13

p The United States of America emerged as an independent state from the revolutionary war of liberation the North American colonies waged against British rule in 1776-83. In his analysis of that war, Lenin wrote: "The history of modern, civilised America opened with one of those great, really liberating, really revolutionary wars of which there have been so few compared to the vast number of wars of conquest... .”  [13•1 

p Although its own history opened with a revolutionary war it was not long before the United States itself embarked on a policy of aggression. American history is replete with wars of conquest and crimes, instances of cynical violation of other peoples’ rights and interests, interference in the affairs of other states under all manner of pretexts. As early as the War of Independence, the USA began to display a bent for aggrandisement and territorial expansion. At the peace talks with Britain the USA, which originally consisted of 13 states, demanded that Canada, which contained several British colonies at the time, be joined to it as the fourteenth state. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the North American continent was the main scene of US predatory wars. The US expansion encountered but slight resistance from the strife-torn Indian tribes, other neighbours who were weak militarily and economically and European powers busy with their feuds. Within the first century of its independence, the USA 14 widened its territory tenfold with a relatively little war effort.

p Even in the pre-monopoly period, the expansionist ambitions of young US capitalism were not confined to the North American continent. In addition to its "domestic colonisation" drive the USA went ahead with the annexation and recarving in its favour colonies and spheres of influence in Latin America, Asia and the Far East. In Latin America, it acted under cover of the notorious Monroe Doctrine. In Asia and the Far East, where open conquest seemed impracticable on account of opposition from the strong colonial powers of Europe, the USA chose to rely on the "open doors" doctrine. At that time, the USA pursued an “isolationist” policy of non-participation in European affairs yet seized every opportunity to strengthen its positions outside Europe in the “peripheral” regions of the world at the expense of the European powers.

p For all that, however, in the pre-monopoly period, US militarism was way behind its counterpart in the Old World. Unlike Europe, the United States had no experience of frequent, prolonged and bloody wars between dynasties. The few wars it waged had required a relatively small army and furnished no breeding ground for the growth of militarism. In the seventies of the last century, Marx wrote that because of its specific historical conditions, militarism and the. bureaucracy in America were far less developed than in capitalist Europe. As time went on, however, the situation changed. The US military establishment steadily grew swelled by every new war. The rise of militarism was whipped up to a frantic pace by the advent of the imperialist era when the US rulers became obsessed by a craving for expansion, colonial conquest and forcible redivision of the world to bring it into line with the new balance of power.

p The growth of US militarism was stimulated by the economic and political ambitions of the ruling circles, the continued development of capitalism. Lenin wrote in this connection that "modern militarism is the result of capitalism. In both its forms it is the ’vital expression’ of capitalism—as a military force used by the capitalist states in their external conflicts (Militarisms nach aussen, as the Germans say) and as a weapon in the hands of the ruling classes for 15 suppressing every kind of movement, economic and political, of the proletariat (Militarismus nach innen)".  [15•1 

p American capitalism developed by leaps and bounds. Industry grew faster than anywhere else in the capitalist world. In 1820, the US share in world industrial output was 6 per cent; in 1840, 7 per cent; in 1850, 12 per cent, reaching 15 per cent in 1860, when the USA ranked fourth in the world for total industrial output.

p The abolition of Negro slavery, which hampered capitalist development, gave a new impetus to the productive forces. Within three decades following the Civil War the United States became the world’s biggest industrial power. Describing its economy Lenin wrote that "the USA is unrivalled either in the rate of development of capitalism at the turn of the century, .or in the record level of capitalist development already attained; nor has it any rival in the vastness of the territory developed with the use of the most up-to-date machinery, which is adapted to the remarkable variety of natural and historical conditions.. .".  [15•2 

p Thus, by the late 19th century, the USA had emerged as the world’s leading nation industrially and technologically due to the specific historical conditions under which capitalism developed there: absence of survivals of feudalism, availability of vast “vacant” territories and a rich variety of natural resources, favourable climatic and geographical conditions, development unhindered by protracted wars, the advantage of labour immigration, the use of the capital and technological know-how of advanced European countries in building up industry, protection of domestic industries against foreign competition by high import tariffs, etc.

p Despite its rise to the top in the world economy the USA, however, was behind a number of European states for the size of colonial possession and spheres of influence. To eliminate this disproportion, the US imperialists redoubled their efforts to expand them. As the world had already been divided the USA could achieve its goals only by re-dividing it by force of arms. Yet militarily the USA was inferior to the European powers at the time. That is why in the 1890s 16 the US imperialists stepped up their military activities, planning to use armed force, particularly the Navy, in pursuing a "policy of strength" to attain their political and economic goals on the world scene.

p Simultaneously, the US ruling circles proceeded to justify their policy ideologically, claiming that history had vested in the United States responsibility for leading the world. The US historian Woodrow Wilson, who later became President, bluntly stated: "We have come to full maturity.. . and the day of our isolation is past.... A new age is before us in which, it would seem, we must lead the world.”  [16•1 

p In the late 19th and early 20th century, the US imperialists extensively combined their "dollar diplomacy" with a "big stick" policy. In 1898, they unleashed the Spanish-American war, the first imperialist war for a redivision of the world. That war exposed the USA as a full-fledged imperialist power using armed force to grab territory from the old colonial powers. In that war, the USA seized the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and other islands and established its domination in Cuba. In these newly acquired territories, it went about setting up its first overseas bases—strategic outposts of US imperialism.

