Marxism-Leninism on War and Army - War and Politics

Marxism-Leninism on War and Army

INTRODUCTION

Historical development is a complex and contradictory process. The new is born and asserts itself in bitter struggle against the old, which strives to hold its ground, to perpetuate its existence. The reactionary imperialist circles headed by the US monopolists, do all they can to hold back the inexorable course of history. They are willing to commit the most hideous crimes against humanity; even to resort to nuclear war in the attempt to resolve the basic contradiction of today—the contradiction between socialism and capitalism.

For two reasons the question of war and peace has become particularly urgent in modern conditions. First, because imperialism has grown more aggressive; it does not shrink from direct armed struggle against socialism. The imperialists, notably the US imperialists, are stepping up the arms race, are attempting to put new life into the military blocs created by them, stir up local wars, use all and every means to suppress the national liberation movement, wage a predatory war against the peoples of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The second reason is that there has been an enormous qualitative leap in the development of weapons in the postwar years. In the event of a new world war the use of nuclear missiles may inflict enormous losses on mankind and cause unheard-of destruction.

So long as imperialism continues to exist and the forces of social progress are faced by aggressive forces, there will be radically different views about the nature of wars, about their causes, and about their role in social development.

The Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army is a harmonious sociological teaching on the origin and the essence of war, on the character and types of wars, on their origin in the contemporary epoch, on the regularities and factors determining the course and outcome of the war, on the attitude towards it of various strata of society, and on the social nature and purpose of the army. A special place in this teaching is held by problems of abolishing wars from the life of society, and the defence of the achievements of socialism, the freedom and independence of peoples. This teaching serves as the basis of Soviet military theory and practice.

The basic principles of the teaching on war and the army were worked out by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels and were developed by Lenin. The founder of the first socialist state in the world raised this teaching to a new level. Relying on Lenin’s heritage, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) has consistently developed the teaching on war and the army, improved it, and adapted it to the changing conditions, taking into account the alignment of forces at the various stages of social development, and the objective trends of the historical process. At the same time the CPSU highly values the achievements other Marxist–Leninist Parties have made in developing this teaching, takes them into account and uses them in its theoretical and practical work aimed at the defence of the socialist motherland.

The method of dialectical materialism makes it possible to foresee the future scientifically and to make a sociological study of general military problems. This is of first-class importance if we are to solve the pressing problems of war and peace, to develop and strengthen the armed forces of the socialist state.

Marxists-Leninists rely on the principles of MarxismLeninism and use the dialectic-materialist method in their struggle against imperialist ideologists and against revisionism and dogmatism, in resolving the most important questions of the modern teaching on war and the army.

The indubitable merit of Marxist-Leninist theory’ is that, on the basis of a comprehensive research into the main tendencies of social life today, it has revealed the deep roots of military clashes and also the objective possibilities of 11averting wars, and shows us the forces capable of coping with that task.

Naturally, imperialism has remained reactionary and continues to be a source of aggression and aggressive wars. But its potential has greatly decreased, its strength has relatively diminished and its internal contradictions have taken on sharper forms. At the same time forces have emerged that are able to oppose imperialism. It has now become possible to avert a world war and, in certain conditions, also local wars. This conclusion is founded on a scientific analysis of the specific features of the present period and on an evaluation of the correlation of the social forces in the world.

Yet, the possibility of imperialism unleashing new wars, including a world nuclear war, must not be discounted. The war of aggression waged by the USA in Vietnam, the Israeli aggression against the freedom-loving Arab peoples which was prepared by imperialism, and other manifestations of the reactionary essence of imperialism, and also the policy and ideology of anti-communism, are striking testimony.

In modern conditions the struggle against reactionary ideology must be pursued with even greater determination than before. Despite the great variety of conceptions and viewpoints on war and peace, imperialist ideologists are unanimous on cardinal issues. They have a common “ideological platform"—anti-communism; a common philosophical and methodological basis—idealism and metaphysics; a common morality—misanthropy. The idea that wars are eternal and unavoidable permeates all of bourgeois ideology; there is a difference only in the arguments they use to put this view across, and in the degree of frankness with which they admit to this.

A more vigorous struggle should be waged against the anti-Marxist views disseminated by the Chinese leaders on questions of war and peace. Using “Left” phrases, they speak of the inevitability and even the desirability of military conflicts, including a world nuclear war.

The Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army exposes all anti-scientific, reactionary views on that problem, helps to work out a correct attitude towards war, reveals the sources of military conflicts and shows the forces able to avert them.

This teaching differs fundamentally from pacifist views on wars. Pacifists do not link their negative attitude to war with the struggle against its main source—the capitalist system. Marxists-Leninists draw strength from the fact that they link the struggle to prevent war, the struggle for universal security and a checking of aggressors, with the fight for the revolutionary transformation of society, for social progress.

That teaching shows the fundamental difference between just and unjust wars, progressive and reactionary ones. Just, progressive wars are aimed at liberating peoples from national and class oppression, at defending the national and state independence of the socialist and developing countries, of all peace-loving peoples. Unjust, reactionary wars are waged by aggressors for the purpose of subjugating other peoples, of seizing territories and plundering national wealth, of depriving the working people of their social gains.

The Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army lays the theoretical foundation for the most effective ways and means of averting wars today and of creating conditions making them impossible in future.

All these questions are looked into in this book. It gives a systematic exposition of the Marxist-Leninist teaching on war and the army, reveals the essence of wars and their origin, the character and types of wars, the social nature and purpose of the army, the foundations of the military might of a state and its armed forces, and the essence of the modern revolution in military affairs.

Much space is given to such problems as war between opposing social systems, the social forces of the national liberation struggle, the role of the masses in modern wars, the causes of the unrestrained arms race in the imperialist camp, war in defence of the young independent states and the socialist countries.

Since the defensive might of the Soviet Union and the whole of the socialist community checks imperialist aggressive designs and serves as a reliable means of preserving and consolidating universal peace, the book deals with the ways and means of strengthening that might, their combat readiness to foil and rebuff imperialist aggression. At the same time it criticises anti-Marxist theories and reactionary views on military questions, the struggle against which promotes the cause of peace and social progress.

WAR AS A SOCIO-POLITICAL PHENOMENON

The history of class society abounds in military clashes and conflicts. In the past 5,500 years mankind was plunged into war more than 14,000 times. In the first half of this century alone there were two destructive world wars. All social progress in antagonistic formations brings bloodshed and suffering to the people. In the words of Marx, this progress was like a “hideous pagan idol, who would not drink the nectar but from the skulls of the slain". [13•1

But, wars are no fatal inevitability in human social development, they are a socio-historical phenomenon. There was a time when people did not know wars, and a time will come when wars will have been done away with once and for all.

As all socio-historical phenomena, the emergence of wars, their nature and place in history are subject to the laws of social development revealed by Marxism-Leninism.

As distinct from pre-Marxist theories and the anti–scientific views of modern bourgeois ideologists, the founders of Marxism proved that the history of society is a logical, natural process. It is based on the historically determined nature and level of development of the social productive forces. The objective relations of production, which do not depend on the will of people, and which in their aggregate comprise the social system, are built on this materialfoundation. The character of the social contradictions and the way in which they are resolved depend on economic relations. The economic system ultimately determines all social, political and ideological relations, including also the conditions for the emergence of wars.

In class society war has become a means of resolving the antagonistic contradictions of social development.

The armed clashes between primeval tribes were a sideline occupation, an aspect of the labour process, admittedly a unique one, directed at the seizure of hunting grounds, pastures, etc. Marx characterised the armed struggle of primeval tribes as a great common effort, directed at the solution of the common task of seizing objective subsistence conditions, at their preservation and protection. All the male members of the tribal group, sometimes also the women, had to participate in this “war”. All able-bodied members participated in “combat” with their instruments of labour, their hunting weapons, since at that time these were the only instruments used in the struggle for existence. Armed clashes often ended in the destruction of some tribes, but never in their enslavement. Prisoners were not made slaves. They were either eaten, or became fully-fledged members of the victorious tribe. At that stage there were as yet no social forces to organise and conduct wars so as to achieve definite economic and political aims. There was also no special organisation of armed people, as there were no special arms for fighting.

Hence, the armed clashes of primeval tribal groups and clans, who did not know private ownership and division into classes, were not wars in the real sense of the word.

The point is that war has two organically interrelated aspects—the socio-political and the military-technical. The first expresses the social, class nature of war, its political essence; the second characterises the specifics of the war, of the armed struggle. In using the term “war” to designate armed clashes in pre-class society, Marx and Engels referred to the second aspect. Clashes between tribes are reminiscent of wars in exploiter societies only by their second aspect.

War emerged as a socio-political phenomenon at a definite stage of social development, namely, with the disintegration of the primeval system and the emergence of the slave-owning mode of production, when private ownership of the means of production appeared, when society was 15divided into antagonistic classes, and the state emerged. Private property bred social violence. The exploiter classes legalised organised armed struggle aimed at winning material gains, enslaving people and enhancing the economic and political rule of those classes.

Exposing the vulgar “force theory”, Engels showed that it was not war that had given rise to property inequality and classes, but, on the contrary, that private ownership and the division of society into classes had transformed the armed clashes of primeval tribes into war as a socio–political phenomenon. Only then did wars become a constant venture of the exploiters.

Thus, as a socio-historical phenomenon, serving the political aims of definite classes, war first emerged in exploiter society; it is the product and constant concomitant of class antagonistic society.

1. WAR AND POLITICS

Wars are unlike one another because there is a difference in the historical conditions in which they break out, in their causes, aims and results. Wars also differ from one another as regards military equipment, the methods of struggle, territorial scale and duration, the number of battles and campaigns, victories and defeats. Yet, despite these differences, wars are always a cruel form for the resolution of social antagonisms. While unjust, aggressive wars served and continue to serve as a means of attaining the predatory economic and reactionary political aims of the exploiting classes, just wars of liberation are a counter-measure, i.e., they are waged to repel the armed violence of exploiters against the working people, that of foreign invaders, or that of colonialists against enslaved peoples. Hence, the political, social and economic aims pursued in these wars are just and noble, while the armed violence is legitimate, justified.

