Restoration and development of Leningrad machine building in the second half of the 1940s - 1960s.

Prischepa Aleksandr Sergeevich ORCID: 0000-0001-7063-8067 PhD in History Senior Lecturer, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University; Junior Researcher at the Department of the Institute for the History of Defense and Siege of Leningrad, GMMOBL, St. Petersburg 188662, Russia, Leningrad region, Murino, ul. Aviatorov Baltiki, 3, sq. 241 a.prischepa@list.ru Other publications by this author

Abstract. The subject of the study is the process of restoration and development of Leningrad machine building in the post-war period, which was characterized by important socio-economic and industrial transformations. The starting point in this is the lifting of the siege of Leningrad and the beginning of the restoration process in the city's industry. The machine-building industry, as well as the entire production environment of the city as a whole, needed restructuring. The equipment had to be replaced or thoroughly improved. Labor cadres actively participated not only in the revival of the lost industrial potential, but also helped to update and modernize existing production, and in the future to make changes in technological methods of work and management on them.

The scientific novelty of the research lies in the fact that the author attempted to demonstrate a set of measures aimed at the restoration and development of Leningrad machine building in the mid-1940s - mid-1960s.

At the same time, special attention is paid to key projects and joint labor activity of representatives of the working personnel, engineering and technical staff and scientists of the city for the further development of technological operations that were carried out during the study period. Separately, the article provides examples illustrating the process of development of scientific and technological progress in the Leningrad machine-building industry, including the improvement of technological methods and techniques.

Introduction

Currently, social science specialists – historians, sociologists, philosophers - do not have a single point of view on the period associated with the restoration and further technological transformation of the Leningrad machine-building industry. The author examines the processes associated with the repair of preserved devices, machines and mechanisms, and also demonstrates the technical innovations that led to modernization and automation through the ideas and thoughts of production workers.

The chronological framework of the study covers the mid-1940s – mid-1960s. The choice of the lower boundary of the study is due to the fact that after the lifting of the siege of Leningrad in 1944, the process of restoring the city's industry begins. The upper limit is the mid–1960s, when there is a systematic transition from the restoration and modernization of the industrial complex of the city to the creation of fundamentally new automated machines and production lines in the machine-building industry of the city. During this period, a single industrial base of national economic importance is being formed.

After the lifting of the siege of Leningrad, the industrial enterprises of the city were in a difficult situation. Most of the production sites were destroyed. Such machine-building complexes and plants as Electrosila, Izhora Plant, Nevsky Machine-Building Plant (NMZ) and others needed first of all to clear the territory of technological blockages and carry out repair and restoration work. At this stage, everything depended on the enthusiasm and initiative of the workforce. The next step after the restoration work was completed was the technological re-equipment of the machine-building industry.

Problem statement, research objectives and methodology

The purpose of this article is to consider the process of restoration, renewal and restructuring of technological equipment at Leningrad machine–building plants in the mid-1940s – mid-1960s.

The subject of the study is the process aimed at restructuring the machine-building complex of the city in the specified period. The author attempts to trace the general patterns that influenced the technical renewal of machines and mechanisms in subsequent years. 

In the study of the process of restoration work in the city, the method of comparative analysis was used, and the types and features of technological improvement of the performance of production operations are shown using the descriptive-narrative method.  The principles of historicism and scientific objectivity helped to reveal the factors influencing the process of modernization of the entire industry of the city based on the priority of facts and documentary evidence.

Historiography of the problem

When considering issues related to Leningrad machine building, the following should be noted in the historiographical aspect. Since the second half of the 1940s, the country's leadership has attached great importance to the restoration of the destroyed infrastructure of the city with a focus on the production of peaceful products. Factory equipment by the 1950s was obsolete and in need of technical renewal, and to further increase the pace of industrial production, it was necessary to replace the existing equipment with a newer, more productive one.

Historical works published in the 1950s and 1970s are characterized by a clear directive influence. In the works of the 1980s - 1990s, late Soviet and post-Soviet historiography, the professional work of production personnel and employees of enterprises of the USSR on the technological renewal of equipment is studied. It is noted that they not only worked in the production of the city, but also actively participated in the renewal and modernization of technological operations in the workshops. Some works show the existing system of modernization of the applied mechanisms, while others contained material on quantitative and qualitative measures related to scientific and technical creativity. First of all, they observed a critical and objective view of the events that took place in the state.

