DOCSLIB.ORG

German Scientists in the Soviet Atomic Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
German Scientists in the Soviet Atomic Project PAVEL V. OLEYNIKOV German Scientists in the Soviet Atomic Project PAVEL V. OLEYNIKOV1 Pavel Oleynikov has been a group leader at the Institute of Technical Physics of the Russian Federal Nuclear Center in Snezhinsk (Chelyabinsk-70), Russia. He can be reached by e-mail at <[email protected]>. he fact that after World War II the Soviet Union This article first addresses what the Soviets knew at took German scientists to work on new defense the end of World War II about the German bomb pro- Tprojects in that country has been fairly well docu- gram and then discusses their efforts to collect German mented.2 However, the role of German scientists in the technology, scientists, and raw materials, particularly advancement of the Soviet atomic weapons program is uranium, after the war. Next, it reviews the Soviets’ use controversial. In the United States in the 1950s, Russians of German uranium and scientists in particular labora- were portrayed as “retarded folk who depended mainly tories working on different aspects of atomic weapons on a few captured German scientists for their achieve- development. It discusses the contributions and careers ments, if any.”3 Russians, for their part, vehemently deny of several German scientists and their possible motiva- all claims of the German origins of the Soviet bomb and tions for participating in the Soviet bomb program. The wield in their defense the statement of Max Steenbeck importance of the Germans’ contributions was reflected (a German theorist who pioneered supercritical centri- in the awards and other acknowledgments they fuges for uranium enrichment in the USSR) 4 that “all received from the Soviet government, including numer- talk that Germans have designed the bomb for the Sovi- ous Stalin Prizes in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Their ets is nonsense.”5 The US intelligence community was contributions were particularly numerous in the area of able to make its own judgment on the subject when it uranium enrichment, especially on the technology of debriefed German scientists and prisoners of war return- gaseous diffusion plants. After reviewing these devel- ing from the USSR in the 1950s, but it did not make pub- opments, this article concludes with an evaluation of the lic its evaluation.6 This article attempts to resolve the political and historical significance of the use of Ger- controversy by drawing on both the stories later told by man material and scientists. While the Soviets did not these German scientists and the recently declassified need the Germans’ help to build an atomic weapon, their Soviet accounts of the atomic project. It seeks to deter- contributions certainly accelerated the Soviets’ push to mine the real extent to which German participation in become a nuclear weapon state. the atomic weapons program changed the balance of nuclear power and influenced the course of the Cold War. The Nonproliferation Review/Summer 2000 1 PAVEL V. OLEYNIKOV DID THE SOVIETS BELIEVE THE GERMANS special reference tables to calculate what the measure- HAD AN ATOMIC BOMB? ments revealed. In the latter stages of the war in Europe, the US Army In another letter sent from Dresden on May 29, 1945, initiated efforts to investigate whether the advancing Flerov gave more clues that suggest he was looking for Allied troops could be threatened by a German radio- evidence on whether the Germans had conducted an logical weapon.7 However, the Soviets did not appear atomic test. In this letter, Flerov discusses his desire to to share this concern. Whether because the Russians’ in- interview certain individuals being repatriated to the telligence worked better than that of their British or Soviet Union from Soviet-occupied Germany: American counterparts,8 or an atomic bomb was not ...the repatriation has begun. So far there are believed feasible before the test in Alamogordo in July 10-15 thousand people a day crossing the de- 1945, none of the published documents from the early marcation line at three checkpoints. Later this stage of the Soviet atomic project (1943-1945) speaks number will rise to 50 thousand, until all of any such threat from Germany. However, there are former Soviet citizens (1-2 million) will be indirect hints of possible Soviet concern. moved away from here. We have visited some The US forces in Europe conducted an extensive en- of the checkpoints, talked to former prisoners vironmental sampling program to determine the of war. Unfortunately, people from various location of possible atomic facilities. The recently de- locations are mixed in the most peculiar way. classified and published letters of Georgy Flerov to Igor … Kurchatov, scientific director of the Soviet atomic Nevertheless, there should be organized sys- project, show that the Russians also undertook such an tematic filtration of all arriving people based investigation. Flerov, a nuclear scientist, was in Ger- on their location: in such and such area, in such many in May 1945 trying to find out whether the Ger- and such year, particularly because the respec- mans had been able to make an atom bomb. tive [Soviet intelligence] agencies are con- ducting similar filtration in order to determine In a letter sent from Dresden circa May 21, 1945, whom to send to what camp. [Here Flerov Flerov wrote in an