(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 27
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 4, 1998
• Sequence Number: 5
• Content Type: REPORT

Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
Three non-Communist European logicians formulated the principle
upon which Soviet political-military strategy is founded. They espoused
their views on the' composition of national states and the evolution of
revolutionary war long before Karl Marx ever penned the first draft of
Das Kapital. Their writings influenced not only the works of the fathers
of modern-day Communism, Marx, Engels and Lenin, but they remain
the basic documents for contemporary world Communist strategy.
It is not in the least surprising that dictators enunciating non-
Communist, but equally identical national and global objectives, have
also been influenced by the same authors. It therefore becomes
manifest that the military-political strategy which has been- -and is
now being- -practiced by the Soviet Union and Communist China differs
little from the original doctrines formulated by Machiavelli, Hegel
and Clausewitz.
This paper is a summation of the tremendous impact which these
early authors have had upon World Communist thought and action since
its inception. Although officially denounced by the Soviet Union today,
Machiavelli's writings greatly influenced Hegel, whose contributions to
philosophic logic and historical thought germinated the original thesis
of dialectic materialism. Marx, Engels and Lenin were all his admitted
disciples and the latter is quoted as having said that it was "indispensable"
for a good Marxist to first study Hegel if he was to understand Das Kapital.
The contribution of General Von Clausewitz to Sino-Soviet military
strategy has had an equally profound impact upon the utilization of their
strength. For instance, it was from Clausewitz that the principle of the
"Cold War" was first enunciated.
25X1X6
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
It is immaterial whether the reader agrees or disagrees with
the author's conclusions; the most important aspect of this paper is
that it does provide a base for thought and further discussion.
25X1A9a
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
THE ORIGINS OF SOVIET POLITICAL-MILITARY THOUGHT
We are today amazed and stupefied by the extraordinary extension of
communism, which in only 43 years since the Russian Revolution, has
covered half the globe. The war which they are undertaking to attain
their objective of world domination has amazed us and will continue to
do so every day, in spite of the fact that that war is not secret, since
its doctrine is exhibited in thousands of pages in all the corners of
the earth. It is secret only to those who do not wish to know about it,
and invisible to the blind.
The creators of this world revolution are not theoreticians of
second rate, but men of privileged intelligence and drive, with the
stature of a Machiavelli, Engels, Clausewitz, Marx, Hegel, Lenin, Stalin,
Mao Tse-tung, and Khrushchev.
Our country is at war with a foreign power, and therefore as men
of arms we must begin to study the enemy thoroughly, without prejudice;
cooly, objectively, and with calculation in order to determine his
strength and weaknesses, his virtues, and deficiencies; to measure the
magnitude of the problem which we face and to know what are our
sensitive points to defend and what are those of the enemy to attack.
"There is so much difference", Machiavelli used to say, "between the
way in which one lives and the one in which he should live, that by
studying the latter one soon learns to detest rather than to uphold
himself, because whoever wishes to appear always as a good man ends
up by perishing in the midst of so many wicked men.
"An intelligent prince must not keep his promise; when the reasons
which led him to promise have disappeared or when keeping it would be
harmful to him. Undoubtedly this is not a good precept if all men were
good, but since they are malicious they surely would not keep their
promise to you. Why then should you keep yours?"
"While it is still possible, the Prince must not leave the road of
goodness, but when necessary he must know how to take the road of evil.
A good result justifies the means.
"Violence is to be condemned only when it is employed to do evil,
but not when utilized to do good."
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
It is interesting to observe that Machiavelli does not deny morality,
although it is not respected; whereas morality does not exist for the
Communists.
Machiavelli has seen in the State a "living being" whose total re-
sources must be made available in time of war. When he insisted on "the
union of military and spiritual forces in a country," when he publicized
this "new spirit" which was to elevate political values above the others,
when he asserted that in war "the use of all forces is permitted, " and
when he recommended the "spread of false news in order to demoralize
the adversary;" there was really rising in the 16th century the forerunner
of certain aspects of total war, although he had his intuition only on the
national and not the world level.
There is more. Machiavelli went so far as to consider the role
attributed to the financial circles of the nation as a weakness and not
a strength. There was in fact an idea that the virtues required by
war are incompatible with the training given by commercial activity,
undoubtedly a long-range evaluation, since he said that "when a State
aspires to political greatness, the political interests must rise above all
others. The lack of fighting spirit and weakness are the consequences
of worry to preserve one's personal comfort, worries which are closely
bound to a society dominated by financial and commercial interests. A
people can provide the soldiers for an irresistible army only when the
greatness of the country and not the fate of the individual represents
the highest value and when furthermore, it is ready to sacrifice all for
its ideal. "
But let us not forget that at that time war was carried on by
mercenaries, that is that the difference between the application of
. Machiavelli's principles and those of present day revolutionary war
is the same as between the hand crafting of a shoe and the mass
production of modern industry.
Let us now see in a few paragraphs how the very orthodox Great
Soviet Encyclopedia presents Machiavelli to its readers: "Machiavelli, "
says the above encyclopedia, "was one of the founders of the early
bourgeoisie, when the social class began to take awareness of its role
through its struggle against feudal ideology, religion and morality.
"Contrary to the feudal concept of the-State, Machiavelli founded
politics on materialism. He was one of the first bourgeois thinkers
who according to Karl Marx 'began to consider the State as a human
division and determined its principles, resting on reason and experience
instead of theology. '
"Machiavelli saw in religion and Christian morals obstacles to man's
activity. According to him, whose opinions reflected the social sentiments
2
Sanitized - Approved For 634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
of an opposing environment, ' force represents the basis of law, thanks to
which we have done away with morality in the theoretical analysis of politics.'
"As a witness to the bitter class struggle which is developing in
Italy, Machiavelli in his works had launched the idea that society showed
an irreconcilable antagonism between the interests of the people and those
of a rich class. Picturing the social struggle as a conflagration of
material interests, Machiavelli drew close to the concept of class
struggle, a concept which finds its most brilliant expression in his
History of Florence.