In the Russian historical literature, issues related to the study of industrial heritage have been investigated since the 1950s. This time was characterized by the completion of the process of restoration work in Leningrad and the beginning of the transition to a change in the technological structure of the city's enterprises. Modification and updating affected almost all local production, including changes related to technological processes for the production of products. Scientific publications considered the issues of industry development from the point of view of updating technological techniques and methods of work at the enterprises of the city. 

Research results

Since 1944, an active phase of repair and restoration work has begun at all industrial complexes of the country. Leningrad industry, urban economy and transport suffered significant damage. Already in the first year of the war, 1941, the German aviation destroyed 840 industrial buildings, and 3090 received serious damage, including almost destroyed production equipment ^{[1, pp. 76-83]}.  

After the lifting of the blockade in 1944, Leningrad machine builders were able to fulfill a government order for the needs of the country's energy complex. In 1944 they manufactured 6 turbines, took part in the restoration of one hydraulic turbine, built 5 turbomachines, 4 turbopumps, 188 revolver and universal grinding machines ^{[2, p. 247]}.

New achievements in the restoration and development of the Leningrad industry were marked in 1945, when the return to pre-war production indicators was considered the minimum and main task for the entire industrial complex of the city. At the beginning of 1945, orders for the needs of the front were carried out at all machine-building plants. At the same time, active technical preparation of equipment for the production of a civilian product range was carried out in parallel.

The first restored enterprises of the machine-building industry of the city were "Electrosila", "Kirov Plant", "Leningrad Metal Plant", NMZ, "Izhorsky Plant". Already in 1945, the gross output of all local enterprises was only 32% of the level of 1940 ^{[3, p. 29]}. The fourth five-year plan or the plan of the first post-war five-year plan (1946-1950) was implemented by industrialists in just four years and three months. The total volume of industrial production was completed by 128% (if correlated with the indicators of 1940 – A.P.) ^{[3, pp. 29-30]}. At the same time, industrial complexes of mechanical engineering and metalworking have received the greatest development. This became possible only because the management staff of enterprises and workers worked for the result, often violating production instructions. So, the chief dispatcher of the plant and an eyewitness of the situation at the NMZ D. Romanov wrote about the decision made by the technologist of the enterprise: "Instead of organizing the entire production in one 11 shop, chief technologist Kotlyarov connected employees from 12 shops, allowing them to independently stamp parts for a gas stove" ^{[4, p. 2]}.  

It should be noted that the production of peaceful products was established at Leningrad's urban industrial facilities in 1945. At the Bolshevik plant, most of the premises were not repaired, but work on the machines was carried out, state orders were fulfilled, and the foundry site at the Izhorsky Plant systematically increased the pace of steel smelting ^{[5, p. 106]}. To fulfill the tasks set by representatives of the highest party nomenclature of the country, highly qualified specialists were involved, who, together with engineering personnel, decided how best to carry out and complete the stage of restoration work in production.

It is known that not always qualified specialists came to the factories during the Great Patriotic War and after its end, most often they were teenagers, returning soldiers from the ranks of the Armed Forces of the USSR, women ^{[6, pp. 106-111]}. Not all of them had the necessary production skills. First of all, they needed to be trained or retrained in new professions. Naturally, as professional growth progressed, yesterday's workers in the late 1940s began to rise up the career ladder, taking positions of production masters, engineers, etc.

Considerable attention was paid to propaganda work. Thus, in the newspaper "Smena" of September 25, 1947, it was said about the possibility of uniting the intellectuals of the city into a single (meaning technical intelligentsia – AP), homogeneous environment. It was noted on the pages of the publication that scientists, representatives of the scientific intelligentsia of Leningrad, had to unite with industrialists and act as a united front to achieve high performance in the scientific and technical environment ^{[7, p. 1]}. At the same time, the best specialists were involved in solving specific production tasks or participating in scientific, technical and research activities.         

The instructor of the Vasileostrovsky district Committee of the Komsomol G. Alexandrova said that the experience and knowledge of young intellectuals should be used as widely as possible and involve them in labor activity ^{[8, p. 3]}. But already in the newspaper "Smena" of May 19, 1951, the emphasis was changed towards routine or managerial and economic work. The publication noted that representatives of the Leningrad technical intelligentsia were the "center of technical progress", who rightfully occupied a central place among the representatives of the intellectual labor of the city ^{[9, p. 1]}.