ambiguous manner to protect secrecy made a footnote: In each camp we shall have about his plans to use Geiger counters in the search: 1-2 people focusing exclusively on debriefing Today or tomorrow we are going to fly in the people brought from a specific location. After direction that you know. I am taking with me the first superficial questioning, the only Dubovsky’s instrument, but its sensitivity is, people left will be those that we will speak to probably, too low. If we determine on site that personally.] After selection, people are kept for there are objects of interest for examination several days until somebody from us arrives and sensitivity of the instrument is the issue, to speak to them. I’ll send you a cable. Possibly, you can send somebody from the You will have to assign Stoljarenko or staff to help me. I think that as a result of such Davidenko (if he gets back by then) to this search we will be able to find what we need— work. Instruct them to assemble the instrument a person who occasionally was there nearby, in the lightweight option: powered from the as there were a lot of escapees wandering mains by 220 volts.... Along with the instru- through forests at the time. If successful, we ment, let them pack the tables for finding the will get objective confirmation of the fact, tan- 9 appropriate periods.… tamount to as if we personally had been at that Unlike the US airborne Geiger counters, the Soviet site. This must be done right here and right counter was not portable because it was to be powered now, because afterwards all people crossing from 220-volt mains. Flerov was going to search for ra- the border are dispersed through camps in Ger- dioactive isotopes with a short half-life (what he re- many and then are transferred to the Soviet fers to as “appropriate periods”). At the time, the only Union, and then even such an enthusiast as way to determine the presence of an isotope was to take myself would question our ability to catch the consecutive measurements several days in a row and use right people…. 2 The Nonproliferation Review/Summer 2000 PAVEL V. OLEYNIKOV The second direction is connected to what I east of Stettin: most of the inhabitants had fled, leaving wrote you in the previous letter. In order to behind virtually all their possessions. In order to collect determine finally what was really tested there, all the abandoned wealth, the Soviets formed special tro- we shall of course look after artificial, not phy brigades charged with requisitioning any property natural radioactivity. Unfortunately, a lot of of value to the Soviet Union.13 time has passed since, but I think that with [our The Soviets said the official justification for the tro- instruments] we will be able to attain the re- phy brigades came from agreements reached at the Yalta 10 quired sensitivity. and Potsdam conferences in February and July 1945, Obviously Flerov was not trying to find confirmation respectively. However, the Soviet government did not of reactor criticality because such an event does not cre- generally base its actions on respect for international ate visual effects that could be observed by people in a agreements, and the memoirs of Nikolai Dollezhal14 forest. Therefore, Flerov must have thought that escap- suggest the decision to launch the brigades was made ees could have witnessed something resembling an even before these conferences took place. In May 1945, atomic bomb test, accompanied by a bang and a flash of Dollezhal was assigned the rank of colonel and sent to light. Germany in order to “collect technical archives of en- 15 No documents have come to light that describe the terprises of the chemical machine building industry.” His identification stated that he acted under a decree from results of Flerov’s findings. What is known is that V.A. 16 Stoljarenko (who was mentioned in the May 21 letter) GOKO of January 31, 1945, No. 7431. The papers he received stated that Dollezhal should be “granted unob- indeed traveled to Germany, together with M.I. Pevzner 17 and A.K. Krasin, some time after Flerov, probably to do structed access for inspection of industrial sites.” the Geiger counter survey. Thus, the puzzle of whether While the trophy brigades were generally good at con- Soviet physicists believed the Germans had developed fiscating livestock and grain from the Germans, their an atomic bomb remains unsolved.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Reich Wreckers: an Analysis of the 306Th Bomb Group During World War II 5B
    AU/ACSC/514-15/1998-04 AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE AIR UNIVERSITY THE REICH WRECKERS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE 306TH BOMB GROUP DURING WORLD WAR II by Charles J. Westgate III, Major, USAF A Research Report Submitted to the Faculty In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements Advisor: Dr. Richard R. Muller Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama April 1998 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burder for this collection of information is estibated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burder to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (FROM - TO) 01-04-1998 Thesis xx-xx-1998 to xx-xx-1998 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER The Reich Wreckers: An Analysis of the 306th Bomb Group During World War II 5b. GRANT NUMBER Unclassified 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d.