It is for this reason that the bourgeois ideologists do all they can to confuse and distort the question about the sources of wars, their nature, social and class essence. They consider them in isolation from the conditions of capitalist development, the economic relations and policies of the exploiter classes, conceal who is responsible for imperialist aggression. They want to make the working people reconcile themselves with the horrors of war, to paralyse their will to struggle for peace and to prevent wars.

The interests of peace, of the people and of social progress demand that bourgeois lies and slander be exposed, that a correct scientific understanding be gained, first and foremost, of the nature of war and of its class, political essence.

“With reference to wars,” Lenin wrote, “the main thesis of dialectics... is that ‘war is simply the continuation of politics by other (i.e., violent) means’. Such is the formula of Clausewitz, one of the greatest writers on the history of war, whose thinking was stimulated by Hegel. And it was always the standpoint of Marx and Engels, who regarded any war as the continuation of the politics of the powers concerned—and the various classes within these countries—in a definite period." [16•1 

We see that in expounding the essence of war, Lenin refers to Clausewitz (1780–1831). And this is only logical, for Clausewitz’s research into the relation of war to politics and his formula about war being a continuation of politics by violent means were an indubitable contribution to the development of military thought of that time.

It would, however, be a gross error to think that the views on the essence of war held by Marxism-Leninism are identical with those propounded by Clausewitz. On the contrary, there is a fundamental difference between them, which is expressed notably in their understanding of politics, of its class nature.

Clausewitz said that politics represents the interests of society as a whole, he denied its class nature. Accordingly he propounded a false, idealistic view of politics, which he called the mind of the personified state. Besides, Clausewitz understood by politics only foreign policy, and ignored the fact that war is first and foremost a continuation of domestic policy, which expresses the class structure of society most directly. Clausewitz had in mind only the politics of the state, that is, of the class dominant in the state in question. He did not believe that when the oppressed classes were fighting against the exploiters, they were thereby pursuing a policy of their own, and he therefore did not extend the concept of war to the civil wars of the popular masses against the exploiter classes and their state. Clausewitz completely ignored the fact that politics is conditioned by deep causes rooted in the economic system of society.

What, then, is politics from a Marxist-Leninist viewpoint? It is, first and foremost, the relations between classes. Politics is not simply the activity of governments, the state apparatus and parties. Politics embraces the aggregate relations of huge masses of people, of thousands and hundreds of millions of people, composing the various classes.

Class distinctions have their roots in the mode of production, and it is the latter that determines the nature of each class, its interests, its historical fate, and at the same time the political relations between classes—that is, the relations which in one way or another concern the state—the decisive instrument of the ruling class. While the state power is in the hands of a given class, that class directs its efforts towards securing the stability of the economic basis on which its rule is built. This makes the question of state power the key question of the class struggle. Politics is the struggle of classes for the preservation and consolidation of the obtaining state system or for its overthrow. It is guided and controlled by definite parties, and the policies of the ruling class are implemented mainly by the state bodies that are assigned the task of defending the ruling class’s fundamental interests, conditioned by its economic position.

The fundamental and long-range interests of a definite class are fully reflected in its politics (notably in the politics of its leading party and the state). In this sense politics is a generalisation of the economy, its concentrated expression. That is why political relations, politics, play the main role in the clashes between social forces, in the struggle of classes, states and international coalitions.

From the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint the central question in any analysis and evaluation of a war is that of its sociopolitical nature. To understand the socio-political nature of war is to reveal its class essence, to establish that the war aims are subordinated to the economic and political interests of the warring classes and states.

The Marxist-Leninist proposition on the class nature of politics, the continuation of which is war, is crucial to any understanding of the essence of war. This, in fact, constitutes the fundamental difference between the Marxist-Leninist view on war and the doctrines of bourgeois ideologists, who try hard to conceal the links between the politics which lead to war and the interests of definite classes.

Bourgeois sociologists, historians and military theoreticians who share Clausewitz’s view and see war as a continuation of politics, generally refer only to foreign policy, isolating it from domestic policy. This viewpoint was actively propagandised also by the leaders of the Second International (Kautsky, for example), and is now being spread by the Right Socialist leaders. This is done in order to gloss over the class sources of the wars conducted by aggressive imperialist states. The class content of the domestic policy of these states is generally clearer to the broad mass of the working people, than is foreign policy, which is kept secret (especially the content of military pacts and treaties, providing for the unleashing of predatory wars), and about which the mass of the people generally knows little.

There are no two isolated kinds of policies—foreign and domestic. Every state pursues a single policy, expressing the fundamental and long-range interests of the ruling class, and in socialist society—the interests of the whole people. Foreign and domestic policies are two aspects of the same policy. Hence, to examine the essential nature of war a study must be made of the aggregate politics of the given classes and their states.

Domestic policy expresses the class nature of the state and the interests of the ruling classes directly. Hence, the nature of the foreign policy is generally determined by the domestic policy. As is the domestic policy of a state, so, in the main, is also its foreign policy. This proposition is important to an understanding of wars. It has long since been observed in history, Lenin wrote, that “... the character of a war and its success depend chiefly upon the internal regime of the country that goes to war ... war is a reflection of the internal policy conducted by the given country before the war". [18•1 

The dependence of foreign policy on domestic policy must not be understood as absolute. All policies, domestic and foreign, are conditioned by the economic and state system of the society in question, by its class structure, and the importance of this or that aspect of the state’s policies changes in keeping with concrete historical conditions. During wars and on their eve foreign policy generally becomes decisively important to domestic policy. Foreign policy plays a particularly important role during world wars, when the fate of nations is in the balance.

