Military Review

War without citations

40
War without citationsFor cognition of social phenomena, processes in states, in ideological systems, various methods and methods were used. Marxism for knowledge of social processes, problems of war and peace, wars and revolutions used the formational approach, according to which the only correct consideration was stories from the point of view of a “socio-economic formation”: the transition from one formation to another is carried out in a revolutionary way.


Formation approach allows you to know some social processes, but its possibilities are limited. Marxism essentially abandoned the multivariate historical development. The formational approach impoverishes historical reality, recognizes a single-line process in the development of society, and communism is the top of development; absolutizes the role of the material over the spiritual, rigidly attached to the economic factor in explaining the causes of wars and revolutions. The formational approach assumes that with the change of formation all the adjusting structures are eliminated: religion, culture, science, morality, law, therefore Marxist ideologues denied religious wars, did not understand war as a clash of cultures.

Cosmopolitanism stands for the use of the civilization method, which involves analyzing social processes, the world history of war through the prism of the origin, development and death of local civilizations.

THROUGH THE PRISM OF CLASS FIGHT

The history of mankind, world history is the history of local civilizations. Local civilization is a large social community, a large-scale device in the world community, a way of life of society, an integral system that includes religion, culture, traditions, philosophy, science, morality, legal norms, ways of thinking, lifestyle, relationship with nature; political, economic and social subsystems.

Scientists estimate the number of local civilizations in different ways. The author proceeds from the fact that there are currently Chinese, Indian, Western European (Euro-Atlantic), Orthodox (Eastern European), Islamic, Latin American, African and Japanese civilizations.

Religion is the determining structural factor of every local civilization. For example, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism are the forming factor of Chinese civilization; Shinto - Japanese civilization. The formation and development of local civilizations are influenced by its other components: culture, traditions.

There are types of wars that have a civilizational character: wars within the states of local civilizations; wars between states within local civilizations; wars between states of different civilizations; wars between secular authorities and religious organizations.

The civilizational approach, the analysis of social processes through the prism of local civilizations, in contrast to the formational approach, provide a more complete and deep knowledge of the essence, causes of interstate and intrastate wars, their moral and political nature, the distribution of political forces, methods of armed and non-military forms of struggle; political, social, economic, spiritual and environmental consequences of all kinds of wars.

Marxism considered wars between states, within states through class struggle. The Soviet Union throughout its history has been preparing to conduct only class wars. The class approach was at the heart of military policy. The Soviet Union waged a class war in Finland and Afghanistan, supported Kim Il Sung from class positions and partially participated in the Korean War on his side. The class approach did not allow Marxist ideologues to understand the role of geopolitics, geography, space in wars.

From class positions, Soviet ideologists assessed the sources of the victories of the Great Patriotic War; only from class positions did they rethink the military history of Russia.

Among the Marxists there were different views on the place of wars in world history. Lenin and his followers in the Soviet Union believed that wars arose with the advent of private property, classes, states. In our opinion, they exaggerated the role of classes.

Engels and Trotsky adhered to another point of view. They believed that the war arose when a person began to build a society and use tools. Genera and tribes have already fought with each other. This point of view went beyond the edge of the class approach.

Marxism absolutized the role of war in world history. Lenin believed that the world is a respite for war. Totalitarian, then authoritarian socialism at certain stages of development was also a source of war, a carrier of militarism. The concept of the world socialist revolution, the assessment of the epoch as the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism, state ownership, totalitarian and authoritarian political system, militant ideology, the impossibility of the antiwar movement - all this created favorable conditions for the unleashing of class wars.

WAS THE EMPIRE OF EVIL?

The Soviet Union in the wars pursued the following goals. First, the defense of socialism, independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity. Secondly, assisting revolutionary forces, the imposition of socialism (in Spain, Finland, Korea, Afghanistan and other countries). Marxist ideologues convinced that wars between socialist states were impossible, although there was a war between the PRC and Vietnam, there was an armed conflict between the Soviet Union and the PRC.

Yugoslav politician and ideologist Milovan Djilas believed that in the future there will be wars between the socialist countries. In our opinion, if the socialist system continued to exist, wars between countries could occur. In wars, goals would be pursued: the achievement of independence from the Soviet Union, a way out of the socialist system; building socialism with a “human” face; building a democratic state; redistribution of boundaries.

The causes of war could also be the uneven economic, political, technical, spiritual and military development of states; contradictions in the value system of states (political, cultural, national, religious, moral, legal).

In Marxism, the relationship of war and revolution was considered. It was believed that wars serve as an impetus for the start of revolutionary actions, wars revolutionize the masses. War is the mother of revolution. The First World War, the Marxists regarded as a stimulating factor of the world socialist revolution. When World War II began, they were confident that it would give impetus to the independence movement of the oppressed peoples. In the Soviet Union, it was assumed that a civil war was a war only between classes, it was underestimated that there were wars between states between dynasties, clans, ethnic groups, cultures, and religious denominations.

The ideologists of Marxism supported the theory of violence, revolutionary wars, that is, wars of the working class with bourgeois states, wars of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie of the same state. 15 January 1918 was signed by the decree on the formation of the Red Army. It said that it would serve as support for the coming socialist revolution in Europe.

Marxists reserved for themselves the right to start wars. Stalin declared: "There are cases when the Bolsheviks themselves will attack if the war is fair, if conditions are favorable." In 1939, the Soviet Union launched a war against Finland. In the 60 – 70 of the last century, the Chinese radicals believed that the socialist countries were the first to start a war and such wars were revolutionary. In 1960, Yugoslav politician and political scientist Edward Kardel published the book Socialism and War, in which he noted that socialist China could be the first to start a war. In 70, the Soviet Union committed aggression against Afghanistan.

