Skip to main content

Nuclear Physicists and Spies for the Russian Bomb


From the series Atom and industrialisation of science


The course of the war between Germany and the Soviet Union, from Operation Barbarossa — the German attack of June 22nd, 1941 — up to the Battle of Stalingrad between the summer of 1942 and February 2nd, 1943, set the timeframes of the Russian nuclear programme.

The Battle of Stalingrad

The Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point of the Second World War on the Eastern Front. We quote The New York Times of February 3rd, 1943, to illustrate the climate of the period, within which we need to contextualise Soviet decisions about the nuclear bomb. The daily cited a Moscow bulletin, according to which the Red Army had completely destroyed the elite of Adolf Hitler’s army, trapping 330,000 soldiers.

On the basis of Russian announcements, since mid-November 1942, a total of 503,650 soldiers of the Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) had been killed or captured. This figure excluded Axis losses in the previous three months of fierce fighting which had raged along the Volga and at Stalingrad. German radio broadcasts acknowledged the demise of the trapped Nazi army but stated that the battle had cost the Russians more than 300,000 men. Beyond the Russians’ huge territorial progress, the destruction of the Axis troops and equipment was considered even more important by the Allies (the USSR, the UK, and the US) for bringing the Nazis to their knees. These facts are all drawn from the reports of The New York Times.

In this scenario, the Soviet government had to decide how to proceed in developing its nuclear industry. David Holloway writes in his book Stalin and the Bomb [1994] that, when Igor Vasilyevich Kurchatov [1903-1960] was called to Moscow on October 22nd to discuss his appointment as director of its nuclear programme, the Red Army was still fighting desperately to defend Stalingrad. The government’s original idea was to appoint Abram Ioffe [1880-1960], but he rejected the offer, because he believed himself too old at 63 to take on such a role. Ioffe, together with Vice-Premier and People’s Commissar for the Chemical Industry (dedicated to nuclear research) Mikhail Pervukhin [1904-1978], strongly backed Kurchatov’s appointment. On February 2nd, 1943, the German army surrendered at Stalingrad. On March 10th, Kurchatov was confirmed as the scientific director of the Soviet nuclear project.

The moment of choices

In January 1943, Kurchatov had expressed to Pervukhin his doubts regarding whether the Soviet Union could build a nuclear bomb before the end of the war. In Holloway’s opinion, in 1943 Stalin knew about the Anglo-American nuclear programmes through his network of spies, but he did not yet believe the Soviet project to be crucial in the final outcome of the war against Germany. He launched the programme not to build a nuclear bomb in the immediate term, but as an investment against the future uncertainties of relations with the other powers. His vision went beyond the war, even if, in the immediate future, it was necessary to concentrate all the Soviet Union’s resources on defeating Germany.

After the German attack, the State Defence Committee had been created on June 30th, 1941, under Stalin’s chairmanship, with Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Molotov appointed as vice-chairman. In February 1943, Kurchatov told Molotov he was unsure about the possibility of building the atomic bomb because there were many issues that he still did not understand. Molotov recalls that it was thus decided to provide Kurchatov with the intelligence Soviet spies had gathered in England.

Kurchatov spent several days studying the material and wrote two memoranda for Pervukhin. What struck him most was the possibility of a chain reaction using natural uranium and heavy water, according to the experiments conducted in Cambridge. This pointed to an alternative to enriching U-235, because a natural uranium and heavy water reactor could produce the fissile element 94 — plutonium. The British findings demonstrated that, through the production of plutonium, the timeline for developing the bomb would be shorter than what had been calculated by the Soviet scientists. At that moment, Kurchatov was still unaware of Enrico Fermi’s previous December success in Chicago, when he achieved the first atomic pile in history, based on natural uranium and graphite. Kurchatov’s reading of the covertly obtained documents led him to follow the plutonium route as the most promising path, without, however, abandoning the pursuit of enriched uranium.

Molotov introduced Kurchatov to Stalin, who promised him all the support he needed. On April 12th, following the State Defence Committee’s decision to formally launch the nuclear project, the Academy of Sciences issued secret instructions to build a new laboratory for Kurchatov, designated Laboratory N° 2. Although formally part of the Academy, the laboratory actually reported directly to Pervukhin, with whom Kurchatov dealt directly. The latter met his closest colleagues to decide upon the lines of research to follow and took responsibility for planning and building an experimental pile for the production of element 94.

