Skip to main content

Origins of Russian Nuclear Power

On August 6th, 1945, a uranium bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and on August 9th a plutonium bomb on Nagasaki. Contradicting the American military and political leaders’ forecasts of a ten-to-twenty-year delay, the Soviet Union tested its first nuclear bomb just four years later, in 1949. According to the world’s leading nuclear scientists, and in particular Niels Bohr [1885-1962], this was not a surprise. Having worked with Soviet scientists, they understood that their science and technology was no less competent than their own.

The history of Russian nuclear science

For the history of Russian nuclear power, we shall mainly follow David Holloway’s 1994 work Stalin and the Bomb, assisted by Robert Jungk’s still valid Brighter Than a Thousand Suns: A Personal History of the Atomic Scientists [1956], and by Helge Kragh’s Quantum Generations [1999].

The value of Jungk’s work lies in his interviews with the nuclear scientists who were, directly or indirectly, involved in the making of the bomb, and still alive in the 1950s. Kragh’s book covers the history of physics from 1895 to 1995. It does not only deal with discoveries but also examines physicists and institutions and their interactions with the rest of society.

David Holloway’s Stalin and the Bomb has the merit of having been written after the collapse of the Soviet empire. The author, professor of international history and political science at Stanford University (California), was able to have access to parts of the Russian archives and to interview scientists, technicians, and politicians who were still alive in the 1990s. His book was chosen by the New York Times Book Review as one of the eleven best in 1994 and has been translated into six languages, the latest into Czech in 2008. Holloway spoke with Russian physicists such as Peter Kapitsa [1894-1984] and Andrei Sakharov [1921-1989], and with respective non-Russian physicists and protagonists of the nuclear enterprise – Sir Rudolf Peierls [1907-1995], Hans Bethe [1906-2005], and Victor Weisskopf [1908-2002]. He interviewed Igor Golovin [1913-1997], the close collaborator with Igor Kurchatov [1903-1960], the head of the Soviet atomic project. Holloway believes that only at the end of the Cold War is it possible to place Soviet nuclear policy in the context of the history of the Soviet Union in international relations.

The Radium Institute is born

The discovery of radioactivity in Paris in 1896 and the first studies regarding it did not go unnoticed in Russia. In a conference at the Academy of Sciences in December 1910, Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky [1863-1945], a mineralogist, geochemist, biogeochemist and radiogeologist, argued that as steam and electricity had changed the structure of human societies, now, with the phenomenon of radioactivity, new forms of atomic energy, with potentials many times superior to all energy sources hitherto conceived of, were opening up. Thus, in Russia, as in Europe, the nuclear age began with an optimistic vision. Vernadsky recommended that all the Russian deposits of radioactive minerals be catalogued.

Vernadsky is one of the most remarkable figures of Russian science. Born in St. Petersburg (from 1914 to 1924 Petrograd; and from 1924 to 1991 Leningrad) into a well-off family, he was the son of an economics professor, an active member of the liberal intelligentsia, the expression of a progressive bourgeoisie. Elected in 1906 to the Academy of Sciences for his mineralogical research, Vernadsky believed in science as a force of civilisation and democracy, and wanted the Russian scientific community to make its voice heard on the important questions of the time. He tried several times, but without success, to organise the Russian equivalent of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

Thanks to Vernadsky, the study of radioactive minerals began in 1911, with the support of the government and public donations. The Academy of Sciences sent expeditions to search for uranium deposits in the Urals, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Deposits were discovered in the Fergana Valley in Central Asia, and Vernadsky concluded that a part of these deposits could be exploited on an industrial scale. But this did not take place during that time.

After the First World War, the Academy of Sciences formed a new department for the study of rare and radioactive minerals. Vernadsky was appointed as the head of this department. One of his protégés, the geologist Aleksandr Fersman [1883-1945], was his deputy, and the radiochemist Vitaly Khlopin [1890-1950] his secretary. With Khlopin and Fersman’s help, Vernadsky succeeded in founding the Petrograd Radium Institute in January 1922. This body played an important role in the development of Soviet nuclear science. Europe’s first cyclotron was activated there in 1937; in the following years the Institute studied the processes of nuclear fission and produced small quantities of plutonium, obtained with the help of the cyclotron.