The class approach, the theory of violence, the concept of revolutionary wars, the world socialist revolution formed the basis of the principle - waging wars on foreign territory, Sovietization of the conquered territories. Stalin believed that one who "occupies territory in a war, must introduce his own social system on it. Introduce your system should the army. It cannot be otherwise. ”

The problem of wars, world revolution, the Soviet leaders associated with the content of the era, which is essentially evaluated from class positions. Marxists since October 1917 have believed that humanity has entered a new era - the era of the transition from capitalism to socialism. The leaders of the Communist Party of Russia called it the era of proletarian revolutions. In 1924, they called this era the long imperialistic agony of capitalism. In the 20s, Trotsky characterized the new era as an era of wars and revolutions. In 1922, he predicted that the coming decades would be an era of rebellions, revolutions, counter-revolutions and wars. In the 1939 year, Trotsky still believed in the international revolution. With the outbreak of World War II, he saw two perspectives: the era of social revolution and socialist society and the era of the decadent society of the totalitarian bureaucracy.

Fatherland Fatherland Rozn

In the Soviet Union, the concept of “socialist fatherland” narrowed the concept of “fatherland”. The concept of “socialist fatherland” was limited to the class approach, and not the universal approach, in which the class approach is only part of the universal approach. From the protection of the “narrowed fatherland” fell: protection of the roots of ancestors, Russian culture, the graves of ancestors, the traditions of the Russian army The defense of the socialist Fatherland did not involve the defense of the past, present and future. There was a cult of not fatherland in the country, but a cult of the socialist Fatherland.

Absolutization of the class approach in defense of the socialist Fatherland, and not of the Fatherland as a whole, mistakes of political and strategic leadership, lack of the concept of protecting the population in the occupied territories reduced to a certain extent the fatherhood in the Great Patriotic War. The class approach to a certain extent made it difficult for the Soviet Union to prevent the Second World War, as well as to establish allied relations of the Soviet Union with the United States and Great Britain.

The Marxists had a class approach to morality. Engels wrote that morality was always class. According to Lenin, there is no morality in politics, but expediency. Therefore, the assessment of wars from the point of view of justice (injustice) was carried out in the interests of the proletariat, socialism, and the national liberation movement. Marxism could not even raise the question of justice, morality, means and methods used in wars, and this is natural, since some Soviet politicians and strategists used immoral and unjust means and methods in defense of their state in just wars.

With the emergence of tribes, peoples, states, and up to the present, war is a way of life of humanity as a whole. War and for the Soviet Union was the same way of life. The Soviet state waged just and unjust wars in its own and in foreign territories; participated in the Second World War, led the Great Patriotic War; made a huge contribution to the global military culture, to the formation of the militaristic potential of the planet.

Having created a powerful nuclear potential, Soviet hawks in politics and military strategy were confident of victory over the capitalism system in a world nuclear war.

Marxism denied the war as a universal phenomenon, as a way of life of mankind. The ideologists of Marxism proceeded from the fact that war is the continuation of politics by other, armed means. Social, economic, scientific, technical, demographic, moral, cultural, ethnic and religious factors remained outside the understanding of war. In the understanding of war as a continuation of politics, it is interpreted as a concentrated expression of the economy, while ignoring that culture, ethnic groups, religion are the basis of politics.

The narrow limited understanding of Marxism war had negative consequences. The reasons, the goals of wars, their results were permeated with a class approach. Marxism denied religious wars, did not take into account the religious factor in the civil war, in the war in Afghanistan. Stalin's thesis about the intensification of the class struggle led to mass repressions, to the reduction of the military power of the Red Army.

Marxism borrowed from Clausewitz not only the formula "war is the continuation of politics by other means." The ideologists of Marxism, the Soviet political leadership adopted the theory of absolute war Clauzewitz.

He saw the dialectic of war in its movement from limitations to unboundedness. The pauses in the war remove the war from the absolute, act as a moderating force, moderate the tension of military operations. Clausewitz rejected restrictions in wars, advocated liberation from all conventions, for bringing the war to a halt, where there is no limit.

Absolute war manifested itself, according to Clausewitz, for political and military purposes, in the defeat of the armed forces of the enemy, in the defeat of the civilian population. Violence in politics, physical and spiritual violence, violence in the economy, in all spheres of public consciousness, in the demographic sphere, in the destruction of the environment are characteristic features of absolute war. His formula "war is the continuation of politics by other means," Clausewitz attributed it to an absolute, unlimited, ideal war.

The Bolsheviks approached the issue of preventing wars in capitalist states primarily from class positions, from the positions of the proletariat. Therefore, they sometimes underestimated the anti-war movement, they believed that bourgeois pacifists could not prevent wars. They urged the workers to reject the utopian ideas of the pacifists, since the sharp contradictions between the capitalist countries will always be resolved through wars. In their opinion, the anti-war movement distracts the workers from the class struggle.

Marxism associated the disappearance of wars with the disappearance of class society, with the victory of the world socialist revolution. Under capitalism, the causes of war cannot be eliminated; only socialism can do this.

As already mentioned, totalitarian and authoritarian socialism was the source of wars, but in the Soviet Union there was never a peace movement directed against its foreign and military policy. It was not him when there were wars with Finland, Afghanistan. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union supported the anti-war movement in the United States. The leadership of the Soviet Union organized in the country a movement for peace against US military policy. However, there was no peace movement in the country directed against the foreign and military policies of the Soviet leadership, and there was a need for this.

The leadership of the Soviet Union in 20 – 50-s of the last century reacted negatively to the norms of international humanitarian law. Only when Gorbachev came to power, did Defense Minister Yazov sign an order on the use of international humanitarian law.