In the early 20th century, the US economy continued to develop at a much faster rate than that of the Old World. In 1913, the US share in world industrial output grew to 35.8 per cent from 30.1 per cent in the period 1896-1900. The USA provided a graphic illustration for the law of the uneven economic and political development of capitalist countries in the jmperialist era formulated by Lenin. The relatively rapid US economic build-up was accompanied by a growing disparity in the world alignment of forces and by rivalry in the contest for colonies and spheres of influence between the USA and the European powers embroiled as the latter were at the time in a bitter imperialist tussle. It was precisely this struggle for a redivision of the world, rather than the “lofty” and “noble” motives bourgeois apologists are so fond of invoking, that induced the USA to renounce the neutrality it had declared on August 4, 1914. Planning 17 to derive maximum profits and dictate its terms of a peace settlement, the USA declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917 when World War I was in its closing stage. The total strength of the American forces and US direct military expenditures in World War I are given in the following table.

Fiscal year Total armed forces, thous. Direct military expenditure (mil. dollars) in current prices in stable prices 1957-58* 1917 1918 1919 361 1,708 3,041 602 7,110 13,548 936 9,916 17,873 Total ..... — 21,260 28,725 * Data in stable prices as calculated by Author.

p Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, I960, Washington, 1959, p. 244.

p The US total war spending in fiscal 1917-19 was 21,260 million dollars in current prices. Its actual spending on World War I, however, was somewhat less, since the USA was not at war through all of the period 1916/17-1918/19.

p In addition to its direct war expenditures, the US Administration granted generous loans to its allies. The First Liberty Loan Act of April 1917 authorised the Secretary of

the Treasury, on the approval of the President, to make loans to allied governments up to 10,000 million dollars. In fact the US allies were loaned the following sums (see the table on the right):

Year Mil. dollars 1917 1918 1919 1920 885.0 4,739.4 3,470.3 350.3 Total .... 9,445.0

p Source: Harold Underwood Faulkner, American Economic History, New York, 1960, p. 597.

p When the Act came into force, the foreign governments were no longer granted private US loans which until then had
amounted to an impressive total. For example, between the outbreak of World War I 18

p and April 1917, US private loans to the Entente powers totalled 2,300 million dollars, of which 1,500 million had been made by Morgan alone. US bankers actively promoted the sales in the United States of stocks and bonds by Europeans. Between 1914 and 1919, some 3,000 million dollars’ worth of American stocks and bonds were sold by foreign owners.  [18•1  The European powers had to repay part of the US war supplies with securities of US companies.

p The First World War gave a mighty impetus to the development of US militarism and prompted a cardinal revision of Marx’s statement on the absence of militarism in the USA. Lenin wrote in The State and Revolution: "Today, in 1917, at the time of the first great imperialist war, this restriction made by Marx is no longer valid. Both Britain and America, the biggest and the last representatives—in the whole world—of Anglo-Saxon ‘liberty’, in the sense that they had no militarist cliques and bureaucracy, have completely sunk into the all-European filthy, bloody morass of bureaucratic-military institutions which subordinate everything to themselves, and suppress everything.”  [18•2 

p World War I whetted the aggressive appetites of the US imperialists who were out to annex new territories, acquire new spheres of influence and ultimately establish their domination in the world. That this was so was evidenced, among other things, by the 14-point Peace Programme put forward by President Wilson. Another striking proof was the US active participation in the armed intervention against the young Soviet Republic.

p The US casualties and losses in World War I were much smaller than those of the other belligerents. A little over 50,000 US servicemen were killed in action or died from wounds, which was l/25th, l/20th, and l/10th of the German, French and British casualties respectively. The war effort of all the belligerents cost them a total of 208,100 million dollars, of which the US share was 19.800 million, that of Britain 40,900 million, France 33,600 million, Germany 47,000 million dollars.  [18•3 

19

p With a smaller loss of lives and far less material spending the US rulers derived from the war much greater profits than the ruling circles of the other belligerent powers did. The market situation during the war stimulated the rapid development of the US economy. The gross national product grew from 39,000 million dollars in 1913 to 77,100 million in 1918. US foreign trade expanded rapidly. The favourable trade balance resulted in the US gold reserves increasing from 1,526 million dollars in 1914 to 2,873 million in 1918.   [19•1 

p The war brought fabulous profits to the US financial oligarchy. In his "Letter to the American Workers”, Lenin wrote that American multimillionaires "have profited more than all the rest. They have converted all, even the richest, countries into their tributaries. They have grabbed hundreds of billions of dollars.... Every dollar is sullied with the filth of ‘profitable’ war contracts, which in every country made the rich richer and the poor poorer. And every dollar is stained with blood—from that ocean of blood that has been shed by the ten million killed and twenty million maimed....”  [19•2 

p After the war the world balance of power changed drastically.’The world’s first socialist government came to power in Russia in the wake of the victorious socialist revolution which ushered in a new era in mankind’s history, that of transition from capitalism to socialism. Apart from that, a new alignment of forces was in evidence among the capitalist states. The US economic and political role in the capitalist world had grown markedly. The USA had also moved ahead of the rest of the world in volume of exports. It had scooped up some 40 per cent of the world’s gold reserves. Once a debtor nation, it was now an international creditor. The economic centre of capitalism had shifted from Europe to North America.

p In the twenties and thirties of this century, the US ruling quarters used their superior economic and financial positions to try and establish their domination in Europe. They took advantage, among other things, of the painful problem of war reparations and debts. At the US initiative, the 20 London Conference of the Entente powers in 1924 adopted the Dawes Plan and the Hague Conference of 1930, the Young Plan. These plans were designed to help the USA exploit the German reparations problem so as to establish its financial domination in Germany and at the same time increase the financial dependence of Britain, France, Italy and other European powers on the United States. What is more, it hoped that these plans would help it enslave the USSR economically. The plans failed but the US financial aid to Germany contributed to the revival of German militarism which soon plunged the world into another global war.