The class character of politics determines also the class nature of war. Lenin wrote: “War is a continuation of policy by other means. All wars are inseparable from the political systems that engender them. The policy which a given state, a given class within that state, pursued for a long time before the war is inevitably continued by that same class during the war, the form of action alone being changed." [19•1 

Thus, war cannot be understood without first understanding its connection with the policies preceding it, without a study of the policies pursued by two warring sides long before the war. War is the continuation of politics by violent means. It is an implementation of politics by armed struggle, and its main feature. At the same time not all armed struggle should be considered war. Without a political aim even the fiercest struggle will not be a war, but simply a fight. The political interests of the classes at war and of their states determine the war aims, while armed struggle is the means of achieving these aims. Together they comprise the essential aspects of war as a social phenomenon. The essence of war, that is, the decisive feature that expresses its nature, i.e., its qualitative difference from the peaceful state of society, is that war is the continuation of the politics of definite classes and states (coalitions) by violent means.

The Marxist-Leninist definition of war, reflecting the practical experience of the progressive social forces, their attitude to war, is of great theoretical and practical importance.

Since war is a special form of political action, which is linked with the whole system of social relations, the class contradictions racking antagonistic society in peacetime do not disappear during war, and class struggle does not give way to “class peace”; the struggle only changes its forms and purposes in connection with the advent of war. Lenin wrote, that “... the class contradictions dividing the nations continue to exist in wartime and manifest themselves in conditions of war". [20•1

In our time this proposition acquires special importance in the struggle against the imperialists, who want to unleash another world war.

War as a Special State of Society

War is a many-faceted and complex socio-political phenomenon. To reveal the content of the concept “war” in full, means to elucidate the aggregate of social processes in which the essence of war is expressed in one way or another. The experience of two world wars and other wars in our century shows that in the new historical conditions war, once it is unleashed, becomes a concern of all of society. War most fully expresses all socio-economic and political contradictions, the antagonisms between classes and the states conducting war. These contradictions are manifest in all spheres of social life and presuppose the use of violent as well as of non-violent means of policy-making.

It was shown above that the essence of war is the continuation of politics by means of armed force. This is the main characteristic of war. Therefore, this definition of the essence of war does not include many of the important ways that are used to secure victory in the war, notably economic, diplomatic and other forms of struggle. The definition of the content of war and that of the forms holding and expressing this content are much more all-embracing. These definitions include a wide range of processes that are attending the armed struggle, are connected with it and serve to achieve the political aims of the war, the aim of gaining victory.

A full description of the content of war must contain the aggregate of social processes which in one way or another express the essence of the war and form part of it. It is important to note that the experience of two world wars, and the other wars in our century, has shown that in contemporary historical conditions war has become a state embracing all of society. War is a full and summary expression not only of one of contradictions but an expression of the entire aggregate of socio-economic and political contradictions and antagonisms between the classes and states at war. These contradictions come to the fore in all spheres of social life and presuppose the use of violent and non-violent means of policy-making.

In peacetime the chief role is generally played by nonviolent means of policy-making, while violent means do not assume the character of a large-scale armed struggle, but in wartime the situation changes radically: means of mass armed violence move to the foreground. The political aim of classes and states is attained during the war predominantly by violent means. Other means (non-violent ones), become secondary, subordinate. That is why armed struggle is the decisive feature of war, its specific trait.

With the outbreak of war all means of policy-making are directed towards victory, towards achieving the political aims of the war. They are not achieved by the armed forces alone. Economic and ideological struggle, open and secret diplomacy, and other forms of struggle, are used not only to further the armed struggle but also to supplement it, and in aggregate with it they are able to break the will of the enemy to resist, and thus secure victory. These are all means of waging war, its component parts.

This aspect of war has been given attention by many prominent military leaders. M. N. Tukhachevsky, analysing the experience of the Civil War, noted that war “is not exhausted by military operations. The actions of the armed forces are supplemented by organised and combined pressure and blows on all the fronts of the struggle (economic, political, etc.)...". [21•1 

Each of the above features of war expresses, in one way or another, the essence of war. The armed struggle expresses it most directly. In the economic, ideological and diplomatic struggle, the essence of war is manifested in the changes their aims and character undergo as soon as war breaks out, i.e., when the aim of securing victory overshadows everything else. Economic, ideological and diplomatic struggle during the war differs substantially from the forms in which this struggle proceeds in peacetime.

War, as a state of society, is not only a continuation but also a summary expression of politics. This is particularly true of contemporary wars. The main political aims of the ruling classes assume a concentrated expression in the political aims of the war. The military, economic and moralpolitical forces and potential of the ruling classes are concentrated on the achievement of these aims. In unjust wars the ruling classes apply the machinery of coercion, deceit and misinformation to the full in order to make the mass of the people fight for interests alien to them. In just wars, the people rally and give all their powers to gain victory over imperialist aggressors. Contemporary wars involve not only the armed forces directly participating in military operations, but also the populations at large, as shown by the First and Second World Wars.