LIFESTYLE OF HUMANITY

The main features of Marxism-Leninism are: militancy, aggressiveness, hegemonism, adventurism, purposeful use of the destructive component of scientific and technological progress for just and unjust wars; achievement of political and strategic goals by immoral and illegal means.

The ideologists of Marxism-Leninism did not consider man to be the main value, therefore they did not create a man-saving military culture. The desire to achieve goals in military operations at any cost led to huge losses, reduced the gene pool of the Soviet people.

A narrowed understanding of the essence of war weakened the defense potential of totalitarian and authoritarian socialism. The absolutization of Marxist research methods hampered the use of research methods in military science. Cosmopolitanism as an ideology and practice condemns Marxism-Leninism, totalitarian and authoritarian socialism, which violate the norms of international law, repressions against its people and its military personnel.

The Marxist-Leninist doctrine of war, despite its narrow understanding, contributed to world military culture. Marxism-Leninism corresponded to the totalitarian and authoritarian Soviet regime. And vice versa, the totalitarian and authoritarian regime corresponded to Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism, a totalitarian and authoritarian state provided reliable protection of the Soviet state, won a great victory over totalitarian fascism, allowed to wage a cold war with the United States and with NATO.

New challenges and threats change the essence and content of modern wars. Understanding of war as a universal phenomenon, understanding of militarism as a world phenomenon makes it possible, first of all, to realize the increasing threat to the survival of mankind, to tackle global problems, to make the fight against terrorism global. Secondly, to overcome the narrow understanding of war only as a political phenomenon; bring together the armed, political, ideological, diplomatic, economic, cultural, ethnic and religious forms of struggle; to evaluate in the war not only who won, but also at what price victory was achieved; establish that the military security of the world community takes precedence over the military security of any state.

In conclusion, we give the definition of war. War is a historical universal human phenomenon, a way of life of mankind, an organized armed struggle of nations, states, and religious denominations using traditional and new types. weapons, as well as non-military forms of struggle to achieve political, social, demographic, economic, cultural, ethnic and religious goals.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/
40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. alone
    alone 14 December 2013 15: 59 New
    +6
    The war has not yet benefited anyone. But sometimes, unfortunately, this is the only way out of the situation.

    War is killing people, and the best part is !!
    1. vladimirZ
      vladimirZ 14 December 2013 17: 18 New
      12
      As the classics of Marxism used to say: Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide to action in a particular political and economic situation.
      And therefore it is not necessary to go in cycles in the fact that Marxism is a rigid code of laws for all time.
      Marxism is enriched with the new with the development of socio-political formations, with the development of socio-political science and the practice of the existence of states and communities of people.
      Therefore, Marxism at the beginning and end of the 20th century is different and its provisions must be applied taking into account the changed socio-political situation.
      But the foundation remains inevitable in Marxism - a class approach to the study of socio-political formations, states and communities.
      And if you compare Marxism with numerous other theories including civilizational theory, then Marxism is distinguished by a more coherent conceptual system of studying the socio-political life of mankind and practice confirming this theory.
      1. Asgard
        Asgard 14 December 2013 18: 35 New
        +5
        I will support Vladimir Z (orro)) regarding Marxism ...
        But most of the provisions of "Capital" were nevertheless written by Engels and it is precisely his vision of socio-political and economic concepts for communities that is presented - it was Marx who broke society into HARD classes from which People could not leave .... (This was written in general educational))))

        Now, regarding the "naturalness of war for Human Society" (quoted from art.)) - THIS IS NOT SO ...

        This is introduced, People do not tend to kill each other, People after the war become "sick", the psyche is disturbed, I took children, 11 years old, to hunt, they vomited from the sight of killed deer))) although they shot at the banks famously....
        Kill!!! It is not in human nature, People have been poisoned, manipulated for a long time, the author is not a psychologist and manipulated too, he repeats the dogmas of Judeo-Christian history, Although People have long had to fight against each other .....
        But the psyche of Man rejects the human nature of war. Behind war there is always an INHUMAN interest in destroying Humans, because there is NO other benefit from war. Gos-va, the division of peoples into nations, beliefs are about the last 400 years.
        Before that, it was not People who fought, but the so-called "gods-essences" and wait they manipulate People, because they have grown wiser (they)) and We have become stupid))))
        1. 222222
          222222 14 December 2013 23: 10 New
          +1
          Asgard (2) SU Today, 18:35 ↑ "the naturalness of war for Human society .."
          ..in this regard, the film "White Tiger" - Karen Shakhnazarov .... is indicative
    2. avt
      avt 14 December 2013 18: 04 New
      +2
      Quote: lonely
      War is killing people, and the best part is !!

      good With regards to the article, in my opinion, it is too clever and with a claim to be scientific. This is how to raise philosophical topics in one article !? For this Tolstoy needed to write "War and Peace" namely Peace as a human community. Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't like it somehow. request Fiction for an amateur, I do not belong to them.
      1. zennon
        zennon 14 December 2013 19: 11 New
        +2
        Quote: avt
        Quote: lonely
        War is killing people, and the best part is !!

        good Regarding the article, in my opinion it’s too clever. Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn’t like it. request Fiction for an amateur, I do not belong to them.

        And in vain did not like it. But in one thing you are right. Remember, in the old spelling there were two different words - mir in the meaning of "non-war" and mir in the meaning of "universe, light, society"? So, you probably read somewhere, or someone told you that Tolstoy's novel was actually called War and Peace, and the name meant, therefore, not the banal "war and the absence of war", but clever and soulful "war and society" - only after the Bolshevik reform of spelling this meaning was lost.
        1. avt
          avt 14 December 2013 19: 17 New
          +2
          Quote: zennon
          So, you probably read somewhere, or someone told you that Tolstoy's novel was actually called War and Peace, and the name meant, therefore, not the banal "war and the absence of war", but clever and soulful "war and society"

          request And we were still taught at school when Tolstoy’s creativity was fluent.
        2. Proud.
          Proud. 14 December 2013 23: 53 New
          +2
          Quote: zennon
          peace in the meaning of "non-war" and peace in the meaning of "universe, light, society"
          In general, it is correct. But there were THREE meanings: "mir" is not war. "Mir" is the universe. And "mir" (through the letter "init") - People, Society.
    3. Vadivak
      Vadivak 14 December 2013 19: 19 New
      10
      Quote: ....
      In 1939, the Soviet Union launched a war against Finland.