"The political opinions of Machiavelli developed during the period in
which there was a sudden change in his country toward a feudal reaction
and toward an economic regression, that at a time when a politically dis-
membered Italy was easy prey to the greed of the strongly centralized
European states. It was under these circumstances that Machiavelli
launched 'the idea of making Italy a national unified and centralized state.
He considered the Papacy as foreign to national interests, as one of the
causes of the country's depression and as the main obstacle to its
unification.
"Machiavelli also fought feudal nobility and predicted its extermination.
"The type of 'modern monarch' idealized in his work The Prince is a'
defense of the methods of struggle, regardless of their nature and includes
bribery, felony and assassination with a view to the installation of a strong
power. According to Machiavelli, a prince must use procedures suited to
the animal as well as to man, to conciliate the fox and the lion; all methods
are good when they bring one to the objective.
"The principles formulated by Machiavelli under the historic conditions
which we know, contain in an embryo those general standards of bourgeois
morality; the cult of brutal force, cynicism, treachery, non-morality (from
which the expression Machiavellism). It is precisely this aspect of
Machiavelli's doctrine which the reactionary and imperialist bourgeoisie
has monopolized to its own end. "
There can be no doubt that this last paragraph of the article in the
Great Soviet Encyclopedia deserves the same judgment which Voltaire
passed on Frederick II: "that he has been depreciated only to loath others.
Nevertheless, the sum and substance of the analysis does not make
Machiavelli sympathetic; Karl Marx had become quite interested in him.
According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Machiavelli's works already
bore the seed of the strength-ideas for the secret motives of Marxism-
Leninism: materialism; class struggle; forces as the basis of law; exemption
from all morality; the eviction of the Catholic hierarchy, etc.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : A- - 1634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
One of Machiavelli's most eminent disciples was in fact the author
of Counter Machiavellism, that is Frederick II.
In the preface to his work, Frederick II says: " 1 dare to take up
the defense of humanity against this monster; I dare to oppose reason
and justice to sophistry and crime."
Magnificent words no doubt, but Clausewitz was to unmask the Prussian
Prince half a century later when he wrote: "If Frederick has pretended
to condemn Machiavelli, it was only to follow him more closely for his
own convenience, and Voltaire has justly said that he (Frederick II)
depreciated in order to loath others.
Hegel was a German philosopher, born in 1770 and died in 1831. We
all know that Germany has always been the favorite land of all philosophers.
They were not always clear but in any case they gave to human thought a
truly revolutionary drive in the intellectual sense of the word.
With Hegel the classic procedures of philosophy are left behind.
Several hours would be necessary to explore the substance of this Hegelian
philosophy. Nevertheless it may be summarized in two formulas:
1) One takes a thesis (existing) then its opposite (also existing)
which is the antithesis. Both are false because they are partial, too
one-sided and already outstripped by events; they are compressed into a
synthesis, which in turn is nothing more than a stage in the road to
truth and which represents nothing final. There is nothing: God himself
does not exist; world is in a state of "perpetual becoming." and the
movement of history and the purpose of this movement are no different
from each other, and they are only one thing. There is therefore nothing
stable, there is no law, no morality, no rules for living between nations,
there is only a "spiral of history" which rises endlessly and is fully
justified in its very movement and ascension.
But these two formulas are given as Hegel's interpretation of the
"dialectic," since the latter is not a system, but a method of reasoning
which permits the tracing of all the continuity of thought in those whose
spirit is gradually dragged without pausing at anything satisfactory
before the last stage. Consequently this idea is at once linked to rest-
lessness.
4
Sanitized - Approved 8-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
Universal history is the living dialectic, history and dialectic are one
and the same thing.
Hegel taught the Germans and then the Soviet disciples to think
historically. He says that everything that is real is rational. Reality
is life and history. But life and history obey certain laws. All law is
rational. Therefore, what is real cannot be irrational.
For Hegel the individual is no more than an abstraction without con-
sistency, a real nothing who has no more "substantial" reality than a fly
which dies in autumn or a spark which leaps from an anvil.
Only communities have their own, permanent objective, substantial
reality, in which individuals are submerged, participating in the same.
The community is what constitutes "The Being. "
The community (that is, the State) means that there is no subjective
will issuing from individuals, but an "objective spirit" which shows in
ideas above the individual.
It is the march of "God" across the pages of history which makes the
state exist, having as its basis the "power of reason" and thanks to it
it becomes "will. " Finally, this'wvill" becomes action and is then
accomplished in history.
What Hegel calls the "tissue of history" are the great ideas and they
achieve it, and not the actors charged with executing its decisions.
The state is personified. "It knows what it wants and it executes what
it wishes. " It is the adequate accomplishment of a divine idea, an earthly
incarnation of God.
The State does not have the happiness of peoples as its purpose, but
the always more perfect affirmation of its own existence and of its sovereignty.
The Hegelian State is by definition "monarchic, " but as with the
individual, be he even a king, it does not deserve to be considered, and
there can be no question of personal rule, and still less of parliamentary
rule or universal suffrage... The Hegelian State will therefore be a
constitutional kingdom, in which the king will be the living symbol of
the majesty of the State. There is no parliament, but a corporate
representation for the agencies of the State, a system in which light
and will come from above, of the State- god.
5
soon
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
own
It is evident that Hegel's State theory had a decisive influence on
Bismarck., Hitler, and Stalin.
The Hegelian State represents by the force of circumstance a more
evolved form of reason. It is the ultimate religion of humanity, a religion
in which Law and Force are reconciled, Idea and Fact, the Rational and
the Real are reconciled. It is the " Synthesis" of everything.
Defining itself by its sovereignty, the Hegelian state tolerates no
limitation of that sovereignty. Contracts, concordats or treaties lose
their validity when the interest of the state enters into play.
Since history is made up of nothing more than antagonisms, the
existence of the UN or treaties of arbitration cannot be admitted, since
this would detain the historical process of dialectic. Only history
can judge and it shall judge the results.