The Ioffe Institute

A fundamental figure in the development of the Soviet nuclear industry was Abram Fedorovich Ioffe [1880-1960], born into a well-off Jewish family in the small Ukrainian town of Romny. After graduating from the St. Petersburg Institute of Technology in 1902, he went to Germany to work in the laboratory of Wilhelm Röntgen [1845-1923], the discoverer of X-rays. He received his PhD in 1905 for a study on the electric conductivity of dielectric crystals. He returned to Russia the following year, having refused Röntgen’s offer of a place at the University of Munich with the explanation that he intended to contribute to Russia’s scientific development. He always rejected job offers abroad, even when the University of California, Berkeley offered him tenure in 1926.

Ioffe became a close friend of the Viennese physicist Paul Ehrenfest [1880-1933], who lived in St. Petersburg from 1907 to 1912 and contributed to bringing modern theoretical physics to Russia.

In 1913, Ioffe was appointed professor at St. Petersburg’s Polytechnical Institute. He placed great value on his ties to Germany, and almost every year until the First World War he spent some time in Munich working with Röntgen.

In 1916, he organised a seminar on new physics in his laboratory at the Polytechnical Institute. Among its eleven regular members there were two future Nobel prize-winners, Peter Kapitsa and Nikolai Semyonov [1896-1986], and other important physicists such as Yakov Frenkel [1894-1952] and P.I. Lukirsky [1894-1954]. The group formed the nucleus of the future Ioffe Institute.

Despite his opposition to Tsarist autocracy, Ioffe, like most of the Russian scientists, had nothing to do with the Bolshevik Party. Following the events of the October Revolution, however, he decided out of patriotism to link his destiny to that of the new government. In 1919, with the backing of Anatoly Lunacharsky [1875-1933], People’s Commissar of Education, Ioffe founded the State Physical-Technical Institute of Radiology which now bears his name, the Ioffe Institute, one of Russia’s main research centres. Here, such important Soviet Nobel prize-winners as Landau, Kapitsa, Semyonov and Tamm, and the illustrious scientists Kurchatov, Alexandrov, and Khariton received their training. Today, the Ioffe Institute plays an important role in the development of ITER, an international nuclear fusion research and engineering megaproject.

The Bolshevik policy on science

With Lenin’s backing, in February 1921 Ioffe and other scientists went to Western Europe for six months. There they bought books, newspapers and instruments, and established relations with foreign colleagues. His idea was to combine engineering with physics.

On February 3rd, 1923, besides its 60 staff members, representatives of the government and the Academy of Sciences took part in the inauguration of the new Physical-Technical Institute north of Petrograd – a sign of the importance the political and scientific authorities gave to Ioffe’s work. He argued in his speech that physics had played a historic role in the development of industry and that Soviet physics, albeit deeply theoretical, would also make an effective contribution to the country’s technology and economic development.

He also touched on two important themes in the history of Russian science: its link with Western science and industry. Natural science was imported from Europe by Peter the Great [1672-1725] at the beginning of the 18th century, but it was only in the mid-19th century that Russian science gained an international reputation. A scientific community, with its social and intellectual ties, and a network of scientific societies and circles formed in Russia. The bourgeois classes saw science as a rationalising force which would help to defeat superstition and undermine the bases of autocracy, which resisted the diffusion of the scientific spirit.

The viewpoint of the Bolshevik Communist Party in support of science was part of Russia’s 19th-century revolutionary tradition. According to Lenin’s indications, in the new Soviet State it was necessary to appropriate the science and technology developed by the capitalist system, since they were needed for defence and economic development. When, in 1920, Lenin coined the slogan Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country, the message was that the new socialist society would be based on technological progress combined with social revolution [Robert Lewis, Science and Industrialisation in the USSR, London, 1979]. Russian scientists with a bourgeois education had welcomed the February 1917 Revolution, but they were suspicious of the October one. Nevertheless, the Bolshevik Party carried out a policy backing their scientific work.