All the above will apply to an even greater extent to nuclear war, should it ever be allowed to come about. Such a war should not be thought of as a gigantic technical enterprise alone—as a launching of an enormous number of missiles with nuclear warheads to destroy the vital objectives and manpower of the enemy, or as operations by the armed forces alone. Nuclear war is a complex and many-sided process, which in addition to the operation of the armed forces will involve economic, diplomatic and ideological forms of struggle. They will all serve the political aims of the war and be guided by them.

From the above we can draw the conclusion that the concept of war includes the entire activity a people carries on during a war to achieve victory. In accordance with the above, the concept of war includes a political aspect; armed struggle, that is, military operations on a varying scale; other kinds of activity carried on to ensure the achievement of the political aims of the war directly or through measures promoting the armed struggle—economic, ideological, and also non-military forms of political activity (diplomacy, the activities of parties, voluntary organisations, etc.).

The political aspect of war is expressed in the character of the political aims set by the state or by a definite class. They differ in different stages of historical development. For example, the national-bourgeois liberation movement formed the content of many wars in the 19th century. At the turn of the century the redivision of the world became the content of imperialist wars.

The political aspect of war can be similar on each side, as was the case, for example, during the First World War, but it can also be diametrically opposed, if the war is just on one side and unjust on the other. It should also be taken into account that the political aims of war are very often of a complex, interwoven and contradictory character. Defending opposing interests, each of the warring sides may enlist heterogeneous social forces, which will influence the policy of the ruling classes and lend specific features to the character of the war. Modern wars draw into their orbit big coalitions of states, which may have not only different but even opposing socio-economic systems (the anti-fascist coalition during the Second World War).

When at war, states pursue a specific foreign policy. They wage diplomatic struggle to isolate the enemy, to weaken his links with other countries, to influence neutral countries in the interests of the coalition, etc. A case in point was the setting up and consolidation of the anti-Hitler coalition during the Second World War.

The whole inner-political life of countries changes sharply during the war. For example, bourgeois democracy is further curtailed. During unjust wars “reaction all along the line”, typical of imperialism, and dictatorial tendencies are generally carried to extremes. In some states, waging wars of liberation, the forms of the proletariat’s class struggle and the tactics of the Communist Parties also undergo changes. This happened during the Second World War in France, Greece and other countries. In socialist society too social activity is directed at satisfying the needs of the front, at achieving victory.

The political strivings of the class forces drawn into the struggle make up the political content of every single war. This content reflects the main tendencies in the development of the class struggle, which determine the concrete specific features of the war in question. These tendencies are, in fact, the element determining the content of the war.

Armed struggle is the chief means, the specific element of war. Even the chronological limits of the war are determined by the dates marking the beginning and the end of military action. But armed struggle is politics through and through and cannot be isolated from it.

The content of war includes also all other kinds of activity, which are in one way or another linked with the armed struggle, supplement it, strengthen it, secure the possibility of conducting military operations, and directly or indirectly serve to attain the political aims of the war. Economic activity, scientific development, ideological struggle—all this is directed first and foremost at securing the victorious conduct and outcome of the armed struggle and ultimately at the attainment of the political aims of the war.

All the material and spiritual forces of a people are mobilised for the war. The economy is reorganised to be able to fulfil its new tasks of supplying everything that is needed to carry on the armed struggle. Naturally, the reorganisation of the economy along military lines is carried out in a different way in capitalist and socialist countries, but it is done in both.

The country’s economy supplies the front with the necessary material means, military equipment and arms. At the same time measures are taken to weaken the enemy economically—by striking at his vital objectives, destroying his communications, enforcing blockades, etc.

The trends of scientific development also change radically. Science is to a high degree subordinated to the war needs. Natural science helps to improve weaponry, to create new techniques, and also to preserve the health of the officers and men in the warring army, etc.

Ideological struggle too becomes an instrument of war. All its methods don armour, as it were, and begin to serve the interests of the war. Oriented education is carried on to harden the will of the population and the troops for victory over the enemy, and at the same time everything is done to weaken the will of the enyemy, to destroy his ability to wage war. Naturally, the aims and methods used for this ideological influence differ fundamentally in capitalist and socialist countries.

The Role of Politics in Preparing and Unleashing the War

Wars, as we have shown above, are rooted in the nature of class– antagonistic formations. As distinct from crises of overproduction, that shake the capitalist economy periodically, wars do not emerge spontaneously. Crises are neither planned nor organised, nobody wants them or strives after them. They befall people spontaneously, like unavoidable natural calamities.

Undeniably, many wars in history did break out spontaneously. This was true of most revolutionary uprisings and revolutionary wars of the past, when the mass of the people rose against its exploiters. But wars fought by states do not emerge spontaneously. This was true in the slave-owning and feudal societies, and applies to an even higher degree to wars under capitalism.

Wars unleashed by aggressive states are generally caused by various spontaneous processes, which assume so vast a scale that the countries concerned could neither foresee nor prevent them (financial crises and bankruptcies, uneven development of individual countries in economic respects and in world trade, rapid growth of the dissatisfaction of the people and adoption by them of revolutionary attitudes, etc.). The results of these wars generally differ from the aims for which they were unleashed and are sometimes directly opposed to them. This was characteristic of the last two world wars.