The only valid thing is the will of the State to pursue the accom-
plishment of its designs, without worrying about the value or justice of
its cause, its objectives; its intentions are judged only intrinsically,
keeping in mind only its interests.
From all this it appears that relations among states cannot be
peaceful and cordial, as long as the Hegelian state finds no advantage
in it; for this reason normal relations with unsubjected states is war.
Hegel thus becomes the metaphysicist of imperialism, but of an ' unbridled
imperialism.
In order to dissolve the individual and utilize the masses with the
intent of doing the will of the state, they shall be trained methodically
and positively in the Hegelian State and negatively in the adversary
states.
And when these preliminary results have been attained, when the
morale of the enemy has been undermined and when on the other hand
its morale has been raised to the maximum, what will the Hegelian State
do? In accordance with the traditional rules of history it will be
necessary to unleash the crisis and exploit it.
I think that now we shall say a few words on the influence of Hegel
on Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. Everyone knows the enormous influence of
Russian philosophy of the 18th and 19th centuries on Russian thought and
literature. Without a doubt, Hegel has been the principal teacher of
the thought of Soviet leaders. Marx inherited from Hegel two considerable
things: His method (dialectic) and his finalist concept of history.
Marx's contribution is essentially the concept of historic materialism,
as well as a certain humanism (understood of course in the measure in
which he seeks the happiness of mankind, which must be achieved in a
6
Sanitized - Approved F -01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
-.1 -.6mPown"M
classless society).
On the other hand Lenin was also a faithful disciple of Hegel and
estimated that to understand Marx it was indispensable to study Hegel
first.
"It is not possible, " said Lenin, "to understand Kapital, and par-
ticularly Marx's first Kapital if one has not studied, and thoroughly,
Hegelian logic; for this reason there are Marxists who have not yet
understood Marx. It
With regard to Stalin, the vigorous exponent of monolithic doctrine,
he officially rejected Hegel, as he also rejected Clausewitz, but he did
so in order to apply better the concepts and ideas of one and the other in
daily living. But basically the only difference between the pure Hegelian
system and Stalinism consists in the replacement of the spiritual idea
(God) of the first by the material notion of the second.
The Soviet concept of liberty "in its highest form of democratic
states" grows increasingly close to the Hegelian model, as the Soviet
state becomes stronger. This state, with Stalin's approval, now rests
on a Hegelian concept of law.
General VonClausewitz was undoubtedly a disciple of Hegel, as
well as Kant. Ironically, both Von Clausewitz and Hegel died in the
same year -- 1831.
Clausewitz was trained from boyhood in the school of warfare. He
was only 13 years old when he took part in the campaign of 1793 against
France. During his course at the War School he had the good fortune of
being taught by Scharnhorst under whose orders he was to serve in various
campaigns.
In 1806 he was taken prisoner by the French after the fall of Yena.
His imprisonment gave him time to meditate.
In 1810 he was professor at the war college in Berlin. In 1812
the alliance of Prussia with Napoleon and France, both of whom he
hated, drove him to join the Russian service.
From 1818 to 1830, as director of the Berlin War College, Clausewitz
dedicated himself to the thorough study of Napoleonic campaigns and
analyzed the reasons for the successes of some and defeats of the others.
First he gave his time to the study of military history of the age in which
he lived and then to the study of the eras before his time, with an
7
Sanitized - Approved For 1634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
essentially new spirit in which the Hegelian dialectic had already left
its traces.
Clausewitz had attempted to define and determine what war is in
its essence and consequently what are the different forms of war, the
methods which are activated, how it is conducted and the results which
may be expected.
Rather than presenting a limited system as did his two contemporaries
Jomini and Willinsen, Clausewitz sought the permanent laws and principles
of war, laws and principles independent of his age and circumstances.
He drew away from the idea that war is a psychological phenomenon.
One of his fundamental observations was in effect that "war is one of man's
activities" which rests on both human strength and weaknesses at the same
time. These strengths and these weaknesses are what intelligence must
know how to utilize.
Clausewitz then investigated the relations of politics and the military
art. He noted that "war is only a continuation of politics by different means. "
Starting with this formula by Clausewitz, the Marxist school has put out
thousands of pages signed by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung,
creating a veritable gospel of action, but we must never forget that it was
revolutionary action, an action of permanent psychological, universal and
total war.
Let us quickly review these two "key propositions:"
a) Exploitation of the moral strengths or human weaknesses depending
on the case.
b) The essentially political aspect of war.
Moral Strengths: A standard field for our military men, which Soviet
leaders have mastered (and Stalin in particular), making an art of their
exploitation.
The Exploitation of Human Weaknesses: He also sought to use the
gregarious fellowship of the masses in his own territory in order to
indoctrinate them psychologically, or the cult of fear in enemy countries,
in order to defeat them; however, this fear can be inculcated long before
the time of combat, thanks to propaganda, as well as during the course
of combat, through false information, simulation, and harassment,
creating a real psychosis of permanent insecurity.
The second "key proposition" deserves broader development.
Sanitized - Approved For 1634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
In his letter to Major Von Roeder dated 22 December 1827 Clausewitz
wrote: "We must not commit the error of considering war uniquely as an
act of force and annihilation, nor deduce from this simplified notion
through a logical spirit of deduction, a series of conclusions which do
not fully match the phenomena of the real world, but we must on the
contrary return to the notion of war as a political act, this war which
does not fully carry its own law, but is conducted by a hand. This hand
is politics..."
"This discussion absolves me from having to emphasize that there
can be even more painless wars, such as a simple threat, an armed
negotiation, or in the case of war of coalition, a simple feint at operations.
It would be quite false to expect that these wars have nothing to do with
the art of war. In as much as strategy is limited to admitting that from
all the evidence there can be wars which do not seek an extreme end, that
is, the defeat and destruction of the enemy, it is then necessary to come
down to the most varied echelons, whatever they may be, when the interest
of politics requires it."
Therefore, we see here the "cold war" described by Clausewitz.