In the 1950s, engineers, technicians and designers were invited to participate in the renovation of shop equipment of Leningrad enterprises. Machine-building plants received new equipment that needed to be technologically adapted and, in some cases, modernized. An example is the Krasny Vyborzhets machine-building plant. According to the employees who participated in this process, V. Shamshina, N. Menukhova, process engineer Nina Kostronosova helped them not only in production activity, but also through joint efforts they carried out the adaptation of new equipment. At the same time, rollersmen Mikhailov and Kuznetsov completed practical experiments on a new six-shaft machine for the rental of brass tape ^{[9, p. 1]}. Ida Zhivushkina, a technician at the Bolshevik machine-building enterprise, headed the Komsomol youth brigade for the first time in 1951 and helped newly arrived workers adapt to the workplace. These cases were not isolated, because quite often experienced engineering and technical workers were involved in performing various tasks, from setting up work on new mechanisms to practical training on them.

In the 1950s, representatives of the country's top party leadership paid great attention to the problem of professional growth of employees of enterprises. For example, at the Nevsky Machine-Building Plant, engineering and management personnel were responsible not only for working, operational processes and participation in updating production equipment. They were also involved in conducting educational classes, monitoring the work of other specialists on upgraded equipment. Naturally, this did not correspond to their direct working profile and led to constant interruptions from direct production activity ^{[10, p. 2]}. Often shop managers and their deputies were sent for advanced training aimed at saving raw materials and materials when working on production lines or machine tools ^{[11, p. 2]}. In August 1950, the heads of the shops Popov, Majorov, Basin did not attend these courses, referring to the high workload at their sites. For this, they were criticized by the plant's management at the next party meeting.

The cases when engineers and technicians did not participate in public work were not isolated. Often they were accompanied by certain failures in labor activity. So, the master of the Sevzaptranstroy trust Kondrashev was only listed as a master at one of the city sites, but in fact he worked as the commandant of the hostel ^{[12, p. 3]}. At the site, all production operations were carried out by the manager Nasulenko. He was both the supervisor and the manager of the works, and performed the duties of a master, replacing four masters. This attitude of the manager to the placement of personnel was unacceptable, since it had a negative impact on the quality of work and the schedule of their execution.

A similar situation was observed at the Leningrad Plant of Printing Machines, which received ready-made, cast-iron metal model equipment from Lenmashzavod ^{[13, p. 3]}. Deputy head of the department of cooperation and equipment of the city plant of printing machines A. Kirichenko drew attention to the fact that technologists and designers spent on the coordination of drawings, materials for the necessary products a lot of working time. Therefore, he proposed to create a foundry at the enterprise with its own equipment and personnel to manufacture the products used.

Separately, it should be said that the importance of the work of engineering and management specialists was belittled by representatives of the country's party elite, and then by the workers themselves who collaborated with them. Most often, they were accused of maintaining an irregular working regime of the team, in unprepared production sites, lack of schedules for the release of a product range, etc. The society said that due to ill-considered decisions on the formation and operation of an established technological process, personnel suffered first of all, because the equipment was idle and they did not work, but received wages. Often, craftsmen and shop managers were accused of insufficient control over the release of defective products or disruption of supplies of materials, although they had nothing to do with the latter ^{[14, pp. 216-217]}.

In 1959-1970, 8643 new types of machines, apparatuses, devices, mechanisms and materials were developed and manufactured in the machine-building industry of the city. As a result, since the 1960s – 1970s, the volume of gross output of Leningrad industry has increased by 78%, and labor productivity by 69% ^{[15, pp. 16-17]}. Only 12% of the production growth was due to an increase in the number of workers, while the main part (88%) was provided by increasing labor productivity.   

The production achievements of Leningrad workers were especially significant in the eighth five-year plan (1966-1970), when the industry successfully solved the tasks of economic reform for further concentration and specialization of production, technical re-equipment, improvement of labor organization and management.

