In 1947 David Dallin and Boris Nicolaevsky published their book Forced Labor in Soviet Russia. In this book they tell the horrific story of how 12,000 gulag prisoners perished on the SS Dzhurma after it became trapped in the pack ice near Ostrov Vrangelya on transit from Vladivostok to Amborachik.

However, the validity of this story has recently been questioned and this article endeavours to question why this story was circulated and what really happened.

The story, according to Dallin and Nicolaevsky starts in 1933, when the SS Dzhurma set sail for Amborachik with a hold full of gulag prisoners bound for Stalin's labour camps. The first fundamental discrepancy appears immediately: the SS Dzhurma was only put into service in 1935, two years after the alleged incident. The evidence for this is twofold, the first being Lloyd's Register of Shipping which did not record the change of ownership until 1935, and secondly, Soviet records at the Kolyma camps indicating that the maiden voyage of the SS Dzhurma was in 1935. Furthermore, the ship in question was too small to hold 12,000 prisoners which is illustrated in Bollingers book ‘Stalins Slave Ships’. He suggests that the ship, when fully loaded, had a capacity of no more than 6,500 people, half of the amount suggested by Dallin and Nicolaevsky. Why were these sources ignored by the historians recording the alleged incident? We are now in the position where the ship in question was not in service and, even if it had been, it did not have the capacity for the alleged 12,000 prisoners. So the question arises: why was the story propagated? Is there any truth in the story at all?

The reports of the prisoners succumbing to starvation, freezing temperatures and eventual cannibalism horrified all and created a conspiracy theory that continues to be reiterated. Dallin and Nicolaevsky state: "The fully authenticated fact is that the Dzhurma, when it finally arrived at Ambarchik, in the summer of 1934, did not land a single prisoner. It is also further reported that on their return to Vladivostok nearly half of the crew of the Dzhurma had to be treated for mental disorders." (Dallin, Nicolaevsky, p.128.) Bollinger suggests that in fact the incident took place on another ship, the SS Khabarovsk, in 1933. However, although this ship had the space for 12,000 prisoners, it was returning from having delivered the prisoners to Ambarchik and was therefore empty, apart from the crew. This argument adds weight to the assumption that the SS Dzhurma incident was in fact based loosely on an actual event, but the story was embellished. Bollinger's arguments however are facing the consequences of the fact that the SS Dzhurma story is re-inforced by other famous and influential writers like Robert Conquest, Rossi and Trotsky.

The plot thickens when it is suggested, that the only reason for the SS Dzhurma story being circulated, was Stalin’s refusal to accept America’s help in rescuing another ship in the vicinity of the alleged SS Dzhurma. However, again, is this a true interpretation of the actual events and where did Dallin and Nicolaevsky attain their information?

Dallin and Nicolaevsky write that the "place where the 104 members of the Chelyuskin party were waiting for deliverance was not far (no more than 200 miles) from the wintering place of the Dzhurma and its 12,000 prisoners doomed to death from cold and starvation. Moscow feared that in the course of saving the heroes of the Chelyuskin, American fliers might by accident uncover the terrible secret of the Dzhurma martyrs." (Dallin, Nicolaevsky, p.128.)

Robert Conquest also suggests that the sacrifice of foreign help was dictated by the proximity of the Dzhurma. "American and other offers to try to rescue them by air was refused, and it has been suggested that the reason was that their camp was only a couple of hundred miles from the wintering place of the Dzhurma, which might have been stumbled upon by foreign fliers." (Conquest, p.326.)

Bollinger continues to quote historians like Colin Thubron and McCannon reiterating the same story, and wisely brings our attention to the evolution of the story, from conjecture to fact, as it is republished by different historians, even to the latest 2003 publication by Martin Amis. (Bollinger, p.67.)

In 1933 the exploration ship SS Chelyuskin became trapped in pack ice, and the Soviet Union set out on an ambitious rescue mission to save the crew and passengers marooned on the ice. As the crew and passengers of the SS Chelyuskin abandoned the ship for pitched tents on the ice floe, the world watched. According to the array of historians previously mentioned, America offered to assist in the rescue mission, but the Soviet Union refused all international help and set about reaching the stricken ship, crossing half the world.

Bollinger suggests that Stalin’s reluctance for international (in particular American) assistance was motivated by his need to retain the secrecy of his Kolyma Gulag system, which would have been exposed by the number of ships passing through the northern sea route. (Bollinger, p.69.) Furthermore, Bollinger brings to the fore a new element to the debate: the SS Pizhma. Unlike the SS Dzhurma, this alleged ship carried only 2,000 prisoners, but again, it could take on the role as the second mysterious prisoner transport ship. This new edition to the debate centres around the existence of the SS Pizhma, which allegedly accompanied SS Chelyuskin. This is where the story takes on an even more sinister setting. According to Bollinger, the passengers and 2,000 prisoners were condemned to death by Stalin when they became trapped close to the SS Chelyuskin. The order to dynamite the ship was sent by radio; according to some accounts, a radio transmission from the ship was picked up by the American authorities who made an attempt to save the occupants of the ship. There is no evidence of this event from the Soviet Union or America. It has been suggested that the survivors remained silent until now to protect their families in Soviet Russia. However, this does not correspond with the lack of reports of the presumed rescue attempts held by the American authorities. Bollinger therefore questions the existence of the SS Pizhma, and argues that it was probably just another adaption of the original SS Dzhurma story.