"A simple threat" or "a simple feint", bluff itself, are already actions
of war. For him, "true war", as he calls it, that which a half century
later would still be the only object of deep study by Camon, Bonnal and
Foch in France, was nothing more than the exception.
This "typical war" will appear only as an extreme case, in which
politics and war are blended before the fact that the nation is staking
all. It is this idea which Clausewitz expresses in the following form:
"The more politics has in view the primary interests of the nation, the
more it compromises the life of the same, and the more it is a question
of life or death for the nations involved. More and more we shall see
politics and war blending together, the former being absorbed by the
latter. But it will be a simple war. It will more and more proceed on
the elementary notion of power and destruction. It will more and more
answer all the requirements which one can logically draw from these
concepts and its parts will be more bound to each other by the laws of
necessity. A war of this type appears to be completely non-political;
and this is the reason why it has been considered as typical war."
But it is evident that the political principle is no more absent from this
type of war than from the others, but it is blended with the idea of
violence and destruction, which is what hides it from our eyes. Politics
disappears for a time behind the military or is blended with it."
Clausewitz's thinking is extraordinarily clear here; this thinking
has left deep marks on his Hitlerite and Soviet disciples. "Politics, "
continues Clausewitz, "makes a simple instrument of this element which
is as powerful as war; of the terrible power of war which must be
handled with both hands and with all one's forces in order to strike only
9
Sanitized - Approved F 8-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
once; politics makes it a light and manageable sword which is sometimes
like a fencing foil, alternately striking, feinting, and parrying. "
"Depending on the degree of tension',' he continues, "war becomes
more or less political. It goes from a simple show of force to the
destruction of the adversary. Thus war is like a chameleon, because
it changes color in each particular case."
As regards psychological warfare, Clausewitz estimated that it pre-
cedes, accompanies, or replaces even combat itself, properly speaking.
Clausewitz also considered public opinion to be a military objective.
Having clarified all these concepts we find that the meaning of
war has a new value, a new significance.
For Clausewitz, humanity does not live "normally" in a state of
peace. War is even constant, at least latently. What only counts for
a state is to maintain a clear and vigorous foreign policy and know
how to force its will on others.
We can see that Clausewitz has translated Hegel's historic theories
into political and military terms, and we also know up to what point the
Russians have been faithful disciples of both Clausewitz and Hegel.
Seventy-five years after the death of Clausewitz, Camon, Bonnal,
and Foch in France continued to be interested in more than the standard
forms of war. They had read Clausewitz, because they could quote him
in detail, but the political-military aspect of Clausewitz's warfare seems
to have escaped them.
Among statesmen, only Bismarck seems to have digested the political
aspects of Clausewitz's work, but Bismarck was quite reserved and never
spoke. Nevertheless we should point out that Bismarck had a personal
policy, whereas the USSR is at the head of a party which covers the
whole world and because of this fact, obliged to draft a doctrine and
disseminate it. Clausewitz is promoted to the rank of a great classicist,
and attains this status of being the vehicle of Soviet-political-military
thought. Hitler read much of Clausewitz and tried to apply it conscient-
iously, but it is evident that he did not always have time to assimilate
enough, so as to learn to utilize it without danger. His megalomania,
his morbid impatience, pushed him prematurely to the limits of the act
of war, without having first learned to fence with a foil.
Only the Russians or more precisely the founders of Marxism and
its Leninist-Marxist successors have consecrated the time necessary to
this work in the light of their famous dialectic.
Sanitized - Approved For Re ease : 78-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
Marx, who was born in 1818 and died in 1883, was of the
generation which followed Clausewitz. He speaks in his works as
in his letters of "the doctrine of revolutionary war," of the "det ermina-
tion of the direction of the main blow," of the "concentration of forces, "
of the"offensive erected into dogma," of the "necessity of instantaneity
in attack."
A people resolved to win its independence, says Marx, will
not be satisfied with conventional methods.
"Revolutionary tactics, detachments of guerrilla fighters, are
the methods by which even a small nation can triumph over a large one."
In accordance with recent investigation, Engels not only has
written a great part of historic studies attributed up to now to Marx
but he also had a much more accurate idea of the forces of labor in the
world. He foresaw the future evolution and thus contributed to the
formulation of the fundamental concepts of the political-military strategy
of the present time.
Engels' military doctrine had as its basis the concept of "the
nation in arms. " He thought that the armed forces could serve as the
agent of socialist propaganda. In 1891 he wrote : "The true strength of
German Social Democracy does not lie in the number of its voters but
in its soldiers, because the party must recruit its members from young
people before anyone else. "
These ideas have especially been applied after the Second World
War in Russia and in all the satellite countries and particularly in
East Germany, where the present army is compared to the people's army
of 1813 and praises are sung to Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Clausewitz,
etc.
Thus, as Engels predicted, we are witnessing in East Germany
the exalting of nationalism and the military and democratic spirit which
are strictly associated, directing harsh criticism against the Bonn
mercenaries, as they call them. There is no doubt that Engels, in the
bottom of his tomb, must be satisfied.
Engels was not only a philosopher, he was a true military
critic who wrote innumerable military articles. In his opinion, the
"political combatants" ought first to "study the art of war, since this
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
study is a requisite to triumph for a better future. "
But he was before everything else essentially a man of action
who had a broad military vocabulary and who was by nature a soldier
and a warrior.
The influence of Engels on tactics and strategy in the Russian
Revolution is well known. Just as Clausewitz, he had a genius for
criticism, a great clarity of judgment and they both understood that
the greatness of strategic thought lay in simplicity.
Marx and Engels produced a real revolution in political-military
concepts which brought them to a more and more circumspect
interpretation, at the same time that it was more realistic and dynamic,
of the political and military history of their time. We can distinguish
three phases in the development of their thought. In the first phase they
combined the experience of revolutionary tactics in civil war with the
military strategy of international conflicts. They applied the dialectic
to the notion of war. The "thesis" is the"war of the states", a war
of standard type, essentially military, limited in time and space and
also limited in its purposes as in the methods employed. The "antithesis"
is the "struggle of classes, " a form of war which is generally embryonic
and eternal according to its authors. The "synthesis" will be the
"revolutionary war" which comprises the two forms of preceding wars,
although in appearance both disappear. In this synthesis the inherent
advantages of each is kept. Revolutionary war is in effect the most
perfect form of war existing, and when well conducted it does more
than assemble the advantages of the wars of states and of those of
classes, it does more than multiply them by each other, raising the
advantages obtained to the "Nth" power.