Yet, wars were the most organised and purposeful undertakings spontaneously developing societies ever carried out. Wars always demanded the overcoming to the maximum of social disorganisation and the suppression of spontaneity in the actions of large masses of people, and the subordination of these actions to a single guiding will. Generally, aggressive wars of the exploiter classes are prepared in secret conclave, but they are prepared deliberately and systematically over decades, and are unleashed just as deliberately by their governments and parties, at a moment considered by them most opportune and suitable for the beginning of the long-premeditated war. These parties, state bodies and leaders are the instigators of the war, and the responsibility for it lies with them.

Thus, wars emerge neither spontaneously nor automatically. They are deliberately prepared and unleashed by definite parties and governments of the imperialist states.

Owing to the specific features of the economic and political development of the aggressive, imperialist states, all recent wars and military conflicts have come about as a result of imperialist policy. The war the USA wages in Indochina and Israeli aggression in the Middle East, are links in the chain of actions constituting in aggregate the policy of the militant imperialist circles aimed at obstructing the historical advance of the cause of national independence, democracy and socialism.

Preparations for war are conducted for a long time before the war breaks out and embrace many aspects of social life.

Imperialist states engage first and foremost in the military preparation of the war they are plotting. It consists in the formation and improvement of the armed forces, their equipment with modern weapons, the construction of all sorts of military bases, the working-out of strategic plans, the organisation of espionage and subversive activity against the country that is to fall victim of their aggression.

Diplomatic preparations are of great importance. They serve to ensure the best possible alignment of the international forces in the coming war, to knock together aggressive blocs, to involve their enemies, and sometimes even their “friends” in international conflicts and wars, in order to make them, once they have exhausted their strength, follow in the political wake of the power in question.

The imperialist states also carry on systematic economic preparations for wars, which have become particularly important in present-day conditions. These preparations involve the building of military plants and also the subordination of the economy to war needs already in peacetime. At the same time huge amounts of strategic materials are stockpiled. Research and design work is also made part of the war preparations.

Changes take place in the inner-political life of bourgeois countries: the elementary democratic rights of the people are gradually abolished; dictatorial, fascist regimes of one form or another are set up; the state becomes a militaristic, military-police state; militarisation embraces all aspects of bourgeois society.

Finally, the imperialist states engage in intensified and systematic ideological preparations for new aggressive wars. Their aims are twofold: to conceal the true, i.e., predatory, anti-popular aims of the war being prepared by them, and to incite the peoples of the countries in the aggressive blocs against the peoples of the socialist and other peace-loving countries.

The deliberate way in which wars are prepared and unleashed does not exclude the role of accidents which may become the casus belli. Even though they are secondary, the role of such accidents may change in accordance with concrete historical conditions.

Today two circumstances heighten the role of accidents in the outbreak of war.

First, the tension in international relations which the aggressive circles in the imperialist states have for a long time been sustaining and heightening. The “cold war" climate, the atmosphere of military psychosis and the fear of the “red danger" fabricated by the advocates of the “preemptive nuclear strike" against the socialist camp, all provoke the emergence of a state of affairs in which accidents can become a cause for the outbreak of war. We must not exclude the possibility that people, able to provoke war by giving an adventurist order for a nuclear attack against the Soviet Union or some other country of the socialist community, may rise to the position of head of government or to one of military authority in some imperialist state.

Secondly, the constantly growing nuclear missile stockpiles in the hands of the aggressive forces. These weapons are generally ready for use and can be actuated automatically. Despite various precautionary measures, there is no full guarantee that a technical error will not spark off a nuclear explosion. In view of the tense political climate it may be wrongly interpreted and trigger off war. This possibility becomes the greater, the more intricate modern weapons grow. Besides, accidents can happen because of mistakes committed by the personnel servicing nuclear systems. There may be people among them who suffer from mental disorders, are careless or pursue adventuristic designs. Mistakes made by the US strategic air force or missile control, for example, mistakes in decoding radar device data are not excluded either.

Most important, however, are not accidents but the objective tendency of the aggressive forces of imperialism to unleash wars. However, this tendency is opposed by another, embodied in the powerful social forces fighting for the easing of international tension, against war and for social progress. These forces are headed by the socialist camp with its enormous economic, moral, scientific and military potential. The further strengthening of the USSR and all socialist countries, the growth of the social forces fighting for the preservation and consolidation of peace, diminishes the possibility of a new world war being unleashed by the imperialists.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Communist and Workers’ Parties in other socialist countries oppose the war-mongering policy of US imperialism and pursue a policy aimed at consolidating all anti-imperialist peace-loving forces and fighting the forces of reaction and war. At the same time the defence potential of the USSR and of the entire socialist community is being strengthened.

The Role of Poltics in the Conduct of the War

With the outbreak of war politics is not pushed to the background and is not subordmated fully to strategy, as the German militarists Helmuth von Moltke, von der Goltz and Erich von Ludendorff held to be the case, and many contemporary military leaders in the imperialist states still believe today.

Politics plays the decisive role not only in the preparations for war but also in its conduct. War, Lenin said, is pursuit of the same old aims by the ruling classes using a different method.