      Damn, it's time to calm down. Properly untied.

      On May 15, 1918, the Finnish government declared war on Soviet Russia. The main objective of the Finnish military command was the capture of Karelia with the further goal of creating Greater Finland from sea to sea (from the Barents to the Baltic).
      1. not main
        not main 15 December 2013 00: 17 New
        -1
        Unleashed, maybe right, only the result is not the one we were counting on!
    4. Lazy cat
      Lazy cat 14 December 2013 21: 20 New
      +1
      Bloody war, but did not bring anything good. And the war of ideas gave a greater impetus to development.
    5. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 16 December 2013 06: 14 New
      +1
      single (1) AZ December 14, 2013 15:59
      The war has not yet benefited anyone. But sometimes, unfortunately, this is the only way out of the situation.
      winked why do you think so ? solely out of favor and wars are unleashed! to whom is war, and to whom is mother dear! the third party in this case, earns very well ...
  2. Normman
    Normman 14 December 2013 16: 03 New
    +3
    One interesting feature is inherent in man - he is able to endow reality with characteristics that are unusual for her, to model its aspects in his brain, to fantasize, to dream. And all would be fine, but suddenly, for some reason, a person begins to believe in their own or other people's speculations! It ceases to separate reality from fantasies or, even worse, tries to make others believe that the fruit of his imagination is reality. Not only that, some individuals often use this ability to subjugate as many of their kind as possible. Some invent sacred motivations in order to put themselves or their relatives above others and secure the right to govern, that is, power. Others invent no less sacred pretexts for uniting separate groups on a territorial and national basis into states. Others swear that they are representatives of God on earth and invent religious rituals, following which supposedly you can find eternal life.
    So - a lie, this is a disease of humanity, and all wars and conflicts are a consequence of this disease. Lying is a lack of information and an attempt to speculate, that is, to make up for the lack of a surrogate. Some communities affected by this "brain failure" try to gain superiority over other communities. Periodically, they destroy their own kind and their habitat, and in between they create weapons of more effective destruction.
  3. saag
    saag 14 December 2013 16: 07 New
    +5
    This article is not so much about the war, its orientation "against" and the time of its appearance are interesting
    1. chehywed
      chehywed 14 December 2013 16: 49 New
      +4
      Quote: saag
      This article is not so much about the war, its orientation "against" and the time of its appearance are interesting

      good Exactly! Not war in general, but wars of socialist countries and the USSR in particular, and Russia is the successor of the USSR.
      And despite the fact that "War without citations reference"-
      Your formula “War is the continuation of politics by other means”, Clausewitz attributed it to the war absolute, unlimited, ideal.

      This is not a quote?
      1. 222222
        222222 14 December 2013 17: 06 New
        +5
        chehywed RU Today, 16:49 PM ↑
        .. each brad has its own goal .. probably, the article is once again trying to justify the absence in modern conditions of classes and therefore class struggle. and thus theoretically secure the basis of capitalism, its "sacred cow" - "private ownership of the main means of production .. "...
  4. My address
    My address 14 December 2013 16: 14 New
    +4
    The last Ibzets (or paragraphs? Or the scribe beast?) The author has the coolest. "War is a phenomenon ... with the use ... also of non-military forms of struggle ...". It is not said that they are additionally used. That is, war and when peacefully. So you can shandrach rockets - after all, the war!

    You need to re-read your articles before publication.
  5. 222222
    222222 14 December 2013 16: 15 New
    +2
    "LIFESTYLE OF HUMANITY

    ,,,, "The main features of (American imperialism), (German. English, French ... neo-colonialism) (Japanese militarism) ... are: belligerence, aggressiveness, hegemonism, adventurism, purposeful use of the destructive component of scientific and technological progress for just and unjust wars; achievement of political and strategic goals by immoral and illegal means ".....
    1. Reyngard
      Reyngard 14 December 2013 20: 56 New
      +2
      In the existing world, the main goal of the so-called imperialism was to provide its protection against aggressive Islam, i.e. in a military way to decapitate him, in which he succeeded, relegating this hateful religion to the rank of secondary ones. Now, through the efforts of various kinds of politicians, she is returning. Only total socialism is able to cope with this threat, and even then by military methods.
  6. 222222
    222222 14 December 2013 16: 32 New
    +3
    About local civilizations ... compressed ...
    Among the most representative theories of civilizations is primarily the theory of A. Toynbee (1889-1975)
    http://www.countries.ru/library/ideas/tlc.htm
    Toynbee's criticism is contained in the writings of P.A. Sorokin (1889-1968).
    http://www.countries.ru/library/ideas/tlccontra.htm
    1. Normman
      Normman 14 December 2013 16: 45 New
      +2
      Thanks for the interesting link!
  7. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 14 December 2013 16: 44 New
    +6
    Quote: The ideologists of Marxism-Leninism did not consider man the main value, therefore they did not create a man-saving military culture.

