Marxism-Leninism on War and Army - 2 - Methodological Functions

Marxism-Leninism on War and Army
METHODOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST TEACHING ON WAR AND THE ARMY

Being part of historical materialism, the Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army is closely linked with military doctrine and military science. It is, in fact, an intermediary link between dialectical and historical materialism and Soviet military theory. This teaching is the philosophico-sociological 388theory of war and the army, is the philosophy of war. It fulfils important methodological functions in Soviet military doctrine and military science.

Importance of the Basic Propositions of the Marxist-Leninist Teaching on War and the Army

The methodological functions of that teaching can briefly be summarised as follows. First, the Marxist-Leninist teaching is directly linked with the class struggle in the international arena and reflects the antagonisms of the contemporary epoch. It shows the direction of the actions of definite social forces, their strivings during developments particularly difficult for the people. As the popular masses become aware of the concepts expressing the ideals and aims of a just war, the latter materialise and, under definite conditions, become a military force. During the Civil War and the Great Patriotic War, the idea of the defence of the socialist country became a powerful factor contributing to the victory over the enemy. Military science, the political and military leadership naturally consider this during the armed struggle.

Second, the most important concepts of the MarxistLeninist teaching on war and the army, reflecting the essence and content of war, are an instrument in the ideological struggle. They help in the fight against the idealistic world outlook, a metaphysical approach to the phenomena of war, serve as a means for the exposure of the reactionary essence and direction of the military theories and doctrines of modern imperialism. The Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army lends Soviet military science a clearly expressed ideological content, elevates it above bourgeois military science. The view of bourgeois military theoreticians that wars are inevitable and eternal prevents them from correctly understanding the laws of war.

No wonder, therefore, that a sharp controversy rages round such concepts as “war”, “peace”, “aggression”, “military conflict”, “military power”, etc. John F. Kennedy, former US President, said in one of his addresses to the nation that “the Soviets and ourselves give wholly different meanings to the same words: war, peace, democracy and popular will. We have wholly different views of right and wrong, of what is an internal affair and what is aggression. And above all we have wholly different concepts of where the world is and where it is going." [389•1 Third, the Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army is the general theoretical basis of Soviet military science and military doctrine, of the whole aggregate of knowledge on military matters. Soviet military science and doctrine can successfully resolve their tasks because they rely on a correct understanding of the essence of wars, their sources, the laws governing their emergence, the political motives and “mechanisms” of their unleashing, etc. The basic propositions of that teaching help to study the question about the relations between military theories, to resolve the problems of Soviet military art. When planning an operation it is essential to take into account not only military, but also the possible political and economic results of that operation. The rapid rate and result of an offensive in a modern war are largely determined by the ability correctly to account for and to utilise political, class, national and other contradictions in the opponent’s camp. If, for example, in the course of an operation the main grouping of the enemy’s troops has been routed, this may change not only the strategic situation, but also the political situation on the theatre of military operations. It may lead to a split between the allies in aggressive blocs and thus facilitate the action of the troops fighting them and accelerate the rout of the enemy.

The Marxist principles of war are also directly connected with the solution of such important questions of military strategy as the choice of the direction for the main effort, and of the targets for nuclear missile strikes. In fact, the choice of targets will be determined not so much by militarytechnical, as by political considerations.

Fourth, the Marxist-Leninist teaching and concepts on war and the army are of great importance to the troops in their practical activity connected with the preparation for a possible war. A scientific view of the war, of the essence and purpose of the army, is essential for improving the principles governing military development in the Soviet Union and in other socialist countries, for maintaining their high fighting efficiency and combat readiness. An understanding of the essence of the revolution in the military sphere is one of the conditions for working out a correct military-technical policy and organising research work in the military field, etc.

The Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army makes a comprehensive study of the objective and subjective conditions for preparing every socialist country and the entire socialist community for a possible world war, of the conditions making for the steady increase in the defensive capacity of a state (coalition). This purpose is served by an analysis of the military power of the state, its structure and the mechanism used to increase that power. Naturally, account must be taken of changes in the military power of the probable opponent and of the concrete historical conditions of the contemporary epoch. Revealing the basic trends in the changes of the relation between the military power of the states, the Marxist-Leninist teaching demands of the political and military leadership a solution of the main tasks in the existing situation, provides a theoretical basis for the military policy that must be pursued in order to use the material and spiritual forces towards increasing the defensive capacity of the country.

Being part of historical materialism, the Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army gives the Soviet people, the people of other socialist countries and all fighters against aggression and war knowledge of how to strengthen the defensive capacity of the country and to raise its military power, imbues them with optimism by showing them the superiority and invincibility of the socialist military organisation. It instils in them faith in the power and success of the socialist armed forces, in the ability of the army and the navy to fulfil their historic mission to the victorious end.

The Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army has an important methodological role to play in educating the army and navy personnel, and also the entire population of the USSR and other socialist countries. It helps to make the builders of communist society defenders of its achievements, shows the need for a close interrelation between training and education. Hence, the propositions of the Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army must be taken into account by such social sciences as psychology, pedagogics, history, etc.

The Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army is an important link in the methodological basis of Soviet military theory. At the same time it helps better to understand the erroneousness of the methodological basis of bourgeois military science and thereby acts as a powerful weapon in the 391struggle against it. The anti-scientific nature of the solution of sociological problems of war and the army by bourgeois military theoreticians and ideologists weakens bourgeois military science, makes it inconsistent, eclectic and in definite conditions adventuristic and dogmatic. Bourgeois military science is unable to resolve the vital problems of modern war in a consistently scientific way.

The Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army also plays an important methodological role in relation to Soviet military theory because the latter is part of the country’s scientific potential, its important indicator. The Marxist teaching on war makes a comprehensive analysis of the relations between military doctrine and military science, shows the specific role they play in the preparation of the army and the country for war, in the course and outcome of the armed struggle.

Soviet military doctrine and Soviet military science are closely interlinked because they rest on a single basis. They rely on the socialist mode of production, on the Soviet social and state system, serve to secure the defensive capacity of the Soviet Union and of the entire socialist community, to raise the combat readiness of the Armed Forces. Soviet military doctrine and military science have the same philosophical, methodological basis—dialectical and historical materialism and the teaching on war and the army. Soviet military doctrine and military science thus fundamentally differ from the doctrines of the capitalist states and from bourgeois military science.

Resting on the same basis, Soviet military doctrine and military science are not only interlinked but also interact with each other. Soviet military doctrine is formulated with the help of military science, relies on its findings. Military science is therefore expressed in practice not only directly, but also through military doctrine. In its turn, military doctrine sets definite tasks to military science, which take the form of state orders, concentrates the efforts of military science on a theoretical solution of the most important questions of military development.

Being relatively independent, Soviet military doctrine and military science fulfil their functions in accordance with their nature and depending on concrete historical conditions, on the requirements of the state policy and its possibilities.

The Marxist-Leninist Teaching on War and the Army and Soviet Military Doctrine

The Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army is closely connected with Soviet military doctrine. This doctrine is a scientifically based and harmonious system of ideas and principles defining the basic tasks of strengthening the country’s defensive capacity and military development. It relies on the Marxist-Leninist analysis of the contemporary epoch and the relation of forces in the world, and also on the prevision of the character of a future war that may be imposed by the imperialists. Soviet military doctrine is called upon to secure the unity of the thought and will of the Soviet soldiers not only through the community of their political ideology, but also through the community of their views on the nature of the military tasks facing them, the ways of their solution and the methods for the combat training of the troops. It is a sound basis for preparing the country’s defence. Military doctrine finds its concrete expression in the military policy and also in the field regulations and manuals of the Armed Forces.

Let us review the basic ideas of Soviet military doctrine.

As regards its socio-political nature, the future war, should the imperialists succeed in unleashing it, will be a bitter armed clash between two diametrically opposed social systems, a struggle between two coalitions, the socialist and the imperialist, in which every side will pursue the most decisive aims.