    [Show full text]
  • Franck-Hertz Experiment
    IIA2 Modul Atomic/Nuclear Physics Franck-Hertz Experiment This experiment by JAMES FRANCK and GUSTAV LUDWIG HERTZ from 1914 (Nobel Prize 1926) is one of the most impressive comparisons in the search for quantum theory: it shows a very simple arrangement in the existence of discrete stationary energy states of the electrons in the atoms. ÜÔ ÖÑÒØ Á Á¾ ¹ ÜÔ ÖÑÒØ This experiment by JAMES FRANCK and GUSTAV LUDWIG HERTZ from 1914 (Nobel Prize 1926) is one of the most impressive comparisons in the search for quantum theory: it shows a very simple arrangement in the existence of discrete stationary energy states of the electrons in the atoms. c AP, Department of Physics, University of Basel, September 2016 1.1 Preliminary Questions • Explain the FRANCK-HERTZ experiment in our own words. • What is the meaning of the unit eV and how is it defined? • Which experiment can verify the 1. excitation energy as well? • Why is an anode used in the tube? Why is the current not measured directly at the grid? 1.2 Theory 1.2.1 Light emission and absorption in the atom There has always been the question of the microscopic nature of matter, which is a key object of physical research. An important experimental approach in the "world of atoms "is the study of light absorption and emission of light from matter, that the accidental investigation of the spectral distribution of light absorbed or emitted by a particular substance. The strange phenomenon was observed (first from FRAUNHOFER with the spectrum of sunlight), and was unexplained until the beginning of this century when it finally appeared: • If light is a continuous spectrum (for example, incandescent light) through a gas of a particular type of atom, and subsequently , the spectrum is observed, it is found that the light is very special, atom dependent wavelengths have been absorbed by the gas and therefore, the spectrum is absent.
    [Show full text]
  • Secrets Jeremy Bernstein
    INFERENCE / Vol. 6, No. 1 Secrets Jeremy Bernstein Restricted Data: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the decided to found a rival weapons laboratory. Even if Teller United States had offered me a job, I doubt that I would have accepted.3 by Alex Wellerstein After obtaining my degree, I was offered a job that University of Chicago Press, 528 pp., $35.00. would keep me in Cambridge for at least another year. One year became two and at the end of my second year I was uclear weapons have been shrouded in secrecy accepted at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. from the very beginning. After plutonium was It was around this time that the chairman of the physics discovered at the University of California in department at Harvard, Kenneth Bainbridge, came to me NDecember 1940, researchers led by Glenn Seaborg submit- with an offer. Bainbridge had been an important figure at ted a pair of letters to the Physical Review. The details of Los Alamos during the war. Robert Oppenheimer had put their discovery were withheld from publication until after him in charge of the site in New Mexico where the Trinity the war.1 Once the project to make a nuclear weapon got test had taken place.4 Bainbridge told me that the labora- underway, secrecy became a very serious matter indeed. tory was offering summer jobs to young PhDs and asked The story of these efforts and how they evolved after the if I was interested. I was very interested. Los Alamos had war is the subject of Alex Wellerstein’s Restricted Data: an almost mystical significance for me due to its history The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Current & Future Uranium Enrichment Technologies
    The History of the Gas Centrifuge and Its Role in Nuclear Proliferation Houston Wood, Professor Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering University of Virginia Presented at Wilson Center Washington, D.C. January 20, 2010 Early Days • Isotopes were discovered in early 1900’s. • Centrifuge separation of isotopes first suggested by Lindemann and Aston (1919) • Chapman, Mulliken, Harkens and others tried unsuccessful experiments. • First successful experiments at UVA in 1934 by Prof. Jesse Beams with isotopes of Chlorine. • Attempts to use centrifuges in Manhattan project were unsuccessful. 20 January 2010 Houston Wood Professor Jesse W. Beams University of Virginia 1898 - 1977 20 January 2010 Houston Wood Early Days at UVA • Work on centrifuges during Manhattan project had a number of failures. • Project was terminated. • Concern over potential competition from German centrifuges led AEC to restart work at UVA in 1955 under guidance of A.R. Kulthau. 20 January 2010 Houston Wood Meanwhile in Europe • German research was being led by Konrad Beyerle in Göttingen and Wilhelm Groth at University of Bonn • Research in the Netherlands was being directed by Jacob Kistemaker. 20 January 2010 Houston Wood USSR • At the end of WWII, Soviets took many POWs from Germany. • They started effort to develop nuclear weapons. • Organization at Sinop: – Von Ardenne – Electromagnetic Separation – Thiessen – Gaseous Diffusion – Steenbeck Group – Included Centrifuge 20 January 2010 Houston Wood USSR (cont’d) • Competition between gaseous diffusion and gas centrifuge. • Reputed problems with GD enriching to weapons grade level. • Centrifuge considered for “topping off.” • Competition for long rotor vs. short rotor. • Steenbeck group transferred from Sinop to Kirov plant in Leningrad (~1951).
