169 
THE OPPOSITE VIEWPOINT 
James McConnell is the only analyst to have advanced substantial arguments to 
support the conclusion that Gorshkov is speaking authoritatively.'° 
McConnell bases his argument on the grounds that by using certain key phrases, 
Gorshkov indicates that he is speaking within the framework of military doctrine, 
as opposed to military science. Since Gorshkov uses these phrases he is therefore 
making a “concrete expression of military doctrine” which, by definition, is authorita- 
tive. 
McConnell does not however address the considerable body of evidence which points 
to the opposite conclusion. He offers no explanation for the anomalies in publication, 
highlighted by Weinland’s analysis. And he completely ignores the question of the 
tone and thrust of this 54,000 word exposition of Gorshkov’s views. 
These commissions could perhaps be overlooked if McConnell were offering clear- 
cut evidences to support his case, but this is not so. His argument is extremely complex, 
and relies on a detailed analysis of a very small number of textual excerpts, many 
of which are open to completely different and more straightforward interpretations. 
Meanwhile McConnell’s analysis can be challenged on its own terms. He 
acknowledges that at no stage does Gorshkov state unambiguously that the series 
of articles represent doctrine itself, or an expression of doctrine. But McConnell identi- 
fies three criteria which, if satisfied, will demonstrate that a statement is “doctrine.” 
In my opinion, he only manages to satisfy the military-political criterion. His attempt 
to satisfy the other two rely on textual interpretations which are open to very serious 
criticism, as I show below. 
THE TEMPORAL CRITERION 
This lays down that doctrine is only concerned with the present and very near 
future, and does not consider the past. McConnell admits that over 80 percent of 
the Gorshkov series is historical analysis, but explains this away by claiming that 
Gorshkov specifically denies any intention of probing the past; and in so doing, Gorsh- 
kov clearly signals that he is merely using history to substantiate doctrinal tenets. 
The flaw in McConnell’s argument is that in fact, Gorshkov does not deny his concern 
with history, and in his 1,500 word introductory section, refers to the relevance of 
“history” no less than nine times. McConnell infers Gorshkov’s ‘“‘denial” from one 
part of a passage in that same section; it is worth quoting in full, so as to get 
the correct meaning: 
“[Therefore], let us examine those questions applicable to the navy in their 
historical and problematical aspects. In this connection it is not proposed to cover 
the history of naval art, much less to determine prospects for the development 
of naval forces. It is only intended to express a few thoughts about the role 
and place of navies in various historical eras and at different stages in the develop- 
ment of military equipment and of the military art . . .” (72/2/23/2: 3/2/1) 
The verb Gorshkov uses—izlagat’ (translated by JPRS as “to cover” and by McCon- 
nell as “‘to treat’), has some connotation of comprehensiveness, and can also be 
rendered as “to set forth” or “to expound.” The full context thus makes it clear 
that Gorshkov is saying that he has no intention of covering the (whole) history 
of naval art, but is going to draw on various examples to illustrate his argument. 
This cannot be read as denying a concern for history. Taking the whole body of 
evidence, the articles do not meet the temporal criterion. 
THE UNITY OF VIEW CRITERION 
ce 
McConnell points to the use of the term “unity of views”’ in doctrinal statements 
and quotes two examples from earlier statements by Gorshkov: February 
1963—“‘proceeding from the tenets of our military doctrine, Soviet naval thought has 
developed united views on the role and place of the navy in nuclear missile war 
"1" and May 1966 “proceeding from the tenets of Soviet military doctrine 
that are in the form of general principles, united views have been developed 2 the 
task of the fleet in modern war and the methods of conducting naval operations. 
‘See CRC 257, Admiral Gorshkov on ‘‘Navies in War and Peace,’’ Centre for Naval Analyses, 
September 1974. ] 
"The Great Task of the Soviet Navy,” Krasnaya zvezda, 5 Feb. 5, 1963. This article set out the 
requirements for the navy to develop an all-weather ocean-going capability. 
“The XXIII Congress of the CPSU and the Tasks of Navy Men," Morskoj sbornik, May 1966, p. 
8, This was Gorshkov’s report to the fleet on the main policy decisions made at the 23d Party Con- 
gress. 