By 1965, 1,400 automatic lines had been implemented at 14 machine-building and metalworking enterprises, and it was planned to replace and put into operation more than 1,000 similar production lines ^{[16, p. 5]}. At this time, the natural need for the industry to automatically control the release of a ready-made template product range was growing. So, at the Leningrad Turbine Blades Plant named after the 50th Anniversary of the USSR (LZTL) by the mid-1960s, there was a need to produce a large number of special model templates and measuring tools using automatic reception using a template production site ^{[17, p. 99]}. The first successes were achieved in the modeling workshop. The equipment in it was completely ready for the implementation of the production of stamps. The production workers adapted the new equipment and mastered the technological operations on them. So, a turbine builder by profession, Mark Alexandrovich Severov in 1966 became the first chief engineer. He recalled this time as follows: "The transition to a new place is not an easy matter. Construction unfolded, the pace increased, many workshops only rose. There was no time to think. It was necessary to get involved in the work immediately." The first task that the management set him was to implement the production of molds and stamps on new forging equipment. Later, he recalled that there was no such equipment at the factory yet and no one had experience. But the tasks were distributed and the production cycle was successfully adjusted ^{[17, pp. 137-138]}.  

According to eyewitnesses, technological re-equipment at the machine-building enterprises of the city took place in several stages. Research engineer P.N. Mikhailov recalled that at the beginning of 1940, a plant for continuous fiber grinding was introduced at the site, which was actively used in wartime. But already in 1950, the engineer-technologist A.F. Balakhnin finalized it. After 11 years, the workers Polishchuk and Mikhailov improved this project by applying hydraulic clamping of the grinding slats of the mass rolls ^{[18, p. 124]}. The counterwoman L.E. Firsova recalled the time when she independently removed paper from a homemade cart and started counting sheets: "I had to remove bundles weighing up to twenty kilograms. It's hard work," L.E. Firsova said. But thanks to a group of employees of the KIP workshop, this process was automated. The production workers created the first calculating machine for sheet papers at the enterprise and the work of three counters was replaced by one mechanized process ^{[18, p. 145]}.

A similar case occurred in the period from 1964 to 1965, at the Leningrad enterprise of Goznak. At that time, technological progress was developing rapidly. The equipment used was subjected to technological updates based on the intensification of production operations. The factory staff, thanks to the introduction of automatic lines, was able to fulfill a seven-year production plan (1959-1965) by October 12, 1965 ^{[18, p. 149]}. As a result, the indicators were exceeded by 1.3 times, which in kind meant the release of 3,522 tons of paper with a reduction in the number of defects and savings in the amount of 15,000 rubles on materials. Based on such examples, it can be summarized that the company has undergone technological renewal and improvement of many production operations.

By 1970, 98% of the city's mechanical engineering enterprises had switched to a new system of planning and economic incentives. 146 of them were included in 56 industrial and scientific-production associations that produced a third of Leningrad's industrial products: "The nationwide jubilee competition in honor of the 50th anniversary of Soviet power, the hundred-day Lenin labor watch, communist subbotniks and many other glorious labor affairs of Leningrad production workers were crowned with significant technical successes" ^{[19, p. 322]}. Thanks to the work of workers and engineering and technical personnel at machine-building plants in 1966-1970, the largest number of new technological and production lines were mastered, which gave 2649 new types of products, and almost 500 products were awarded the state quality Mark ^{[15, p. 51]}.

At that time, members of the Soviet society said that it was necessary to tighten the level of public relations to economic and production indicators with a focus on scientific and technological progress. But in the 1960s, industrial and production specialists tried to group them, dividing them into participants in manual or machine labor, highly qualified personnel or low–skilled workers, and the possibility of independent decision-making (by engineers – AP) was constantly reduced to coordinating their actions, etc. V.V. Gavrilyuk and T.V. stopped at this in more detail. Gavrilyuk in the publication "The Working Class in Soviet and Russian sociological Discourse" ^{[20, pp. 86-92]}.

However, the above negative phenomena in mechanical engineering did not reduce its contribution to the development of the urban industrial economy of the USSR.

Conclusion

Summing up, it can be stated that the machine-building industry of Leningrad successfully coped with the stage of repair and restoration work and was able to switch to the production of necessary products with small losses in a short period of time. Representatives of the engineering and technical intelligentsia, including support in the media, have played an invaluable role in this process. Using their experience, engineers and workers took an active part in the modernization and automation of production operations in the machine-building industry.

It should be noted that the city machine-building complexes, despite the severe destruction inflicted during the blockade, were successfully restored in a fairly short time and served as a kind of prototype of success in peaceful and creative life in the 1970s for many Soviet citizens.