DEPENDENCE OF THE SOVIET BLOC ON FOREIGN VESSELS IN SEABORNE FOREIGN TRADE 1958 AND 1965 PLAN

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 24
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 22, 2013
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: December 1, 1959
• Content Type: REPORT

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
SECRET
N? 81
?7,
ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE REPORT
DEPENDENCE OF THE SOVIET BLOC
ON FOREIGN VESSELS
IN SEABORNE FOREIGN TRADE
1958 AND 1965 PLAN
CIA/RR 59-48
' December 1959
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND REPORTS
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
WARNING
This material contains information affecting
the National Defense of the United States
within the meaning of the espionage laws,
Title 18, USC, Secs. 793 and 794, the trans-
mission or revelation of which in any manner
to an unauthorized person is prohibited by law.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S-E-C -R-E-T
ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE REPORT
DEPENDENCE OF THE SOVIET BLOC ON FOREIGN VESSELS
IN SEABORNE FOREIGN TRADE
1958 AND 1965 PLAN
CIA/RR 59-48
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Office of Research and Reports
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
50X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Summary
S-E-C-R-E-T
CONTENTS
I. Introduction
II. 1958
III. 1965
Appendix A. Methodology
Appendixes
Page
1
1
2
7
50X1
Tables
1. Estimated Seaborne Foreign Trade of the Soviet Bloc
Carried by Domestic Vessels and by Foreign Vessels,
1958 3
2. Estimated Requirements of the Soviet Bloc for Foreign
5
Vessel Capacity, 1958
3. Estimated Seaborne Foreign Trade of the USSR Carried
by Domestic Vessels and by Foreign Vessels, 1950,
1955-58, and 1965 Plan
li-
)4. Estimated Seaborne Foreign Trade of Poland, 1956-58
15
and 1965 Plan
5. Estimated Seaborne Foreign Trade of East Germany,
Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, 1958 16
- -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S-E-C-R-E-T
DEPENDENCE OF THE SOVIET BLOC ON FOREIGN VESSELS
IN SEABORNE FOREIGN TRADE*
1958 AND 1965 PLAN
Summary
In 1958 the seaborne foreign trade of the Soviet Bloc is esti-
mated to have been about 50.7 million metric tons,** of which about
32.8 million' tons were carried by foreign vessels. A minimum esti-
mate of the non-Bloc vessel capacity needed to transport this cargo
is 2.9 million deadweight tons (DWT),*** and the actual tonnage of
the vessels used, including liners, may have amounted to almost 4
million DWT. It is estimated that the requirements by the Bloc for
foreign vessels during 1958-65, although declining as a percentage
of total capacity needed, will remain at about present levels.
These estimates of foreign vessel capacity required by the Bloc have
only recently been made possible by the development of a methodology
that analyzes interrelationships among cargo tonnages, vessel ca-
pacities, and average lengths of haul.
I. Introduction
The extent to which the Soviet Bloc depends on foreign vessels
has hitherto been determined by analysis of (1) statements by coun-
tries of the Rloc concerning the share of their seaborne cargoes
carried by their own fleets and (2) information on Bloc charters of
non-Bloc vessels. The first approach yields the tonnage of the
cargo to be carried by foreign vessels but not the amount of foreign
vessel capacity needed. The second approach yields inconclusive re-
sults, because the available information on charters probably is
* The estimates and conclusions in this report represent the best
judgment of this Office as of 1 November 1959.
** Cargo tonnages are given in metric tons throughout this report.
*** Deadweight tonnage is the carrying capacity of a vessel in long
tons -- that is, the difference between the displacement light and
the displacement loaded.
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S-E-C-R-E-T
incomplete and also excludes the use of liner service* and of tramp
vessels not under charter to the Bloc. In addition, the information
on charters thus far has provided only annual totals of the shipping
space chartered, most of which actually was chartered for periods of
less than I year.