The debate was further extended after an expedition to locate the SS Chelyuskin failed in 2004. This failure was, according to the director of the Russian Submarine Museum Alexei Mikhailov, due to the falsification of the coordinates for the location of the ship (Freydgeym*). These coordinates were taken from the original log and from the data gathered from the expeditions in 1974 and 1979 to find the SS Chelyuskin. How could the coordinates, that lead the rescue team to the SS Chelyuskin, be incorrect? Does this mean that the coordinates were kept secret and false ones given to the press?

The famous telegram recording the sinking of the SS Chelyuskin, begins as follows: "February 13 in 15 hours 30 minutes in 155 miles from Cape North and 144 miles from Cape Ouellet" Chelyuskin "sank, crushed ice compression ...". For two months the survivors of the SS Chelyuskin battled against the elements, managing to build a runway for an air rescue. Constructing such a runway was difficult in the conditions, requiring continual repairs as the ice broke up and cracks formed. However, the small community marooned on the ice did not give up. It was even recorded that Otto Schmidt, the leader of the expedition, reported daily to the Soviet newspapers from the ice and even lectured philosophy to the Chelyuskinites.

At this point we return to the existence of a second ship. As Bollinger writes, the latest twist to the story is the suggested existence of the SS Pizhma, which was allegedly blown up killing the 2,000 prisoners on board. Freydgeym* writes that, since the 1990s the media interest in the mysterious second ship has grown. Freydgeym* argues that there are two ways of using existing evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a second ship: firstly, by the number of survivors from the SS Chelyuskin ice camp, and, secondly, by the coordinates of the wreck. When the SS Chelyuskin left port, it had 112 people on board. When the ship started to drift, 8 people left the ship with dogs for the mainland, leaving 105 onboard, and one died in February when the SS Chelyuskin sunk. To Freydgeym's* knowledge, there have been no publications on the number of people rescued from the ice community, although the rescue took 24 flights. The number of survivors is critical, because it has been suggested that before a second ship was destroyed, these survivors had joined the SS Chelyuskin group. However, again the story twists and turns to leading us to more sinister undertakings, by the suggestion that, although some alighted from the second ship, they were killed because they would be potential witnesses to the destruction of this second vessel. This again is a clear case of conjecture; there is no proof. It is almost like pinning a jelly to a wall. In E.Belimova's account of the incident, he describes the crew of the two ships as being in constant contact and therefore experiencing a form of comradery, which would have made it difficult to eliminate those they had built up a relationship with. Thus, it could be concluded, that there is no evidence that any survivors other than the Chelyuskin group, were rescued.

The second point mendtioned by Freydgeym concerns the coordinates which would have undoubtedly have been sent to the Soviet rescue team. Why would they have sent the wrong coordinates when their lives depended on rescue? And if they sent the wrong coordinates, how could they have been rescued? Therefore, it leads us to the assumption that the coordinates were altered for public consumption and the correct coordinates were hidden. In September 1989, it was declared that the SS Chelyuskin had been found by Sergey Melnikov at different coordinates. Melnikov explained that this was a common occurrence; ships in the 1930s used manual sextants which were not a 100% accurate. But what was more important was the announcement that there was no other ship in the vicinity. As previously mentioned however, in 2004 it was concluded that the SS Chelyuskin had not been found. If Melnikov had found something, it could not have been the SS Chelyuskin.

To add yet more fuel to the fire, it has been alleged that, when the Order of the Red Star was given to the Chelyuskin team and their rescuers, pilot S. Levanevskogo*, a member of the rescue team, was singled out for praise, i.e. for his outstanding behaviour. After all, Levanevskogo* allegedly approached the ice community in such a way as to hide the second ship from the American mechanic Clyde Armstedu, part of his plane crew. However, this does not explain why the second Soviet pilot Slepneva*, who also carried an American mechanic, Levare William, was equally not identified for praise.

Over the last 70 years this story has evolved, with dark embellishments and an almost tabloid delight in providing additional information to grab the reader’s attention. What we are left with are the basic facts: the SS Chelyuskin was sunk in 1934, the ship has not been found, the rescue mission saved the group marooned on the ice, and Stalin refused international assistance. There is no evidence of a second ship accompanying the SS Chelyuskin, thus, the motivation behind Stalin’s refusal of help can only be conjecture. Why the coordinates of the SS Chelyuskin were falsified is again an issue for debate. The truth of the incident will become cleare,r once the wreck is located and the surrounding area searched for other wrecks. If there are no other wrecks found, then the debate must be opened up to address the issue of the falsification of the coordinates.

Works Cited:

Arseny Rudnev. Death "Chelyuskina: scientists want to know the truth. 9th Dec 2009 http://www.utro.ru/articles/2004/08/17/341114.shtml

Bollinger.M. 2003 Stalin’s Slave Ships. Westport: Paeger Publishers.

Conquest.R, 1990. The Great Terror. A Reassessment.

David Dallin and Boris Nicolaevsky 1947. Forced Labor in Soviet Russia New

Haven: Yale Press

Freydgeym. Lazarus, Speculation and truth about the expedition of the Chelyuskin.

9^th Dec 2009. http://www.promved.ru/articles/article.phtml?id=474&nomer=18

*Russian translation.

Any further questions?  Please use our question section and we will supply you with the answer.
If you want to join our online publishing site please register.  Our site endeavours to reward both the reader and the author. Online publishing is a very rewarding profession, why not publish your articles and essays.?

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites