A Foundation Without a Tower: The Eighth Stalinist Skyscraper in Zaryadye

The eighth Stalinist skyscraper in Zaryadye remained unfinished: the above-ground tower seen in models never rose over Moscow. By the early 1950s, the site had been cleared, archaeological work carried out, a deep foundation pit excavated, the massive foundations for the high-rise section laid and construction begun on the stylobate with its utilities. Neither the tower nor the planned low-rise wings were completed.

The familiar account that ‘the skyscraper was cancelled and its foundations incorporated into the subsequent development’ tells only part of the story. The project changed several times, documents give varying numbers of storeys and heights, and Chechulin designed the Rossiya Hotel as an independent modernist complex. Nevertheless, the builders did incorporate some of the completed underground and stylobate structures into it. Comparing the 1947 decree, the archival description of the construction work and documents concerning the site's subsequent use makes it possible to distinguish what was built from what was merely planned.

What exactly was decreed for construction in Zaryadye in 1947

The starting point was Decree No. 53 of the USSR Council of Ministers, dated 13 January 1947, ‘On the Construction of Multi-Storey Buildings in Moscow’. The document established a programme for 1947–1952: one 32-storey building, two 26-storey buildings and five 16-storey buildings. For Zaryadye, Clause 3 stipulated the construction of a 26-storey administrative building on the site previously allocated for the Council of People's Commissars Building.

The decree set out architectural and engineering requirements. The designers were instructed to relate the proportions and silhouettes of the new buildings to Moscow's historic architecture and the future Palace of the Soviets, without copying well-known foreign skyscrapers. The interiors were to feature modern lifts, plumbing, heating, air conditioning and telephone systems, as well as convenient circulation. The skyscraper was intended both to shape a new skyline for the capital and to serve as a major administrative building.

The government document specified the programme, function and initial number of storeys; the final design was developed later by Dmitry Chechulin's studio. The 26 storeys cited in the decree therefore cannot automatically be applied to every subsequent version.

Why Zaryadye was chosen for the skyscraper

The site near the Kremlin had been considered for a major government building long before January 1947. During the twentieth century, successive proposals envisaged extending Red Square towards the Moskva River, building a Palace of Industry for the People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry and constructing a second Council of People's Commissars Building. None of these plans was brought to fruition, but each successive project reinforced the idea of Zaryadye as a reserve site for a grand urban composition.

When Chechulin began work, historic streets and residential and commercial buildings still stood between Varvarka Street, Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge, Kitaygorodsky Proyezd and the Moskva River. Clearance begun before the war was resumed to make way for the high-rise complex. The development transformed both the street-block pattern and everyday life in the old district.

The terrain presented a challenge while also suggesting an architectural solution. The site slopes noticeably from Varvarka Street towards the river. Chechulin placed the complex on a tall, elongated stylobate designed to accommodate the change in elevation, service entrances and some of the public spaces. Broad stairways were planned to descend from the upper terrace towards the embankment, Red Square and Kitaygorodsky Proyezd, while the slopes were to be landscaped as terraces.

How Dmitry Chechulin planned to place a skyscraper beside the Kremlin

The project was led by architect Dmitry Chechulin, with Iosif Tigranov as chief structural engineer. The designers divided the composition into two levels. The five-storey wings and stylobate were intended to continue the horizontal line of the Kremlin walls and the surrounding low-rise buildings, while the central tower would echo Moscow's high-rise landmarks and the as-yet unbuilt Palace of the Soviets.

Chechulin envisaged a striking contrast between the monochrome white mass and the polychromy of the Kremlin and St Basil's Cathedral. The lower section maintained the horizontal scale of the surrounding buildings, while the tower's tiered crown evoked the city's traditional vertical landmarks. The architect sought to accentuate the historic ensemble while radically altering its relative heights.

The layout envisaged a large administrative institution designed to accommodate both staff and public circulation. The main entrance faced the Kremlin and was intended for visitors, while staff access was routed from the embankment. Separate entrances were planned for the pass office, printing works, clinic, dormitory, kitchen and canteen, and an assembly hall seating a thousand people. The tower was to contain around 2,000 offices, libraries, archives, smaller halls and an extensive system of vertical transport.