    [Show full text]
  • The Franck-Hertz Experiment: 100 Years Ago and Now
    The Franck-Hertz experiment: 100 years ago and now A tribute to two great German scientists Zoltán Donkó1, Péter Magyar2, Ihor Korolov1 1 Institute for Solid State Physics and Optics, Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary 2 Physics Faculty, Roland Eötvös University, Budapest, Hungary Franck-Hertz experiment anno (~1914) The Nobel Prize in Physics 1925 was awarded jointly to James Franck and Gustav Ludwig Hertz "for their discovery of the laws governing the impact of an electron upon an atom" Anode current Primary experimental result 4.9 V nobelprize.org Elv: ! # " Accelerating voltage ! " Verh. Dtsch. Phys. Ges. 16: 457–467 (1914). Franck-Hertz experiment anno (~1914) The Nobel Prize in Physics 1925 was awarded jointly to James Franck and Gustav Ludwig Hertz "for their discovery of the laws governing the impact of an electron upon an atom" nobelprize.org Verh. Dtsch. Phys. Ges. 16: 457–467 (1914). Franck-Hertz experiment anno (~1914) “The electrons in Hg vapor experience only elastic collisions up to a critical velocity” “We show a method using which the critical velocity (i.e. the accelerating voltage) can be determined to an accuracy of 0.1 V; its value is 4.9 V.” “We show that the energy of the ray with 4.9 V corresponds to the energy quantum of the resonance transition of Hg (λ = 253.6 nm)” ((( “Part of the energy goes into excitation and part goes into ionization” ))) Important experimental evidence for the quantized nature of the atomic energy levels. The Franck-Hertz experiment: 100 years ago and now Franck-Hertz experiment: published in 1914, Nobel prize in 1925 Why is it interesting today as well? “Simple” explanation (“The electrons ....”) → description based on kinetic theory (Robson, Sigeneger, ...) Modern experiments Various gases (Hg, He, Ne, Ar) Modern experiment + kinetic description (develop an experiment that can be modeled accurately ...) → P.