If one represents the advantages of the war of states by E, and
the war of classes by C, the resultant advantages of revolutionary war
will not be E t C or E x C, but will be Ec or Ce.
In a second phase, Engel and Marx studied the close relationship
existing between foreign policy and the domestic problems of nations;
they observe that the future revolution in Europe could not depend on a
single nation. This observation brought them to the notion of
interdependence between socialism and foreign policy. In this manner
they faced a realistic revolutionary strategy on a world scale.
Finally in the third phase they became exactly aware of the
importance of nationalisms and hoped to inject a renewed revolutionary
drive into these movements.
12
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
Marxist theory essentially tends toward action:"our doctrine is not
a dogma", Marx said, "but a guide to action. " However, in order to make
the world revolution a reality, Marx and Engels took note that it was
necessary to set in movement a system, a political-military doctrine, in
which political strategy and military strategy would be strictly combined.
Marx and Engels, disciples of Hegel on the philosophic level, of
Hegel and Clausewitz on the historic level and of Clausewitz on the military
level alone, are truly the fathers of revolutionary war and their doctrine
is now two- thirds of a century old.
The great discovery by Dr. Blau, a national socialist strategist,
according to whom modern war has four aspects: diplomatic, economic,
psychological, and military, but in the last place; was a notion infinitely
familiar to Marx and Engels who knew perfectly well that military
campaigns can be lost long before the first rifle is fired. Further, they
preferred to make war fundamentally on the economic and psychological
fronts, since they knew that war on multiple fronts is one and
indivisible and that it can be won or lost on the field of battle or also
in civil war or simply in the changing spirit of each citizen.
Vladimir Ulianov, known as Lenin, was reportedly the standard
bearer of the Marxist Revolution, after the death of Marx in 1883 and
that of Engels in 1895.
On the 8th of May 1887, Lenin's brother was executed for
attempted assassination of the Tsar. From that time onward Lenin, after
his brilliant record as a student, was to embrace the Communist
undertaking not only with enthusiasm and hate, but also guided by a cold
and calculating temperament.
It is interesting to record with what lack of scruple, with what
absence of a feeling of honor, Lenin accepted the pay of Germany which
was at war with Russia to undermine the morale of his homeland.
The end only justifies the means.
"I am accused of having made our Revolution with German money, "
Lenin said, "and I have never denied it, and I do not deny it now, but on
the contrary I am going to ignite the revolution in Germany with Russian
money. "
Sanitized - Approved For Release: CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
When Lenin took power in Petrograd in 1917 he was far from being
a neophyte in strategy. He had studied socialism and labor unionism
thoroughly, he was initiated in terrorism for more than 25 years, and was
in a position to appreciate the role of violence in human problems.
As a disciple of Hegel, dialectic was his natural thinking, and
"perpetual becoming" his faith.
As a disciple of Engels he did not doubt the importance of military
knowledge, which he conceived as the media serving the people and the
classes for the solution of their great historic problems.
Just as Engels, he had read Clausewitz and annotated his margins
in German, but he had read it in the light of Engels and Marx, of whom
he was the heir. The Marxist theories had a certain innovating value with
regard to those of Clausewitz, since they went beyond them, in the measure
that war took on the two aspects of "war" and "revolution. "
In Paragraph III of Chapter III of Book II, Clausewitz said: "War
is neither an art nor a science, but an act of social life. It has much
less to do with the arts and the sciences than with commerce, which also
constitutes a conflict of great interests; although it is much more related
to politics, which itself can be defined as a kind of commerce of large
dimensions, in whose bosom war is born and develops, just as the child
in the womb of its mother, and s all the constituted elements are
found joined in a latent state, with the same properties of living beings
in their embryos. " This paragraph by Clausewitz is entirely marked
by a single and sometimed double sideline, followed by the note in Lenin's
hand: "Note. "
Let us now look at some paragraphs of Chapter V of Book VI, which
evidentally impressed Lenin very much.
Clausewitz said: "war is not necessarily the consequence of an
invasion, but of the fact in itself of a defense action which the invaded
offers to the invader. The conquerer, as Bonaparte always said, is a
friend of peace and will enter our country without loss of blood and with
very good desired; but we cannot allow it, being obliged to ask for war
and consequently we must be ready. "
This paragraph by Clausewitz had three lines on the margin made
by Lenin, with the annotation: "ah, ah, spiritual. It Without a doubt the
preceding paragraph is the best summary of the tragic-comical international
situation of our day, since the Communists are busy making it look as
though Russia is the only peaceful country and that all those who try
to stop her aggressions are the "infamous war mongers, " imperialists, or
capitalists.
Sanitized - Approved or a ease : 78-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
To continue we shall read a few lines from Chapter VI of Book VI,
in which Clausewitz said: "although in the majority of cases the influence
which a resident can have on a theater of operations in wartime is no more
visible than a drop of water added to the sea, nevertheless the total
influence of all the inhabitants of a country on war is of considerable
value, even in cases where there is no peoples' uprising."
This paragraph by Clausewitz was underlined by Lenin with various
marginal notes. We are undoubtedly looking at the origin of the theories
so dear to Lenin as to his successors; that of the "solidity of the Communist
internal front." and of its counterpart the guerrilla actions and annoyances
of all kinds inside the lines of the adversary.
In Chapter XXX of Book VI we see Lenin's marginal notes
effusively approving of Clausewitz. The marvelous passage by Clausewitz
on the commander, which says: "without an energetic and powerful
directing will which reaches down to the last member of the army, no
conduct of war is possible...
This paragraph has the following notation by Lenin: "A good
commander... and distrust of men."
Continuing in the same chapter of Clausewitz's work which deals
with strategic and tactical maneuver, considered to be the height of the
military art, he wrote: "this concept was more or less that of all the
theoreticians when they examined the wars of the French Revolution.
These wars suddenly revealed a whole new world of military fact, in the
beginning somewhat gross and savage, but which Bonaparte transformed
later into,a method of great style. The successes obtained in the course
of these wars profoundly impressed both young and old. It was then
necessary to give up the old systems and it was believed that all this was
no more than the consequence of new discoveries, new grandiose ideas,
etc. , but it was not so; in every case it was the result of a change of
social condition. It was believed that there would no longer be need for the
old system, to which one would never again return. But here as in all
the great intellectual revolutions there were sides taken; the old method had
its defenders who saw in the new only a decadence of the art and only
manifestations of brute force in its results, etc. "
The new aspects shown in the field of military art must be
attributed much less to inventions and new ideas than to a change
in the social condition and social relations. "
Lenin made the following notations on the margin of this paragraph:
"war equals game. " Opposite the passage relating to revolutionary
tactics he wrote: "French Revolution equals total change, " marking the
close interdependence between politics, social and military fields. And at
the end of the passage Lenin was led to conclude with the following
15
Sanitized - Approved -01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
annotations: "The truth does not lie in systems", a sentence worthy
of a disciple of Hegel and Marx, impregnated by dialectic and by
"perpetual becoming. "
Lenin's idea was to interest the people's masses in the problems
of wars and make them act in a positive direction favoring the,
Communist cause, and in a negative direction in the countries which are
adversaries of the same. It is probable that this idea came to him from
Clausewitz through Marx. Lenin formulated the following notes also on
the margin of the paragraphs by Clausewitz relating to the French Revolu-
tion:
"The French Revolution changed everything. "
"The war suddenly became a people's cause. "
"The entire people pulled itself with all its natural weight on the
scale of the balance.
"Thus, since Bonaparte's time--first of all in France and later
in all of Europe--war became a national cause; it took on amt her
nature, or more exactly, assumed its true nature, and neared its
absolute perfection.
"The media to be used were thence forward more than the visible
limits and depended only on the energy and enthusiasm of the rulers and
their subjects. "
"Important: but there is an inaccuracy: The war has become not
a national cause but a cause of the bourgeoisie and sometimes of the
entire bourgeoisie. "
"Energy! Note: "enthusiasm of subjects, " "participation of the
peoples. " A little later we find a wise sentence: "Each epoch has
its own wars."
In Chapter VI of the same book, Clausewitz deals with the influence
of the political objective on the military objective and states that this
influence is shown and that "it is thus that there are wars in which the
objective is reduced uniquely to threaten the adversary and supporting
negotiations" (underlined by Clausewitz). Lenin added on the margin:
"degrees... graduations on the concept of war and peace. "
Today we are experiencing this very thing: it is called "the
cold war. " The Communists extend their hand to us in a sign of
friendship in order to continue on the following day with threats of
offenses or a hot war which is localized and limited . There is only
one thing which never changes: the objective.
16 _PNW Sanitized - Approved F 634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
If Lenin was convinced that only political and military offensive
could assure victory, Stalin further knew that no strategy can be successful
if it is not supported by the mobilization of the economic and moral
resources of a nation. As a disciple of Clausewitz he stressed action
on internal moral forces. His great originality was the training of men,
women and children on the home front both from the viewpoint of industrial
warfare and of psychological formation.
In 1939 the principal official propaganda theme was that the. USSR,
a nation of workers and peasants, was surronded by capitalist and
imperialist states. Playing with domestic and foreign fear as well as
with Russian national sentiment, which is certainly a considerable
novelty, Stalin succeeded in obtaining a "solid domestic front" and
"armed forces of high morale."
In order to attain this objective Stalin did not hesitate officially
to reanimate the call of national sentiment, which many still think was
a contradiction, but in reality it was only the natural application of
Hegel's dialectic, the development of which is as follows:
Thesis: Nationalism at the time of the Tsars.
Antithesis: World revolution beyond the borders.
Synthesis: Triumph of revolution by utilizing Russian nationalism,
or better still: triumph of Russian nationalism converted to
imperialism by utilizing the world revolution.
When Stalin died, he left an overall doctrine, both domestic and
foreign, of revolutionary war inherited from Marxism-Leninism,
perfectly evolved.
If the exploitation of national sentiment in Russia has been one
of the essential factors in the victory over Germany, its manifestations
after the war proved to be a weighty argument against the purity of
Communism's intentions. In effect, if the concept of homeland was
placed above that of the system, there was a risk of serious deviation
both at home and abroad.
It is evident that Stalin's mode of action was justified by the
dialectic of the times, but since the circumstances had changed
and the 1954 dialectic was different, it was necessary to erase even
the memory of the dead dictator. The Communists, as you know,
are realists, without scruples or morality. In 1954, then, it was a
matter of combining the requisite circumstances in order to achieve
a new Communist victory in a new era.
The new strategy required was developed at the 20th Congress of
18
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
A bit farther on, when Clausewitz, himself writes and underlines
in the text that "the war is only a part of the political commerce and
as a result it has no independent value. " Lenin added: "the most
important chapter. "
Is war only a simple method of expressing a thought? This
question by Clausewitz drew three big sidelines from Lenin and an
N. B. A few lines farther on Lenin wrote: "war equals part of a
whole: this whole equals politics. "
International politics cannot attain its objectives without war,
whether it be called "cold war", "threat", "armed show of force"
and so forth; but it is no less certain that none of these forms of
warfare would attain its proposed objective if it were not really
supported by a positive force. For this reason we see antimilitarist
Lenin in the epoch of the Tsar create a Red Army when the Communists
seized power, and for the same reason all men of government in the
USSR pursue military studies and even assume the title of Marshal.
At the end of 1917 Lenin was convinced that war--in addition to
its military nature--has shown all diplomatic, economic, social and
psychological aspects, and considered furthermore as a good Marxist
that war and revolution were in continual relationship.