At its centre was to be an octagonal lift hall, with corridors radiating diagonally from it. Various versions provided for almost 60 lifts, including paternosters, and ten escalators leading to the cloakroom floor. These details explain the scale of the underground section: the stylobate and foundations were designed not as a decorative pedestal, but as the infrastructural base of a large institution.

Why the figures for the number of storeys and the height vary

Dmitry Chechulin's design for the Zaryadye skyscraper went through several stages, so the different figures reflect different ways of describing it. The original 1947 decree specified 26 levels. Materials published later refer to 37 storeys, while the floor plans separately show working areas extending at least as far as the 32nd floor. The catalogue of the Moscow Main Archive describes the structure as 275 metres tall; the emblem at the top was to be illuminated at a height of around 280 metres above the upper terrace.

The specifications must be considered in relation to the relevant design stage and method of calculation. The decree set out the original brief; the number of storeys and overall height changed in subsequent versions, while the stylobate, plinth, technical levels and crowning section could be counted in different ways. Every figure therefore needs to be accompanied by its source and an explanation of what was measured.

The archival description of a ‘275-metre building’ conveys the urban scale of the proposal. Such a vertical landmark would have stood much closer to the Kremlin than the other buildings in the programme. This is precisely why its silhouette, its positioning on the terrain and the design of its foundations required particular care.

What the 1949 construction photo album proves

The Moscow Main Archive album is a dated collection of 89 photographs assembled in a single archival file. The catalogue lists general views of the site, equipment, building materials, buildings awaiting demolition, archaeological finds and housing in Kuntsevo for construction workers. This description encompasses both the site near the Kremlin and the project's wider logistical geography.

The date of the album does not contradict the evidence that foundation construction began in the spring of 1952. The photographs taken in 1949 documented site preparation, the demolition of old buildings, the provision of site infrastructure and investigations of the archaeological layers. These photographs do not confirm that the tower was erected. Otherwise, several years of earthworks, organisational preparations and archaeological investigations become a legend about a structural frame that had already risen.

The archival description also defines the limits of the evidence. It confirms that the construction project existed and identifies the range of activities documented, but it is no substitute for examining each photograph and does not automatically reveal which structures had been completed by the time the album was compiled. The conclusion that the foundations were built therefore rests not on the photographic inventory alone, but on comparing it with the technical description of work carried out in the early 1950s.

What was completed on the construction site

According to the Museum of Moscow, the builders had completed the foundations and technical floor by the spring of 1953. The sources record no above-ground structural frame for the tower. This boundary accords with the technical description: a substantial structural volume existed underground and at foundation level, while the skyscraper's silhouette remained only a design.

The ceremonial laying of the foundation stone in 1947 and the construction of the main foundations were not the same event. Foundation work on the high-rise section began in the spring of 1952. A rigid reinforced-concrete box was designed for the central tower, measuring 80 by 80 metres and 13 metres high; the foundation pit was excavated to a depth of around 18 metres so that the base would lie below the groundwater level.

Protecting the underground spaces required multilayer waterproofing. The technical description estimated that approximately 50,000 cubic metres of concrete would be needed; reinforcement assemblies were prefabricated at a factory and installed by crane. At the same time, foundations were laid for the low-rise wings, work began on the brick walls of the lower volume, and utilities were installed.

The sources confirm the foundation pit and base, work on the stylobate and preparations to erect the structural frame. The plan for 1952–1953 called for 18 storeys to be raised, but does not prove that they were built. Accounts of an almost completed tower therefore have no documentary basis.

How to distinguish the engineering design from the structure actually built

The engineers designed the tower as a three-dimensional reinforced-concrete system of closed bracing forming an octagonal prism. The steel frame was intended to serve both as an assembly element and as reinforcement within the concrete. This principle gave rigidity to the massive foundation box, designed to bear the load of the tall and relatively narrow central section. The above-ground system remained on the drawing board; only its initial underground junction was built on the site.

Technical publications listed UBK-15 cranes, mobile formwork and an assembly rate that would have allowed 18 storeys to be erected in 1952–1953. These details describe a planned construction process. The quantities of finishing materials—around 20,000 square metres of granite, 18,500 square metres of limestone, 83,000 square metres of ceramic blocks and 13,000 square metres of marble—represent projected requirements, not the amount of stone delivered and installed.