    [Show full text]
  • Tokamak Foundation in USSR/Russia 1950--1990
    IOP PUBLISHING and INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY NUCLEAR FUSION Nucl. Fusion 50 (2010) 014003 (8pp) doi:10.1088/0029-5515/50/1/014003 Tokamak foundation in USSR/Russia 1950–1990 V.P. Smirnov Nuclear Fusion Institute, RRC ’Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia Received 8 June 2009, accepted for publication 26 November 2009 Published 30 December 2009 Online at stacks.iop.org/NF/50/014003 In the USSR, nuclear fusion research began in 1950 with the work of I.E. Tamm, A.D. Sakharov and colleagues. They formulated the principles of magnetic confinement of high temperature plasmas, that would allow the development of a thermonuclear reactor. Following this, experimental research on plasma initiation and heating in toroidal systems began in 1951 at the Kurchatov Institute. From the very first devices with vessels made of glass, porcelain or metal with insulating inserts, work progressed to the operation of the first tokamak, T-1, in 1958. More machines followed and the first international collaboration in nuclear fusion, on the T-3 tokamak, established the tokamak as a promising option for magnetic confinement. Experiments continued and specialized machines were developed to test separately improvements to the tokamak concept needed for the production of energy. At the same time, research into plasma physics and tokamak theory was being undertaken which provides the basis for modern theoretical work. Since then, the tokamak concept has been refined by a world-wide effort and today we look forward to the successful operation of ITER. (Some figures in this article are in colour only in the electronic version) At the opening ceremony of the United Nations First In the USSR, NF research began in 1950.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Museums Visit More Than 80 Million Visitors, 1/3 of Who Are Visitors Under 18
    Moscow 4 There are more than 3000 museums (and about 72 000 museum workers) in Russian Moscow region 92 Federation, not including school and company museums. Every year Russian museums visit more than 80 million visitors, 1/3 of who are visitors under 18 There are about 650 individual and institutional members in ICOM Russia. During two last St. Petersburg 117 years ICOM Russia membership was rapidly increasing more than 20% (or about 100 new members) a year Northwestern region 160 You will find the information aboutICOM Russia members in this book. All members (individual and institutional) are divided in two big groups – Museums which are institutional members of ICOM or are represented by individual members and Organizations. All the museums in this book are distributed by regional principle. Organizations are structured in profile groups Central region 192 Volga river region 224 Many thanks to all the museums who offered their help and assistance in the making of this collection South of Russia 258 Special thanks to Urals 270 Museum creation and consulting Culture heritage security in Russia with 3M(tm)Novec(tm)1230 Siberia and Far East 284 © ICOM Russia, 2012 Organizations 322 © K. Novokhatko, A. Gnedovsky, N. Kazantseva, O. Guzewska – compiling, translation, editing, 2012 [email protected] www.icom.org.ru © Leo Tolstoy museum-estate “Yasnaya Polyana”, design, 2012 Moscow MOSCOW A. N. SCRiAbiN MEMORiAl Capital of Russia. Major political, economic, cultural, scientific, religious, financial, educational, and transportation center of Russia and the continent MUSEUM Highlights: First reference to Moscow dates from 1147 when Moscow was already a pretty big town.
    [Show full text]
  • THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH Department for External Church Relations
    THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH Department for External Church Relations His Holiness Patriarch Kirill signs Patriarchal and Synodal Charter on the Restoration of the Unity of the Archdiocese of Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe with the Russian Orthodox Church On 1st November 2019, in the Throne Hall of the Patriarchal and Synodal residence in St. Daniel’s Monastery in Moscow, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia singed the Patriarchal and Synodal Charter on the Restoration of the Unity of the Archdiocese of Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe with the Russian Orthodox Church. The Charter was signed in two copies, one to be handed over to Archbishop John (Renneteau) of Dubna, head of the Archdiocese of Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe, during the Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow on 3rd November, and the other to be kept at the Moscow Patriarchate’s archive. Attending the ceremony were Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations; Bishop Dionisy of Voskresensk, chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate; Metropolitan Antony of Korsun and Western Europe, head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Administration for Institutions Abroad; and Bishop Savva of Zelenograd, deputy chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate. On 2nd – 4th November, the celebrations marking the reunification of the Archdiocese of Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe with the Russian Orthodox Church will be held in Moscow. Taking part in the celebrations will be a delegation of the Archdiocese led by Archbishop John of Dubna.
