American policy toward postwar Germany has gone through two major phases from the stand point of military affairs. Until 1950 Germany was kept disarmed; since 1950 the United States has sought the rearmament of Western Germany. The problems of information policy raised by the change, and the attitudes of the old German military elite in the face of this volte-face, have considerable interest for the student of political communication.

The origins of the Winter War cannot be explained solely by reference to the hectic days which followed the Nazi attack upon Poland in September 1939. Issues then debated in both Helsinki and Moscow had deeper historical roots. Neither country could forget the bitter days of revolution, counter-revolution, and civil war in 1917–1918. Neither party had been fully satisfied with the Treaty of Dorpat (1930) which drafted the territorial lines of demarcation and specified mutual rights and obligations.

Wars and rumors of wars are always with us. Today, and for the foreseeable future, they include the prospect of heavy enemy attack on the cities of the United States, a prospect which creates problems in public policy never before faced. It is the purpose of this article to sketch some lines of research which will be useful in understanding and dealing with these problems, and which are of a character that can be undertaken by academic social scientists and discussed in public.

Examining the literature relating to the United Nations Organization is, in a way, like reading a doctor's case-book on a remarkably sick patient. There are references to serious pathological disorders, to teething troubles, and so on, and a number of remedies are recommended, ranging from a major surgical operation such as removing the “veto” to aids such as “sticking teeth” into the Charter. The analogy is useful if it impels us to make an accurate diagnosis. But much of the advice of interpreters of the UN is of a contradictory character, and one is led to suspect that it is based on a serious misapprehension of what the UN is really capable of doing.

In June 1952 a Social Science Research Council committee was established to take stock o? research on civil-military relations and make proposals with respect to the further development of research in this area. The members of the committee were not entirely satisfied with the phrase “civil-military relations” as describing the focus of their attention, but it was understood that the committee's interest lay in research bearing upon those problems of public policy which were posed by the prospect of a continuing high mobilization even in peace time, and by the continuing necessity for a careful coordination of military, diplomatic, and industrialization policy.