The distinction between design and reality is especially clear in the history of the façades. The designers considered large cladding panels before turning to perforated brick; the emblem in the crowning section was to be illuminated. Such decisions demonstrate how far the design had been developed, but do not confirm that the structure was completed. The façades and illumination remained on the drawing board.

Which construction terms should not be confused

Disputes over how far construction of the high-rise had progressed often arise because different stages are all described by the same word: ‘building’. The documents distinguish between the project brief, the underground foundation, the technical level and the above-ground load-bearing structure.

Project brief

The 1947 resolution defined the building’s purpose, site and initial height of 26 storeys. It launched the design process but did not establish Chechulin’s final version.

Foundation box

A rigid reinforced-concrete base for the central tower, measuring 80 by 80 metres and standing 13 metres high. The technical description lists it among the structures that were actually completed.

Technical floor

A level intended for engineering services, completed by the spring of 1953. Its existence does not mean that any usable floors of the tower had been built.

Stylobate

The shared, elongated base of the complex, which accommodated the sloping terrain, linked the low-rise buildings and housed some of the public and technical spaces.

Above-ground frame

The load-bearing structure for the tower’s floors. Erection plans and structural calculations survive, but the sources reviewed do not confirm that it was built.

The foundation box and the high-rise building represent different stages of construction. This distinction explains how the hotel inherited physical elements from the earlier project, even though the administrative tower was never built, not even in a reduced form.

What the high-rise construction project contributed to the archaeology of Zaryadye

Site clearance and excavation threatened the cultural layer, so archaeological investigations in Zaryadye were conducted as rescue excavations. The Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences reports that more than two thousand square metres were excavated here between the 1940s and the 1960s. The work was carried out first by the Museum of the History and Reconstruction of Moscow, followed by the Institute for the History of Material Culture and the Institute of Archaeology; some campaigns were conducted specifically during preparations for and construction of the high-rise administrative building.

Mikhail Rabinovich’s 1951 publication provides a more precise picture of the scale of a single field season. In 1949, archaeologists opened three excavation trenches near the Church of St Nicholas the Wet, on both sides of Mokrinsky Lane, with a total area of 264 square metres. Including test pits, the area investigated reached 296 square metres, while 1,200 cubic metres of earth were removed. The sites were chosen to avoid the former cemetery and minimise the removal of the later, 1.5–2-metre-thick refuse layer.

The resulting data relates only to a specific part of the construction site. Rabinovich determined the location of the excavation areas according to the research objectives and the requirements of the future construction project. Finds near Mokrinsky Lane shed light on the early posad, but do not indicate the state of preservation of the cultural layer throughout the area between Varvarka Street and the river.

The connection is confirmed by the titles of documents held in the Institute of Archaeology’s academic archive. Mikhail Rabinovich prepared a report on the 1950 excavations ‘at the construction site of the high-rise administrative building’, while Artemy Artsikhovsky compiled a report on the 1951 work ‘within the construction site of the high-rise building in Zaryadye’. The archival reference numbers of these files make it possible to distinguish later retellings from the records of the individual field seasons.

Archaeologists traced a cultural layer up to eight metres deep and identified three principal horizons. In the lowest horizon, dating from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, they found single-chamber log buildings measuring approximately four by four or five by five metres, along with plank floors and clay ovens. These traces of artisans’ homesteads belong to the early Veliky Posad, which the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences believes probably emerged in the first half of the twelfth century.

The clearance of entire blocks and excavation of the deep foundation pit constituted a major intervention in ancient Zaryadye. Because the cultural layer was at risk, archaeologists documented it systematically, and the excavation results entered the academic record. In a 1949 photo album, field discoveries appear alongside machinery and demolished houses: builders were preparing a new city centre while researchers documented the old district as it disappeared.

Why construction stopped

Construction began later than on Moscow’s other high-rises. By the spring of 1953, the foundation and technical floor had been completed; the project was not continued after Stalin’s death. The authorities subsequently reconsidered the principles behind costly prestige architecture. In 1955, the campaign against decorative excess received official endorsement, and Chechulin was among the architects singled out for criticism.