The estimate made in this report is of the average amount of
foreign vessel capacity needed by the Soviet Bloc, including both
direct charters and all other nonchartered space used. This esti-
mate is only an indicator of magnitude, which provides a measure of
the average requirement throughout the year without provision for
seasonal variations, and the margin of error may be as much as plus
or minus 15 percent. Only recently has enough information become
available to permit estimates of the amounts of cargo carried in
foreign vessels as well as estimates of average lengths of haul. As
more data are gathered, particularly on average amounts of cargo
carried per deadweight ton of vessel capacity at varying lengths of
haul, the method outlined here may permit more reliable estimates to
be made.
II. 1958
In 1958 the seaborne foreign trade of the Soviet Bloc probably
amounted to about 50.7 million tons. Bloc vessels carried 17.9 mil-
lion tons of this total, leaving an excess of about 32.8 million tons
to be carried by foreign vessels, as shown in Table 1.**
The amount of foreign vessel capacity needed to carry the excess
32.8 million tons varies by country according to the average length
of haul of the traffic involved. After allowing for such differences,
it is estimated that an average of 10.6 tons of cargo could have been
carried per deadweight ton of vessel capacity in 1958. This figure
would indicate that an average of approximately 3.1 million DWT of
foreign vessel capacity was needed throughout 1958 to carry the ex-
cess seaborne foreign trade of the Soviet Bloc.xxx It is estimated,
however, that about 700,000 tons of East German and Czechoslovak car-
go were carried by Polish vessels and that about 2 million tons of
Satellite cargo were carried by Soviet vessels. Probably about
* Liner service is service on a prescheduled, advertised route
with multiple prearranged ports of call. It is open to booking by
shippers all along the route of cargo to be loaded and discharged at
different ports en route. If a vessel that is usually on liner serv-
ice takes a full load of cargo for one shipper to be discharged at a
port or ports agreed on with the shipper, the vessel by definition
has been withdrawn from the ship operator's liner service.
** Table 1 follows on p. 3.
xxx For methodology, see Appendix A, p. 7, below.
- 2 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S-E-C-R-E-T
Table 1
Estimated Seaborne Foreign Trade of the Soviet Bloc
Carried by Domestic Vessels and by Foreign Vessels
1958
Million Metric Tons
Country
Total
Carried by
Domestic Vessels
Carried by
Foreign Vessels
USSR 2/
POland
East Germany
Rumania
Czechoslovakia
Bulgariay
Hungary d
Albania
Total
Estimated duplicate
traffic between
Bloc countries
Balance
24.5
13.712/
5.5 1/
5.0 f/
4.0 El/
1.2
0.9
0.7 ,.1/
55.5
13.6
2.7 2/
0.5 2/
0.2 51
0.2 L.,/
0.5
0.1
0.1 .11/
17.9
10.9
11.0
5.0
4.8
3.8
0.7
0.8
0.6
37.6
4.8
50.7
17.9
4.8
32.8
a. See Table 3, p. 14, below.
b. See Table 4, p. 15, below.
50X1
d.
e.
f.
g.
and
h.
and
j.
k.
See Table 5, p. 16, below.
For methodology, see Appendix A, p. 17, below.
Estimate based on 1957 data on the fleet and tonnage carried
on the 1958 fleet.
Estimate based on 1956 data on the fleet and tonnage carried
on the 1958 fleet. Lti
5
- 3 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S-E-C-R-E-T
200,000 DWT of Polish and Soviet vessels were used for this purpose
and therefore should be subtracted from the figure of 3.1 million
DWT, leaving a balance of 2.9 million DWT of non-Bloc vessel capacity
needed. Estimates of the requirements, by Bloc country, are shown
in Table 2.*
Distinct from the concept of vessel capacity needed is the concept
of the total deadweight tonnage of the vessels involved. Both East
Germany and Czechoslovakia have been using liner service heavily. All
other countries of the Soviet Bloc also use liner service, but no
estimates can presently be made on the volume involved. Cargo so
shipped (in less than shipload lots) would involve more vessels, and,
therefore, more deadweight tonnage would be counted than was used.
It is believed that about 30 percent of East German and Czechoslovak
cargo moves on liners. If provision were made in the above estimates
for the use of liner service -- which would include the vessel ton-
nage actually involved although not necessarily that required -- the
estimate of 2.9 million DWT would be raised to about 3.8 million DWT.**
Use of liner service by the rest of the Bloc will increase this figure,
although to an unknown extent. The figure of 2.9 million DWT is,
therefore, a minimum estimate of the non-Bloc vessel capacity needed
by the Bloc in 1958. The practical dependence -- that is, the vessel
tonnage involved -- probably was closer to 4 million DWT. The dif-
ference of almost 1 million DWT is a result of Bloc use of liner
service and represents the amount of vessel tonnage that could have
been dispensed with in 1958 if the Bloc had been able, to use tramp
service exclusively, including chartered vessels.
III. 1965xxx
On the basis of plan announcements by the USSR, Pbland, East Ger-
many, and Czechoslovakia, which together accounted for about 82 per-
cent of all cargo of the Soviet Bloc carried by foreign vessels in
1958, it is possible to estimate requirements of these Bloc countries
for foreign vessels in 1965. Soviet plans indicate that the share of
Soviet seaborne foreign trade to be carried by foreign vessels will
be 23.5 percent in 1965 compared with 44.4 percent in 1958. In spite
of this proportionate decline, the absolute tonnage of Soviet trade
to be carried by foreign vessels probably will increase from 10.9
million tons in 1958 to 11.8 million tons in 1965. The share of
Polish cargo to be carried by foreign vessels probably will decline
from 80.4 percent in 1958 to 56.8 percent in 1965, reflecting an
* Table 2 follows on p. 5.
** For methodology, see Appendix Al p. 17, below.
XX For the tonnage to be moved in 1965, see Appendix A, p. 13, below.
- 4 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 : CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S-E-C-R-E-T
Table 2
Estimated Requirements of the Soviet Bloc for Foreign Vessel Capacity 2/
1958
Country
Cargo to Be Moved12/
(Million Metric Tons)
Estimated Average Length
of Haul 21
(Nautical Miles)
Cargo Factor:
Cargo Tons
per Deadweight Ton/
Foreign Vessel Capacity Needed
(Thousand Deadweight Tons)
USSR
10.9
2,200
11.6
940
Poland
11.0
2,600
10.9
1,009
East Germany
5.0
4,500
8.4
595 2/
Rumania
4.8
2,500
11.0
436
Czechoslovakia
3.8
4,000
9.0
422 2/
Bulgaria
0.7
3,300
9.8
71
Hungary
0.8
3,000
10.2
78
Albania
0.6
2,000
12.1
50
a. Columns have not been totaled, because the first and last columns each contain duplicate traffic. East German
exports to the USSR, for example, are included under East Germany and also under the USSR.
b. Figures are taken from Table 1, p. 3, above.
c. For methodology, see Appendix A, p. 10, below.
d. For methodology, see Appendix A, p. 7, below.
e. Of the total of 1,017,000 DWT shown to be needed by East Germany and Czechoslovakia, it is estimated that about
100,000 DWT were supplied by Polish-flag vessels. Some of the remaining 900,000 DWT (possibly 100,000 DWT more)
were supplied by Soviet vessels.
- 5 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 : CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S-E-C-R-E-T
absolute decrease from 11.0 million tons in 1958 to 8.3 million tons
in 1965. East German cargo carried in foreign vessels may total about
10 million tons in 1965 and that of Czechoslovakia about 5.2 million
tons.
In aggregate, the Soviet, POlish, East German, and Czechoslovak
cargo to be carried by foreign vessels may increase from 30.7 million
tons in 1958 to 35.3 million tons in 1965, so that the considerable
decline in the share of seaborne foreign trade left for foreign ves-
sels in 1965 will have only a slight effect on the actual requirements
for foreign shipping needed to move this trade.
- 6 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S-E-C-R-E-T
APPENDIX A
METHODOLOGY
1. Cargo Factor: Cargo Tons Carried per Vessel Deadweight Ton
The following method is used in this report to find a reasonable
factor to determine vessel capacity required over a period of a year
to move any given amount of cargo. It is axiomatic that the amount
of vessel capacity needed to move cargo will vary with the distances
that the cargo must be moved. The problem is to find first a usable
pattern between specific distances involved and the amount of cargo
that can be moved by each deadweight ton of vessel capacity used.
