Everything about the 1943 Tehran Conference (from November 28 to December 1) has already been said and retold, and even a landmark Soviet film was shot with Belokhvostikova, Kostalevsky, and for a moment Alain Delon. Now let’s try to look at things from a different perspective. But of course without rewriting history and, most importantly, falsifying the history of the Great Patriotic War, because it is full.
The real significance of the conference was that the three of them – Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill – came together. Despite the fact that there is a gulf between them in terms of political views and there is no mutual sympathy.
Although they say that Roosevelt, with whom Stalin had better relations, nevertheless suggested holding a much earlier “summit” for a few years. But the Soviet leader hesitated. And not just because he couldn’t stand to fly a plane, but because he didn’t trust anyone, including Roosevelt. He was also sickly afraid of assassination attempts. This narrowed the possibilities for personal diplomacy, as we understand it.
By exchanging more than 30 messages on this topic, place and time were painfully coordinated. Decisions were made without reliance on any “protocol service”. Roosevelt suggested Alaska. Churchill – Orkney. Cairo and Baghdad were discussed, but only a trio met in Cairo on the eve of Tehran, in the person of Roosevelt, Churchill, and the then “Chinese chief” Chiang Kai-shek. Stalin offered Astrakhan or Arkhangelsk, but the allies categorically did not want to fly to the USSR. They agreed on Tehran, as Iran had by then been partially occupied by Soviet and British troops. Although the situation in the country is still uneasy. The power of the newly arrived new monarch, the 22-year-old Mohammad Reza, was fragile (this is the same one that was later overthrown during the “Islamic revolution”), a “gateway” for the German residence.
Perhaps this was Stalin’s most risky journey. But he really needed a “second front”. There was no way to come to terms without personal involvement.
How do you know if the allies have met before, then the “second front” will open earlier? Perhaps Tehran-43 took place after the victory at Stalingrad. Although preparations for the conference began in December 1942. So it took a year to prepare. Let’s not say high rates.
The meeting was, of course, prepared in the strictest secrecy, but the Germans found out about it anyway. The circle of Roosevelt and Churchill and Congress were aware of the trip. Roosevelt was very worried about this: he did not want to leave the country for more than 10 days, because in this case, Congress, with whom he had difficult relations, could pass some bills if the president did not respond within 10. day, it could automatically become law. It was generally forbidden to pronounce the word “Tehran” in the Kremlin. And the country learned that Stalin had left for six days only when a short message and a general statement about the meeting were published on December 2.
It seems that the Germans prepared not one, but several conspiracies to destroy the Big Three. In the 1960s, the legendary Otto Skorzeny admitted that he had a separate plan to kidnap Roosevelt. Thanks to the legendary intelligence officer Nikolai Kuznetsov, the Soviet leadership learned about these plans in advance (the film “He was near Rovno” will be made about him). Therefore, Stalin invited him to negotiate with the delegation in the Soviet mission. Probably, such a closeness will only happen during Gorbachev’s perestroika. What the President of the United States agrees to.
Of course, the buildings where the American delegation lived and worked were filled with listening equipment. Of course, the Americans knew this and played their own game. Such was the manners back then, in general no one would be offended by such trifles.
Roosevelt and Churchill toured North Africa. How Stalin got there is still unknown, as different memories say different things. The prevailing version is 50 minutes by armored train to Baku and then by plane. Definitely flew from Tehran. On an American Douglas plane.
The Tehran Conference was “canonized” by historians as the de facto most important meeting; At this meeting, it was decided not only to temporarily open a “second front” (in May 1944, but Churchill was not opposed to a delay for another year), but also agreed in general terms on the post-war order of the world. Stalin also promised the Allies to launch a major offensive in line with the Allied landings in the West. Also go to war with Japan after the victory over Germany. As you know, the main opponent of the landing in France was the British prime minister, who suggested focusing on the Italian direction and the Mediterranean in general: Britain was interested in the colonial empire. But the Americans did not accept it. The USSR and the USA acted as a united front in this regard.
The United States agreed to the transfer of the Kuril Islands, South Sakhalin to the USSR and access to the ports of Dalian and Port Arthur on the Liaodong Peninsula in China.
There is a version that the Allies went to Stalin with a “second front” against the background of rumors about a possible separate peace between Germany and the USSR in August-September. Perhaps these rumors were deliberately spread by the Soviet resident. They look wild today, but remembering the history of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Allies can take them quite seriously.
As a result, everything was well agreed upon until the end of the war, despite a great deal of mutual distrust (nor was the trust between Roosevelt and Churchill). However, as it later turned out, the post-war treaties did not guarantee universal peace as much as the division of this world into spheres of influence that became the basis of the Cold War. In this sense, Tehran-43 marked the beginning of the end of the great alliance.
Start with the idea of creating the UN. It was discussed in the most general terms by Roosevelt (the author of the idealist idea, of course) and Stalin. Roosevelt suggested that the four Great Powers – the USSR, the USA, the UK, and China (which was understood to be led by Chiang Kai-shek) – would play the role of “world policemen” to be “deserved”. respond promptly to any threat to peace and to any immediate emergency that calls for action”.
Therefore, there are no “security councils” and “UN collective forces”. Four “sheriffs” – point. Perhaps the post-war world would have been stronger under these conditions? However, how could he do it if Stalin’s political philosophy was alien to the other two leaders of the “Big Three”? And vice versa.
Roosevelt and Stalin discussed the Baltic. It’s pretty cynical, without the extra pity inherent in current international relations. Roosevelt joked: They say I didn’t start the war when the USSR annexed them. But after the war it would be necessary to “record everything democratically”. For people to express their opinions. Stalin assured that the peoples of the Baltic states would have many such opportunities. But strictly on the basis of the Soviet Constitution and without international supervision. How about an agreement with Obama on Crimea in 2014? Joke.
According to the Tehran “troika”, the idealist formula of the four “sheriffs” and the “united nations” did not contradict the agreements they had reached at that time on the redivision of the world. Everything is like in the good old days. Stalin reached an agreement to revise Poland’s eastern borders in exchange for shifting the Polish-German border west to the Oder and Neisse rivers (this would later be ratified in Potsdam without Roosevelt in 1945).
True, Roosevelt asked that these plans, as well as agreements with the Baltic states (in fact, that the Americans “surrendered” to Stalin at that time), “never recognized the annexation of the Baltic states,” contrary to the post-Soviet statements. ) was not announced, because his re-election in 1944 was due, among other things, to the vote of the millions of Poles and Balts living in America. Of course, this agreement was respected. Could this be considered “interference” by the USSR in the 1944 American elections?
The results of the Tehran conference were not specifically disclosed. All that was made public was a general statement of further joint struggle against the Nazis. And a separate statement on Iran with the promise to help rebuild after the war. At that time, of course, there was the concept of “infiltrating the press”, but in such cases, “political discipline” was dominant. Also, no one said anything to reporters at the time. For example, can you imagine Stalin’s press conference? A general photo for memory – and be satisfied.
Of course, there were “blessed times” for them. But today, those methods and international attitudes are unfortunately irreversible. Many, of course, have a hard time coming to terms with it.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the editors’ position.