The sources do not identify a single reason for the halt. Foundation work was being carried out on a difficult site near the Kremlin; the design was changing; and the intended occupant of the administrative building was never publicly named. The documents reviewed contain no definitive order stating that the high-rise was to be ‘cancelled for such-and-such a reason’. The sequence of decisions has been established, but determining the role of political, economic, functional and engineering factors would require more narrowly focused archival research.

Resolution No. 1871 of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Council of Ministers of the USSR, dated 4 November 1955, established a new policy of economy, standardised design and revised cost estimates. The document specifically criticised the cost of high-rise buildings, named Dmitry Chechulin among the former chief architects of Moscow who had permitted excesses, and called for standard hotel designs to be prepared. This policy left virtually no room for a return to the former tiered skyscraper.

The 1955 resolution appeared more than two years after the condition of the site in the spring of 1953 had been documented by the Museum of Moscow. It explains why the old project was not revived in its original form, but does not establish a single reason for the initial pause. Construction halted before the definitive shift in architectural policy. By 1956, the authorities had already made a different decision for the same site: to build a large hotel.

How the high-rise foundation was incorporated into the Rossiya Hotel project

Chechulin designed the Rossiya Hotel as a self-contained complex comprising a closed quadrangle of long wings and a separate tower. The architect changed its function, composition and architectural language. In the version published in 1957, he retained the imposing stylobate of the earlier structure; construction of the complex began in earnest in the 1960s.

Official publications give different time frames for the construction period. The Museum of Moscow and issue No. 6 of Moscow Heritage cite 1964–1967, while issue No. 3 of the same journal gives 1964–1969. The 2015 edition states that the Rossiya opened in 1967 and the concert hall in 1971. Thus, 1967 marks the opening of the main building, but not the completion of all work on the complex.

Official materials from the historical and cultural assessment of the site state the connection explicitly: the foundations of the unrealised high-rise building were used in the construction of the hotel. Moscow Heritage clarifies that the Rossiya occupied the old city blocks and the stylobate of the unfinished high-rise. This is more precise than the colloquial claim that ‘the hotel was built on the same foundation’, which creates the false impression that the footprints and structural systems were identical.

The brief for the new complex also changed. On 19 April 1956, the USSR Council of Ministers approved a programme for 2,700 rooms accommodating 4,500 guests, with a 600-seat restaurant, a 3,000-seat theatre and a two-screen cinema seating 1,600. In the scheme published in 1957, Chechulin retained the massive stylobate, enclosed it with twelve-storey wings and gave prominence to a twenty-storey tower. These parameters alone show that this was an independent design project adapted to the foundations already in place, rather than the completion of the administrative high-rise.

Chechulin used the preserved underground structures and stylobate as a base for the public spaces, but did not make the entire new design subordinate to them. Publications on the completed complex differ even on the basic statistics. TATLIN gives 3,182 rooms accommodating 5,890 guests, a 2,500-seat cinema and concert hall, and a 1,536-seat cinema. Moscow Heritage cites the same 3,182 rooms, but accommodation for 5,300 guests, a 2,500-seat hall and a 1,500-seat cinema. These figures cannot be reduced to a single indisputable capacity; in either case, they show how greatly the hotel programme expanded compared with the 1956 brief. The architect replaced a vertical administrative landmark with a predominantly horizontal accommodation complex while retaining the scale of a megastructure.

The statement that ‘the foundation was used’ requires an engineering caveat. The documents confirm that the preserved foundations and stylobate structures were incorporated into the new complex, but do not reveal exactly how the builders adapted them to different loads and layouts. Without a complete set of as-built drawings, it is impossible to calculate the proportion of the original reinforced concrete in each wing. Continuity of the foundation has been established, but not complete correspondence between the structural footprints.

Chechulin led both projects, but they differed stylistically. The tiered white-stone tower of the late 1940s belonged to the architecture of the Stalinist high-rise programme, whereas the Rossiya’s long wings were built according to the principles of Soviet modernism and standardised hotel design.

The chronology separating the original construction from subsequent alterations

The sequence of events helps distinguish between the 1947 decision, the preparation of the site, the construction work itself and the later use of the foundation. Seven decades passed between the original decision and the opening of the park, with almost every new phase changing the site’s function.