    [Show full text]
  • The Russian-A(Merican) Bomb: the Role of Espionage in the Soviet Atomic Bomb Project
    J. Undergrad. Sci. 3: 103-108 (Summer 1996) History of Science The Russian-A(merican) Bomb: The Role of Espionage in the Soviet Atomic Bomb Project MICHAEL I. SCHWARTZ physicists and project coordinators ought to be analyzed so as to achieve an understanding of the project itself, and given the circumstances and problems of the project, just how Introduction successful those scientists could have been. Third and fi- nally, the role that espionage played will be analyzed, in- There was no “Russian” atomic bomb. There only vestigating the various pieces of information handed over was an American one, masterfully discovered by by Soviet spies and its overall usefulness and contribution Soviet spies.”1 to the bomb project. This claim echoes a new theme in Russia regarding Soviet Nuclear Physics—Pre-World War II the Soviet atomic bomb project that has arisen since the democratic revolution of the 1990s. The release of the KGB As aforementioned, Paul Josephson believes that by (Commissariat for State Security) documents regarding the the eve of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Soviet sci- role that espionage played in the Soviet atomic bomb project entists had the technical capability to embark upon an atom- has raised new questions about one of the most remark- ics weapons program. He cites the significant contributions able and rapid scientific developments in history. Despite made by Soviet physicists to the growing international study both the advanced state of Soviet nuclear physics in the of the nucleus, including the 1932 splitting of the lithium atom years leading up to World War II and reported scientific by proton bombardment,7 Igor Kurchatov’s 1935 discovery achievements of the actual Soviet atomic bomb project, of the isomerism of artificially radioactive atoms, and the strong evidence will be provided that suggests that the So- fact that L.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 the Aftermath of the Cambridge-Vienna Controversy: Radioactivity and Politics in Vienna in the 1930S
    Trafficking Materials and Maria Rentetzi Gendered Experimental Practices Chapter 6 The Aftermath of the Cambridge-Vienna Controversy: Radioactivity and Politics in Vienna in the 1930s Consequences of the Cambridge-Vienna episode ranged from the entrance of other 1 research centers into the field as the study of the atomic nucleus became a promising area of scientific investigation to the development of new experimental methods. As Jeff Hughes describes, three key groups turned to the study of atomic nucleus. Gerhard Hoffman and his student Heinz Pose studied artificial disintegration at the Physics Institute of the University of Halle using a polonium source sent by Meyer.1 In Paris, Maurice de Broglie turned his well-equipped laboratory for x-ray research into a center for radioactivity studies and Madame Curie started to accumulate polonium for research on artificial disintegration. The need to replace the scintillation counters with a more reliable technique also 2 led to the extensive use of the cloud chamber in Cambridge.2 Simultaneously, the development of electric counting methods for measuring alpha particles in Rutherford's laboratory secured quantitative investigations and prompted Stetter and Schmidt from the Vienna Institute to focus on the valve amplifier technique.3 Essential for the work in both the Cambridge and the Vienna laboratories was the use of polonium as a strong source of alpha particles for those methods as an alternative to the scintillation technique. Besides serving as a place for scientific production, the laboratory was definitely 3 also a space for work where tasks were labeled as skilled and unskilled and positions were divided to those paid monthly and those supported by grant money or by research fellowships.
    [Show full text]
  • Underpinning of Soviet Industrial Paradigms
    Science and Social Policy: Underpinning of Soviet Industrial Paradigms by Chokan Laumulin Supervised by Professor Peter Nolan Centre of Development Studies Department of Politics and International Studies Darwin College This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2019 Preface This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee. 2 Chokan Laumulin, Darwin College, Centre of Development Studies A PhD thesis Science and Social Policy: Underpinning of Soviet Industrial Development Paradigms Supervised by Professor Peter Nolan. Abstract. Soviet policy-makers, in order to aid and abet industrialisation, seem to have chosen science as an agent for development. Soviet science, mainly through the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, was driving the Soviet industrial development and a key element of the preparation of human capital through social programmes and politechnisation of the society.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Research Online Oro.Open.Ac.Uk
    Open Research Online The Open University’s repository of research publications and other research outputs J.G. Crowther’s War: Institutional strife at the BBC and British Council Journal Item How to cite: Jones, Allan (2016). J.G. Crowther’s War: Institutional strife at the BBC and British Council. British Journal for the History of Science, 49(2) pp. 259–278. For guidance on citations see FAQs. c 2016 British Society for the History of Science https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Version: Accepted Manuscript Link(s) to article on publisher’s website: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007087416000315 Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policies page. oro.open.ac.uk Accepted for publication in British Journal for the History of Science (BJHS), published by Cambridge University Press. For Version of Record, please see the BJHS publication of this article. Copyright © 2016 Cambridge University Press 1 J.G. Crowther’s War: Institutional strife at the BBC and British Council Allan Jones Department of Computing and Communications, Faculty of Mathematics, Computing and Technology, Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK. Email: [email protected] Abstract Science writer, historian and administrator J. G. Crowther (1899–1983) had an uneasy relationship with the BBC during the 1920s and 1930s, and was regarded with suspicion by the British security services because of his Left politics.
    [Show full text]