192 
of views’ and ‘united views.”’ In this connection, both Gorshkov 
and his editors say that the aim of the series is to promote the 
development of a ‘unity of views’? among naval officers and the 
command personnel of the armed forces as a whole.*® With regard 
to the scope of subject-matter coverage, the Soviets say that doctrine 
deals with both “war and peace,’’ in contrast to military science, 
which concentrates on war and its main content, the armed struggle. 
Here we have only to look at the general title of the Gorshkov 
series: “‘Navies in War and Peace.’ And the text deals with just 
that—the peacetime political utility of naval power as well as its 
value in war.*? 
With regard to the third area of difference, temporal orientation, 
we have observed that one of the important branches of military 
science is military history, especially the history of the military art. 
In addition, military science tries to determine ‘‘the prospects for 
the further development of military affairs,’ to quote Marshal 
Grechko.”® Doctrine, however, is not interested in past and future, 
only in “‘the present and very near future.’’ What does Gorshkov 
say on this head? In other works he has indicated his orientation. 
Thus a 1967 article of his was devoted to the historical development 
of the naval art in the U.S.S.R.,°! and one of his recent articles 
noted the significance of research on the “prospects for the develop- 
ment of military affairs,” including the ‘‘theory of the naval art,” 
which he then proceeded to review.” In his 1972-73 series, however, 
Gorshkov specifically denies any intention of probing either the past 
or the future. In other words, he tells us twice (‘‘unity of views,” 
navies in “war and peace”) that he is treating doctrine; now he 
apparently tells us, for good measure, that he is not treating military 
science. His denial of an historical focus as such is all the more 
curious—and pointed—when we consider that a substantial part of 
Gorshkov’s treatise consists of an archival examination of the naval 
art presented for the most part in strict chronological order. Evidently 
historical examples selectively adduced to substantiate particular doc- 
trinal tenets are something quite different from that “‘military-historical 
science”’ which is a preliminary to doctrine. 
Gorshkov’s denial of a focus on the past and on future prospects 
come forward toward the end of a passage which he had begun 
by noting that the foundation of ‘‘Soviet military doctrine” was the 
*®Gorshkov, ‘‘Navies in War and Peace,’ MS, No. 2, 1972, pp. 20, 23. In denying the authorita- 
tiveness of the Gorshkov series, MccGwire sees a subtle distinction between Gorshkov’s 1966 state- 
ment that united views had already been developed on the basis of doctrine and his editors’ 1972 in- 
troduction which spoke of “promoting” the development of a unity of views (see Michael MccGwire, 
“Advocacy of Seapower in an Internal Debate,” in James M. McConnell, Robert G. Weinland and 
Michael K. MccGwire, Admiral Gorshkov on “Navies in War and Peace” (Center for Naval Analyses 
CRC 257, Arlington, Va., 1974), 22.) However, the Russians themselves do not recognize this subt- 
lety. As Colonel P. Sidorov put it on one occasion, **While promoting the development of common 
views on the basic problems of military development, . . . Soviet military doctrine docs not fetter 
the thinking of military theorists and the initiative in action of military leaders who are entrusted with 
the guidance of the armed forces’’ (‘“‘Foundations of Soviet Military Doctrine,’ Soviet Military 
Review, No. 9, 1972, p. 14). 
49See McConnell, ‘‘Gorshkov’s Doctrine of Coercive Naval Diplomacy in Both Peace and War,” in 
McConnell, Weinland, MccGwire, op. cit., 98-101. ‘ 
5°“Report of U.S.S.R. Minister of Defense Marshal of the Sovict Union A. A. Grechko,”’ KVS, No. 
81973, p. 17: 
*'Gorshkov, “Development of the Soviet Naval Art,’’ MS, No. 2, 1967, pp. 9ff. 
* Gorshkov, “Certain Problems of Developing the Naval Art,’ MS, No. 12, 1974, p. 24. 
*8 Gorshkov, ‘Navies in War and Peace,’ MS, No. 2, 1972, pp. 20, 22-23. 