    Which country has created a "man-saving" military culture? Maybe Hitler's Germany or America with its atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Maybe Japan itself? Delirium of a gray mare, my friend ...
    1. Indifferent
      Indifferent 14 December 2013 17: 53 New
      -13 qualifying.
      The United States has had and has a human-friendly military culture. And the losses in all wars are the smallest. They did not start offensive operations without gaining an overwhelming superiority in the troops. Usually 1-10. Therefore, even in their most bloody operations, such as the battles of Midway or Okinawa, their losses were comparable to the enemy, although they conducted offensive operations and should have lost more.
      None of the American admirals or generals can be compared with the "butcher" Zhukov.
      1. revnagan
        revnagan 14 December 2013 18: 58 New
        +7
        Quote: indifferent
        They did not start offensive operations without gaining an overwhelming superiority in the troops. Usually 1-10.

        You don’t take into account such an important factor as time. In war, time is also blood. And time is also a pace. Amers had plenty of time. Japan did not capture American territory, American citizens were not under the fifth invader. Japanese did not destroy the industrial potential of the captured American enterprises, didn’t feed their war industry with American trophy raw materials. American citizens did not steal a job in Japan, did not forge its defenses. Japan did not conduct separate peace negotiations with the USSR, Japanese scientists s were not able to cook up A-bomb to the end of 1945 goda.I still unknown how Eisenhower would have acted on the spot Zhukov.
      2. 222222
        222222 14 December 2013 22: 33 New
        +2
        Indifferent SU Today, 17:53 ↑ .. ... how GK Zhukov saved your valiant Americans ... and the percentage of losses of fronts ...
        "" On December 6, 1944, at the beginning of the operation, the German troops managed to break through the front of the Anglo-American troops in a sector of 80 km and capture 30 American soldiers and officers. By early January, the position of the Allies in the Ardennes remained very difficult. On January 000, Churchill sent a message to Stalin, in which, in particular, he wrote: “There are very heavy battles in the West ... I will be grateful if you can tell me if we can count on a major Russian offensive on the Vistula front or where anywhere else during January ... "On January 6, 12, earlier than the scheduled date, the Red Army launched an offensive on a wide front from the Baltic Sea to the Carpathians. The commander of German forces in the West, Field Marshal G. Rundsheude, was forced to withdraw the 1945th SS Panzer Army from the Western Front, and then another 6 divisions and send them to the East. The German operation in the Ardennes ended in failure.
        http://www.hrono.ru/sobyt/1900sob/1944ardeny.php

        In November 1944, GK Zhukov was appointed commander
        1st Belorussian Front. ..
        At the final stage of the war, the 1st Belorussian Front, led by Marshal Zhukov, carried out the Wislo-Oder Operation (January 1 - February 12, 3) together with the 1945st Ukrainian Front under the command of Konev, during which Soviet troops liberated Warsaw (January 17, 1945) , crushing blow defeated Army Group A, General J. Harpe and Field Marshal F. Scherner. Losses of Soviet troops in this operation amounted to 193 people. Of this number, the 215st Belorussian Front lost 1 out of 77 people (342%), while the 1st Ukrainian Front lost 028 out of 900 people (7,5%), that is, 1 115 times more .. ".
      3. alicante11
        alicante11 15 December 2013 08: 52 New
        0
        The United States has had and has a human-friendly military culture. And the losses in all wars are the smallest. They did not start offensive operations without gaining an overwhelming superiority in the troops.


        Yeah, only now they didn’t even contact the lousy Iraq alone and even set a coalition on little Serbia. Even against Tiny Libya, the pack of arms rose up.
        And all thanks to the fact that the wars did not go on their territory. And in such a situation, not creating tenfold superiority would be simply stupid. But read about the battles of the Civil War or the Anglo-American that went on American soil. And wonder what a relationship there were at times. When they stick to the wall (to the capital) and there is no one to ask to draw back the enemy’s forces, you have to rush into the attack with the last battalion. Just amers were very lucky in terms of the location of their metropolis.
        By the way, the Boer War is a good indicator in this situation. In which the Angles at first thought that they would throw the Boers with caps. And they got it on the nose, but then they created a favorite Anglo-Saxon advantage and finished off the Boers.
  8. 222222
    222222 14 December 2013 16: 50 New
    +5
    To give your definition of the concept of "war" in a small article is cool ... Marx-Lenin for the belt together with the classics ...
    .. about the definition of the concept of "war" and talk is not a hunt .. especially after the words "phenomenon", "universal". the way of life of mankind ", etc. and the absence of the concept of" economy "..
    "Economy" - "politics - as an expression of economics" - "war" as a continuation of politics "--...
    so "war" or "organized armed struggle ..." ??????????????????? or is it one of the components of the war - a means to achieve its goals .. ???
  9. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 14 December 2013 16: 57 New
    +2
    And the military is not a profession. This is a sexual orientation.
  10. Alex_Popovson
    Alex_Popovson 14 December 2013 16: 59 New
    +4
    By the way, the article is very reasonable. So reasonable that it is nonsense. And the author is a little divorced from reality
  11. Stinger
    Stinger 14 December 2013 17: 00 New
    +1
    Score article minus plus. Another look at the problem of wars. I did not see anything original. Thousands of opinions exist. This only confirms that if people argue for a long time, then it proves that what they argue about is not clear to themselves. But as K. Chapek said: Still, progress does exist: instead of military violence, violence without war is increasingly being used.
  12. Grbear
    Grbear 14 December 2013 17: 20 New
    +7
    If it's him
    The president of the organization is retired Major General Kirshin Yuri Yakovlevich, Doctor of Philosophy, Vice President of the Academy of Military Sciences.
    , then the Academy is subject to reorganization. And urgently.
  13. zennon
    zennon 14 December 2013 18: 38 New
    +8
    In conclusion, we give the definition of war ...

    And further nonsense. There is much more simple and capacious definition:
    War is a collective assassination, in order to achieve the collective goals of Titus Lucretius Car. About 50 years BC.

  14. irongun
    irongun 14 December 2013 19: 01 New
    +2
    Not an article, but a preface to a slightly revised course "A short course in the history of the AUCPB". As they say here - anyhow.
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 14 December 2013 20: 16 New
      0
      Quote: irongun
      Not an article, but a preface to the slightly revised course "A short course in the history of the AUCPB". As they say here - anyhow

      Dear, have you read this book at least once? Have read ... Congratulations, Shiza has visited you. Such a book never existed! Removing the 1945 edition from the shelf. I am reading the title for you: "THE HISTORY OF THE ALL-UNION COMMUNIST PARTY (BOLSHEVIKOV)". SHORT COURSE ** EDITORIAL BY THE COMMISSION OF THE VKP (b) Central Committee * APPROVED by the VKP (b) Central Committee 1938 Correctly the colleague noted above - it is necessary to re-read what is written. Don't worry about my party affiliation. DON'T BELIEVE political prostitutes!
      1. irongun
        irongun 14 December 2013 20: 45 New
        +1
        A small answer to a non-political prostitute. Remove from the shelf (maybe again the piano in the bushes! Quite by accident! Ah! Ah!) A book entitled - “Life, Extraordinary and Amazing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, a sailor from York, who lived 28 years all alone on a desert island off the coast of America near the mouths of the Orinoco River, where he was thrown by a shipwreck, during which the entire crew of the ship died except for him, describing his unexpected release by pirates; written by himself. " Usually, in the library they ask, and those who are complete snobs, it is important to say so "Give me" Robinson Crusoe "and the librarian in a stupor !!! Do not run out, dove, and everything is" good! "
        Quote: 11111mail.ru
        Not an article, but a preface to a slightly revised course "A short course in the history of the AUCPB". As they say here - anyhow.
        Dear, have you read this book at least once? Have read ... Congratulations, Shiza has visited you. Such a book never existed! Removing the 1945 edition from the shelf. I am reading the title for you: "THE HISTORY OF THE ALL-UNION COMMUNIST PARTY (BOLSHEVIKOV)". SHORT COURSE ** EDITORIAL BY THE COMMISSION OF THE VKP (b) Central Committee * APPROVED by the VKP (b) Central Committee 1938 Correctly the colleague noted above - it is necessary to re-read what is written. Don't worry about my party affiliation. DON'T BELIEVE political prostitutes!
        1. 11111mail.ru
          11111mail.ru 15 December 2013 06: 13 New
          0
          Leo Taxil. "Funny Gospel".
          Thomas answered with his usual phrase:
          “Believe how much you want, but I won’t believe it until I put my fingers on it ...”
          He was so stubborn, this Thomas Twin, that the apostles lost hope of convincing him and retreated. Thomas needed another manifestation of Christ to the people. And it did not take long to wait.
          See the attached picture on the left half of the date on 19.IV.1946.
          Quote: irongun
          Do not run out, dove, and everything is "good!"

          Have a nice one you too! Next time, be more precise in the presentation of your undoubtedly wise thoughts. I answered for my words (see the picture), now it’s your turn to scan the title page of the D. Defoe you mentioned, run to the library, all the best !!
    2. 222222
      222222 14 December 2013 21: 52 New
      +1
      irongun BY Today, 19:01 about Short course and not only ...
      "On July 9, 1928, Joseph Vissarionovich remarked in his speech:" ... as we move forward, the resistance of the capitalist elements will increase, the class struggle will intensify .. "
      "... the advance towards socialism cannot but lead to resistance of the exploiting elements to this advance, and the resistance of the exploiters cannot but lead to an inevitable intensification of the class struggle."
      (Stalin I. Works, vol. 11. M., 1949, p. 171-172).
      You still have questions about who and how the Soviet Union collapsed ...
  15. individual
    individual 14 December 2013 19: 03 New
    +4
    If I correctly understood the author of the publication, then Kirshin regrets that Gorbachev did not appear before the Great Patriotic War.
    Human rights activists, NGOs, the media should have been given to cosmopolitan hands and Western propagandists for their successful struggle with the USSR for PEACE throughout the WORLD. am
  16. pensioner
    pensioner 14 December 2013 21: 16 New
    +1
    Understanding of war as a universal phenomenon, understanding of militarism as a global phenomenon allows, firstly, to realize the increasing threat to the survival of mankind, to solve global problems, and make the fight against terrorism global.
    I’m not cutting anything at all today ... I’m reading, I’m reading, but the sense is zero. To whom should understanding come with awareness to the heap? A set of big words, no more ...
  17. 11111mail.ru
    11111mail.ru 14 December 2013 21: 21 New
    +4
    Scientists estimate the number of local civilizations in different ways. The author proceeds from the fact that there are currently Chinese, Indian, Western European (Euro-Atlantic), Orthodox (Eastern European), Islamic, Latin American, African and Japanese civilizations.

    Yuri Kirshin in vain did not mention the author of the idea of ​​a comparative study of civilizations, which was Sir Arnold Joseph Toynbee... And the next paragraph about religion also shows who the author picked up "smart" thoughts. It is sacred to mention the author when you apply his uttered thought! Toynbee's idefix: challenge-response, but Yuri Kirshin was more likely unable to apply Toynbee's methodology to explain the depths of his stolen thought to the reading laymen, i.e. us with you.
    The Marxist-Leninist doctrine of war, despite its narrow understanding, contributed to world military culture. Marxism-Leninism corresponded to the totalitarian and authoritarian Soviet regime. And vice versa, the totalitarian and authoritarian regime corresponded to Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism, a totalitarian and authoritarian state provided reliable protection of the Soviet state, won a great victory over totalitarian fascism, allowed to wage a cold war with the United States and with NATO.