The belligerents formulate the political aims of the war. The nature of these political aims has a decisive impact both on the content and the conduct of the war.

Politics determines the priority and strength of the blows inflicted on the enemy, the measures taken to strengthen allied relations within the coalition and the general strategic plan of the war, which is directed at the quickest possible rout of the enemy or at a drawn-out struggle and the gradual exhaustion of the enemy’s forces. At the same time politics, by taking into account the strategic possibilities at its disposal, must determine the speed and the intensity of the military actions, and also the forces and means it is necessary to mobilise in order to attain the aims intended, etc. In doing so politics takes into account not only the aims of the war but also those of the post-war settlement and subordinates the conduct of the war to the attainment of these aims.

The solution of these questions, which is determined by the politics of the ruling classes, is of first-class importance to the conduct of the armed struggle. The belligerents solve them in keeping with their political aims and with due consideration for the prevailing economic, national, geographic, military and other conditions.

Thus, Britain was able for a long time to take advantage of her insular position and, by relying on her industrial and naval might and the material resources of her numerous colonies, to use other nations for her catspaw in almost all past wars. She incited countries against each other, drew out the war to bleed them dry, in order herself to have fresh forces at the end of the war and thus to ensure for herself the hegemony in the post-war period. This policy defined the structure of the British armed forces (the priority given to the development of the navy) and British strategy.

The British and US imperialists attempted to pursue a similar policy during the Second World War. The aims of this policy were expressed by Harry Truman with cynical frankness on the third day after nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union. He said: “If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible." [29•1

The political aims of Britain and the USA in the Second World War determined their strategy and hence the military operations of their armed forces. The American and British imperialists delayed the opening of the second front in every way, nurtured plans of launching operations not in France, but in Italy and the Balkans. These strategic aims determined also the methods and forms of the struggle of the Anglo-American forces, the general method of their military operations—their sluggishness, inertness and indecisiveness.

Nazi Germany had entirely different political plans, and hence also pursued a different military strategy. The German ruling circles attempted to rout their many enemies as quickly as possible since these had in aggregate a potential far greater than Germany. Most of all they feared a war on two fronts—against the Soviet Union and Western countries. The German military doctrine therefore relied on the Blitzkrieg idea, on sudden destructive blows which were intended rapidly to rout Germany’s enemies one by one without giving them time to mobilise and to apply their resources. This strategy relied on the use of sudden and rapid action.

The strategic aims of the German imperialists determined the general character of the operations of the armed forces. The nazi troops waged active offensive operations and this gave them major advantages in the beginning of the war, when their opponents had not yet had time to mobilise. However, the adventurism of Hitler Germany’s political and military strategic aims was one of the reasons for her complete collapse; her main armed forces were routed by the Soviet Army.

Thus, through strategy, the politics of states at war exert a decisive impact on the nature, methods and forms of the armed struggle.

The scale and intensity of wars are determined first of all by the political aims. In the early Middle Ages wars were mainly waged to conquer territories and towns. They therefore had a limited and local character arid the comparatively rare wars were often waged indecisively. Under imperialism, world wars have for the first time in history acquired a global scale—all big powers are drawn into them.

The fact that wars are fought on such a vast scale cannot be explained by the progress of military equipment alone, for this progress only opens up the possibility of waging the armed struggle on an extensive scale and of great intensity. The scale of wars is determined primarily by the political aims of the belligerents. Under new conditions the major imperialist states have begun to advance the aim of world domination in the wars unleashed by them. “‘World domination’ is, to put it briefly, the substance of imperialist policy, of which imperialist war is the continuation," [30•1 Lenin wrote. This explains the fact that the armed clashes between imperialist powers grow into world wars.

In determining their strategy during wars that are waged by coalitions, the states at war have to take into account also the politics and military-strategic position of their allies.

For example, the main aim of the Jassy-Kishinev operation, carried out by the Soviet troops in August 1944, and of the advance through Rumania into Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Austria, was to break up the Hitler coalition, to help the peoples of Southeast and Central Europe free themselves from the fascist tyranny, to deprive the Germans of Rumanian oil and of the war industry concentrated in Hungary and Austria. At the same time the operations of the Soviet troops nipped in the bud the schemes of the Anglo-American imperialists to occupy the Balkan countries and to implant reactionary regimes in them by force of arms.

In the course of the war against Japan the US political and military leaders, in direct contravention of the commitments adopted at the Yalta Conference, intended to occupy the ports of Dairen (Dalny) and Port Arthur, and also to seize and hold the Kuriles. These schemes were foiled by the rapid and decisive actions of the Soviet Armed Forces—the air-landing in the Dalny and Port Arthur area and the amphibious operation on the Kuriles.

Politics, directing the armed struggle in accordance with its aims, must take strict account of economic conditions and other aspects of social life. This applies particularly to contemporary wars, in which all phenomena and processes are far more interlinked than they were in former wars.

To illustrate this let us give the following example: In August 1941 the bulk of the German armour, poised for attack on Moscow was, on Hitler’s order, turned south to develop the offensive against the Ukraine. This decision was prompted not only by tactical but also by economic considerations, by the endeavour to seize the industrial, raw material and food resources of the Ukraine and to occupy the Crimea in order to prevent it from being used as an “aircraft carrier of the Soviet Union" for air raids on the Balkan oil fields, and to deprive the USSR of access to the Caucasian oil.