In April, in his report to Pervukhin, Kurchatov estimated they would need 15 tonnes of heavy water and 2 tonnes of natural uranium for a heavy water reactor, or 500-1,000 tonnes of graphite and 50-100 tonnes of uranium for a graphite reactor. The heavy water reactor needed less uranium, but heavy water was very difficult to procure. None of the materials Kurchatov needed were available at the time in the Soviet Union. In March 1943, he had asked Leonid Nemenov [1905-1980], who had worked at Ioffe’s Institute before the war, to build a cyclotron in order to obtain samples of element 94 (plutonium) to study. He gave him 16 months to complete it. It was not until 1946 that Kurchatov was able to start studying the small quantities of plutonium obtained from the uranium irradiated in the cyclotron. In April 1944, only 25 scientists were working in Laboratory N° 2, compared to the hundreds who were working at Los Alamos on the Manhattan Project.

The most formidable problem for Kurchatov was sourcing uranium and graphite. Only at the end of the summer of 1945 did pure graphite become available, produced by the Moscow Electrode Plant. The quantity of uranium needed for the experimental reactor was not yet available. It would be found only later, in Eastern Europe, following Germany’s defeat.

The spy network

According to Holloway, the Soviet Union had world-class scientists capable of developing a nuclear bomb independently. However, a pivotal role was also played by the extensive spy network in Britain and in the United States, saving the Soviets a year or two in the development of the bomb, since it meant Kurchatov could choose to follow the Anglo-Americans down proven scientific pathways.

In his book Dark Sun [1996], Richard Rhodes, the American historian of the nuclear and the hydrogen bomb, writes that the most productive espionage cell in the history of Soviet spying emerged at the University of Cambridge in the 1930s. While the physicists of the Cavendish Laboratory were exploring atomic nuclei, a group of young intellectuals at Trinity College, Cambridge, had embraced socialist ideas.

Even if his description is ideologically biased, expressing a negative judgement about people who, from an American viewpoint, had betrayed the West, Rhodes tells us that between the two world wars, socialist and communist ideas had spread among students at British universities. These idealistic youths, seeking an alternative to Anglo-Saxon capitalism and German Nazism, betrayed their own country in order not to betray the human race, whose future, they thought, was in the hands of those who had carried out the Bolshevik Revolution. Their personal tragedy was that they would in turn be manipulated and betrayed by the Stalinist counterrevolution. Michael Straight [1916-2004], an American student and Soviet spy, reports that there were 600 students with socialist ideas at Cambridge. It was among these that the Soviets recruited their assets.

An important figure was John Cairncross [1913-1995]. He had graduated from Glasgow University in 1933 in French and German. He then studied modern languages at the Sorbonne in Paris and subsequently at Trinity College, Cambridge. There, he frequented left-wing circles and met other members of the future spy ring. Cairncross entered the British Foreign Office in 1936, after passing its entrance exam with top grades. Shortly afterwards, he was presented to James Klugmann [1912-1977], a fellow Soviet spy in Cambridge, who recruited him into the antifascist movement and enrolled him as an agent. Cairncross was transferred to the Treasury in 1938, and in 1941 became the private secretary of Lord Hankey [1877-1963], a minister without portfolio of the War Cabinet and chairman of the Cabinet Scientific Advisory Committee. Hankey chaired the Defence Services Panel to which the work of the MAUD Committee (the British nuclear project) was subordinate.

The MAUD Report in Soviet hands

According to Rhodes, Cairncross’s position allowed him to pass the Soviets a copy of the July 1941 MAUD REPORT, which outlined the prospects of Britain building a nuclear bomb. We wrote about this report in September 2022 [Rivalità atomiche tra alleati, Lotta Comunista].

In 1942, Cairncross was appointed as a German translator at Bletchley Park, a government codebreaking centre north of London, where German encrypted military communications were deciphered and sent to the secret services. Cairncross clandestinely sent many decrypted communiqués to the Soviets, including vital messages about the movements of the German army on the Eastern Front. These helped the Red Army to prepare itself for the massive German attack on the Russian front. It is through Cairncross that the NKVD, the interior ministry and secret police of the Soviet Union, acquired a complete copy of the MAUD Report. Moscow now knew that the British government had decided to build a nuclear bomb and that the British scientists had calculated a timeframe of between two and five years.

The dates are important: in 1941-42, the information supplied by their spy ring did not have an immediate effect on the policy of the Soviet government, whose urgent priority was resisting the German troops’ attack. The development of the nuclear bomb required a colossal commitment of government funds, which could not be diverted from conventional forces during the height of the war.

The Soviets had all the necessary information thanks to their spy ring, and nuclear physicists able to build the nuclear bomb; but in the midst of war, they did not have the industrial capacity to realise the project. After Stalingrad, Stalin decided to go ahead with the nuclear project as a secondary priority. Only after Germany’s surrender in May 1945, and, crucially, after the Hiroshima bomb in August of the same year, did he decide to commit the full weight of Soviet industry to the development of the nuclear bomb.

Lotta Comunista, July-August 2025

Popular posts in the last week

Democratic Defeat in the Urban Vote

Internationalism No. 71, January 2025 Page 2 From the series Elections in the USA A careful analysis of the 2022 mid-term elections revealed the symptoms of a Democratic Party malaise which subsequently fully manifested itself in the latest presidential election, with the heavy loss of support in its traditional strongholds of the metropolitan areas of New York City and Chicago, and the State of California. A defeat foretold Republican votes rose from 51 million in the previous 2018 midterms to 54 million in 2022, a gain of 3 million. The Democrat vote fell from 61 to 51 million, a loss of 10 million. The Republicans gained only three votes for every ten lost by the Democrats, while the other seven became abstentions. In 2022, we analysed the elections in New York City by borough, the governmental districts whose names are well known through movies and TV series. In The Bronx, where the average yearly household income is $35,000, the Democrats lost 52,00...

India’s Weaknesses in the Global Spotlight

Farmers’ protests around New Delhi have been going on for four months now. A controversial intervention by the Supreme Court has suspended the implementation of the new agticultural laws, but has raised questions about the dynamics between the judiciary and the executive, and has failed to unblock the negotiations between government and peasant organisations. The assault by Sikh farmers on the Red Fort during the Republic Day parade as India was displaying its military might to the outside world — the Chinese Global Times maliciously noted — paradoxically widened the protest in the huge state of Uttar Pradesh. The Modi government has been trying to revive India’s image with the 2021 Union Budget: it announced one hundred privatisations and approved the increase to 75% of the limit on direct foreign investment in insurance companies. For The Indian Express ( IEX ) this is a sign of the commitment to push ahead with reforms despite the backlash from rural India. Also for The Economi...

Armed Negotiations between the Gulf and the Mediterranean

David Petraeus, Commander of the US forces in Iraq and the Gulf in 2007-2008, then director of the CIA in 2011-12, described the elimination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani on January 3 rd in Baghdad as a defensive action , with which the Trump presidency restored a US deterrence , which was weakened by recent Iranian actions . This is a reference to the attacks conducted indirectly, unclaimed by Tehran, against the Saudi oil infrastructures on September 14 th 2019. In March 2008, when the forces under Petraeus’ command supported the Iraqi Army in the fight against local Shite militias, Soleimani sent a message to the American general: informing him that he was the person in charge for Iranian policies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza therefore the channel through which to define an agreement to resolve the various issues with Tehran. Petraeus holds the advisors of the Quds Force, the spearhead of the Pasdaran asymmetric operations, responsible for the killing of around 600 ...

The deep strata of workers in an opulent Europe

The inauguration of the Draghi government has revived top trade union leaders anxious to be involved by the government of all , all the more so in the era of the Recovery Fund. The word consultation has been the most used in some recent trade union comments. Annamaria Furlan, of the CIS [Italian Confederation of Trade Unions] is explicit in calling for a great consultative pact [ Il Messaggero , 8 th February]. Pierpaolo Bombardier, secretary of the UIL [Italian Labour Union], adds that the consultation must become a method to help the country restart . Maurizio Landini, of the CGIL [Italian General Confederation of Labor] sees the novelty in the fact that social partners have been involved in the establishment of the new government [ Conquiste del lavoro , 11 th February]. The two phases of European imperialist politics In this sense there are many comparisons to the Ciampi govemment of 1993, omitting that consultation was functional to limiting the costs of labour. There ...

In the Depth of Our Class

The pandemic of the century is a storm that does not subside; it returns to its rampage after 40 million infections and more than a million official victims, perhaps two million according to estimates on the excess deaths. In the contention between powers, China stands as the winner: it seems to have tamed the virus, and industry and services are up and running; the USA and Europe, on the other hand, are moving towards a new wave of infections that casts yet more shadows on the economic cycle. Political structures and health systems are at the height of tension. In America, the elections have judged Donald Trump’s rash demagogy on the basis of the opposite reasons for containing the pandemic and the intolerance of small and large producers; in Europe the executives are attempting to steer between the surge in infections, increasingly stringent confinement measures and the threats of fiscal jacquerie in the tourism and catering sectors. Almost everywhere, in the Old Continent, governm...

