740.0011 European War 1939/14815: TelegramThe Ambassador in Turkey to the Secretary of State
Ankara, September 8, 1941 — 6 p.m.
[Received 7:30 p.m.]
331.Iranian Ambassador just called to say he had 3 days ago received from his Government, but had on account of illness been unable sooner to carry out, instructions to bring to my attention disappointment of his Government at the apparent tacit acquiescence of our Government in the Anglo-Russian action in Iran which was so clearly contrary to the principles enunciated by the President and to express the hope that some assurance might be given that the United States Government would interest itself in the restoration of complete independence and integrity of Iran. I informed him of the falsity of the reports, that first our Government had given its approval to the action in question and, second, I had myself indicated such approval to the Turkish Foreign Office. I also acquainted him with the text of the President’s telegram of September 2 to the Shah. He expressed great relief and gratification but added that he hoped that the substance of this message which would otherwise remain in the archives might be made public in some statement or interview by either the President or yourself. I do not know why this matter was taken up with me in this way but I consented to […].
- Saying then that he had carried out his instructions and ventured to speak further on a purely personal basis he expressed his regret that the British had not arranged with his Government for passage of their troops through Iran. He said he was not informed as to what had taken place but that he was inclined to believe such arrangements could be made amicably if only it had been understood that the Russians were not to be brought into the situation. He said that he had complete confidence in good intentions of the British and even if (in a matter which he realized was one of life and death for them) they had felt forced to send troops into Iran, he would nevertheless have confidence in their ultimate restoration of country’s integrity if only they were unencumbered by commitments to the Soviet Government. As it is there are reports that the Russians are establishing their political commissars in the districts occupied by them and beginning subversive agitations. He hoped that the British if only in their own ultimate interests would take steps to restrain such activities on the part of their associates.
Repeated to Tehran.
MacMURRAY
740.0011 European War 1939/14816: TelegramThe Ambassador in the Soviet Union to the Secretary of State
Moscow, September 8, 1941 — 6 p.m.
[Received September 8 — 4:03 p.m.]
1645.The Iranian Ambassador told me this afternoon that the Soviet and British Governments have now requested the surrender to them of the German agents in Iran rather than their mere expulsion and that the Iranian Government in reply is suggesting that the women and children be sent to Germany via Turkey and that the men be placed in a concentration camp in Iran under British supervision.
STEINHARDT
U.S. Department of State (September 10, 1941)
391.1115/12: TelegramThe Minister in Iran to the Secretary of State
Tehran, September 9, 1941 — 8 a.m.
[Received September 10 — 9:35 a.m.]
142.Although communications have still not been reestablished throughout the country I have had indirect word from all places where we have citizens and believe it safe now to state that all Americans in Iran are safe.
Please inform Presbyterian Mission Board.
DREYFUS
U.S. Department of State (September 13, 1941)
701.0091/34: TelegramThe Minister in Iran to the Secretary of State
Tehran, September 13, 1941 — noon.
[Received 2:15 p.m.]
151.The Foreign Minister has requested me to assign the Military Attaché or some other member of staff, in case the British and Russians consent to such procedure, to accompany the Axis Legations and nationals to the Turkish frontier. The present plan is to send Legations and nationals including German women and children to Turkey through the Russian-occupied zone. The Bulgarian Legation and nationals are also to be expelled, the Russian Government having withdrawn its request that they be allowed to remain. Since their departure from Tehran is planned for September 17, I should appreciate Department’s urgent instructions as to whether I may comply with the Foreign Minister’s request.
The first of Germans referred to in my No. 149 left only this morning and was limited to 72 for Ahvaz and 8 for Qazvin. The Foreign Minister told me that he attributed the delay and limited numbers to the difficulties encountered by the Iranian police in rounding up the Germans listed by the British and Russians because of lack of cooperation on the part of Germans.
DREYFUS
740.00115 European War 1939/1393: TelegramThe Minister in Iran to the Secretary of State
Tehran, September 12, 1941 — 4 p.m.
[Received September 13 — 2:21 p.m.]
147 [149].The first trainload of about 200 Germans will leave tonight for Ahvaz to be turned over to the British military authorities. Some 50 selected by the Russians by name will also leave by train for Qazvin to be delivered to the Russian military authorities. The British are threatening to deliver over to the Russians any Germans who fail to cooperate or try to escape. No decision has been reached as to when or how the Legations will leave or as to the disposition of other Axis nationals.
DREYFUS
U.S. Department of State (September 14, 1941)
701.0091/34: TelegramThe Secretary of State to the Minister in Iran
Washington, September 14, 1941 — noon.