p In the twenties the US economy continued to swell. US foreign investments increased markedly, particularly in Canada and Latin America. The US imperialists further consolidated their economic and financial positions in the capitalist world. The US economic growth was set back by the world economic crisis of 1929-33, then by the crisis of 1937-38. The slump of the thirties was terminated by the outbreak of World War II.

p Under cover of the Neutrality Act of May 1, 1937, and its so-called policy of isolationism, the US Administration jointly with the governments of other capitalist states encouraged in effect the rearmament of nazi Germany and preparations for a second world war. When the war broke out, the USA chose to remain neutral. On September 9, 1939, however, President Roosevelt stated in a radio address on the outbreak of the European war: "This nation will remain a neutral nation, but I cannot ask that every American remain neutral in thought as well.”  [20•1  On September 5, 1939, the US Government issued a declaration of neutrality and imposed an embargo on arms exports to the belligerent powers. Two months or so later, however, at President Roosevelt’s insistence, the embargo was lifted to facilitate US aid to embattled Britain and France.

p After its declaration of neutrality the USA stepped up its defence work, setting up special agencies to deal with economic mobilisation in an emergency. The defence appropriations and the strength of the armed forces were increased, and a decision was taken to expand the arms industries. 21 Congress passed a universal conscription act. Before long, the USA launched an extensive programme of arms shipments to Britain which was expanded particularly after the passage of the Lend-Lease Act of March 11, 1941. The Act authorised the President to lend and lease armaments and other materials to any state the defence of which he deemed essential for the security of the United States.

p After nazi Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union, the USA continued to abide by its declaration of neutrality. What is more, its reactionary quarters sought to exploit the nazi attack to further their imperialist ends by steps to drag out the war and thus have Germany and the USSR bleed each other as long as possible. But the more far-sighted of the American leaders, notably President Roosevelt, who were fully aware of the extent of the nazi menace, knew that the US interests would be best served by an alliance with and assistance to the USSR in its war against nazi Germany. Two days after the German attack on the USSR the Roosevelt Administration declared that the United States would give the Soviet Union every possible assistance. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 ended the US neutrality. Before the end of the month the USA declared war on nazi Germany and Italy.

p World War II assumed a much wider scale than World War I. American economists estimated that the direct war expenditures of all the belligerent capitalist states in World War II totalled 925,000 million dollars, of which the US share was 325,000 million, nazi Germany’s 272,000 million, Britain’s 120,000 million, Italy’s 94,000 million, Japan’s 56,000 million, and France’s 15,000 million.  [21•1 

The US ruling circles have been exaggerating in every way their financial losses in World War II and their contribution to victory over nazi Germany. President Truman, in his message to Congress on the budget for fiscal 1947, stated that the Second World War had cost the USA 347,000 million dollars. These totals (325,000 million and 347,000 million dollars) are clearly overstated, as evidenced, in particular, by other US publications giving smaller figures.

22 Table 1 US War Expenditures, Fiscal Years 19’il Through 1945 (thousand million dollars) Department Fiscal years Total 1941 1942 1943 19/i 4 1945 Defence Department .... Department of the Navy . . Maritime Commission . . . War Shipping Administration .... 3.7 2.3 0.1 * ’ * 0.2 14.1 8.6 0.9 0.1 0.7 0.5 1.1 42.3 20.9 2.8 1.1 2.0 1.2 1.9 49.2 26.5 3.8 1.9 2.1 1.4 1.9 50.3 30.0 3.2 2.0 1.2 1.5 1.7 159.6 88.3 10.8 5.1 6.0 4.0 6.8 Department of Agriculture The Treasury . . Other . . Total .......... 6.3 26.0 72.2 86.8 89.9 281.2

p * Less than 50 million dollars.

p Source: Richard W. Lindholm, Public Finance and Fiscal Policy, New York, 1950, p. 257.

p Lindholm, for instance, writes that during the five fiscal years of the war (1941-45), the US total military expenditure, including that under the Lend-Lease Act, amounted to 281,200 million dollars, i.e., 87.1 per cent of the total budget appropriations. Lindholm adduces further data on their annual distribution between individual departments (see Table 1). A considerable share of the sums tabulated for the Department of Agriculture and the Treasury was expended under Lend-Lease.

p According to official American sources, "national defence" spending for the period 1940/41-1944/45 totalled 251,300 million dollars in current prices.  [22•1  A sizable proportion of that was spending under the Lend-Lease Act. Between March 11, 1941 and October 1, 1945, it ran to some 44,000 million dollars, of which 22,100 million was spent on arms shipments, 9,700 million on equipment and materials 23 supplies, 6,100 million on food supplies, 2,300 million on petroleum products deliveries, and 3,800 million on transportation and other services.

p Unquestionably, America’s aid to its wartime allies under Lend-Lease was a help in their struggle against nazi Germany, but the US ruling quarters have played up the role of Lend-Lease as the well-nigh crucial factor of victory over nazi Germany. At the same time, they prefer to keep silent about Lend-Lease being a means for US imperialism to attain its long-range goals. L. S. Amery, of the British Conservative Party, in a book published in 1946, writes that American businessmen and senators regarded Lend-Lease as a "business transaction in which Britain was hired for the job of defending America".  [23•1 

p World War II boosted US economic growth. Situated far away from the main theatres of war, the USA took advantage of the war market situation to consolidate its economic and political positions in the capitalist world. The US monopolies raked in fat profits from war supplies. The US gold reserves grew from 12,790 million dollars in 1937 to 24,399 million in 1948, which was 71.3 per cent of the total the capitalist world had at the time. The US share in the industrial output of the capitalist world increased from 34.9 per cent in 1938 to 53.9 per cent in 1948.