In Russia before the Great War science was largely academic, with little government support. Moreover, scientists did not have close ties to industry, mainly controlled by foreign companies which relied on foreign research, while Russian capitalism showed little interest in financing science. In Russia like other countries, the war brought about major changes in the relations between science and industry, because the dependence on industrial imports, such as the chemistry needed for the production of arms, was recognised as a factor of military weakness. The war encouraged closer relations between science and industry and stimulated scientific research.

Science was seen as an important area in the policy of the Soviet government, which backed the founding of research institutes from its first year of life. Ioffe was one of the most important figures in the link between the Soviet government and nuclear-physical science in the process of the industrialisation of science which would help the Soviet Union create the atom bomb in 1949.

Lotta Comunista, March 2025

Popular posts in the last week

The EU Commission Plans for Rearmament and a Clean Industrial Deal

Internationalism No. 71, January 2025 Page 2 From the series European news Following the European elections which took place on June 6th - 9th, the leaders of the Member States met on June 27th at the European Council. Ursula von der Leyen was nominated as president of the next European Commission, after she was chosen as the European People’s Party’s (EPP) Spitzenkandidat (“leading candidate”). The agreement also included the election of former Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Costa as president of the European Council, and the appointment of former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Subsequently, on July 18th, Parliament elected von der Leyen as president of the Commission by an absolute majority, with 401 votes out of 719 MEPs. On September 17th, von der Leyen presented her team of commissioners to the European Parliament and, two days later, the Council adopted this list of...

Lotta Comunista: The Origins 1943-1952

Guido La Barbera Contents 9. Preface to the English Edition 13. Preface 19. Useful dates 21. Chapter One «ONE OUGHT TO KNOW WITH WHOM ONE IS DEALING» 25. The balance-of-power theory 27. Theory and the ‘strategy-party’ 29. Chapter Two THE FOUNDRY AND THE PARTISAN STRUGGLE 31. The Savona group 39. Passion disciplined by reason 40. Never again a tool in the hands of others 41. The Genoa group 46. The Sestri Ponente group 48. The groups in Rome and Tuscany 52. The strength of GAAP: ‘only a handful’ 55. Chapter Three LIBERTARIAN COMMUNISM: A DIFFERENT KIND OF COMMUNISM 58. Reckoning with Bordiga...

Is the Supreme Court a Check on Trump?

Internationalism No. 84, February 2026 Page 12 From the series Chronicles of the new American nationalism The Supreme Court has been asked to rule on the emergency powers used by President Donald Trump to advance two key policies of his mandate: the decision to deploy the National Guard on American soil in support of his immigration policy, and the imposition of tariffs on almost every trading partner. In December, the Court issued a ruling which was unfavourable to the administration regarding the deployment of the National Guard in Illinois. At the time of writing, a ruling is expected that could declare the Liberation Day tariffs illegal. In addition, the Court is examining the dismissal of Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board. Scepticism among judges The White House imposed the reciprocal tariffs in April by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, 1977), according to which the president...

Libertarian Communism: A Different Kind of Communism

Chapter Three LIBERTARIAN COMMUNISM: A DIFFERENT KIND OF COMMUNISM   An examination of the debate within the groups that were to create GAAP (Anarchist Groups of Proletarian Action) gives a vivid picture of the problems that between 1948 and 1951 had to be slowly and painfully faced. Three major confrontations, progressively more serious, took place between Cervetto and Masini in the autumn of 1949 and again in the spring and autumn of 1950. As preparations were being made for the National Conference at Pontedecimo – from which GAAP would be born – debate on the nature of the organisation and on theories of the State and imperialism began to define the characteristics of the new political group, but also revealed the differences. The first step had been to look for ‘a different kind’ of communism in anarchism. Along this road Cervetto , with an ever-surer grasp, would raise the issue that had been first posed by Marx and Lenin : our militant...