90.The Department has no objection to your assigning a member of your staff for the purpose indicated provided that such a course meets the approval of the British and Soviet authorities concerned and the Axis Legations.
HULL
740.0011 European War 1939/14807: TelegramThe Minister in Iran to the Secretary of State
Tehran, September 7, 1941 — 8 a.m.
[Received September 14 — 12:26 p.m.]
139.I was summoned to the palace last evening by the Shah and received in special audience. While ostensible purpose in calling me was to request me to convey his thanks to the President for his friendly telegram of September 2, I feel that his more important reason was to make known to the American Government through me, his present viewpoint. He began by requesting me to transmit to the President first, his thanks for the declaration of goodwill and friendship; second, his appreciation of the President’s statement that he is following the course of events in Iran and, third, his satisfaction at the knowledge that American Government has noted the British and Russian statements that they have no designs on the territorial integrity or independence of Iran.
He then stated most clearly that he has no sympathy for the Germans with whom he has had serious difficulties on several occasions and that he is prepared to engage in a common effort to resist them. He added that the Russians and British could have obtained all they wanted in Iran by friendly negotiations. In reply to my suggestion that his statements would be of great interest to the British Government, he declared that he wanted the British to know his views and had no objection to my bringing the above to the British Minister’s attention.
I told the Shah frankly that I thought harm had been caused by the inability of foreign diplomats to obtain audience with him to which he replied that he has always been willing to receive them, a statement which is not in accordance with the facts and perhaps represents a change of attitude.
I conveyed it to the British Minister, who seemed pleased and said he will telegraph Dondoq [London?] for permission to seek audience to bring certain facts including the poverty and exploitation of the people to the Shah’s attention. If the Shah is willing to cooperate fully with the British and correct some of his more serious shortcomings which have lost him the support of both the Iranians and the British, I believe he may still be able to save his throne.
DREYFUS
The Pittsburgh Press (September 14, 1941)
WANTED: A SHAH; APPLY TO ALLIES
…
British, Russians ‘fed up’ with Iranian leader’s delay in handing over 250 Germans and Crown Prince seems to be ‘chip off old block’
…
By William H. Stoneman
London, Sept. 13 –
Wanted:
One Shah, must be Persian, speak language, content with something less than £3 million ($12 million) of graft yearly and at least fairly popular in Iran. Applications from Crown Prince not accepted.
According to all the latest communications from Tehran, the Iranian capital, the situation in that country still leaves almost everything to be desired from the Allied viewpoint and Reza Shah Pahlavi, despite his frequent protestations of goodwill, is one of the principal causes. His son and heir is apparently not far behind him.
Yesterday, the Shah’s government gave the British and Russians new cause for complaint when they failed to produce the first consignment of 250 Germans men whom they had promised to deliver to the two Allied governments yesterday morning.
Allies make protests
Two special trains, which were to leave for Russian headquarters at Qazvin and British headquarters at Ahvaz, just north of Shahpur on the Persian Gulf, failed to depart with their unwilling passengers. An immediate protest followed and the Iranians promised to dispatch the Germans in question by last night.
The Germans in question are described as fifth columnists and do not include persons with diplomatic status. Women and children may accompany them, if they wish, or otherwise will be repatriated to Germany.
It is still not known how many German internees there are altogether; no mention is made of other Axis nationals who, it is assumed, will also be interned when and if the Iranians meet their commitments.
May oust Shah
The British show no hesitation in blaming the Shah himself, who, they point out, impoverished his country by some of the biggest-time grafting ever known, even in the East. The difficulty is nobody seems to know who might be acceptable as his successor, if and when he is ousted. It is hoped that the Iranians themselves will settle this little problem but if they don’t, somebody else will.
The Crown Prince is held directly responsible for the article appearing in the Tehran newspaper Ettela’at, which criticized the British and stated that Iran would continue to maintain diplomatic relations with the Axis. Reports indicate that he wrote the piece himself. In any case, the paper has now been suppressed and the British have announced that Iran’s relations with the Axis are at an end no matter what the Shah, or the Crown Prince, or anybody else may think.
The Pittsburgh Press (September 16, 1941)
SHAH OF IRAN QUITS THRONE
…
Son takes over as Allies move on capital
…
By Harold Peters, United Press staff writer
Tehran, Iran, Sept. 16 –
Reza Khan Pahlavi abdicated the throne of the ancient kingdom of the Shahs in favor of his son, Crown Prince Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, 21, as British and Russian forces of occupation arrived on the outskirts of the capital and cut off all escape for Axis agents in Tehran.