p Leaning on their overwhelming economic and military power in a situation where the economy of Western Europe was ravaged by the war, the US imperialists went ahead with steps to establish their world domination, opening a cold war against the Soviet Union and other socialist states, making efforts to check the national liberation movements in the colonial and dependent countries. The USA became the centre of militarism and reaction, acting as the ^ “savior” of the capitalist system and as a "world policeman”.

p At the end of and immediately after World War II the USA, in its aggressive plans, pinned great hopes on its atom bomb monopoly as an instrument of pressure on the Soviet Union. Secretary of State Byrnes in an interview in June 1945 with US nuclear scientists opposed to the atomic 24 bombing of Japan, did not argue that the bomb was needed to defeat Japan, but rather that it should be dropped on its cities to "make Russia more manageable in Europe”. One may fully agree with the British Professor Blackett when he says that the atomic bombing of Japan "was not so much the last military act of the Second World War, as the first act of the cold diplomatic war with Russia”.

p The US post-war policy found its graphic expression in their military strategy, in the nature of their military- economic activities. The weakness of other capitalist states, recipients of US aid under the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan and other programmes, the common class interests of the ruling circles of the capitalist states, and their fear of the growing socialist system enhanced still more by the USfabricated myth of the non-existent "Soviet threat"—enabled the USA to knock together the aggressive NATO, SEATO and CENTO military blocs, conclude many bilateral military treaties, set up numerous military bases, notably in capitalist countries bordering on the socialist states. All this was accompanied by declarations of peace and the allegedly defensive nature of US-led military alliances and treaties.

p The Soviet Government from the very outset exposed the far-reaching plans of the USA and of the military blocs set up under its aegis. In connection with the setting up of NATO the Soviet Government stated that "the NATO countries are not threatened by anyone and no one is going to attack them, that this military bloc has an aggressive character and is spearheaded against the USSR and other peace-loving countries".  [24•1 

p The USA, and its allies of the military blocs, embarked on the road of aggravating the world situation and stepped up the arms race in preparation for a war of aggression against the socialist countries. This stimulated the growth of militarism at a pace unprecedented in peacetime. The military expenditures of the imperialist powers grew rapidly to reach astronomic proportions (see Table 2). In 1971, NATO’s direct military spending was 5.7 times that in 1949, the NATO foundation year.

25

p At no period in human history has militarism involved as many countries as today. Outside the USA, militarism has developed in those capitalist countries whose ruling circles resort to armed force to strengthen their class domination, fight against revolutionary movements, retain their colonies and seize new territories.

p Great Britain ranks second among the imperialist powers for the amount of military spending and the extent of militarisation of the economy. A considerable proportion of the British armed forces is stationed overseas. The geography of British military presence abroad is striking evidence of its being used to preserve by force of arms the remnants of the British Empire and fulfil Britain’s commitments within the NATO, SEATO and CENTO blocs of which she is a member. Another factor contributing to the growth of British militarism is its alliance with US imperialism, the “special” Anglo-American relationship extending also to the military field. This is illustrated among other things by Britain’s active support for US aggressive military and political actions. Today when a trend towards termination of the cold war and towards detente is in evidence in the world, Britain’s Conservative government is stubbornly seeking to secure an increase in the military power and military outlays of the NATO member states.

p The USA and the North Atlantic bloc it heads contributed to the revival of militarism and revanchism in the FRG. Following its entry into NATO in May 1955, the FRG took an active part in the arms race in later years. According to West German press reports, since May 1945, the FRG has spent on arms procurement far more than nazi Germany did between 1933 and 1939. The FRG’s direct military spending grew from 12,100 million DM in 1960 to 22,600 million in 1970. In 1958, the FRG contributed a mere 2.6 per cent of NATO’s total military expenditures. In 1970, its share increased to 6.1 per cent. The coming to power in the autumn of 1969 of the "minority coalition" of the Social-Democrats and Free Democrats, the conclusion of the treaties with the Soviet Union and Poland, which confirm the inviolability of the borders existing in Europe, the accord on West Berlin, the treaty on the main principles of relations between the GDR and the FRG, as well as some other realistic foreign
•
26 Table Direct Military Expenditures of NATO Member States (million dollars) 1949 1951 1953 1955 1957 I960 19G2 1965 1967 1969 1070* 1971 USA 13,503 372 2,181 1,370 33,059 1,220 3,217 2,517 49,377 1,970 4,715 3,962 1,497 768 350 307 396 129 149 94 69 10 40,371 1,819 4,388 3,148 1,758 882 447 385 341 133 138 133 77 12 44,159 1,829 4,390 4,457 2,134 978 486 475 367 147 147 151 83 9 45,380 1,654 4,597 3,911 2,905 1,145 458 267 386 161 149 170 105 5 52,381 1,715 5,039 4,527 4,319 1,389 607 331 425 225 193 170 200 7 51,827 1,535 5,819 5,163 4,979 1,942 753 421 504 286 267 210 231 10 75,451 1,817 6,386 5,900 5,348 2,178 888 505 573 326 295 313 324 8 81 ,444 1,756 5,452 5,763 5,832 2,258 1,023 593 630 352 352 425 367 8 77,827 1,906 5,950 5,982 6,188 2,340 1,102 622 701 367 380 473 430 8 77,791 1,006 6,473 6,309 7,026 2,625 1,205 540 745 405 420 533 440 9 Canada . . . Britain . . . France .... FRG** . . . Italy .... Netherlands . Turkey . . . Belgium . . . Denmark . . Norway . . . Greece .... Portugal . . . Luxemburg . . 482 179 199 153 52 52 51 50 2 731 279 233 268 69 80 90 54 5 Total . . Share of West European countries 18,700 4,825 41,906 7,627 63,750 12,403 54,068 11,828 59,802 13,814 61,265 14,231 71,504 17,408 73,936 20,574 100,321 23,053 106,416 23,216 104,286 24,553 106,420 26,723 XI o H Pi P! O O o

p Note: Expenditures are quoted from NATO statistics slightly varying from national ones. The total is not fully equivalent to the total for individual countries due to approximation in conversion of national currencies to US dollars.

p * Estimate.

p ** Before entry to NATO (in May 1955) the FRG Government met the occupation expenses of some NATO members and made a number of other payments as part of NATO’s military expenditures.