    So stated in Y. Kirshina.
    The fact that the Russians succeeded in seizing the initiative from the West, armed with the western heresy called communism, and then scattering it around the world with a poisonous cloud of anti-Western propaganda, does not mean that communism will certainly triumph. The Marxist theory, in the opinion of a non-Marxist, is too narrow and too perverted to satisfy human aspirations for all time.

    So stated in A.J. Toynbee in the book "Civilization before the Judgment of History". This is where Yu. Kirshin got his plagiarism.
    Conclusion: to the author of the article - there are no brains, and no figs to use other people's thoughts. Toynbee is plus, and Kirshin is minus.
  18. Selendis
    Selendis 14 December 2013 21: 50 New
    +1
    Guys, everyone knows that a person as a creature is a predator, but in nature, a flock of predators does not attack another flock, everything is solved differently, and from nature this is alien to us, but for thousands of years, until now, apart from diplomacy, they have not come up with anything better. Who invented wars - even the smartest person in the world will no longer say. How best to consider them, I think it is worth going from the situation and those peoples that participate in it, accumulating experience, but not making false conclusions. But, I think that a predatory man, defending, will kill, while attacking, he will also kill, and only a real Man will find the words to resolve the most difficult conflicts. Plus, again, with a man - the beast sometimes also does not agree, this should also be clear. On the other hand, you can write an article based on Sun Tzu's "art of war". War - we must remember what our grandfathers said ... It's a pity that many already forget this ...
  19. Alex 63
    Alex 63 15 December 2013 01: 51 New
    +2
    The main features of Marxism-Leninism are: militancy, aggressiveness, hegemonism, adventurism, purposeful use of the destructive component of scientific and technological progress for just and unjust wars; achievement of political and strategic goals by immoral and illegal means. request - I’m thinking about modern crap democracy. At least one in one about US politics.
  20. RUSS
    RUSS 15 December 2013 10: 06 New
    0
    Quote: lonely
    The war has not yet benefited anyone. But sometimes, unfortunately, this is the only way out of the situation.

    War is killing people, and the best part is !!

    The only way? I bet typing that you thought about Karabakh.
  21. alicante11
    alicante11 15 December 2013 10: 33 New
    0
    Hmm, what a delicious liberalistic nonsense.

    Throughout its history, the Soviet Union has been preparing for only class wars. The class approach lay at the heart of military policy. The Soviet Union waged a class war in Finland and Afghanistan, supported Kim Il Sung from a class perspective and partially participated in the Korean War on its side.


    The class war in Finland with the goal of pushing the border from Leningrad. Purely such a tactical class goal ... What the commissars reported on political information there is another question. But the goals of this war are by no means class.
    Afghan - I wonder if the respected author knows how much drugs come to us from Afgan? I hope he does not have any family members sitting on the Afghan herych. And all this is a consequence of the fact that we have stopped this "class" war so ineptly.
    North Korea! And who is interested in having NATO bases next to their warhead on the theater - Vladivostok? No, we are purely so, brothers in theory to help came out ...

    Hence the conclusion.

    The class approach did not allow Marxist ideologists to understand the role of geopolitics, geographic factor, and space in wars.


    Either the ideologists were not honored by the Soviet leadership, or the author is not all right with the ideologists.

    From class positions, Soviet ideologists assessed the sources of the victories of the Great Patriotic War; only from class positions did they rethink the military history of Russia.


    Interestingly, Stalin's appeal to the church is also a class approach in the war? And the address "Brothers and Sisters" is such a standard address of the communists ...

    The Soviet Union in wars pursued the following goals. Firstly, the defense of socialism, independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity. Secondly, assistance to the revolutionary forces, the spread of socialism (in Spain, Finland, Korea, Afghanistan and other countries).
  22. alicante11
    alicante11 15 December 2013 10: 33 New
    +1
    Uh-huh, who was there in Spain a "revolutionary rebel"? Really Republicans? And it always seemed to me that the rebel was Franco. It seems that it has already been said about Korea, Finland and Afghan.

    Marxist ideologists argued that wars between socialist states are impossible, although there was a war between the PRC and Vietnam, there was an armed conflict between the Soviet Union and the PRC.


    Yeah, only by that time, China was in full swing with the Amer imperialists against the USSR. And the socialist in it is exactly the same as the communist in the Communist Party. Although, of course, with two or more major socialist geopolitical players, a conflict between them is quite possible.

    When the Second World War began, they were sure that it would give an impetus to the independence movement of the oppressed peoples.


    But didn’t it start? How long did the British Empire last after WWII?

    The absolutization of the class approach in defense of the socialist Fatherland, and not the Fatherland as a whole, the mistakes of the political and strategic leadership, the lack of the concept of protecting the population in the occupied territories reduced to a certain extent the homeland in the Great Patriotic War.


    The question is, how did this manifest itself - the class approach to the Great Patriotic War? And such a stupid question - and HOW can you protect the population in the territory occupied by the enemy? Or is it again about billions of raped German women?

    The class approach hindered to a certain extent the actions of the Soviet Union to prevent the Second World War, as well as the establishment of allied relations of the Soviet Union with the United States and Great Britain.


    Yes, yes, it was the USSR that demanded fulfillment of obligations to capitalist Czechoslovakia. And the native capitalist naglofrantsuzy threats forced the Czechs to yield to the fascists. CLEAN The class approach, by concepts.
  23. alicante11
    alicante11 15 December 2013 10: 37 New
    0
    According to Lenin, there is no morality in politics, but expediency.


    And who will show Monet at least one "moral" war of the capitalist Empire of Good?

    Marxism could not even raise the question of justice, morality, the means and methods used in wars, and this is natural, since some Soviet politicians and strategists used immoral and unjust methods and methods in fair wars in defense of their state.