The problem which he proposed to resolve was to find the means
to transform world and imperialist war into civil war, not only in
Russia but throughout the entire world.
Lenin had very little sympathy for the methods of the so-called
peaceful revolution, since he was convinced that the workers had to
seize power by force. Furthermore the first round of civil war in
Russia had been won by force.
Peace was not an end in itself for Lenin; on the contrary, peace
is no different from war as a political instrument.
Soviet Russia has never renounced making war by every possible means,
political, economic, psychological, and when necessary, military. After
its bitter experience of February and March of 1918, Lenin had proved
that without sufficient armed forces, the other methods of warfare could
not hope for anything but ephemeral success.
Lenin's successor, Joseph Stalin, was a Marxist-Leninist of good
standing and has as much influence as his predecessor in the field of
revolutionary warfare.
Sanitized - Approved For Release :' A- 78-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
the party: policy of the smile, total denial of the dead dictator, peaceful
coexistence, inciting to the establishment of people's fronts, without
forgetting Christian progressism, a call to all the negative forces
of the West (anti-militarism, neutralism and pacifism), with the idea of
transforming them into positive and active forces serving the USSR by
upholding the Communist principle: "Everyone who is not our declared
enemy can serve our designs. Who is not against us is with us; every
man of good faith who is a disarmed ingenue, when faced by another man
who has no scruple whatever in the accomplishment of his mission, and
all one needs to know is by which end he must be taken".
It cannot be doubted that because of the burning desire for peace
among men and women in the world, the Soviet leaders have had this
ingenious idea, which does not compel Communism to end the Communist
danger, but what is more important to them, that Communism postpone
the danger of war--not the war of multiple fronts which be the ideal
dreamed of by the world--but only military war of the standard type, which
permits it to achieve at no risk whatever psychological warfare in all its
fullness, multiform warfare, "chameleon warfare" a deep continuity in
the analytical method of its purposed, a perpetual variation of the means
which are both diverse and adapted to the situation.
In China only twenty years of patient effort were necessary for
a handful of resolute men grouped around Mao Tse-Tung to conquer
700, 000, 000 Chinese.
Mao Tse -Tung, just as Marx and Engels and afterwards Lenin,
has not hesitated to publish the secrets of his action. It is certain that
his book, The Strategy of Revolutionary War in China, written in 1936
to train his general staff and his cadres intellectually, was recently
published in Western Europe in 1950, that is, when victory was already
assured. Althoughthe case of China can happen in any other country of
the Free World, how many western statesmen or military men have read
and meditated on this book?
We must undoubtedly ask ourselves a question: "Why does the
Communist Party disseminate this book in the West? The only acceptable
answer is to instruct its partisans in the new and true methods.
The preface to the French translation says: "This essay on
strategy which you are going to read and meditate is an example of
extraordinary clarity, of depth of view, of mastery, of the powerful
foresight which can be acquired of ter one grows to be a true Marxist.
19
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
With a wish to be brief, I shall cite only three passages from Mao's
work. The first to demonstrate the fundamental nature of revolutionary
war: "It is certainly correct" says Mao, "to say that a revolution or a
revolutionary war begins from nothing and in order to achieve its existence,
it grows from little to much, from birth to the development of lack of
political power, to seizure of the same, from the absence of a Red Army
to its establishment, and from the absence of regions controlled by
Communists to their creation. Over this entire road, there must not be
a single day in which one may take the defensive pure and simple. " A
second paragraph, in order to teach the fundamental importance given to
the psychological factor, that is, the role of the inhabitants: "On the
basis of our past experience," says Mao, "we must assure at least two
of the conditions mentioned below during the phase of strategic withdrawal
in order to consider that the situation is favorable, to us and unfavorable to
the enemy, so that we would be able to take the offensive. These conditions
are:
1) Active support of the Red armed forces by the population.
2) Terrain favorable to operations.
3) Complete concentration of the principal forces of the Red armed
forces.
4) Knowledge of the enemy's weak points.
5) A tired and demoralized enemy.
6) An enemy reduced to the extreme of making mistakes.
"The support of the population is the most important condition for
the Red armed forces. The same is also indispensable in order to keep
control of the lines of communication in a region.
"Thanks to the fulfillment of this condition, those indicated by
numbers 4, 5, and 6 can be more easily created or uncovered. When
the enemy launches a general offensive against the Red armed forces,
the latter invariably withdraws from the territories of the Kuo Mintang
toward the territories controlled by the Communists, because the
population of the territories under Communist control actively supports
the Red armed forces in their struggle against the white forces. There
are furthermore other differences between the border regions and the
center of the territory controlled by the Communists. In order to keep
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
information from filtering outside, to carry out reconnaissance,
transportation and to take part in combat, etc. , the inhabitants of the
center are more secure than those in the border area. Thus, in the first,
second, and third campaign of development and destruction, the regions in
which support of the people was excellent were selected as the end location
of the "withdrawal movement."
Lastly, I shall transcribe the third paragraph in order to prove
finally the importance given to the "time factor".
"It is desirable to have a war which is decided quickly; generally,
a long struggle is considered pernicious. However, the war in China
must be carried on with the greatest patience and treated as a long war.
During the period of "Lilisanism" our tactics of "boxing" meant that the
great cities could not be taken except by an oscillating movement which
was made to appear ridiculous. They made fun of us by saying that we
might see the triumph of the revolution when our hair turned white.
This revolutionary impatience proved to be false a long time ago. "
KHRUSHCHEV AND "PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE"
Lenin has written the following: "While capitalism and socialism
exist side by side, we cannot live in peace. In the long run, one or
the other must triumph".
Professor Demetric Manuilsky of the Moscow War College, in
his position as president of the Executive Committee of the Communist
International, stated in 1931: "War to the death between Communism and
Capitalism is inevitable. Our time will come in the next 20 or 30 years.
