Annotations on the Material on the Question of “War and Peace” [I]
(July 1960)


Distribute to[2]


Note: Focus on the debate among the three factions in the First Tank School; it is of great interest.
[I]


Refers to the material titled “Debate Among Three Factions in the Third Squadron of the First Battalion of the First Tank School on the Question of ‘War and Peace’,” compiled on July 7, 1960, by the School Work Department of the General Political Department of the People’s Liberation Army. The material states that some cadets of the Third Squadron (Military Unit) of the First Battalion of the First Tank School, after reading in newspapers about the Soviet Union’s disarmament proposals and excerpts from Khrushchev’s speech at the Third Congress of the Romanian Workers’ Party, were abuzz with discussion. The political instructor, in conjunction with teaching on the question of “war and peace,” guided everyone to engage in a debate centered on “how to apply the principles of dialectical materialist epistemology to view the question of war and peace.” Three factions of opinion formed during the debate. The first opinion held that: (1) Two paths now lie before all humanity—one is peaceful coexistence, the other is nuclear war. No one wishes to take the latter path; therefore, once general disarmament is realized, the danger of war can be eliminated and permanent peace achieved; (2) Lenin’s principle that “imperialism means war” is a relative truth, not an absolute truth. Now that the times have changed, war can be avoided; (3) Peaceful coexistence is our goal, through which capitalism can be squeezed out and collapsed. Once disarmament is achieved, the people of capitalist countries can peacefully transition to socialism through parliaments and negotiations. The second opinion held that: (1) Lenin’s principle that “imperialism means war” is not outdated; the aggressive nature of imperialism remains unchanged until its death; (2) Peaceful coexistence is not the goal but a means of struggle. Hoping to squeeze out and collapse capitalism through peaceful coexistence is an unrealistic illusion. Only by strengthening our own national defense and the world people’s anti-imperialist united front, and waging resolute struggle against imperialism, can world peace be safeguarded; (3) The outbreak of war and the prevention of war do not depend on nuclear weapons. What plays the decisive role in the outcome of war is not the atom bomb but people, and politics. The third opinion considered both preceding views to have merit. According to what was known, those holding the first opinion accounted for 31.6% of the total number. Their main representatives had not been tempered by war, feared fighting, did not love to study politics, and sought personal ease and comfort; therefore, they easily resonated with certain revisionist viewpoints. The others who followed along mainly lacked basic knowledge of Marxist-Leninist theory, felt somewhat timid about nuclear war, seldom read newspapers normally, and feared that disagreeing with Khrushchev’s opinions would hinder Sino-Soviet unity. Those holding the second opinion accounted for 50.6% of the entire unit. Among them, 3/4 were of worker and peasant origin, and 3/5 had fought in wars and had not forgotten class struggle in a peaceful environment; they usually cared about current affairs, frequently read newspapers, valued political study, and, having heard the instructor say that modern revisionism “is an international phenomenon,” were mentally vigilant and had strengthened their ability to resist poison. Those holding the third opinion, i.e., the centrists, accounted for 17.7%. Some among them lacked the ability to discriminate due to low cultural and theoretical levels; some felt that it involved relations between fraternal parties and refrained from expressing their stance for the time being; others were waiting for the leadership to speak out before voicing their opinions. After repeated debates, reading of documents, and education, the three factions gradually underwent changes. Those holding the second opinion became more confident and justified, attracting the other two factions to move closer to them. However, because many had limited theoretical levels, their criticism of errors lacked force. Therefore, it is extremely necessary to conduct an in-depth and systematic education and study campaign against modern revisionism. On July 21, 1960, the General Political Department of the People’s Liberation Army submitted this material, together with the material “Reflections of Some Cadets of the Political Academy on the Struggle Against Modern Revisionism,” to Mao Zedong and the Standing Committee Members of the Central Military Commission of the CPC Central Committee. Mao Zedong’s annotations were written on the report of the General Political Department.
[2]


Refers to distribution to the comrades then attending the Central Committee Work Conference of the CPC in Beidaihe.
43 1