Once such a relationship is established, the total amount of cargo
to be moved may be divided by the tons of cargo possible per vessel
deadweight ton (called here the cargo factor) established for the
particular distance involved. The result will be the total number of
vessel deadweight tons (the vessel capacity) needed to move the car-
go. For example, if 10 million tons must be moved in 1 year for an
average distance (average length of haul) of 3,000 miles* and the
pattern has been established that 10 tons can be moved per vessel
deadweight ton (a cargo factor of 10) at that distance, then 1 mil-
lion DWT of vessel capacity will be needed.
If several different groups of cargo must be moved, each for a
different average length of haul, and an over-all factor is needed
for the combined groups -- as is here the case for the Soviet Bloc
as a whole -- the cargo factor for each group of cargo must be
weighted by the proportion that group bears to the total of all the
groups of cargo.
The mechanics of establishing an over-all factor for the Soviet
Bloc, within the method outlined above, were as follows. In order
to find a pattern, if any, in the relationship between the average
length of haul and the volume of cargo moved per deadweight ton,
the performance of the Polish fleet was used because only for the
Polish fleet was enough infortation (tons moved, ton-miles performed,
and deadweight tonnage of the vessels used) available to permit re-
lating the performance to the fleet capacity. It was necessary to
adjust the resulting cargo factors for the Polish fleet to arrive at
estimated cargo factors for foreign vessels, inasmuch as the perform-
ance of foreign vessels carrying the same cargo will be more ef-
ficient. The performance of the Polish fleet includes, for example,
* All mileages in this report are given in nautical miles.
- 7 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S-E-C-R-E-T
time lost during repair of vessels, whereas foreign vessels would be
hired only during the time that the vessels were in operation. In
1956 the proportion of time lost by Polish ships, whether for repair
or for other reasons, was 16 percent. jp/ The corresponding cargo fac-
tors for foreign vessels, therefore, have been increased by 15 percent
above the cargo factors for the Polish fleet. The cargo factors
indicated by the performance of the Polish fleet* for varying average
lengths of haul, together with the corresponding cargo factors for
the use of foreign vessels, are as follows:
Average Length of Haul
(Nautical Miles)
Cargo Factor:
Cargo Tons per Deadweight Ton
Polish Fleet
Foreign VeSsels
2,000
10.5
12.1
2,500
9.6
11.0
3,000
8.9
10.2
3,500
8.3
9.5
4,000
7.8
9.0
4,50o
7.3
8.4
5, 000
6.9
7.9
9,000
4.5
5.2
10,000
4.0
4.6
* Performance figures for the following four segments of the Polish
fleet were used: the entire state-owned fleet minus its domestic
traffic, those vessels under the control of the Central Administration
of the Polish Merchant Marine (Centralny Zarzad Polskiej Marynarki
Handlowej --.CZ-PMH) only, the CZ-PMH vessels operating between Polish
and foreign ports only, and those vessels owned by Poland but not under
the control of CZ-PMH. 2/ Vessels in the last category apparently were
all on the Far East run, with lengths of haul of from 7,000 to 11,000
miles.
The available data permitted the charting of 20 relationships be-
tween average length of haul and cargo tons carried per deadweight
ton. From the resulting curve, all relationships of cargo factor to
length of haul given in this report were obtained. The fact that the
curve is based on only 20 relationships is a major source of error.
It may be only coincidental that of the 20 relationships plotted, only
7 were away from the resulting curve, and only 3 of these were extremes.
If 200 relationships were available, the trend conceivably might be
different.
- 8 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S -E-C -R -E -T
The cargo factor for each of the Soviet Bloc countries, derived
from the plotted curve mentioned above, is as follows:
Country
Estimated Average Length
of Haul*
(Nautical Miles)
Cargo Factor:
Cargo Tons
per Deadweight Ton
USSR**
2,200
11.6
Poland
2,600
10.9
East Germany
4,500
8.4
Rumania
2,500
11.0
Czechoslovakia
4,000
9.0
Bulgaria
3,300
9.8
Hungary
3,000
10.2
Albania
2,000
12.1
After the cargo factor has been obtained for each of the Bloc coun-
tries, it is necessary to derive an over-all factor for the Bloc by
weighting each country's factor by the share which its cargo represents
of the total Bloc cargo to be carried by foreign vessels, as follows:
Country
Cargo to Be Moved
on Foreign Vessels
(Million Metric Tons)
Percent
of Total
Bloc Cargo
Weighted
Cargo
Factor***
USSR
10.9
29.0
336
Poland
11.0
29.3
319
East Germany
5.0
13.3
112
Rumania
4.8
12.8
141
Czechoslovakia
3.8
10.1
91
Bulgaria
0.7
1.9
19
Hungary
0.8
2.1
21
Albania
0.6
1.6
19
Total
37.6
100.0****
1,058
Methods and sources for the estimates of average lengths of haul
will be found in 2, below.