    For instance? probably the Germans were bombed on the territory of Sprotland? Non-kosher. It was necessary to arrange carpet bombing of German cities like Dresden with the formation of "Fire storm. This would be highly moral and humane. And it would be even better to shower the Germans with vigorous loaves."

    As already mentioned, totalitarian and authoritarian socialism was a source of war,


    Yes Yes. I see how the Marxist-Leninists destroy the 300 Spartans in Thermopylae under the bursting calls of the leader, how the Khrushchev barbarians rob Rome, and how the Stalinist iron phalanx crushes the Empire of Darius. And the fleet of the sailor Zheleznyak smashes the Invincible Armada into chips. Marxists-Leninists are to blame for all wars. What can I say there!

    The Bolsheviks approached the question of preventing wars in capitalist states primarily from the class standpoint, from the standpoint of the proletariat.


    And from whatever position you approach - when the enemies are fighting, it is beneficial to us. For some reason, it is not shameful for amers - to sit out in the bushes for half the war, and Marxist-Leninists must "prevent" wars among their enemies. Are they all red-haired chtoli?
  24. alicante11
    alicante11 15 December 2013 10: 40 New
    +1
    The ideologists of Marxism-Leninism did not consider man to be the main value, therefore they did not create a man-saving military culture. The desire to achieve goals in military operations at any cost led to huge losses, reduced the gene pool of the Soviet people.


    But it seems to me that the gene pool of the Soviet people was reduced by the policy of the imperialist powers. Who ignited the fire of war, and then sat out for the La Yamanshei and the Ocean, watching whose they take.

    The leadership of the Soviet Union in 20 – 50-s of the last century reacted negatively to the norms of international humanitarian law. Only when Gorbachev came to power, did Defense Minister Yazov sign an order on the use of international humanitarian law.


    Poor German prisoners of war who disappeared by the millions in Stalin's dungeons ... And all their fault was that they just came to visit, however, without invitation and without notice. And for these vile Marxist-Leninists, the uninvited guest turned out to be worse than the Tatar. And at this time "Stalin's falcons", who had escaped from the barrage of machine guns, burst in captivity from fat, the last crumbs of which were given to them by compassionate burghers.

    In conclusion, we give the definition of war. War is a historical universal human phenomenon, a way of life of mankind, an organized armed struggle of peoples, states, religious denominations using traditional and new types of weapons, as well as non-military forms of struggle to achieve political, social, demographic, economic, cultural, ethnic and religious goals.


    Ladies and gentlemen, comrades and comrades, ladies and gentlemen. Now you know what kind of "lifestyle" gentlemen "COSMOPOLITES" offer us. Fight for the profits of TNCs on the ground, in the air, under water, in the Internet and on TV screens. And then THEM will be happy, and you, that is, we are a consumable for these wars.
    LORD! It is so good that Comrade Beria created a nuclear bomb for the USSR! How many lives every day he, being already killed and slandered, now saves.
  25. Altona
    Altona 15 December 2013 12: 52 New
    +1
    Wars from the capitalist countries have always been economically motivated, the struggle for markets, for resources, trampling a competitor into the Stone Age ... This does not go to the grandmother ... There are no sociocultural and civilizational contradictions ...
    Wars between socialist countries pursue the elimination of "revisionism" in a friendly state, the expansion of buffer zones in order to more successfully repel imperialist aggression, the planting of a "friendly" government to project socialism in the region ...
    Probably I put it in a utilitarian way, but I am not able to spread speculations about "local" civilizations either ...
  26. Altona
    Altona 15 December 2013 16: 32 New
    +2
    Quote: alicante11
    Poor German prisoners of war who disappeared by the millions in Stalin's dungeons ... And all their fault was that they just came to visit, however, without invitation and without notice. And for these vile Marxist-Leninists, the uninvited guest turned out to be worse than the Tatar. And at this time "Stalin's falcons", who had escaped from the barrage of machine guns, burst in captivity from fat, the last crumbs of which were given to them by compassionate burghers.

    ----------------------------------
    Nobody died there, all the more in millions of them ... All of them were engaged in the restoration of the destroyed ones, which is quite fair ... All who survived were able to calmly leave the USSR and go to Germany, many started families ... Our larger the country could not offer, we ourselves lived poorly to create preferences for the former enemy ...
  27. alicante11
    alicante11 15 December 2013 16: 51 New
    0
    Well, I think it’s clear that this is sarcasm. the author is just zhzhot napalm, so at first I got angry, and then the snickers were nailed by the complete nonsense of what was written.
  28. Reyngard
    Reyngard 15 December 2013 19: 48 New
    -2
    In principle, Asians destroyed themselves ... Why are they needed now? The answer looms, just kill the Asian!
  29. dmb
    dmb 16 December 2013 15: 54 New
    0
    It feels like the article was written by Mikhal Sergeich, who decided to make a fool of himself from abroad of our Motherland. Well, if not himself, then a gentleman who receives money in his fund. Traitors always seek excuses for their betrayal, and this is no exception. However, apart from pseudo-idle talk, they do not say anything practical, and they cannot explain what their chatter about the aggressiveness of communism is based on. Not for them, but for those who sometimes believe them. Even when they talk about the desire to arrange a world revolution, they completely forget that the ideas that motivated these people a) did not suspect their personal enrichment at all and b) were in demand where a handful of rulers brought their people to the bestial position. And for the most part she brought not only her own, but also other nations. The gentleman who wrote the article obviously considers colonialism a great blessing. You can agree with him only if you are cattle, and consider the rest of the people as the second grade. Swearing on communism, this gentleman is diligently silent, and what kind of society he offers in return, because after Serbia and Libya, Japan and Iraq, one does not have to talk about the humanism of Western civilization.