Climactic Years

  • J. N. Westwood
Part of the Studies in Soviet History and Society book series (SSHS)

Abstract

‘’Tis a poor thing, but mine own’, said Zhdanov in 1936. Never reluctant to display the breadth of his culture, he called on Shakespeare’s help to mock those who resisted the idea of acquiring foreign warship designs. Such opposition, he said, was only beer-belly patriotism. The occasion for these kindly remarks was a July meeting of heavy industry representatives in Leningrad, and the Severnyi Yard (soon to be called the Zhdanov Yard) was not spared; the ‘Leader’ Leningrad, said Zhdanov, had been 93 per cent finished ever since 1934, and he wanted to know the reason why. The yard had been required to deliver seven units in the current year but in fact handed over only one. Yet the yard was rolling in money, he added darkly.1

Keywords

Combustion Fatigue Dust Welding Manganese 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    Dubinin, 112.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dubinin, 38–43.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dubinin, 110–11.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Quoted in ‘Kak razvivat’sya flotu?’ (an interview) in Krasnaya zvezda, 16 August 1992, 1.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    This paragraph is based on V.N. Krasnov, ‘Stalinshchina v VMF i korablestroenii,’ Sudostroeniye, 7, 1989, 64–9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dubinin, 16.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sudostroeniye, 7, 1989, 68–9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sudostroeniye, 7, 1989, 55.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    No doubt Stalin had, in effect, the last word in previous years, but probably left most details to others. The source is Zonin (1991), 296, and refers to Stalin’s fixation with Italian designs, as described to Galler by Orlov.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Isakov (1984), 184–6.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuznetsov (1966), 257.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nikitin (1973), 226–7.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kulakov (1985), 11–13.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ‘O plane voennogo sudostroeniya na 1941 god’, Izvestiya TsK KPSS, 2, 1990, 191–2. For elaboration, see E. Mawdsley, ‘The Fate of Stalin’s Naval Program’ in Warship International, 4, 1990, 400–5.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zonin (1991), 368.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dubinin, 61–75. 17 Nikitin (1973), 237–73.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    For example, Nikitin recounts how in 1935 the Russians attending the trial of Montecuccoli saw how the cruiser’s hull was being greased in dry dock the day before. His accounts of Stalin’s demeanour during discussions of warship design closely resemble the accounts given in frankly deferential memoirs. In the travelogue part of his memoirs all the national stereotypes are presented undiluted.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Frumkin, 135.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Nikitin (1973), 271–2. This is his own tale, of course, and assumes that the named effect came from the named cause.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Maslov, 19–21.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Sudostroeniye, 5, 1975, 16.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    Maslov, 64–5.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    Sudostroeniye, 7, 1985, 48Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    Maslov, 71.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    The designer Chilikin’s words, as reported in Sudostroeniye, 1, 1989, 53–4.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    Maslov, 72–3. The Ustinov to whom he refers is the future, Brezhnevian, defence minister, who at this period headed the Bolshevik (Obukhovo) Works, responsible for producing the 7.1-inch guns. Frinovskii and Yezhov both came to their respective bad ends a few weeks after this incident. Tevosyan lived on to the 1950s, to be killed not by the NKVD but by the excessive alcohol and nicotine consumption to which he had been driven by his high-gear, high-risk, working life. In 1986 he made a posthumous reappearance, fictionalised, as the hero of A. Bek’s novel Novoye naznacheniye.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    Sorokin and Krasnov (1985), 159.Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    Dubinin, 69. What exactly happened is unclear. Most likely, it was a put-up job, reflecting the Soviet government’s displeasure with Mussolini during the Spanish Civil War, but any tensions born of the differing Italian and Russian design and construction philosophies could be expected to come to a head during trials.Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    G. S. Khabachev, ‘Rol’ Leningrada v ukreplenii voenno-morskogo flota’ in Sbornik trudov (1967), 53–5, 61.Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    Maslov, 74.Google Scholar
  31. 32.
    Maslov, 31–2.Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    Yakob (1969), 321.Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    Maslov, 321.Google Scholar