** It has been estimated that about 4 million tons of the Soviet car-
go is POL carried in foreign tankers and that about 450,000 tons is
lumber carried on vessels chartered for consecutive voyages. The per-
formance of tankers would be about 60 percent higher than the average
performance of dry cargo vessels because tankers spend about 80 percent
of their time at sea in contrast to about 50 percent of the time spent
at sea by dry cargo vessels. Moreover, tankers and lumber carriers
hired on a time or consecutive-voyage gootnotes continued on p. 1..p7
- 9 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S-E-C-R-E-T
The total of the weighted factors for the countries of the Soviet
Bloc, 1,058, divided by 100 gives an over-all weighted cargo factor
for the Bloc of 10.58. The total Bloc cargo carried by foreign ves-
sels, 32.8 million tons (37.6 million tons minus 4.8 million tons
which are estimated to be duplicate traffic), divided by the factor
of 10.58 gives 3.1 million DWT,* the foreign vessel capacity needed
by the Bloc in 1958.
2. Average Lengths of Haul
a. USSR
In 1957 the statement was made in the Soviet press that the
average length of haul by the Soviet fleet of import and export car-
goes was 1,400 miles in 1955, whereas the average length of haul by
chartered foreign vessels was about 2,000 miles. 12/ Recently it
has been possible to estimate from statements of various percentage
increases and decreases 11/ that the average length of haul by Soviet
vessels engaged in foreign trade in 1958 was almost 2,000 miles. This
figure includes not only Soviet import and export cargoes but also
shipments between foreign ports. Partial data concerning the direction
of total Soviet seaborne foreign trade on both Soviet and foreign ves-
sels indicate that the length of haul by foreign vessels may have in-
creased since 1955 but not so rapidly as the length of haul by Soviet
vessels. Therefore, the tentative figure of 2,200 miles has been used
for the average length of haul by foreign vessels carrying Soviet
foreign trade in 1958. As more data are gathered on the origins and
destinations of Soviet seaborne foreign trade, it should be possible
to determine more reliably the average length of haul by foreign ves-
sels.
b. Poland
The origins and destinations of Polish seaborne trade in 1957
are available in detail as well as the shares carried and the average
lengths of haul by the Polish fleet. 12/ On the basis of these data,
10.7 million tons of cargo were carried) and it is estimated that
about 26.5 billion ton-miles were performed in 1957. Of this amount,
basis run one way in ballast, thus lowering performance 50 percent.
These calculations have been made, but the results affect the total
of 3.1 million DWT too slightly to justify including them here.
*** Product of percent of total Bloc cargo and cargo factor (as
shown in the above tabulation).
**** Because of rounding, percents do not add to total shown.
* Not subtracting the 200,000 DWT of Soviet and Polish vessels esti-
mated to have carried other Satellite cargo.
- 10 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S-E-C-R-E-T
2,625,000 tons were carried by the Polish fleet for a total of 5.9 bil-
lion ton-miles, leaving about 8.1 million tons carried by foreign ves-
sels for a total of 20.6 billion ton-miles, or an average length of
haul of about 2,600 miles performed by foreign vessels.
c. East Germany
The origin and destination of about 85 percent of East German
seaborne foreign trade has been identified with fair reliability. 1_,V
The result indicates a length of haul of 4,400 miles, and if, as is
possible, the missing 15 percent were Southeast Asian and/or Far East-
ern cargo, the average length of haul would be close to 4,700 miles.