The abdication was announced to a special session of parliament by the new premier, Ali Foroughi, and the abdicated Shah, accompanied by a strong bodyguard led by Mukh Stari, chief of Tehran Police, proceeded to Isfahan, 210 miles south of Tehran.
No demonstrations coincided with the abdication and two divisions of Iranian troops, including a mechanized battalion, remained in the city although Russian and British forces were taking up billets in the capital’s suburbs.
Events predicted
News of the abdication spread to the bazaars and street corner groups discussed the event. Gossips for several days had been whispering a verse predicting that the Shah would lose his crown this week. The prediction was based on Persian numerology and the letters in the Shah’s name, evaluated under Persian numerology, indicated that this was the year in which the Shah would lose his throne.
The Shah gave ill health as the reason for his abdication.
United Press Moscow dispatches reported Russian denunciation of the Shah on the grounds that he had dealt dishonestly with the Russians and the British and had caused “intolerable delay” in ousting German and Italian agents from the Tehran area.
London dispatches said that news of the Shah’s abdication caused great satisfaction in authoritative British circles. The British said that dissatisfaction with the Shah’s regime had been growing in Iran.
Some doubt was expressed in London that the Crown Prince would be able to remain on the throne. The British were discussing the idea of a regency council to rule Iran with great influence being exerted by the premier.
U.S. Department of State (September 17, 1941)
740.0011 European War 1939/15229Memorandum of Conversation, by the Secretary of State
Washington, September 17, 1941.The British Chargé d’Affaires, Sir Ronald Campbell, came in to see me this morning at his request. He first handed me a memorandum of an oral communication, which is hereto attached, to the effect that the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had received my suggestion that the British and Soviet Governments might very well consider emphasizing the temporary nature of the measures they have taken in Iran and their determination to restore full sovereignty and independence to that country after the war. In this confidential memorandum the British Foreign Secretary points out that while it has become necessary for the British and Soviet Governments to advance farther into Iranian territory than had been contemplated, the present projected military movements in no way run counter to the statements already made by the British and Soviet Governments regarding their intentions to respect the integrity and independence of Iran. The British Government again takes occasion to emphasize their firm intention to respect the assurances which they have given.
CORDELL HULL
The Pittsburgh Press (September 17, 1941)
HITLER MAY TRY PINCER MOVE ON IRAN TO GRAB OIL, SEVER U.S. AID SUPPLY ROUTE
…
Allies must get better grip or lose lifeline, Simms says
…
By William Philip Simms, Scripps-Howard foreign editor
Washington, Sept. 17 –
The Anglo-Russian occupation of Tehran and the rest of Iran has been made imperative by untoward developments on the Soviet front and in the vicinity of Suez.
Reports here are the Red Army may soon be forced back to the Volga, uncovering the land bridge via the Caucasus to the Middle East.
Other information leads to the belief that a new Axis push in the direction of Suez is about to develop. Whereupon, military observers here believe, Hitler and his allies will attempt a pincer movement against the pipelines and oil fields of Syria, Iraq and Iran.
Solid hold vital
It is vital, therefore, that the Russians and British should have more than a mere token hold on Iran. If and when the crisis comes, they must be in a position to meet force with force.
Facing a serious gas and oil shortage, the Axis must capture the Caucasian and Near Eastern oil regions this winter if it possibly can. At the same time, it would sever one of Russia’s main supply lines via the Persian Gulf.
It was to head this off that British and Russian forces entered Iran on Aug. 25. It had been learned that German “tourists” were flooding the country – the same kind of “tourist” that preceded the occupations of Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and other areas marked for Nazi conquest. When the government of Reza Shah Pahlavi refused to do anything about it, Britain and Russia acted.
After a 72-hour “war,” Iran backed down. She agreed to expel the tourists. To date, however, she has not done so. Under Allied pressure, Reza Shah abdicated yesterday, to be succeeded, it was announced, by his 21-year-old son, Prince Mohammed Reza.
Muslims dominate
Clearly, however, that was not enough. Only a few Russians are in northern Iran. A similar handful of British occupy certain other strategic points, including the oil fields and the Iranian ports. But Iran spreads over 625,000 square miles, an area as large as the whole of the United States to the east and south of Lake Michigan. And it has a population of some 16 million, mostly Muslims with military training. A pro-Nazi uprising synchronizing with pushes against the Russians along the Don and the British in the Near East might well spell disaster.