As regards the means used, this war may be a nuclear one. Even though nuclear weapons will play the decisive role in the war, final victory over the aggressor can be achieved only as a result of the joint actions of all the arms of the services, which must utilise in full measure the results of the nuclear strikes at the enemy and fulfil their specific tasks.

As regards its scope the nuclear war will be a world war and an inter-continental one. This is determined both by its socio-political content and by the fact that both sides possess missiles of practically unlimited range, atomic missilecarrying submarines, and strategic bombers. The war will engulf practically the entire planet.

It will be waged by methods differing radically from those used in the past. Formerly the direct aim of all military actions was to rout the enemy’s forces, without which it was 393impossible to reach his vital strategic centres. Now the situation has changed. The use of nuclear missile weapons makes it possible to attain decisive military results in a very short time, at any distance and on vast territories. In the event of war not only groupings of the enemy’s armed forces will be subjected to destructive nuclear strikes, but also his industrial and political centres, communication centres, everything that feeds the arteries of war.

The first massive nuclear strikes are able largely to predetermine the subsequent course of the war and to inflict such heavy losses in the rear and among the troops that they may place the people and the country in an extraordinarily difficult position.

Nevertheless, troops possessing an adamant will for victory and inspired by the lofty aims of a just war, can and must wage active offensive operations with whatever forces have survived and strive to rout the enemy completely.

Soviet military doctrine proceeds from the assumption that the imperialists are preparing a surprise nuclear attack against the USSR and other socialist countries. At the same time they consider the possibility of waging military operations with conventional weapons and the possibility of these operations escalating into military actions involving the use of nuclear missile weapons. Therefore, the chief and main task of the Armed Forces consists in being constantly ready to repel a sudden attack of the enemy in any form, to foil his criminal intentions, no matter what means he might use.

Thus, the basic propositions of military doctrine play an important role in the development of military affairs. They act as guiding ideas, as it were, in drafting the principles for the preparation of the Armed Forces and the state as a whole for modern war.

Military doctrine is subject to definite changes. That means, that depending on changed conditions the state may either improve the existing doctrine or, if it is outdated, replace it by a new one. For example, after the Great Patriotic War the USSR at first improved the existing doctrine by taking into account the experience gained in the last war. After that, in the early sixties, a new modern doctrine was worked out. It differs qualitatively from the previous doctrine. However, changes are being made in the present doctrine as well, although they do not affect its essence.

The Marxist-Leninist Teaching on War and the Army and Soviet Military Science

As regards its character military doctrine is a link connecting military science with political practice, and through military practice with military art, notably with military strategy. The Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army is indissoiubiy connected with Soviet military science. Both study and investigate the same object: war and the army, but this unity contains also a distinction. This is because they have different subjects of research.

The Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army studies the essence of war and the army, their origin, the laws governing the emergence of war, the development of military power and the armed forces of different states. Soviet military science conducts research into the laws of the armed struggle in their interaction with the laws determining the course and outcome of the war. Common to the Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army and Soviet military science is that they both rely on an identical socio-political basis—on the Soviet social and state system. But in this too there is a distinction. The Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army had shaped before the emergence of the socialist system and was further developed in conditions of socialist society. Soviet military science formed and developed under the Soviet social and state system utilising some of the prerequisites created in the past.

The unity of the Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army and of Soviet military science is determined also by the fact that they have a common ultimate aim—to prepare the country and the army for the waging of victorious wars in defence of the socialist country. Yet, in this too there is a distinction between them. The Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army is important first and foremost as a means for the moral and political preparation of the country and the armed forces for the waging of a war in defence of the socialist country. It arms the Soviet people with an understanding of the essence and importance of all wars, notably of just ones, gives a scientific appraisal of the historical role of these wars, works out a correct attitude towards them and secures a moral and political victory over aggressors in just wars. Soviet military science, revealing the character of the war and the laws of the armed struggle, determines the forms 395for the organisation of the socialist army and navy and the methods of warfare, and arms the people with the knowledge of the principles and rules for waging a victorious armed struggle in defence of socialism.