The compromise figure of 5,500 miles has been used.
d. Rumania
Of the 5 million tons of Rumanian cargo carried by domestic
vessels, about 1.5 million tons probably moved in the Black Sea on
hauls of 200 to ivoo miles. The remaining tonnage moved primarily to
and from Northern Europe (about 4,o00 miles), the Far East (about
7,000 miles), and the Mediterranean (about 1,000 miles). The average
length of haul is tentatively estimated to be 2,500 miles.
e. Czechoslovakia
Czechoslovak seaborne foreign trade has been partly identi-
fied, 1A/ and more Czechoslovak cargo than East German cargo moves in
the South American and South Asian ranges (both about 6,000-mile hauls),
and apparently less Czechoslovak cargo moves in the longer Far Eastern
range. A tentative estimate of 4,000 miles for the average length of
haul of Czechoslovak cargo has been made in comparison with the esti-
mate of 4,500 miles for the average length of haul of East German cargo,
taking into consideration the fact that the cargo carried by the Czecho-
slovak fleet itself was engaged in long-distance hauls.
f. Bulgaria
Bulgarian and Hungarian lengths of haul were estimated on the
basis of the performance of the domestic fleets.* The fact that Bul-
garian vessels were engaged in the Murmansk-Varna trade and in the
South American trade (both long-distance hauls) probably weighted the
length of haul by the Bulgarian domestic fleet more heavily than the
length of haul by foreign vessels. The average length of haul of Bul-
garian cargo carried by foreign vessels is estimated to be 3,300 miles.
* The average length of haul of the Bulgarian fleet in international
trade was 3,500 miles in 1957, 12/ and that of the Hungarian fleet
was 2,500 miles in January and February 1958. 1../
- 11 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S-E-C-R-E-T
g. Hungary
Only partial and contradictory information is as yet available
on the direction of Hungarian seaborne trade. Hungarian vessels were
engaged only in the local Mediterranean trade, however, and the length
of haul for foreign vessels therefore was estimated to be 3,000 miles,
in the belief that foreign vessels carried more long-distance cargo.
h. Albania
Albanian cargo is believed to have moved primarily in three
areas, to and from the Black Sea (about 1,000 miles), the Adriatic
(300 miles), and the Baltic (3,300 miles). The average length of haul
by foreign vessels is estimated to be 2,000 miles or less.
i. Effects of Errors
The extent to which errors in the estimation of average lengths
of haul might affect the conclusions in this report can be tested.
The most important average lengths of haul are those for the USSR and
Poland. If the estimated average length of haul of Soviet cargo on
foreign vessels is increased to 2,500 miles and if the estimated
lengths of haul for the Satellites also are increased to what is
presently considered to be a maximum, the results would be as follows:
Country
Average Length
of Haul
(Nautical Miles)
Cargo Factor:
Cargo Tons per
Deadweight Ton
Percent
of Total
Bloc Cargo
Weighted
Cargo
Factor
USSR
2,500
11.0
29.0
319
Poland
2,800
10.5
29.3
308
East Germany
5,000
7.9
13.3
105
Rumania
3,000
10.2
12.8
131
Czechoslovakia
5,000
7.9
10.1
80
Bulgaria
3,500
9.5
1.9
18
Hungary
4,500
8.4
2.1
18
Albania
2,000
12.1
1.6
19
Total
100.0*
998
* Because of rounding, percentages do not add to the total shown.
- 12 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S-E-C-R-E-T
If the total of the weighted factors is divided by 100, the over-all
factor for the Soviet Bloc, therefore, would be 9.98 instead of 10.58,
and the foreign vessel capacity needed would be 3.29 million DWT in-
stead of 3.1 million DWT.*
If, however, the average length of haul for Soviet cargoes is
increased to 2,500 miles but the average lengths of haul and the
factors for the Satellites remain at the original estimates, the over-
all factor would be 10.41, and the requirement for foreign vessel
capacity would be 3.15 million DWT. Neither change is significant.
Changes in the estimated average lengths of haul for Hungary and Al-
bania would not change the over-all cargo factor for the Bloc signifi-
cantly, because the combined cargo for these two countries amounts to
less than 4 percent of total Bloc cargo.