1. On 13 January 1947, Resolution No. 53 included a 26-storey administrative building in the overall programme for Moscow’s high-rises.
2. A ceremonial foundation stone was laid in 1947, but this did not mean that the main foundation was complete.
3. In 1949, an archival photograph album was compiled documenting preparations for construction, demolition work, archaeological finds and provisions for the workers.
4. Foundation work on the central tower began in the spring of 1952, when the excavation pit and the reinforced-concrete foundation box were created.
5. By the spring of 1953, the foundation and service floor were complete; the high-rise frame was never built.
6. On 4 November 1955, the resolution on eliminating architectural excesses formalised a different approach to cost, standardisation and architectural form.
7. On 19 April 1956, the government approved the brief for a large hotel, and Chechulin’s design, published in 1957, adapted the former stylobate for this purpose.
8. The Rossiya Hotel was built and opened between 1964 and 1967; a separate official publication extends the construction period to 1969, while the concert hall opened in 1971.
9. The hotel closed and demolition began in 2006; Zaryadye Park opened on the redeveloped site in 2017.

This timeline does not reduce the story to a single cause. It reveals two discontinuities: first, between the ceremonial laying of the foundation stone and the actual construction of the foundation, and then between the suspension of work and the official shift in architectural policy. The hotel phase began only after both events and therefore calls for separate consideration.

What happened to the site after the hotel

The hotel closed in 2006, after which dismantling of the complex began. Archaeologists returned to work on the site. According to Moscow Heritage, the Metropolitan Archaeological Bureau and an expedition from the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences investigated approximately 450 m² in 2006–2007; another major phase accompanied the park’s construction in 2015–2016.

During the 2015–2016 campaign, permanent excavation areas covered approximately 1,800 square metres, while specialists monitored earthworks across more than 20,000 square metres. These figures describe different methods and should not be combined into a notional ‘excavated area’: in the first case, an entire area of the archaeological layer was investigated; in the second, specialists monitored construction excavations and recorded structures as they were exposed.

The field evidence extends the site’s history beyond the three major projects of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Beneath the footprint of the high-rise, hotel and park lie traces of earlier streets and estates. Construction may have damaged or sealed previous layers, while later work exposed them once again. Chechulin’s foundation shaped the site’s use for many years, but became only one of its archaeological horizons.

After Zaryadye Park opened in 2017, paths, changes in elevation and views of the Kremlin and river replaced a single enclosed volume. This did not make the old neighbourhoods or the unrealised high-rise visible. Their locations must be reconstructed from documents, plans and present-day landmarks.

How to interpret the site of the unrealised high-rise today

Begin by assessing the scale of the site itself. The project occupied the area between Varvarka Street and the embankment, with its main entrance facing the Kremlin and its design taking advantage of the slope down to the Moskva River. Mentally extend the horizontal line of the tall stylobate and place a square tower at its centre: Chechulin’s compositional logic then becomes clear.

The second point to consider is its relationship with the Kremlin walls and St Basil’s Cathedral. The architects intended the lower section to reinforce the horizontal line of the existing ensemble, while the pale tower would contrast with its colour and intricate silhouette. This approach did not guarantee subtlety: the proposed height revealed just how dramatically the project was intended to alter the panorama of the Moskva River.

The hotel is gone, yet visitors still associate Zaryadye with it. In a published Radius Tour Bureau account of a family walk through central Moscow, the older generation recalled the Rossiya Hotel before the conversation turned to the site’s original projects. Looking at this single location, the participants connected their personal memories of the hotel with the history of the park and the unrealised high-rise.

The third point is the succession of functions itself. An administrative centre with thousands of workplaces gave way to a hotel with a concert hall and cinema, and the hotel in turn gave way to a public park. Not everything was retained at each transition: completed sections could be adapted, but the architectural identity and access arrangements changed radically.

The physical legacy of the eighth high-rise is a foundation without a tower. Its historical legacy is broader: the project drove the continued clearance of Zaryadye, its structures provided the engineering basis for the next complex, and drawings and archival photographs preserved a vision of Moscow with another high-rise landmark—the one closest to the Kremlin.

How to verify key claims about the eighth high-rise

Sources should be distinguished by the type of evidence they provide. The government resolution confirms the brief, a technical publication describes the design and progress of the work, the archival inventory records the contents of the photographs, and the historical and cultural assessment report provides information on the site’s subsequent use.