Historical Constants and Strategic Surprise

The Strategic Surprise of the Agreement between Beijing and Tehran and the Suggestion of a Six-Power Concert The agreement between Beijing and Tehran falls under the definition of strategic surprise , i.e., events that entirely appertain to the political realm and mark a change or an about-turn in the balance among the powers. New alliances, the breakdown of alliances, the overturning of coalitions, diplomatic openings or unexpected military sorties: these are the regular novelties of international politics that Arrigo Cervetto wrote about. However, if the agreement was an unforeseeable event in itself, the long-term objective economic and political trends. that have determined it and made it possible are entirely investigable. The invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR at the end of December 1979 was interpreted by the United States as a potential threat to the oil routes of the Persian Gulf, and it was a contemporary revival of the Great Game , which had set the British Empire agai...

The Works of Marx and Engels and the Bolshevik Model

Internationalism Pages 12–13 In the autumn of 1895 Lenin commented on the death of Friedrich Engels: "After his friend Karl Marx (who died in 1883), Engels was the finest scholar and teacher of the modern proletariat in the whole civilised world. […] In their scientific works, Marx and Engels were the first to explain that socialism is not the invention of dreamers, but the final aim and necessary result of the development of the productive forces in modern society. All recorded history hitherto has been a history of class struggle, of the succession of the rule and victory of certain social classes over others. And this will continue until the foundations of class struggle and of class domination – private property and anarchic social production – disappear. The interests of the proletariat demand the destruction of these foundations, and therefore the conscious class struggle of the organised workers must be directed against them. And every class strugg...

The Comprehensive Agreement on Investment Strengthens the ‘European Party’ in China

From the series News from the Silk Road “Chinese people treat [US democracy] as a variety show which is much more interesting than House of Cards’ [...]”. Beijing does not feel the same embarrassment as the old democracies of the West faced with the grotesque scenes of demonstration against the Capitol organised by the president of the United States. Zhao Minghao from the Chongyang Institute spelled out the obvious in his analysis some time earlier: “the political farce by the incumbent president and some Republican lawmakers is reflecting the profound crisis on US domestic politics.” The Global Times is serving a hefty bill to the ideologies of liberal interventionism: “the ‘beacon of democracy’, and the beautiful rhetoric of ‘City upon a Hill’ [...]” are undergoing a serious debacle or in other words, a “Waterloo of US international image”. It will be a while before the US can “interfere in other countries’ domestic affairs with the excuse of ‘democracy’[...]”. Attention is also...

Nuclear Energy and the Power Grid

Internationalism No. 85, March 2026 Page 8 From the series The world energy battle Electricity is at the heart of modern economies and the demand for electricity is growing much faster than the overall consumption of energy in every scenario [ Electricity 2025 , International Energy Agency report]. Overproduction and power grid bottlenecks Electricity represents just 21% of energy consumption at a global level, but it is the main source for the sectors which represent more than 40% of the economy. A fundamental issue for the security of the electricity system is the modernisation of the power grid, which is currently lagging behind the expansion of production capacity. Although global investment in the production of electricity has increased by almost 70% since 2015, reaching $1,000 billion a year, annual spending on the grid has increased at less than half this rate, reaching $400 billion. This is also a European problem. Accordin...

‘Two Hands’ and ‘Two Roads’

From the series News from the Silk Road The international tensions which China will face on the seas in the next fifteen years could find a buffer in the expansion of China’s influence on land in Central, Southern and Western Asia. Wang Jisi is the dean of the School of International Studies at the University of Beijing and a major figure of the American party in China. His unexpected foray into ‘geopolitics’ has reignited the old clash between different American currents — a phenomenon we analysed more than twenty years ago. At the time, Robert Manning, the author of The Asian Energy Factor and adviser to the State Department in 1991, viewed Asia’s growing dependence on the Persian Gulf for its energy requirements in the light of geoeconomics and geostrategy and foresaw a possible convergence between the USA and China. From a geoeconomic standpoint, both trade and the funding and development of the infrastructure necessary for Asia’s energy needs were more important than terri...