Sources: The Commonwealth Survey, February 2, 1965, p. 112; NATO Letter, December 1970, p. 23; Aerospace Daily. 1971. p. 272.

27
•
policy actions of Chancellor Brandt’s government have notably contributed to improving the situation in Europe.

p One should not ignore the fact, however, that under the pressure of Right-wing militarist extremists, the Bonn Government is nevertheless contemplating a further expansion of military activity and an appreciable increase in the expenditure on the Bundeswehr.

p In defiance of the restrictions on arms manufacture imposed by the Potsdam Agreements, West German monopolies are rapidly building up military industry. Before the mid-sixties, the FRG imported mostly from the USA about sixty per cent of its weapons and military equipment. Today West German arms manufacturers win most of the government’s military orders.

p In the late sixties, the arms race was whipped up to a frantic pace in other NATO countries as well. As a result their military spending shot up from 61,300 million dollars in 1960 to 106,400 million in 1971. Between 1949 and 1971, NATO’s direct military expenditures amounted to 1,580,000 million dollars, of which the USA provided some 75 per cent.

p In the past few years, resurging Japanese militarism has been showing signs of renewed activity. In Japan, a country which has suffered the horrors of atomic bombing, influential political circles are openly calling for bringing Japan’s military power into line with her economic potential. The 25th Congress of the ruling Liberal-Democratic Party early in 1971 significantly took a decision to launch a campaign for "regaining northern territories”. Former Prime Minister Eisaku Sato went so far as to declare openly that this was the "greatest task" facing Japan. Japan’s rapidly growing economic potential is being used by its reactionary circles to build up the military machine, to the accompaniment of revanchist slogans and open claims to parts of Soviet territory.

p Japan’s military spending rose from 421 million dollars in 1960 to 1,864 million in 1971. The Japanese Government has plans to step up their military-economic activity. Evidence of this comes from the draft of the fourth five-year programme covering the period 1972/73 to 1976/77. Under this programme, expenditure on the development of Japan’s 28 armed forces is slated to total 5,200,000 million yen. By comparison, between 1967/68 to 1971/72 the total was only 2,340,000 million yen and 1,160,000 million yen between 1962/63 and 1966/67.

p Israel has become one of the world’s most militarised states. Israeli militarism is an arm of world imperialism. Having seized a large part of Arab territory the Tel Aviv aggressors arrogantly refuse to withdraw their troops from all occupied lands, ignoring thereby a major prerequisite for a political settlement of the Middle East crisis. The recent outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East was another evidence of the Israeli military circles planning to annex the lands seized from the Arabs and to occupy more territory. Israel has launched a feverish drive to strengthen her armed forces. The Israeli war budget for 1972/73 broke the record at some 5,300 million Israeli pounds.  [28•1 

p The USA, the strongest imperialist power economically and militarily, has lavished colossal material and financial resources on the maintenance and reinforcement of its immense military machine (see Table 3).

p The growing aggressiveness of US imperialism and the escalation of the war in Indochina were accompanied not only by an increase in war expenditures colossal as they are, but also by a steady rise in the proportion of that expenditure in the overall military-economic activities of the capitalist world. Indeed, whereas in 1966 the USA accounted for 45.2 per cent of the combined strength of the armed forces of the capitalist countries and for 69.4 per cent of the total military spending of the advanced capitalist states, by 1970 the corresponding figures were 48.6 per cent and 71.1 per cent (see Table 3).

p In the sixties, and especially since 1965, when the escalation of the Vietnam war began, there has been a rapid increase in the strength and equipment of the US armed forces. The ground and naval forces have been increased the most. The United States’ transition from the strategy of "massive nuclear retaliation" to that of "flexible response" and the growing demands of the Vietnam war were the reasons
•
29 Table 3 Summary of US Active Military Personnel and Forces (June 30) Fiscal Years 1951 1965 1967 1970 1973* 1974’ Military personnel (thousands) Army ......... 858 968 1,442 1,322 825 804 Navy ......... 627 671 752 692 574 566 Marine Corps ..... 177 190 285 260 197 196 Air Force ....... 820 824 897 791 692 666 Total, Department of Defence ..... 2,482 2,653 3,376 3,066 2,288 2,233 Strategic forces Intercontinental ballistic missiles Minuteman .... 800 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Titan II ..... 54 54 54 54 54 Polaris Poseidon
submarines/missiles** 5 0 29 0 41 656 41 656 41 656 41 656 Strategic bomber squadrons ....... 40*** 30**** 30 28 General purpose forces Land forces Army divisions . . . 11 16 17 17V. 13 13 Marine Corps divisions 3 3 3 3 Tactical Air Forces Air Force wings . . . 22*** ... 23 21 21 Navy attack wings . . 15 15 13 14 14 Marine Corps wings . . 3 3 3 3 Naval forces Attack and
antisubmarine carriers .... 24 25 23 1£ If 15 Nuclear attack submarines 13 21 28 41 6C 64 30 Fiscal Years 1901 1965 1967 1970 1973* 1974* Other warships ..... 438 404*** 330 309 256 Airlift and sealift forces C-5A aircraft squadrons . — — — 1 4 Other aircraft squadrons 32*** 17 13 13 Troopships, cargo ships and tankers ..... 101 106 130 113 63 57

p * Estimate.

p ** Numerator indicates the number of submarines, denominator, the number of missiles.

p *** Data for 1968.

p **** Data for 1972.