In order to win, we must have an element of surprise. It will be a
matter of putting the bourgeoisie to sleep, and with this purpose in mind,
we shall launch the most sensational movement which ever existed
by taking advantage of peacetime. It will involve electrifying proportions
and extraordinary concessions. The stupid and degenerate Capitalist countries
will work with a will for their own destruction. They will give us their
friendship. Afterwards, when they are defenseless, we shall regroup all
forces to destroy them. "
On 8 February, 1955, the day when Khrushchev and Bulganin took
power, Molotov, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, stated:
"We stand with the Leninist principles of coexistence. "" But a
few months later, in his speech given to the 20th Congress of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union, a congress dedicated to coexistence,
he said specifically: "... it is the Leninist combination of fidelity to
principles and elasticity for the enforcement of foreign policy, which will
21
FIR,
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
assure the success of our Party in the solution of international problems."
(Pravda, 20 Feburary 1956).
Nevertheless, it is well to compare these words with those pronounced
by the same Molotov in 1941: "Coexistence between our Soviet State and the
rest of the world is impossible in the long term. This antinomy can be
solved only by weapons. The winner will be he who is strong enough to
begin combat first. "
On the other hand, Lenin said, "We must attain this objective (he
refers to world victory of Communism) by any means, even by co-existence,
if necessary, and temporary infiltration. "
It is well to conciliate greater following of the ideas of Communism,
with the elasticity necessary to make any indispensable practical
compromises, to stimulate, to make treaties, to advance in zigzag form,
withdraw, etc. " (Lenin, Works in Russian, XXX, p 75)
To continue, I shall transcribe another paragraph by Lenin:
"It is well to be ready for any sacrifice, and if necessary, to be
ready further, to employ every possible artifice, tricks and illegal
methods, to keep silent on the truth, and dissimulate it, with the sole
purpose of penetrating occupational associations, to remain inside the
same and to fulfill at any price the work of Communist!' (Lenin - Selected
Works, II, p 701)
But what we must not forget is that war, true war, is possible
and is openly predicted by them, in the case that the "Capitalist countries"
refuse to submit to their will, at the same time when they feel stronger
than the West (Fig. 6a).
In this respect Lenin said the following: "When we shall be strong
enough to win over Capitalism in its entirety, then we will seize it
by the throat. "
At the Fifteenth Session of the Party in 1927, Stalin was already saying:
"We cannot forget the thesis of Lenin which emphasizes that the
construction of the Socialist State depends on being able to postpone a
war with t he Capitalist States until it is inevitable. "
On the other hand, we have seen that smiling Khrushchev speaks
with the same "elasticity. " His words are as follows: "It is quite
probable that the process of installing socialism will he more and more
varied. This does not absolutely mean that the achievement of this
process is, at any cost, bound to Civil War. ( Remember the close
22
Nab=
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
connection between civil war and foreign war). Our enemies like to
picture us, we Leninists, as being always and everywhere partisans of
violence. It is true that we recognize the need for revolutionary
transformations of capitalist society into socialist society. And this is
what differentiates the revolutionary Marxists from the reformists and
opportunists. There can be no doubt that the overthrow by violence
of the bourgeois dictatorship, and the brutal aggravation of the
struggle will be inevitable, but there are various forms of social
revolution. Leninism teaches that the directing classes do not willingly
seize power, but in the more or less great rigor of combat, the
employment or failure to employ violence for the establishment of
socialism does not depend so much on the proletariat as on the resistance
of the exploiters and the employment of violence by themselves. "
That is, if the "exploiters", (which is the communist term for the
free world) do not permit the Communists to make progress, we shall
be responsible for war. The ideological bulletin of the Communist
Party at the 20th Congress of the Party in the USSR, published the
following with no comment.
"Peaceful co-existence, which means on one hand the continuous
strengthening of the socialist front and its allies; and on the other
hand the increase of difficulty for the imperialist system, offers the
colonial peoples excellent conditions to begin struggle. "
Further, Stalin had already expressed: "The utilization of
nationalism for revolutionary purposes is the principal objective of our
work. (Stalin: National and Colonial Questions, pp 178 and 187).
Needless to say, the colonial peoples and more generally the under-
developed nations thus become factors for revolutionary war and in a
certain way the auxiliaries of Communism and the USSR.
Mao Tae- Tung has imparted the following directive: ' "The
members of the Communist Party can, in politics, make a common
front against imperialism with certain idealists, although they belong
to a Church. "
Lastly, peaceful co-existence is only the Machiavellian use of
national sentiment and religious or social idealism as simple media to
place the sum total of "capitalist" countries or more exactly "non-Communist"
countries in condition to be rapidly destroyed.
Conclusions:
To conclude this explanation, the words of an unknown professor
in France, appear applicable to the general situation today: "I have
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
only read citations from Hegel, Clausewitz, Marx and Engels, Lenin,
Stalin, Mao Tse- tung, Khrushchev, etc,.
"The political-military thought of these men offers an absolute
continuity. For 125 years not a decade has passed in which a work has
not appeared which has been prophetic for us.
"The elite of half of humanity is nurtured on these books, powerfully
stressing its political-military scope.
"It is incredible and criminal that the eyes and ears of the Western
elite have not opened more.
"For 125 years our military thinkers have been concerned only
with the strictly conventional aspect of war. But is it possible to act
otherwise in nations that traditionally distrust the military?
"For 125 years our political men, our great schools of political-
social training and in a general manner our universities have not
considered it their duty to study this essential aspect of life and the
future of humanity in order to alert public opinion. All this is. simply
criminal.
"Perhaps we still have time to understand that the whole world is
at war and that this war is being gamed at all levels and that it neither
concedes nor will concede any truce.
Finally, read the superb and sinister warning of Donoso Cortes:
"When a people shows a civilized horror of war, it soon receives
punishment for its error: God changes its sex, robs it of the public
sign of virility, transforms it to a woman-people and then sends
conquerors to carry off its honor."
Sanitized - Approved For Release : IA-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
 Sanitized,- ApprotiedFbr,RRele se CI-RDP78-01634R000200010005-4
lir
Sanitized .-Approved For Release : CIJA-RDP78-01634R000200010005,-4