The Four Petrochemical Giants

Internationalism No. 86, April 2026 Page 15 From the series Major industrial groups in China When the People's Republic of China was founded in 1949, oil extraction in the country was practically non-existent, and the country was completely dependent on imports. The exploration and development of domestic oil resources required a major effort. As Jin Zhang reports in his book Catch-up and Competitiveness in China [Routledge, 2004]: The required massive human resources were supplied by the People's Liberation Army (PLA). In 1952, Mao Zedong ordered the reorganisation of the 57 th Division of the 19 th Army of the PLA into the 1 st Division of Oil . The effort led to the discovery of several oil fields, the most significant of which was in Daqing, Heilongjiang Province, in northeastern China, in 1959. It became operational the following year, reaching a ...

The Party and the Unprecedented crisis in the World Order: A Crucial Decade

This first quarter-century has seen an epochal turning point in inter-power relations, triggered by China's very rapid imperialist development. Arrigo Cervetto recognised this process from the very early 1990s: Today history has sped up its pace to an unpredictable extent. [...] Analysis of the sixteenth century, as the century of accelerations and rift in world history, is a model for our Marxist vision ( La mezza guerra nel Golfo [The Half War in the Persian Gulf], January 1991). The course of imperialism was speeding up, and China's very rapid rise was opening up a new strategic phase with the new century. The United States, the leading power in the world, is being challenged by an antagonist with comparable economic strength which, moreover, openly states that it wants to provide itself with a "world class" military force within the next decade. Favoured by the 2008 global crisis and also by the pandemic crisis, China has forged ahead with its rapid rise for ...

The Unstoppable Force: Capital’s Demand for Migrant Labour

Internationalism No. 78-79, August-September 2025 Page 16 The Unstoppable Force: Capital’s Demand for Migrant Labour “Before Giorgia Meloni became Italy’s prime minister, she pledged to cut immigration. Since she has been in government the number of non-EU work visas issued by Italy has increased”. This is how The Economist of April 26th summarises the schizophrenia of their politics; and this is not only true in Italy: “Net migration also surged in post-Brexit Britain”. The needs of the economic system do not coincide with the rhetoric of parliamentarism. And vice versa. Schizophrenia and imbalances in their politics Returning to Italy, the Bank of Italy has pointed out that by 2040, in just fifteen years, there will be a shortage of five million people of working age, which could lead to an estimated 11% contraction in GDP. This is why even Italy’s “sovereignist” government is preparing to widen the net of its Immigration Flow Decree. The latest upd...

The Mediterranean

Internationalism No. 50, April 2023 Page 12 Since the year 2000, at least 45,000 migrants have drowned along Mediterranean routes, more than 2,000 a year. This is the very same sea in which tens of millions of tourists bathe every summer, and these are the same routes followed by multi-storeyed cruise ships. Small boats and parasols, castaways and cruise passengers: it cannot be repeated often enough, this capitalist society has made barbarism a run-of-the-mill occurrence. There is more, beyond the boorish inadequacy of their politics, beyond the ferocious face of the Italian government which is hesitating about these shipwreck deaths, beyond the hypocritical scolding of the opposition parties, which behaved in exactly the same way when they were in government, sending back tens of thousands of poor wretches to their captors in Libya. In the face of utter indifference, year after year a de facto apartheid has been created, with millions of workers of foreign o...

Another Kind of Politics

Donald Trump has said goodbye as befits his fame, with a tragic riotous revelry. A crowd with improbable disguises took its cue from the fake news on the Internet fomented by the presidency, assaulted the Capitol and wandered around its rooms and corridors with the aim of intimidating representatives and senators. All of this, however, taking selfies: a moment of fame on Facebook or YouTube and a trophy to show off back home in deepest America, while carousing in the local pub. His successor Joe Biden will seek a rebalance in a bipartisan collaboration, but he cannot escape from the dominant trait now characterising the political show . The swearing-in ceremony was the enthronement of a republican king, according to the rites of Hollywoodian show business: pop singers, actors, directors, and rock stars, and the new reigning couple hand in hand as they admired the fireworks in the night. Meanwhile, on the other shore of the Atlantic, a similar depressing show is going on the air with ...