Sources: The New York Times, January 25, 1966, p. 22, and January 25, 1972, p. 16; The Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1970, Washington, 1969, p. 75, and Fiscal Year 1974, p. 79.

•
behind renewed interest in the conventional armaments. The USA, however, was attaching prime importance to building up and improving its strategic nuclear missile arsenal. In the middle of 1973 the US strategic offensive forces included 1,054 land-based ICMBs, dozens of submarines in commission capable of carrying 656 missiles and more than 500 manned bombers.

The following data give an idea of the size of the US military machine. The Defence Department has a total of 470 major installations and more than 6,000 lesser facilities at home. The Pentagon owns 27.6 million acres of land. The value of real property alone is carried on Pentagon ledgers as exceeding 40,000 million dollars, while .the total value of property owned by the US armed forces is estimated at 210,000 million dollars.  [30•1 

31 Armed Forces and Military Expenditures of Imperialist States (1970) Armed forces Military expenditures thous. men percentage of total mil. dollars percentage of total Economically advanced countries ........ 6,484 3,161 2,873 98 259 100.0 48.6 44.3 1.5 4.0 107,604 76,507 26,2oO 1,325 1,582 100.0 71.1 24.4 1.2 1.5 USA ......... Western Europe and Canada ....... Australia and New Zealand ....... Japan .........

p Calculated from: The Military Balance 1970-1971, pp. 110-12; NATO Letter, December 1970, p. 23.

p S 15665;

p In late 1970, over one million servicemen were stationed outside the United States. The U.S. News and World Report’s map of the deployment of US forces overseas indicates that 237,500 servicemen were stationed in the Pacific and the Far East, 291,000 in Europe, the rest in Latin America and elsewhere.  [31•1 

p The USA has invariably attached great importance to setting up strategic bases on foreign soil. The network of such bases has particularly expanded since the last world war. The immense size of the military machine, the location of US military bases and areas where US military presence is outstanding clearly show that these are spearheaded against the socialist states and the national liberation movements in colonial and dependent countries.

p The US military machine is a tool of US imperialist policy. Its maintenance has stimulated the unprecedented rise of US militarism. The total strength of the US armed forces, including civilians, has exceeded 3.5 million, from an 32 average of less than 300,000 in the twenties and thirties. Since the last world war the United States has been spending roughly ten per cent of its GNP on direct military purposes as compared with less than one per cent before the war.

p The US ruling circles and apologists of US imperialism are known advocates of using or threatening force to settle international disputes, alleging that force remains the decisive factor of world politics. Ex-President Johnson in his State of the Union message to Congress in January 1966 named the principle of force as the first of the five immutable guidelines of US policy in the post-war years. The US Administration, too, repeatedly stressed the importance of this principle in matters of foreign policy.

p Before the Second World War, military work was usually curtailed once a war was over. US militarism in general was relatively underdeveloped and the military had but a minor role to play in US political affairs. The Second World War and the resultant expansion of military activities pushed the military to the foreground, enhancing their role in the state management and policy-making. Over the past few years, the military have gained new positions of influence by taking advantage of US military work on a scale yet unknown in peacetime. In contravention of the national tradition more and more military figures found their way to top government posts. General Eisenhower was President from 1953 to 1961, General George Marshall was Secretary of State in 1947-48.

p The military establishment has become a major factor in policy planning.

p The Pentagon, the headquarters of US militarism, has come to epitomise the power of the military. A total of more than 26,000 employees—14,200 civilians and 11,800 military personnel—report for duty at the Pentagon each working day.  [32•1  It has the biggest centralised bureaucratic apparatus in the world. By manipulating its huge budget, giant military machine and other tools, the Pentagon is invading almost every sphere of American life: the economy, politics, science, etc.

33

p The Pentagon’s enormous influence on US policy has been admitted by members of the US Congress. For example, Senator George D. Aiken said that some senators from states with big defence industries "are being prodded to support the war”. Congressmen oppose, as a rule, cuts in military appropriations, if they are detrimental to military contracts in their states.  [33•1 

p The US financial oligarchy is using government military work to achieve its political ends and to make fabulous profits. The military suppliers have a vested interest in the arms race and step it up whenever possible. This, in turn, increases the power of the military.

p Since World War II, the US imperialists have repeatedly used armed force to back up their ambitious plans. Between 1950 and 1953 they waged war against the people of Korea. In 1958 US marines invaded the Lebanon. In 1965 the US Army intervened militarily in the Dominican Republic. From 1955 to 1973 it waged its inhuman war in Indochina, the strength of the US forces directly involved in hostilities steadily increasing to top the half-a-million mark in 1968.

p The USA, acting hand in glove with the Israeli aggressors and using its Sixth Fleet, is trying to topple progressive regimes in some Arab countries and retain its positions in the Middle East with its rich oilfields and great importance for military strategy.

p The US ruling quarters have invariably resorted to all sorts of plausible pretexts to cover up their expansionist policies. Lenin wrote in this connection: "The American people, who set the world an example in waging a revolutionary war against feudal slavery, now find themselves in the latest, capitalist stage of wage-slavery to a handful of multimillionaires, and find themselves playing the role of hired thugs who, for the benefit of wealthy scoundrels, throttled the Philippines in 1898 on the pretext of ’liberating them, and are throttling the Russian Socialist Republic in 1918 on the pretext of ‘protecting’ it from the Germans.”  [33•2 