  34. 35.
    Maslov, 51.Google Scholar
  35. 36.
    Maslov, 63–5.Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    Yakob (1969), 20–39, is the main source for the saga of these destroyers.Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    The weightiest reason was no doubt the pressure put on the commission to accept ships as soon as possible, with some, often serious, defects merely recorded for subsequent, in-service, treatment.Google Scholar
  38. 39.
    Dubinin, 117–22.Google Scholar
  39. 40.
    Yakob (1969), 24.Google Scholar
  40. 41.
    Yakob (1969), 30–1.Google Scholar
  41. 42.
    Kuznetsov relates how he reported to Stalin the loss of the uncompleted destroyer Reshitel’nyi and that he was relieved to discover that not only his own, but other officers’ heads, were not in danger. He ascribed this mercy to the fact that he reported this minor disaster to Stalin in person.Google Scholar
  42. 43.
    Stvolinskii (1987), 208.Google Scholar
  43. 44.
    Potapov (1980), 61–3.Google Scholar
  44. 45.
    N.N. Afonin, ‘Skhodili so stapelei esmintsy,’ Sudostroeniye, 5, 1985, 61–5.Google Scholar
  45. 46.
    Golovko (1960), 143.Google Scholar
  46. 47.
    D. Chalyk, D. Barbarash, ‘Proektirovaniye i postroika storozhevykh korablei tipa “Yastreb”’, Sudostroeniye 2, 1988, 52–5.Google Scholar
  47. 48.
    Sorokin and Krasnov (1985), 145.Google Scholar
  48. 49.
    Notably in V.Yu. Gribovskii, ‘Lineinye korabli tipa “Sovietskii Soyuz”’, Sudostroeniye, 7, 1990, 55–9Google Scholar
  49. and V.Yu. Usov, ‘Tyazhelye kreisery tipa “Kronshtadt”’, Sudostroeniye, 11, 1989, 57–8. Some of the material presented in Sudostroeniye can be seen, translated, in post-1990 issues of the journal Warship InternationalGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sudostroeniye, 7, 1990, 55.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sudostroeniye, 11, 1989, 57.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Garzke and Dubin (1980), 307–15. The possibility that a floating battery used at Sevastopol in World War 2 was actually a discarded trial section of the Ansaldo design is discussed in Warship International, 2, 1986, 157.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sudostroeniye, 7, 1989, 57.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Garzke and Dubin (1980), 307–15, give a good survey of the Italian and US side of the battleship quest.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zonin (1991), 298.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kuznetsov (1966), 259.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Most likely, this is the case that Maslov referred to, in which the armour plate was somehow omitted from calculations of the turret weight.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gangut, 1, 1991, 69–70.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    A.V. Platonov, ‘Iz letopisi sozdaniya sovietskikh avianostsev’, Sudostroeniye, 5, 1992, 40–6.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nikitin (1973), 294. Nikitin does not explain why he, and not others, was denied the visa.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nikitin (1973), 313.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Nikitin (1973), 317Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Nikitin (1973), 317–28.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Erickson (1962), 541, using German archives.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Nikitin (1973), 336.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Erickson (1962), 253.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Bazilievskii (1977), 148–51.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Dmitriev (1990), 173–4.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kuznetsov (1966), 261.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    E.P. Ignat’ev, ‘Pervaya podvodnaya lodka s edinym dvigatelem’, Sudostroeniye, 5, 1992, 46–9.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Dmitriev (1990), 191–6, details the experimental submarines.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    A.V. Platonov, ‘Artvooruzheniye linkorov, zalozhennykh v predvoennye gody’, Sudostroeniye, 7, 1990, 60–4.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    See especially A.V. Platonov, ‘Artilleriiskoye vooruzheniye pervykh sovetskikh korablei’, Sudostroeniye, 11, 1989, 66–70. This is also the source for the following paragraph on gunnery control equipment.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    E.A. Shitikov, ‘Samoletnye katapul’ty v sovietskom kreiserostroenii’, Sudostroeniye, 7, 1992, 57–9.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Zonin (1991), 326. The scientists were probably restricted because the battleship was taking part in the war against Finland.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Stvolinskii (1984), 148.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© J.N. Westwood 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. N. Westwood
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Russian and East European StudiesUniversity of BirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations