189 
Military science represents a preliminary stage in the formulation 
of doctrine. It consists of ‘‘military-theoretical’’ data, worked up and 
filtered primarily by the strategic leadership and subordinate organs 
of the armed forces. Military science can do no more than make 
“recommendations” to the military-political leadership, which the 
latter may or may not accept as part of doctrine. As a consequence, 
military science can be said to occupy a subordinate position with 
respect to doctrine.2” ‘“‘By their very nature, the data of military 
science do not take the form of directives, much less officially 
proclaimed state ideas.’’** Doctrine, however, has “‘the force of a 
state law, deviation from which is inadmissible.”’*? In the system of 
“military theories’ that make up military science, “there can be 
several different (and even opposing) points of view and various scien- 
tific notions and original hypotheses that are not selected by doctrine 
for practical application and thus do not acquire the character of 
official views on military questions.’’ On the other hand, “‘there cannot 
be two military doctrines in the state;” there must be a single 
(edinaya) doctrine for the entire state and all branches of its armed 
forces. And whereas ‘‘freedom of criticism,” a ‘“‘clash of views” and 
a “struggle of opinions” are inherent to science,*® after doctrine is 
promulgated to the troops one finds only “‘unity of views” (edinstvo 
vzglyadov) and ‘united views’ (edinye vzglyady).*’ This particular 
terminology seems to be one of the tell-tale indicators of doctrine. 
Science and doctrine also differ in the scope of subject matter 
coverage. Military doctrine, the Soviets tell us, has two aspects—a 
political, military-political or socio-political side and a military, techni- 
cal or military-technical side, the former being “the main and deter- 
mining side.’’ With military science it is just the other way around: 
“the military-technical content prevails.” *? For one thing, this means 
that doctrine, in contradistinction to military science, deals with milita- 
ry diplomacy, the use of the military establishment on behalf of the 
peacetime political struggle, as well as on behalf of the armed struggle 
27 Azovtsev, V. I. Lenin i Sovetskaya voennaya nauka, 228, 248, 278; Grechko (ed.), Istoriya 
vtoroy mirovoy voyny, II, 171; Scott, op. cit., 66; Sidorov in Kozlov (compiler), Spravochnik ofitsera, 
76; Gen.-Lt. of Tank Troops G. Zavizion and Lt.-Col. Yu. Kirshin, “Soviet Military Science: its So- 
cial Role and Function,’ KVS, No. 17, 1972, pp. 12-14; A. Grechko, “The CPSU and the Armed 
Forces,’ Kommunist, No. 4, 1971, p. 46; Sokolovskiy, op. cit., 57, 290. 
28 Remarks of Col. V. V. Larinov, as reported in Belousov, op cit., 123. 
29Col. A. Babakov, “The Unity of Science and Policy in the Military Activity of the CPSU,” KVS, 
No. 19, 1968, p. 66; Kozloy, Smirnov et al., O Sovetskoy voennoy nauke, 383, 391; Azovtsev, V. I. 
Lenin i Sovetskaya voennaya nauka, 286; Malinovskiy, Bditel’no stoyat’ na strazhe mira, 17. 
39Sidorov in Kozlov (compiler), Spravochnik ofitsera, 77; Kozlov Smirnov et al.; O Sovetskoy 
voennoy nauke, 387, 396; Azovtsev, V. I. Lenin i Sovetskaya voennaya nauka, 284; Sushko and Kon- 
dratkov, op. cit., 95; Kozlov in Zheltov (ed.), V. I. Lenin i Sovetskie Vooruzhennye Sily, 294-295, 
Strokov in Strokov (ed.), op. cit., 599; Col. V. A. Sekistrov in ibid., 327, footnote. 
31 The terminology originated in the discussions over “unitive (edinaya) military doctrine” in the 
tsarist period before and during World War I and became fixed in the Soviet military lexicon through 
Frunze’s contributions to the military debates of 1921-22. Sce Gen.-Maj. P. Zhilin, “The Discussion 
over Unitive Military Doctrine,” VIZ, No. 5, 1961, pp. 61ff; M. V. Frunze, Izbrannye proizvedeniya 
(Moscow, 1957), II, 3, 36, also 5, 7, 8, 35, 53, 54, 57, 58, 61, 92, 93, 163; S. I. Gusev, Grazhdan- 
skaya voyna i Krasnaya armiya (Moscow, Leningrad, 1925), 96, 132; Belousov, op. cit., 126; Capt. 
Ist Rank B. Demidov, “The Decisive Condition for the €reative Development of Soviet Military 
Science,” KVS, No. 9, 1962, p. 22; Gen.-Col. N. Lomov, “On Soviet Military Doctrine,” KVS, No. 
10, 1962, p. 12; Col. I. Sidel’nikov, ‘On Soviet Military Doctrine,” KZ, 11 May 1962, p. 2; Kozlov, 
Smirnov et al., O Sovetskoy voennoy nauke, 383, 391; S. S. Biryuzov, ““New Steps in Developing the 
Armed Forces and Tasks of Training and Instructing Troops,” in Derevyanko, op. cit., 27; Sushko 
and Kondratkov, op. cit., 90; Col. P. S. Smirnov in Zheltov (ed.), V. I. Lenin i Sovetskie Vooruzhen- 
nye Sily, 113; Col. A. M. Iovlev in ibid., 286; Kozlov in Zheltov, Kondratkov and Khomenko (eds.), 
op. cit., 290, 294-295; Azovtsev, V. I. Lenin i Sovetskaya voennaya nauka, 286; Sidorov in Kozlov 
(compiler), Spravochnik ofitsera, 73, 75-77; S. V. Lipitskiy, Voennaya deyatel ‘nost’ TsK RKP (b) 
1917-20 (Moscow, 1973), p. 8; Grechko, Vooruzhennye Sily Sovetskogo gosudarstva, 296-297. 
32 Kozlov, Smirnov et al., O Sovetskoy voennoy nauke, 2-6, 386. 
