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

Reckless Bets on Migrants in California

Internationalism No. 78-79, August-September 2025 Page 11 From the series Chronicles of the new American nationalism The tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump on allies, partners and opponents of the United States have opened a phase of negotiations with the affected countries and caused reactions from some key States. The legal opposition from almost all areas of the US poses a test: whether States, courts, and Congress can influence trade policy and constrain the expansion of executive powers. Amid conflicting rulings, the tariffs have been reinstated – an outcome that, The New York Times remarks, has “left Washington, Wall Street, and much of the world trying to discern the future of US trade policy”. California’s dispute with the federal government has expanded to immigration policy and the domestic use of military force. The political, economic, and power struggles overlap with the electoral dimension. The establishment remains critical of or ...

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...

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...

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...

Marx’s Political Method

Internationalism No. 85, March 2026 Special Issue, Page II From the series Principles of Marxism The Grundrisse require a sustained effort of attention from the reader. Marx uses scientific abstractions and conceptual connections as analytical tools. In the Grundrisse , we shall follow the guiding thread of Marx’s method. Some critics, including those within the Marxist camp, see traces of Hegelian thought in Marx’s procedures in this work. Marx and Engels responded to these jibes, clarifying their relationship with Hegel. In the Afterword to the second edition of Capital , Marx wrote: My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the [...] process of thinking, which, under the name of ‘the Idea’, he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world [...]. With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and transl...

THE UNITARY IMPERIALISM ISSUE

Chapter Six   In 1951 Europe, and the world, was shrouded in mist. The ‘Cold War’ ideology ruled, and the war in Korea made a world conflict between the USA and the USSR seem a real possibility. In France, Great Britain, Germany and Italy, the talk was of rearmament. Europe, at that time urged by the USA, was planning the EDC (European Defence Community) to keep step with German rearmament. The concept of a ‘ unitary imperialism ’ was the strategic choice that helped the small GAAP group remain politically independent. But translating this into an ‘Internationalist Third Front’ slogan was unfortunate. It facilitated a link with French libertarian communists, but could also cause confusion with its suggestion of a ‘Third Force’ between the USA and the USSR, which in Europe was supported by important bourgeois currents. Although opposition to unitary imperialism consolidated the internationalist struggle, the theory required to be developed and per...

Show Warfare?

Internationalism No. 86, April 2026 Page 16 After show politics and show diplomacy , have we sunk to the obscenity of show warfare ? On the surface, this is true. The Pentagon’s video game-style communications, where airstrikes, missile launches, and deadly explosions are set to music for social media clips, certainly suggest so. It matters little that a hundred schoolgirls were also blown to bits as artificial intelligence took centre stage on the battlefield. In reality, war propaganda has always showcased destruction and mocked the enemy; today in Washington, in the era of the high-tech groups of television and social media democracy , the only thing that has changed is the style and the means used to inflame fanaticisms and stuff people’s brains. In Tehran, dominated by a parasitic bourgeoisie that feeds on oil revenues and is intertwined with the militias and hierarchies of t...

THE ‘THIRD FRONT’ AND THE THORNY ISSUE OF EUROPE

Chapter Seven   Six months of discussion, from May to October 1952, were taken up with the issue of analysing unitary imperialism . What was the real balance of power between America and Russia? And the centres of European imperialism, which displayed signs of an Atlantic split? And Japan, which had begun to hint at greater political independence from the USA? How one analysed these questions carried serious political consequences. Only with a scientific notion of the ‘times and forces’ of imperialism could militants be provided with a solid frame of reference and safeguard themselves from disorientation and external influences. Washington was clearly stronger than Moscow: Europe’s priorities were different from those of the USA. This gave the lie to prospects of an imminent war, pushed Moscow towards a defensive policy of ‘detente’, and disclosed European groups with an interest in the markets of Eastern Europe. All this did not mean that Ru...

THE FOUNDRY AND THE PARTISAN STRUGGLE

Chapter Two   What forces were there for starting again, at the end of the 1940s? At the beginning of that road, you could count the core groups on the fingers of one hand: Genoa, its Sestri Ponente district, Savona, Rome. Of course, there were also Turin, Vicenza, Bologna, Milan, Bolzano, Trieste, Livorno, and a few sympathisers down South, but that was all it amounted to. Although there were periodic attempts at ‘linking up’ along the whole length of the peninsula, apart from the three Ligurian groups and the Tuscany-Lazio one, there wasn’t much more than a network of individual sympathisers. The Savona group Arrigo Cervetto , founder of Lotta Comunista and its undisputed leader until his death in 1995, was born in Buenos Aires in 1927, to a family who had emigrated from Savona. Returning to Liguria, he started work when still a boy, and in 1943 was taken on as an apprentice at the Ilva steel-making plant in Savona. The party ar...

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...