34

p After the Second World War, the United States sought to camouflage the true aims of its foreign policy and the tremendous scope of military-economic work involved by the need to protect the so-called "free world" against the alleged "military menace" from the Soviet Union and other countries of the socialist community. This fabrication was used as the chief argument to justify the cold war policy, the setting up of military-political alliances, the deployment of large armed forces and military bases of the United States abroad, its military interference in the internal affairs of other nations. This was accompanied by extolling military force as the decisive means of solving international disputes, by propaganda of the imperialist "policy of strength”.

p The expansionist policy of the United States pursued on a global scale, however, was increasingly discrepant with the objective conditions of modern times and the real possibilities of US imperialism. The growing economic and military potential of the Soviet Union and other countries of the socialist community, the substantial change in the world balance of power in favour of socialism have become an insurmountable obstacle to the expansionist plans of imperialists. These historic factors have made perfectly clear the futility of the plans of the imperialist circles to attain a military superiority over the socialist system and by using military force to “liquidate” or at least "throw back”, “ contain” socialism, to dictate their will to it.

p In the present situation, when the alignment of forces on the world scene is steadily changing in favour of socialism, democracy and peace, the national liberation movement is growing and the undivided rule of imperialism has become a thing of the past. The effectiveness of military force as a means of solving disputes between states has markedly reduced.

During 11-odd years, the United States waged war against the people of Vietnam. The strength of the US forces directly involved in the war in Indochina topped the half- amillion mark in 1969. The United States direct budgetary spending on this war ran into 140 thousand million dollars even according to official estimates obviously played down. But neither a huge army armed to the teeth nor the " scorched earth" policy helped US imperialism to win this war, 35 the longest in US history and the second largest in expense. (See Table 3a.)

Table Sa USA War Losses In lives In wounded In million dollars In length, months Revolutionary War (April 1775 -November 1782) 4,435 6,188 75 92 War of 1812 (June 1812-
February 1815) * 2,260 4,505 134 32 Mexican War (May 1846- February 1848) 1,733 4,152 166 21 Civil War (April 1861-1865) 235,000 382,000 4,000 48 Spanish-American War (April 1898-August 1898) . 385 1,662 576 4 World War I (April 1917- November 1918) . . 53,402 204,002 25,700 19 World War II (December 1941-August 1945) .... 291,557 670,846 341,000 44 Korean War (June 1950-June 1953) ..... 33,629 103,284 54,000 36 Vietnam War (December 1961 -January 1973) . . . 45,937 303,622 140,000 133

p Source: US News and World Report, February 5, 1973, p. 19.

p The US Government had to sign the Paris Agreement on ending the war and restoring peace in Vietnam. This was a great victory for the Vietnamese people in their hard and long struggle for freedom, independence and peace.

p The lessons of the war in Indochina indicate that today military force must not be the main factor of foreign policy. They also evidence that in today’s world, military conflicts, 36 crisis situations and arrogance of the role of a world policeman greatly endanger international security and may have disastrous consequences, for the United States as well.

p The United States assumed the role of a world policeman and saviour of the capitalist system in the early postwar years, when it was the only power centre of imperialism, had absolute economic, political and military superiority over the other capitalist countries which were at the time greatly dependent on US imperialism. The United States continues to be the leading power of modern capitalism but it has lost its former hegemony as the economies of the West European countries and Japan have been rehabilitated and developed. During the 50s and 60s the balance of power in the capitalist world changed gradually, “ Americanocentrism” gave place to emerging “polycentrism” and the main imperialist rivals—the USA, Western Europe and Japan—came on the scene.

p This process was accompanied by a fall of the US share in the total industrial production of capitalism, a decline in the competitive power of American goods on world markets, a growth of the US payments deficit, a sharp devaluation of the dollar as the world currency, and an exacerbation of contradictions between capitalist states. The US economic positions in the world are weakening under the impact of various factors but largely due to the cold war policy and the arms race. The greater total and relative size of US military spending than in other countries aggravated its economic difficulties abroad and contributed to an exacerbation of its economic and social problems at home.

p The steady growth of the economic and defence potential of the socialist community, the change of the alignment of forces on the world scene in its favour, the increased effectiveness of the peace policies of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, the successes of the national liberation and working-class movements, the upsurge and growing influence of progressive public movements, the weakening of the world position of US imperialism and the exacerbation of imperialist contradictions, the disastrous consequences of the arms race, the growing economic, political and social problems facing the United States at home, compelled its more far-sighted leaders to realise at last the 37 untenability of the main conceptions of the cold war policy and to take a more realistic view of the objective conditions of the modern world, to seek other ways and means of attaining the goals of the US ruling classes.

p This reassessment of US foreign policy began practically when the Administration of President Richard Nixon came into office in January 1969 as was expressed in particular, in the President’s foreign policy messages to the US Congress, the Nixon Doctrine, the new military strategy of "realistic containment" and other official decisions. The practical steps taken by the Nixon Administration evidence its departure from the dangerous cold war dogmas, its desire to come over from confrontation to negotiations with the socialist countries, to normalise relations with the Soviet Union.

p The Soviet-American top-level talks which took place during Presiden Nixon’s visit to Mocow in May 1972, during the visit of General Secretary Brezhnev to the United States in June 1973 and during President Nixon’s visit to the Soviet Union in June-July 1974 largely helped normalise relations between the two great powers. The agreements they signed, in particular, the Treaty on the limitation of anti-ballistic missile systems, the interim Agreement on certain measures with respect to the limitation of strategic offensive arms and particularly, the agreement on the prevention of nuclear war, were the first concrete steps towards keeping back the arms race and reducing the threat of world-wide thermonuclear war. The Soviet Union and the United States proclaimed as the objective of their policies the elimination of the menace of a nuclear war and the use of nuclear weapons and gave a pledge to take action to rule out the outbreak of a nuclear war between themselves and between each and a third country.