Evidential value of sources on the history of the Zaryadye high-rise

Claim	Primary evidence	What can be concluded	Limits of the conclusion
An administrative high-rise was planned for Zaryadye	Resolution No. 53 of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, dated 13 January 1947	The document specifies the location, function and original height of 26 storeys	It does not describe the final 37-storey version produced by Chechulin’s studio
Construction progressed beyond preparatory work	Technical description of the foundation and material from the Museum of Moscow	By the spring of 1953, the foundation box and service floor had been built	Plans to erect 18 storeys do not prove that an above-ground frame was built
The Rossiya Hotel incorporated elements inherited from the high-rise	State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment report and Moscow Heritage	The existing foundations and stylobate were used in the hotel’s construction	Without as-built drawings, it is impossible to determine the proportion of earlier structures incorporated into each building
The project was halted for a combination of reasons	Chronology of work in 1952–1953 and Resolution No. 1871 of 4 November 1955	Construction stopped before the official shift towards standardisation and economy	These documents neither replace a separate cancellation order nor rank all the reasons by importance

This comparison does not establish a formal hierarchy in which one document supersedes another. The sources record different moments: a regulatory decision, an architect’s design, a construction operation and the condition of the site decades later. The difference between 26 and 37 storeys reflects the evolution of the design rather than necessarily indicating an error by one of the authors.

A reliable conclusion is limited to what the source records directly. The archival album confirms that the construction site existed and records the subjects photographed, but it is no substitute for a survey of the structures. A later report provides evidence that the foundations were reused, but does not allow the unknown proportion of the original reinforced concrete to be calculated. Within these limitations, the central conclusion remains sound: the foundations were built, the tower was not, and the hotel incorporated part of the completed substructure.

What has been established in this story, and what remains to be verified

Documentary evidence confirms the 1947 government commission, the work of Chechulin and Tigranov’s studio, the existence of an actual construction site, work on the foundations and stylobate, the project’s suspension, and the reuse of the earlier foundations in the hotel’s construction. These facts rule out two extreme claims: that ‘nothing was built’ and that ‘the skyscraper was almost complete’.

Caution is required when considering the final number of storeys, the precise proportion of the skyscraper’s structures incorporated into the hotel, and any single reason for the work being halted. The sources reflect different stages of the design process and different research purposes: the decree records the government commission, the technical publication describes the developed design, and the later report documents the state of the site decades afterwards. Comparing them is more reliable than relying on the most striking figure.

The unbuilt skyscraper in Zaryadye left tangible consequences: the clearance transformed the district, the foundations became part of a new complex, and the hotel shaped the site’s next chapter. Here, the history of Zaryadye can be traced through a succession of decisions and alterations.

The bureau’s published report on a completed sightseeing tour confirms that the itinerary included a dedicated walk through Zaryadye and a visit to the Floating Bridge. The modern open space can be compared with the site of the planned skyscraper, while the plot can be viewed within the broader panorama of central Moscow on Moscow sightseeing tour by car. During the stop by the park, the documents can be considered in relation to the actual terrain, the Kremlin, the embankment and the boundaries of the former construction site.

Sources

1. Resolution No. 53 of the USSR Council of Ministers, dated 13 January 1947
2. Information on documents held by the Moscow Main Archive: an album documenting the construction of the eighth skyscraper
3. The High-Rise Building in Zaryadye
4. State Historical and Cultural Heritage Assessment Report for the Zaryadye Site
5. Moscow Heritage. No. 3 (51), 2017
6. Moscow Heritage. No. 6 (54), 2017
7. 1946 — Work Continues in Zaryadye
8. The Present-Day Scientific and Sectoral Archive of the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences
9. How an 8-year-old boy conquered the Kremlin and VDNKh at Christmas
10. Sightseeing tour for an entrepreneur from the Middle Kingdom
11. Zaryadye Park: The History of the Site — Museum of Moscow
12. M. G. Rabinovich. Archaeological Excavations in Moscow’s Kitay-Gorod. KSIIMK, Issue XXXVIII, 1951
13. Moscow Heritage. No. 6 (42), 2015
14. Resolution No. 1871 of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Council of Ministers of the USSR, dated 4 November 1955