0KW headed by the already-
mentioned Gen Thomas. The highest body in the area of preparing Germany for
war was the Imperial Defense Council (Military Cabinet) headed by Hitler.
Along with the leading ministers and the representative of the Reichsbank, yr
its membership included the commanders-in-chief of the armed services. Since
1936 these commanders had been elevated to ministerial rank and received the
right to participate in government sessions. Characteristically, a special
working committee headed by the chief of staff of the Supreme Armed Forces Com-
mand, Keitel, was concerned with the preparation of materials for the sessions
of this council and ensuring the fulfillment of the decisions adopted at its
sessions.18
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
However, regardless of the enormous scope and more careful organization of the
all-round preparations of Germany for the war, as was the case on the eve of
World War I, serious miscalculations were made in this. These were determined
primarily by the adventuristic,political goals and military strategy of Nazi
Germany and their discrepancies to the real capabilities of the state. The
broad, literally total military-economic preparations, the early conversion of
the economy to a wartime footing, the mobilizing of a. mass army and the sur-
prise of attack made it possible for Germany to achieve certain military suc-
cesses,-but also largely due to the major political and military miscalcula-
tions of its opponents such as England and France. The blinding of their rul-
ing circles by anti-Sovietism here also played an important role. But in the
crucial clash with the USSR the "Blitzkrieg" strategy of Nazi Germany suffered
a major defeat. The same occurred with militaristic Japan.
Thus, the experience of the two world wars has shown, on the one hand, a tend-
ency for increased importance, a broader scale and comprehensiveness of the
preparations of states for war and a greater role for military strategy in
solving the given problem; on the other, it convincingly has shown that politi-
cal goals are crucial for these preparations. For this reason even the broad-
est preparations were unable to ensure the achieving of such adventuristic and
unsound goals as the winning of world domination by Nazi Germany.
Experience has also shown that imperialism has not drawn the correct lessons
from the results of the world wars. For this reason, at present, as was em-
phasized by the 26th CPSU Congress, in the policy of the most aggressive imper-
ialist circles, one can see particularly starkly an adventurism and a readiness
to wager the vital interests of mankind for the sake of narrow selfish goals.
One of the visible proofs of this is the preparations for war being carried out
by the NATO nations and primarily the United States. These preparations are
unprecedentediin history in terms of scale and diversity. The new pretenders
to world domination must not forget how such preparations ended in the past.
At the same time, it is important to consider that the urgency, complexity and
importance of the problem of a nation's preparations and the role of military
strategy in these preparations continue to grow. Within one limited article
naturally only certain fundamental questions of historical experience in solv-
ing such a diverse problem could be posed and examined. Further research and
a more detailed and specific review of its various aspects are of major theoret-
ical and practical significance under present-day conditions.
1 See "Sovetskaya Voyennaya Entsiklopediya" [Soviet Military Encyclopedia
Vol 7, Voyenizdat, 1979, pp 555-556.
2 D. F. Ustinov, "Sluzhim Rodine, delu kommunizma" [We Serve the Motherland
and the Cause of Communism], Voyenizdat, 1982, p 75.
3 K. Marx and F. Engels, "Soch." [Works], Vol 20, pp 162, 175.
4 "Vladimir Il'ich Lenin. Biografiya" [Vladimir Il'ich Lenin. A Biography],
6th Edition, Moscow, Politizdat, 1981, p 500.
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
5 K. Marx and F. Engels, "Soch," Vol 21, p 361.
6 Quoted in''he book by A. Zayonchkovskiy, "Mirovaya voyna 1914-1918 gg."
[The World War of 1914-1918], Vol 1, Gosvoyenizdat, 1938, pp 39-40.
7 [Not in text.]
8 "Istoriya pervoy mirovoy voyny 1914-1918" [The History of World War I of
1914-1918], Vol 1, Moscow, Nauka, 1975, pp 95-96.
9 M. V. Frunze, "Izbrannyye proizvedeniya" [Selected Works], Voyenizdat,
1977, p 35.
10 Quoted from the book by V. Ruge, "Gindenburg. Portret germanskogo militar-
ista" [Hindenburg. A Portrait of a German Militarist], authorized transla-
tion from the German, Moscow, Mysl', 1981, p 39.
11 V. I. Lenin, PSS [Complete Collected Works], Vol 26, p 16.
12 N. A. Talenskiy, "Pervaya mirovaya voyna (1914-1918 gg.)" [World War I
(1914-1918)], Moscow, OGIZ, Gospolitizdat, 1944, p 121.
13 L. I. Brezhnev, "Leninskim kursom. Rechi i stat'i" [By the Leninist Course.
Speeches and Articles], Vol 2, Moscow, Politizdat, 1973, p 90.
i14 ')M. N. Tukhachevskiy, "Izbrannyye proizvedeniya" [Selected Works], Vol 1,
- Voyenizdat, 1964, p 180.
115 M. V. Frunze, "Izbrannyye proizvedeniya," pp 181, 184.
16 B. M. Shaposhnikov, "Vospominaniya. Voyenno-nauchnyye trudy" [Memoirs.
Military Scientific Works], Voyenizdat, 1974, pp 457-458.
17 J. F. C. Fuller, "Reformatsiya voyny" [The Reformation of War], Gosvoyeniz-
dat, 1931, p 59.
18 See "Istoriya vtoroy mirovoy voyny 1939-1945" [The History of World War II
of 1939-1945], Vol 2, Voyenizdat, 1974, pp 293-297.
COPYRIGHT: "Voyenno-istoricheskiy zhurnal", 1982.
7.0272
CSO: 8144/1841
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6
Moscow VOYENNO-ISTORICHESKIY ZHURNAL in Russian No 7, Jul 82 (signed to press
23 Jun 82) pp 53-58
[Article, title as above, by Hero of Socialist Labor, Deputy Commander-in-
Chief of the Navy, Engr-Adm P. Kotov]
[Text] Our motherland's modern fleet was created and turned into-a powerful
ocean-going one by the efforts of the Communist Party, the Soviet government
and the entire people. Along with the Soviet Army, it securely guards the
great victories of socialism and serves as an important means in ensuring the
peace-loving foreign policy, restraining the aggressive aspirations of the
imperialist states. In all the development stages of the Soviet government,
the party, in showing constant concern for strengthening national defense, has {
given and does give great attention to upgrading. the Navy as a component part
of the Soviet state's Armed Forces.
Ships have always been, are and will remain the main material and technical
base of the Navy's combat might. To a decisive degree they determine its com-
bat might and serve as an indicator of the level of technical equipping. Of
great importance for the development of shipbuilding was the party's policy of
creating a powerful economy in the nation and achieving a high development
level of science, technology and production.
In order to more thoroughly understand the greatness of the people's feat in
creating a modern Navy and to better analyze and determine the basic stages
through which Soviet naval shipbuilding has gone in its development, we will
turn back to our heroic past.
The first years in the existence of the young Soviet state (1917-1922) were
characterized by the intensive use of the ships and vessels left by the Old
Russia in the armed struggle against the forces of internal counterrevolution
and military intervention. At the center of attention of the bodies entrusted
with naval shipbuilding at that time were the supply and maintaining of the
ships and vessels if possible in a proper technical state. At that time more
than 60 industrial enterprises were involved in the reequipping of the ves-
sels, carrying out ship repairs, working on individual ships, manufacturing
naval ordnance and carrying out other technical requirements of the Navy. As a
whole during the first years of Soviet power, naval shipbuilding held a very
small proportional amount in the production plans of the shipbuilding yards.1
58
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP93T01468R000100110010-6