170 
McConnell argues that the two references to “unity of views” in the Gorshkov 
series fit within this same category of statement. The first reference appears in the 
editorial introduction to the series and reads: 
“With this issue, the journal begins publication of a series of articles by Admiral 
of the Fleet of the Soviet Union S. G. Gorshkov under the general title of “‘Navies 
in War and Peace.” In the opinion of the editorial board and the editorial staff, 
the publication of these articles will foster the development in our officers of 
a unity of views on the role of navies under various historical conditions.” (72/2/20: 
omitted ) 
The second reference is by Gorshkov, and appears towards the end of his introductory 
section. This is the first part of the paragraph quoted in the previous section, which 
McConnell used to justify the temporal criterion. 
“Taking into account that [an understanding of the employment of various 
branches of the armed forces] fosters the development of a unity of operational 
views in the command personnel of the armed forces, let us examine those questions 
applicable to the Navy, both in their historical and problematical aspects.” 
(72/2/23/2: 3/2/1) 
There are significant differences between the content of these two quotations and 
the two doctrinal statements made in 1963 and 1966. In the first place both the 
latter refer to unified views having been developed. McConnell defends himself on 
this score by quoting a Colonel P. Sidorov as saying on one occasion: 
“While promoting the development of united views on the basic problems of 
military development, Soviet military doctrine does not fetter the thinking of milita- 
ty theorists and the practical initiative of military leaders entrusted with the leader- 
ship of the armed forces.” 
No reference is given, so we do not know the context of Sidorov’s statement. But 
while it may perhaps legitimize ‘‘fostering a unity of views’ as a doctrinal authenticator, 
it does not dispose of the more important differences between the quotations. McCon- 
nell is arguing that Gorshkov is speaking authoritatively. On the basis of the earlier 
quotations one would therefore expect the editors’ introduction to have read something 
like: ‘‘The publication of these articles is intended to foster the development of unified 
views.’ Instead, we have the caveat ‘In the opinion of the editorial board and editorial 
staff... .". That is the very reverse of ‘‘authoritative.’”” And equally significant in 
terms of McConnell’s own criteria is the temporal scope of the unity of views which 
the editors hoped to foster, namely “‘. . . the role of navies under various historical 
conditions.” 
Nor is Gorshkov any more ‘‘authoritative.’’ Perhaps the best single-word description 
of the introductory section is ‘‘defensive.”’ In each paragraph Gorshkov seems to be 
justifying the need for the historical analysis he is about to embark on. And when 
he does finally say ‘‘let us examine those questions applicable to the navy, both in 
their historical and problematical aspects,”’ it is not ‘‘in order to”’ foster the development 
of a unity of views. That is merely ‘‘taken into account”’. 
And finally, it would seem significant that Gorshkov is interested in developing 
a unity of present day ‘operational views,’’ whereas the editors’ apparent interest 
lies in the ‘“‘the role of navies in different historical conditions.” And that Gorshkov 
is aiming at “the command personnel of the armed forces,’ whereas the editors hope 
to influence ‘‘our”’ (that is, naval) officers. Rather than authoritativeness, this divergence 
creates the impression of an editorial board trying to keep its head down in a major 
military-political argument. 
CONCLUSIONS 
Selective textual analysis is fraught with problems, and the wide divergence of possible 
interpretations is shown in the preceding paragraphs. It is for this reason that well 
informed judgments concerning the balance, tone and thrust of Gorshkov’s presentation 
are sO important in assessing its primary purpose. Despite their subjective nature, 
these judgments, based on comprehensive analyses, draw on the body of work as 
a whole, balancing the parts against each other. 
The assessment that Gorshkov was primarily concerned to persuade, has been sup- 
ported by what concrete evidence there is in the form of publication data, and rein- 
forced by evidence that a general debate was in progress at this time. It would need 
very specific counterevidence to invalidate this assessment, and this has yet to be 
advanced. 
