The Soviet Union does not conceal its expenditures for defense, because all mankind knows of the peaceable character of the Soviet Government.
The Soviet Union does not conceal its expenditures for defense, because all mankind knows of the peaceable character of the Soviet Government.
-"Finansy S.S.S.R." ("Finance of the U.S.S.R.," a textbook for schools of higher education), Moscow, 1958, p. 285.
THE great development of modern weapons of mass destruction has caused enormous changes in military science including military doctrine and military strategy. However, these changes have not affected the concept of the military budget. Today, as in the past, the military budget, approved by appropriate organs of the state, indicates to a certain extent the defense effort of the nation. On the basis of the analysis below, it appears that, as a percentage of Gross National Product (for the U.S.S.R.- national income), the Soviet military budget is about double that of the United States.
The national defense power and the military budget are indivisible. Therefore it is important to establish the size of the Soviet military budget as a first step in the discussion of the problems of disarmament and the possible reduction of the defense budget. However, the solution of this problem is difficult because the Soviet Union is a closed society and has drawn one of the tightest security screens in history around its military affairs and related technology and industry upon which its military power is based.
The two paramount purposes of the obfuscation are, first, to sustain the Soviet propaganda front, such as the totally false claims of lowered military expenditures in recent years; and, second, to conceal the exact nature of their military build-up and the real size of the over-all military budget.
The curtailment of the published indicators concerning the Soviet military budget has taken place gradually. In the mid-1920s, Soviet military expenditures were divided into nine major groups, such as salaries, organizational and administrative expenses, clothing-subsistence costs, technical supply, cultural and educational expenses, finance of defense industry, etc., which were in turn subdivided into 79 individual entries. In the early 1930s, military expenditures were broken down into two groups. From the early 1940s to the present time, military expenditures are designated as expenditures of the Department of Defense...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
IN the public debate that has marked the progress of what is called the cold war, no term has been used more loosely, and at times unscrupulously, than the word "coexistence." In the article under his name, published in the last issue of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Khrushchev has given us an interesting definition of what he understands by this term. Peaceful coexistence, he says, signifies in essence the repudiation of war as a means of solving controversial issues.
IT would be an exaggeration to describe the current discussion of our relations with the Soviet Union and with Western Europe as another Great Debate. Perhaps in the language of the times it might be called a Mini- Debate, distracted as it is and emotionally charged by events elsewhere which, however, may prove to be less fateful in the long run.
I have been told that the question of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems is uppermost today in the minds of many Americans--and not only Americans. The question of coexistence, particularly in our day, interests literally every man and woman on the globe.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.