It is also important to note that the Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army and Soviet military science have common prospects. As distinct from all other sciences and the other components of Marxism-Leninism, which will always continue to develop, Soviet military science and the Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army will in future, when wars will have disappeared, wither away as specific fields of knowledge. They will become part of history and will be studied for the same purpose for which we now study the history of the slave-owning or feudal societies. However, so long as war exists they are of vital practical importance.

Developing as relatively independent theories, the MarxistLeninist teaching on war and Soviet military science interact and enrich each other. As the sociological theory of war, the Marxist-Leninist teaching helped correctly to determine the subject of military science and the range of problems it is to study. The teaching on war and the army made it possible to do away with the far too inclusive interpretation of military science, and also to prevent its role being reduced to the solution of purely military technical problems.

Soviet military science studies the conditions for the preparation and conduct of war depending on politics, socioeconomic and other factors, the laws of the armed struggle, and works out the methods and forms of warfare and forms for the organisation of the troops. Military science is the theory of military affairs, the system of knowledge that includes both general theoretical problems of war as a whole, and also the problems of individual operations and actions, the organisation, combat training and military education of the servicemen. All other military subjects are subordinated to the main task—the solution of modern problems linked with the conduct of war in defence of the socialist countries.

As regards its nature military science holds a special place in the system of sciences and in the scientific potential. It holds a special place because it is in a definite manner connected with all other sciences and, at the same time, acts as a specific lever activating the vital elements of the military potential—military equipment, weapons, etc. Military science 396is an important factor for strengthening the defensive capacity of the socialist countries. It faces enormous tasks and its responsibility is enormous.

Military science deals with a wide range of questions. It is not confined to the problems that are essential for the solution of the practical tasks connected with the armed forces development at the present moment. Military science also looks into such questions as the probable means and conditions of the conduct of wars being evolved by social development, studies all possible kinds and methods of action and recommends definite ones in keeping with political aims, with the conditions in which these aims are to be achieved, and with the country’s possibilities. It takes into account the development of military matters in many countries, combat conditions on different theatres of military operations, etc. Military science studies the laws governing the development of military affairs in all their aspects, and relies also on other sciences and on military doctrine, on the practical experience gained in the military field, and on the initiative of the servicemen, notably the officer corps.

Creative Character of Soviet Military Science and Its Development Tasks in Modern Conditions

An important problem in Soviet military science is the further development of military art in keeping with the radical changes in combat means in the post-war period and the prospects opened up by scientific and technological progress, with due account for experience gained in the Great Patriotic War. Of great importance to a correct solution of that problem is a correct scientific approach, i.e., that adopted by Soviet military science which relies on materialist dialectics, and also on the general propositions of the Marxist-Leninist teaching as a philosophy of war. Being inherently revolutionary and critical, materialist dialectics is an implacable enemy of rut, inertia and dogmatism. It imbues people with the spirit of innovation and creativity. At the same time it stops the researcher from groundless mental speculation, from indulging in fantasies, from a nihilistic attitude towards the achievements of the past. It makes Soviet military science creative and effective.

The revolution in military affairs has changed the character of military science, the character of its development. Comparatively recently it was typical for military research to rely predominantly on the past, to draw its conclusions from past experience, to reveal regularities, and to trace their action in the present and to forecast it in the immediate future. Now past wars have stopped being the main source for the development of military science. Now it uses modern methods of research and relies on military practice, exercises and games, and attempts to give a deeper analysis of the development trends characteristic of military affairs, to look further ahead, to obtain a clearer view of the future.

To stop the development of military matters means to risk falling behind, to risk being beaten. Marxism-Leninism demands of the Soviet officers that they should not be slaves of the past, that they should see new developments in the situation and have the courage and ability to engage in genuine creativity. Socialist social relations and the changes in military matters open up to military science vast vistas of creative activity that makes military art comply with the changed conditions.