p The Soviet Union and the United States also agreed to continue active talks with a view to working out and preparing for signing a permanent agreement on wider measures to limit strategic offensive arms both in quantity and in quality.

p The series of treaties and agreements between the Soviet Union and the United States meet the vital interests of both the Soviet and the American peoples, since their aim is to prevent nuclear war, limit the arms race, develop mutually 38 advantageous economic, scientific, technical and cultural exchanges. Normalisation of Soviet-American relations is of great importance not only for the two countries but for the entire mankind as well. The Soviet-American summit meetings produced a healthy impact on the entire international situation, facilitated detente, helped put an end to the Vietnam war which had lasted for years, speed up preparations for the Conference on security and co-operation in Europe, etc. The positive changes in the relations between the Soviet Union and the United States reveal two important factors: first, the possibilities now available for solving disputable inter-state problems through negotiation on the principles of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems and, second, new favourable prospects for taking advantage of these possibilities, for settling through negotiation international problems still outstanding, for further improving Soviet-American relations and achieving a more radical and stable amelioration of the climate in the world today.

p The Soviet Union and other countries of the socialist community consistently implement coordinated comprehensive measures in order to stabilise, deepen and extend to the whole world the current process of political detente, to make it irreversible. At the meeting in the Crimea in July 1973 between leaders of the Communist and Workers’ parties of the socialist countries, it was emphasised that today "it is important to consolidate by joint efforts of all states concerned the positive changes on the international scene, to implement consistently the agreements and treaties concluded, to advance steadily towards the main objective— universal peace”.

p The countries of the socialist community come out for political detente to be supplemented with military detente. The Soviet-American agreements on strategic arms limitation have a restraining influence on the arms race. For the first time in history they set a limit to stockpiling the most powerful and dangerous weapons, thereby ending the race in this field. As is known, the continued development of antiballistic missile systems on a large scale was fraught with the danger of a rapid escalation of the nuclear arms race. This menace have been substantially reduced by the treaty on anti-ballistic missile systems limiting their deployment to 39 one region in the United States and one in the Soviet Union. However, only the first few concrete steps have been taken, the first approaches have been made, and only partial agreements on limiting the arms race have been achieved.

p The Soviet-American agreements, however, do not set limits to the improvement of arms quality, the development and production of more effective and destructive weapons, which may override the limits to stockpiles. The absence of restrictions on arms improvement is responsible for the continued dangerous race for scientific and technological superiority in the military field. Huge investments continue to be made in large and expensive programmes of development and production of new weapons systems. For example, the US Defence Department is pushing ahead with its programme of developing the B-l strategic bomber, the Trident missile submarine, and other types of weapons.

p Continued development and production of the most upto-date weapons systems may have disastrous consequences, because making these systems operational will result in a still greater increment in the huge destructive potential of military arsenals, an increase in military spending and a growing threat of the outbreak of a devastating thermonuclear war.

p In this situation, the proposal of the socialist community for making requisite efforts to supplement the political detente now in progress in the world by a military detente merits attention as a matter of exceptional importance and urgency. A crucial role in solving this difficult problem could be played by an agreement to restrict arms improvement, the development of new weapons systems, the technological arms race.

p With a view to reducing the arms race, the Soviet Union submitted to the 28th Session of the United Nations General Assembly as a matter of extreme importance and urgency proposal on the draft resolution calling on the permanent members of the Security Council to cut their military budgets by 10 per cent and to use part of the money thus released to assist the developing countries. The permanent members of the Security Council—the Soviet Union, the USA, France, Great Britain and China—account for the bulk of huge military outlays in the world today. The 40 United Nations General Assembly approved this businesslike and constructive proposal by a vast majority of votes. It requested all permanent members of the United Nations Security Council to cut their military budgets by 10 per cent from the 1973 level during the next fiscal year and to set aside 10 per cent of the funds released by curtailing military outlays for aid to the developing countries and called on other states also to cut their military budgets.

p Agreement on troop and arms reductions would be an effective means of securing military detente. Today, the arms stockpiles of states have grown to a level where their use, particularly nuclear missiles, would cause irreparable damage to world civilisation. The only realistic way to offset this menace to the human race is to reduce military arsenals. A successful completion of the current Soviet-American talks on further strategic arms limitation and on troop and arms reductions in Central Europe which got under way in Vienna on October 30, 1973 may mark important progress in this direction.

p As evidenced by the communique of the Crimean meeting between leaders of the Communist and Workers’ parties of the socialist countries, the socialist community regards these talks as crucially important.

p Reinforcement of political by military detente would contribute to a radical improvement in the international situation and to creating a fundamentally new system of international relations in which disputes between states with identical or different social systems would be solved exclusively by peaceful means, without armed conflicts and wars.

p The path towards this noble goal, however, is laden with great obstacles, such as the cold war inertia, the resistance of militarism, the military-industrial complexes and other reactionary forces. The socialist countries believe that these obstacles can be overcome and are taking comprehensive and vigorous measures to this end. This extremely complicated problem of vital importance for all mankind can be solved only by pooling the efforts of all revolutionary and progressive forces of today, with joint and vigorous assistance from all states, particularly the Soviet Union and the United States. Speaking on American television, the CPSU General Secretary Brezhnev declared: "The climate prevailing in the 41 relations between our two countries has a large bearing on the general atmosphere in the world. Neither economic and military power, nor international prestige give our countries any additional rights but impose on them special responsibility for the destinies of universal peace, for preventing war. In its approach to the relations and contacts with the United States, the Soviet Union is fully aware of that responsibility”.

A further improvement of Soviet-American relations in a spirit of mutual awareness of this lofty responsibility would be a major factor of progress in the international situation towards universal peace, delivering mankind from the threat of militarism and a new world war.