Thus, politics, taking into account the economic and other interests of the belligerents, have a decisive effect on the conduct of the armed struggle. A clear and deep understanding of this proposition makes it possible to subordinate specific military considerations to the key objectives of the state, to adopt a scientific approach to the solution of intricate questions. At the same time, Marxism-Leninism warns against a dangerous separation, let alone break, between political considerations and military expediency. Conditions for the achievement of the set aims can be created only if a political approach to military problems is organically combined with an excellent knowledge and careful consideration of specific military conditions, and of the laws governing the conduct of the armed struggle.

Feedback Effect of the War on Politics

War not only depends on politics, but is itself able to exert a major influence on it, to delay or to hasten the maturing of the social contradictions which impel the development of class society. The fact that war affects social life does not run counter to the above statement that politics plays the decisive role in the preparation, unleashing and conduct of the war. War has a very strong feedback effect on politics and greatly affects the external and internal relations of the belligerents.

Being a continuation of politics, wars generate requirements which must be reckoned with. This applies with special force to world wars, when enormous masses of people and collossal technical means are put into action.

States drawn into a war are often compelled to re-appraise some aspects of their policies, to adapt them to the new conditions and new tasks emerging in the course of the armed struggle. Naturally, in so doing they do not reject their fundamental interests and basic aims. On the contrary, with the outbreak of war and during it they change their policies so as to defend the interests and aims they are fighting for, in a different sequence and by other methods. In the interaction of war and politics the decisive role always belongs to politics. Thus, for example, the requirements of the armed struggle against nazi Germany and her satellites made Britain, and later the USA, join the USSR in the antiHitler coalition and give the Soviet Union certain military assistance, chiefly by blockading Germany from the sea, bombing her industrial centres and communication junctures, and also by supplying the USSR with some strategic materials under the lend-lease act. At the same time the reactionary circles in those countries did not for a moment abandon their main class aim, that of destroying or at least weakening the Soviet Union.

Victories or defeats have an enormous effect on belligerent and also on neutral states. For example, during the Second World War Turkey officially followed a policy of neutrality. In connection with the successes of the German troops in the summer of 1942, however, the Turkish Government became increasingly inclined to enter the war on Germany’s side. But the rout of the nazi troops on the Volga and in the North Caucasus marked a turning point in the course of the war and induced the Turkish Government to reject the thought of a war against the USSR in alliance with nazi Germany. Moreover, in February 1945 it even declared war on Germany, although at so late a date this was no more than a mere formality.

Not only international relations, but also the internal political life of belligerents is greatly affected by the course of the war.

The experience of the Second World War has shown that national liberation forces inevitably rise and organise in countries seized by aggressors. The victories of the Soviet Army in this war held out great hope to the peoples enslaved by the German invaders and made them rise against their oppressors.

This tendency clearly asserts itself also today. The peoples of Indochina have risen in a body against the US aggressors. The Israeli aggression has sparked off an upsurge in the activity of the Arab peoples, and the democratic forces have united not only in defence of their territory but, notably, in defence of their progressive transformations.

When the war begins, the bourgeoisie is generally able to deprive the working class of some, often of many, of the positions it has won. In war-time conditions the ruling class applies open terror to suppress the most energetic and conscious portion of the proletariat and to inflict heavy blows to its revolutionary organisations. At the same time it uses demagogy and false propaganda to poison the minds of part of the working class with chauvinistic ideas. In this way the bourgeoisie succeeds in pushing the revolutionary workingclass movement temporarily to the background. The bourgeois state often unleashes war because it expects by “an easy and rapid victory over the external enemy" to overcome the revolutionary forces within the country.

While war deepens the contradictions of an exploiter state, it can also sharply intensify the class struggle and accelerate the victory of the working class. War is a major crisis, and any crisis—even if it makes possible a temporary delay and regress—ultimately means accelerated development, the disclosure and intensification of contradictions, the collapse of everything rotten.

War calls for an enormous exertion of all material and spiritual forces at the front and in the rear. Marx wrote, “Such is the redeeming feature of war; it puts a nation to the test. As exposure to the atmosphere reduces all mummies to instant dissolution, so war passes supreme judgement upon social organisations that have outlived their vitality." [34•1 It subjects to a stern test the firmness and viability of political systems. Systems that had seemed all-powerful and unshakeable often turned out to be rotten through and through. This happened, for example, with the Russian autocracy during the First World War, and with the regimes in Germany and Italy during the Second World War.

Such, historical experience shows, was the feedback effect of war on politics in the two great wars. It is also confirmed by the wars in the contemporary epoch.

Notes

[16•1] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 219.

[18•1] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. SO, p. 152.

[19•1] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 400.

[20•1] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 40.

[21•1] M. N. Tukhachevsky, Izbranniye prohvedeniya (Selected Works), Vol. 2, Voyenizdat, Moscow, 1964, p. 11.

[29•1] The New York Times, June 24, 1941, p. 7.

[30•1] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 35.

[34•1] New York Herald Tribune, No. 4, September 24, 1855.