3. Seaborne Foreign Trade of the Soviet Bloc
a. USSR
The changing role of foreign vessels in the carrying of Soviet
seaborne foreign trade during 1950 and 1955-58 and the role planned
for them in 1965 are shown in Table 3.**
b. Poland
The seaborne foreign trade of Poland is shown in Table 4.***
The carrying capacity of the Polish fleet is expected to total
1.44 million DWT in 1965, including an amount estimated to be 190,000
DWT that may be under the Polish flag but may not be Polish owned.
It is estimated that these vessels will carry about 9.2 million tons
of cargo, of which about 6.3 million tons probably will be Polish
foreign trade. Inasmuch as Polish foreign trade in 1965 is estimated
to be about 14.6 million tons, the amount left to be carried in foreign
vessels probably will be about 8.3 million tons.
c. East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary
The seaborne foreign trade of East Germany, Czechoslovakia,
and Hungary in 1958 is shown in Table 5.****
* Not subtracting the 200,000 DWT of Soviet and Polish vessels
estimated to have carried other Satellite cargo.
** Table 3 follows on p. 14.
*** Table 4 follows on p. 15.
**** Table 5 follows on p. 16.
-13 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S-E-C-R-E-T
Table 3
Estimated Seaborne Foreign Trade of the USSR
Carried by Domestic Vessels and by Foreign Vessels
1950, 1955-58, and 1965 Plan
Volume (Million Metric Tons)
Year
In
Soviet Vessels
In
Foreign Vessels a/
Total
Percent by
Soviet Vessels
1950
1955
1956 f/
1957
1958
1965 plan
7.1 2/
8.0 2/
8.5
11.9 2/
13.6II/
38.3 2/
1.7
7.2
9.846.4
10.2
10.9
11.8
8.8 2/
15.2 .f_/
g:3
1 1/
24.5 .1/
50.1 .1/
80.7 1/
52.6 1/
53.9 1/
55.6 1/
76.5 2/
a. The difference between the total and the Soviet share.
b. The 1956 figure divided by 120 percent. 1.!:..1/
c. The 1956 figure divided by 208 percent. 12/
d. The Soviet share divided by the total.
e. 112 percent of the 1950 figure. L/
f. 173 percent of the 1950 figure. _221
g.
h. The volume carried by Soviet vessels increased by 40 percent during
1957. 21/
i. The volume carried by Soviet vessels divided by the percent carried
by Soviet vessels.
j*
k. The 1958 volume Of foreign trade cargoes carried by Soviet vessels
was 1.7 times the 1955 volume. 25/
1. This figure is a plan figure. The actual performance is not
yet known.
m. Soviet authorities have stated that the volume of liquid cargo
carried by Soviet vessels in foreign trade will increase by 150 per-
cent during 1959-65 and the volume of dry cargo by 220 percent. On
the basis of aata for previous years, it
is estimated that the volume of liquid cargo carried by Soviet vessels
in foreign trade in 1958 was 7.5 million tons. The remaining 6.1 mil-
lion tons of foreign trade cargo are assumed to have been dry cargo.
Based on these figures, the volume of cargo in foreign trade planned to
be carried by the Soviet maritime fleet in 1965 is 38.3 million tons.
n. Plan figure, based on a statement that the share carried in Soviet
vessels in 1965 will be from 75 to 78 percent, or an average of 76.5
percent. 2//
- 14 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
50X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S-E-C-R-E-T
Table 4
Estimated Seaborne Foreign Trade of Poland
1956-58 and 1965 Plan
Thousand Metric Tons
1956 2/
1957 2/
1958
1965 Plan
Total port traffic
15,525
14 215
16,936/
20,000 c/
Of which:
Transit cargo
2,470
2,522
2,602 11
4,500 2/
Bunkers and domestic traffic
921
979
657 1/
900 g/
Balance: Polish seaborne
foreign trade 12/
12,134
10,714
13,677 1/
14,60o
a. Le/
b.
c' 191
d. 31/
50X1
f. This figure is a residual derived by subtracting transit traffic and
foreign trade traffic from total port traffic. There is no explanation
available for the drop from the level of 1956-57.
g. Estimated on the basis of the figures for 1956-57.
h. There have been small additional quantities of traffic entering and
leaving via other European ports but not enough to be significant.
