Appendix VII.

Comparative Defense Policy — Sample Reading Lists.

Topic: _The Nation in Arms_.

What is meant by a Nation in Arms from the point of view of
rationing on the one hand and requisition on the other?

Obviously the answer varies in terms of the fashions of social
thought, in terms of the concept of the nature of the threat, of the
power of central and local authority. Does the idea of the nation in
arms vary according to social theory, and if so how? Under what
circumstances does the requirement of conformity of sacrifice change?
Is the pressure for conformity self generated from within or is it
rather imposed from above?

The subject is quite as complicated as most of the others we have
studied. The following may help a discussion of these problems:

General:

Richard D. Challener, _The Nation in Arms_

Clinton Rossiter, <u>Constitutional Dictatorship</u>

World War I:

Pierre Renouvin, <u>The Forms of War Government in France</u>

Harry Kessler, <u>Rathenau</u>

Jere C. King, _Generals and Politicians_

F. W. Hirst, _The Impact of War on Society. The Case of Great Britain_

Note: A number of other books which have been previously assigned have a bearing on the case at hand.

World War II:

John K. Galbraith, "Germany was Badly Run" (Fortune, December 1945)

Richard M. Titmuss, <u>Problems of Social Policy</u>

W. K. Hancock and M. M. Gowing, British War Economy

Mark S. Watson, Chief of Staff. Prewar Plans and Preparations

Eliot Janeway, _The Struggle for Survival_ (Use with caution)

- 2 -

Topic: Conflict and Collaboration at Civil-Military Levels.

We are concerned here almost exclusively with the problems that enter into the formation of decisions at the highest levels of government.

By their very nature, these decisions require co-ordinated consideration and action from two sets of leaders — civil and military — who have frequently been trained in quite different schools of policy formation and political-military thought. More is involved than differences in procedural and conference techniques. Conflicts between civil and military leaders usually arise from disputes over the means to be employed in order to obtain a given end. Sometimes the end itself is in dispute, resulting in undefined or nebulous national objectives.

It has at times been held that effective collaboration between civil and military leaders is a built-in feature of certain forms of government. I prefer to believe that it is primarily a question of personalities (which we might call an irrational factor), for it is as easy to point to the conflict between Lincoln and McClellan as it is to belabour the seemingly close collaboration between Roosevelt and his Chiefs of Staff.

But these are some of the questions that we must explore more carefully. I believe the best way to proceed is to divide the subject into two parts, one concerned with war, and the other with times of peace. Some factors may be present during both periods, but the change in essential conditions alters the nature of the stresses that affect the decisions of both civil and military leaders. An example is the change in the importance of budgetary considerations. We can further subdivide the subject according to types of government. Unfortunately, however, we must ignore the problems of civil-military relations on the coalition level. It would be necessary to consider a number of additional factors that are largely extraneous in a study of policy formation at the national level.

Bibliography

I. <u>Times of War.</u>

A. World War I.

1. Great Britain and France — parliamentary democracies.

Georges Clemenceau, Grandeurs et misères d'une victoire

J. C. King, *Generals and Politicians*

Lord Hankey, Diplomacy by Conference

W. R. Robertson, *Soldiers and Statesmen, 1914-1918*

Lord Beaverbrook, *Politicians and the War, 1914-1916*

"

"

*Men and Power, 1917-1918*

- 4 -

B. In a presidential democracy — the United States.

Walter Millis, ed., *The Forrestal Diaries*

Matthew Ridgway, *Soldier*

Robert Donovan, *Eisenhower*

C. In an autocracy.

1. The Second Reich.

Gordon Craig, *The Politics of the Prussian Army*

Max Jähns, *Feldmarschall Moltke*

J. P. Taylor, *Bismarck*

2. The Soviet Union.

Klossov and Tuschin, *Political Controls in the Soviet Army*

R. L. Garthoff, *Soviet Military Doctrine*

B. H. Liddell Hart, ed., *The Soviet Army*

Walter Duranty, *Stalin and Company*

*Scope of the Analysis*

In the course of scanning these books, the following questions indicate the type that you should try to ask and answer. Unfortunately, time limits govern the number of factors we can consider.

I. The constants — causal factors present in both war and peace.

A. The clash of personalities.

1. For some reason, "strong" personalities often seem to get along well together. Which personality traits encourage clashes?

2. Is a service career likely to produce compliant military leaders?

3. Can the promotion system be used to guarantee the production of such men?

4. Is this desirable?

5. Does the educational system of the services produce military leaders who are equipped with a knowledge of the broader aspects of war and politics?

6. Does the political system tend to favor the emergence of civil leaders who are knowledgeable on military matters?

7. Does it favor the emergence of men who are adept at compromise?

8. Do clearly formulated procedures and techniques exist for resolving such clashes, or does the system perpetuate them?

B. Jurisdictional disputes.

1. Who possesses supreme control? Is the final arbiter a civil or military official? Or both?

2. How are his duties and responsibilities defined?

- 6 -

B. Peacetime.

1. Disputes over budgetary considerations.

a. Who holds "the power of the purse"?

b. Does this same authority exercise control over the formation of the budget?

c. If these powers are separated, what considerations other than those purely military govern the dispensing authority?

d. How does the user present its case?

e. From the point of view of military effectiveness alone, is it better to have these powers separated or combined?

f. Within the government, how are priorities assigned?

g. Within the services themselves, how are priorities assigned?

h. Are the procedures used effective? In other words, is the maximum effectiveness gained at minimum cost? Or do the procedures used postpone important decisions and defeat the principle of economy of means?

i. How do they generate dispute?

j. In what areas do these disputes normally occur?

k. How are they resolved? Is the usual result a compromise, or a partisan decision?

1. If dispute is perpetuated by the system, what effects does this have upon the functioning of the services?