In this respect two erroneous views pose the greatest danger to military science: 1) baseless speculation, which tends to exaggerate the role of this or that new kind of military equipment, of new but not yet tested methods for the solution of military tasks, the experience of small wars, and 2) the making of a fetish of the practical experience of the past, that is, a fear of innovations and a lack of creative search. Both are explained by faults in methodology and the ideological-theoretical foundations.

Stubbornly conservative theories are generally extremely harmful. If they are subscribed to by people who hold positions of great influence in the armed forces, their harm becomes even bigger.

Such leaders, having won victories in former battles, become prisoners of their old experience, make a fetish of it, ignore the new conditions, new equipment, do not make a serious study of it, and fail to notice the possibilities it offers. They lose the ability to foresee the future and, relying on their previous authority and high position, may seriously hamper the victory of the new over the old.

The history of wars and military art shows that in military matters theory often lags behind modern practice. Lloyd George once aptly noted that military leaders generally 398prepared not for the future, but for the past war. Backward ideas are often much more dangerous than backward weapons.

Let us give a few facts to prove our point.

The machine-gun was invented by the American Hiram Maxim in 1883. But his invention received a very cool reception. Right up to the First World War military thought was unable to realise the upheaval in the methods of warfare the machine-gun would bring about. The same happened when the tank was invented. French military thought, referring to the victory of the Entente over Germany in the First World War, canonised the experience of that war. Even the experience of the offensive mounted by the nazis in Poland in September 1939, when armoured troops were extensively used in combination with aviation, did not teach the French military leaders and theoreticians anything. They were convinced that the Maginot line would make it impossible for the Germans to use manoeuvring methods of warfare. As a result, France lagged behind in the development of armoured troops and in their utilisation in combat.

The history of wars convincingly shows that troops suffer defeat when their actions are based on the erroneous view that the new war, as regards methods, will be a replica of the preceding one. The nazi generals were convinced that the war against the USSR would be a repetition of the war against France, and, applying their Blitzkrieg methods, rushed head over heel into this risky adventure.

One of the essential shortcomings of bourgeois military science, which affected even the most advanced schools and theories, was an ignoring of the importance of economic and moral political factors and an exaggeration of the role of military art, of operational plans.

It should not be thought, however, that these factors were completely ignored. Engels said in his time that every zealous non-commissioned officer understood very well how economic conditions and resources affected victory. Yet, the experience of two world wars shows, that the German High Command was unable to consider the influence of these factors correctly. The German High Command did not ignore these factors, but made a wrong appraisal of their importance, was unable scientifically to determine its own possibilities and those of the opponent. A particularly gross miscalculation was made by the imperialists in the appraisal of the 399Soviet Union’s strength. The bourgeois theoreticians, politicians and generals were unable to realise the possibilities inherent in socialism.

The creative nature of every genuine science is determined by its indissoluble connection with the practical activity of people. Practice alone makes it possible to determine whether scientific concepts and theories are correct or wrong.

Marxist-Leninist philosophy, however, also opposes making practice a fetish. Practice is in a state of constant movement, constant change and development. Hence, science must opportunely discover and give a theoretical generalisation of everything new emerging during the development of practice. Only this will enable science to pave the way for an advance of practice.

Materialist dialectics obliges us to look forward, not backward. It demands a clear view of the changes in the situation shaping at every historical stage; an understanding of the development trends; the ability to foresee the future, by realising that that future holds much that is unexpected and unusual; an appraisal of what has been achieved from the viewpoint of the future and of the new tasks.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union calls upon the officer corps constantly and deeply to study the problems of military theory and military art in keeping with the demands of modern warfare, effectively to use theory in their practical activity. To do this it is necessary critically to study, analyse and take into account military theory and the combat experience of the imperialist armies, to know military equipment, the weak and strong points of the military science and the art of war of the probable opponent.

Notes

[389•1] The New York Times, June 7, 1961, p. 16.