191 
government decrees on strengthening national defense and organizing 
and supplying the troops but also regulations, manuals and directives 
of the armed forces on troop training and conducting combat opera- 
tions.*? 
Another most interesting category of “‘concrete expressions of doc- 
trine” from our standpoint consists of “‘military-theoretical works that 
substantiate particular tenets of doctrine.” ** At this point military 
science, having done relatively free pioneering work for doctrine, now 
finds itself directly determined by doctrine, is put directly into the 
service of doctrine. ““The dialectics of this interaction is reflected 
in the fact that military science prepares the first stage of military 
doctrine, then its conclusions are fixed in doctrine, and after that 
military science occupies itself with a deeper grounding of the basic 
demands and tenets of doctrine.” ** 
Like doctrine itself, these “‘concrete expressions of doctrine” also 
seem to have an authoritative character. This is obvious in the case 
of party and government decrees. The regulations and manuals put 
out by the organs of military leadership, too, are said to be ‘obligatory 
for all personnel of the armed forces;” they ‘have the force of a 
state law.’’* 
One must also apparently accept as gospel for the armed forces 
the military-theoretical works which “substantiate” this or that tenet 
of doctrine. In early 1963, for example, Admiral Gorshkov stated 
that, “proceeding from the tenets of our military doctrine, Soviet 
naval thought has developed united views (edinye vzglyady) on the 
role and place of the navy in nuclear-missile war... .”4® Three years 
later he stated that, “proceeding from the tenets of Soviet military 
doctrine that are in the form of general principles, united views have 
been developed on the tasks of the fleet in modern war and the 
methods of conducting naval operations.’’*” In other words, military- 
theoretical works that have doctrine as their substantial foundation 
also appear to be able to command a “unity of views.” 
These quotations are timely, because if one wanted to select a 
concrete example of a “‘concrete expression of doctrine,” there would 
be good grounds for pointing to the Gorshkov series of 1972-73. 
It is understandable that there should be controversy over whether 
Gorshkov is advocating or announcing in this series, since nowhere 
does he unambiguously state that his work represents either doctrine 
itself or an expression of doctrine. However, we have already indicated 
the three main areas in which doctrine differs from science—degree 
of authoritativeness, scope of subject-matter coverage and time-frame 
of focus. It is very interesting that Gorshkov, by using certain key 
expressions, manages to convey to his knowledgeable Soviet readers 
where his work stands with respect to all three of these essential 
differences—and each time he comes down on the side of doctrine. 
To show the authoritative impact of doctrine and its concrete ex- 
pressions, for example, the Soviets employ the tell-tale terms “‘unity 
*? Lomov in KVS, No. 10, 1962, p. 12. 
Sean Sushko and Kondratkov, op. cit., 93; Bol’shaya Sovetskaya entsiklopediya (3rd ed.), V, 
" 44 Babakov in KVS, No. 19, 1968, p. 64. 
* Azovtsev, V. I. Lenin i Sovetskaya voecnnaya nauka, 88. 
*6S. G. Gorshkov, “The Great Tasks of the Soviet Navy,” KZ, 5 February 1963. 
‘7 Gorshkov, “The XXIII Congress of the CPSU and The Tasks of Navy Men,” MS, No. 5, 1966, 
p. &. 