The carrying capacity of the East German fleet is expected to
total more than 500,000 DWT in 1965. _321/ It is estimated that these
vessels will carry about 2.1 million tons of a total foreign trade of
about 12 million tons. L/ This total would leave about 10 million
tons of cargo to be carried by foreign vessels.
The performance of the Czechoslovak fleet and the seaborne
trade of Czechoslovakia in 1965 can only be estimated roughly on the
basis of past performance. It is tentatively estimated that total sea-
borne foreign trade will be about 6 million tons, of which possibly
800,000 tons may be carried by domestic vessels, leaving about 5.2
million tons to be carried by foreign vessels.
- 15 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S-E-C-R-E-T
Table 5
Estimated Seaborne Foreign Trade
of East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary
1958
Thousand Metric Tons
Transit Ports
East Germany
Czechoslovakia
Hungary
East German ports
Polish ports 2/
Hamburg
Rijeka
Trieste
Belgian and Netherlands ports 11./
Black Sea ports
Total
4,070 2/
557
835 2/
60
5,522
120 22/
1,785
865 1/
418
57 1/
60
700 1/
4,005
4o 1.2/
182
55 2/
190
5o 51
50
300
867
a. Estimate based
b. Estimate based
discrepancy of 174,
on performance in 1955-57. 12
on East German port figures for 1956, showing a
000 tons that were probably transit cargo. _42/
there is transit traffic through the
East German ports.
c.
d' 192
e. Estimate based on data for 1957.!-12/
g. Estimate based on data for 1956. 42
h. Estimate based on data for 1957. 31
i. Data on Black Sea ports are sparse. Estimates are based on known
total transit traffic through Bulgarian ports of 217,000 tons in 1955.1122/
and on estimated traffic of 265,000 tons in 1958 plus a vague statement
that transit traffic in Rumanian ports (probably in 1957) totaled more
than 400,000 tons and was increasing./22/ It is believed that at least
100,000 tons transit the Soviet Danube seaport of Reni. Some of the
transit cargo would be Hungarian.
j. Estimate based on the statement that the volume of imports from
Near Eastern countries exceeds several times the capacity of the Hun-
garian maritime fleet. An indication that the Hungarian fleet carried
from 60,000 to 75,000 tons in 1958 is provided in January and February
figures of 5,000 tons for each month and in the statement that the mari-
time fleet must carry approximately 15,000 tons more in 1958 than in
1957. A.6.1/
- 16 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
50X1
50X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
S-E-C-R-E-T
d. Rumania
The port of Constanta probably handles as much as 85 percent
of the seaborne foreign trade of Rumania.111/ It is estimated that
Constanta handled about 4.5 million tons of Rumanian foreign trade
in 1958, including about 3.7 million tons of POL. L@/ The total
seaborne foreign trade of Rumania, therefore, probably amounted to
about 5 million tons.
4. Liner Service
To estimate the additional vessel tonnage that the Soviet Bloc
requires because of its use of liner service, it has been assumed ?
that 30 percent of Czechoslovak and East German cargo moves by
liner* and that such cargo takes, on the average, one-fourth of a
liner's capacity.** Thirty percent of the vessel capacity needed
by East Germany and Czechoslovakia (1,017,000 DWT), as shown in
Table 2,xxx is 305,000 DWT. This figure multiplied by four gives
the total deadweight tonnage of the liners involved -- 1,220,000 DWT.
This amount added to the capacity of tramp vessels carrying the
other 70 percent of the cargo (712,000 DWT) gives a total of
1,932,000 DWT of vessels actually used, or 915,000 DWT more than the
vessel capacity required by East Germany and Czechoslovakia.
* It is probable
cargo and less than
liner.
** It is believed
such cargo actually
space.
xxx P. 5, above.
that more than 30 percent of East German
30 percent of Czechoslovak cargo moves by
that this figure is a maximum average and that
averages less than one-fourth of a liner's
- 17 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
R
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Denied
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 :
CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
50X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 : CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2
SECRET
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/22 : CIA-RDP79R01141A001500190002-2