It is to parry this that the British and Russians are now moving to take full charge of Iran.
Two important missions, one American and one British, are now en route to Moscow to discuss aid to Russia. This aid will be the utmost the two countries can provide. But there are only two practicable routes over which this help can travel, one being via the Siberian port of Vladivostok, the other via the Persian Gulf. Of the two, the latter is by far the most important.
Iran is extremely difficult terrain. It is mostly plateau, ranging from 4,000 to 8,000 feet with many peaks higher still. In the central part lies a desert, 200 miles wide by 800 miles long. Transportation, therefore, is not easy, being mostly by truck over none-too-good highways.
Allies watch railway
Nevertheless, there is one railway across the country – from Bandar Shahpur, at the top of the Persian Gulf, to Bandar Shah, on the Caspian Sea.
This 900-mile railway across Iran is now perhaps the one most important single railway in the world so far as Britain and Russia are concerned. The northern part of the line was constructed by the Germans. But they were caught grafting and thrown out. The southern end was built by Americans.
Unless that railway is held by the British and Russians, the whole of the Middle East may be lost to the Axis. Even if the United States Navy saw to it that supplies crossed the Pacific and Indian Oceans and arrived at the Persian Gulf in perfect safety, they still might never reach the Soviet Union or the British in Iraq.
The Pittsburgh Press (September 18, 1941)
BRITISH, REDS NEAR IRAN’S CAPITAL
Tehran, Iran, Sept. 17 (UP) – (delayed)
British and Russian forces were camped in the suburbs of Tehran tonight as Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the new Shah, commenced his reign.
The British Exchange Telegraph Co. quoted the Moscow radio that Russian troops had entered Tehran. United Press reports, which were filed at Tehran earlier, indicated that only staff officers had entered and they wore civilian clothes.
It was estimated that 60 medium Russian tanks were among the Soviet forces in the northern suburbs. The British, in the south, consisted of Indian troops and a crack mechanized force.
It was understood that some Russian troops landed by parachute.
U.S. Department of State (September 21, 1941)
891.00/1778: TelegramThe Minister in Iran to the Secretary of State
Tehran, September 19, 1941 — noon.
[Received September 21 — 10:30 a.m.]
158.The British Minister informs me that he and Soviet Ambassador have now received instructions from their Governments agreeing to succession of the new Shah to throne. This approval is contingent in both cases on Shah’s future good conduct. Iranian Government has been notified both of the approval and contingency on which it is placed.
The Majlis has expressed informal approval of the Cabinet and undoubtedly will give a vote of confidence when it is formally presented.
Shah has issued a firman which grants a general amnesty under existing law and promises special legislation for cases not covered by law. The former Acting War Minister has already been released.
The ex-Shah is being held at Ispahan for negotiations as to disposition of his properties.
The Majlis has announced that it is taking steps to revise the laws on monopolies.
The British Consul at Tabriz informs his Legation that Russians there are giving at least sympathy to Armenians and others in separatist movements. It is significant in this regard that the Soviet Ambassador has recommended to Foreign Minister that new elections for the Majlis be held and that there should be a greater degree of local Government throughout Iran.
British Minister is pressing Iran Government to curtail or cancel pouch and telegraph privileges of the Japanese Legation which he has reason to believe are being abused to assist Axis Powers.
DREYFUS
U.S. Department of State (September 23, 1941)
740.0011 European War 1939/15477Memorandum of Conversation, by the Under Secretary of State
Washington, September 23, 1941.The British Chargé d’Affaires, Sir Ronald Campbell, called to see me this morning at his request.
Sir Ronald stated that Mr. Eden desired Secretary Hull to be informed, in response to the latter’s inquiry concerning the situation in Iran, that the British Government had decided to support the new Shah and to recognize his government because of the wishes expressed with regard thereto by the Iranian Government itself. Mr. Eden said… the new Shah… had given assurances that the Iranian Constitution would be observed, that the properties taken by his father would be restored to the nation and that he would undertake the carrying out of all of the reforms considered necessary by the British Government. Mr. Eden further stated that he believed that the reports alleging violence and brutality on the part of the Soviet troops had been deliberately started by ousted Iranian officials. He said further that while the situation in eastern Iran was by no means clear as yet, all of the reports received by the British Government indicated that discipline among the Soviet troops was good.
SUMNER WELLES
U.S. Department of State (September 25, 1941)
891.00/1778: TelegramThe Secretary of State to the Minister in Iran
Washington, September 25, 1941 — 7 p.m.
96.
Since the British and Soviet Governments have recognized the new Shah, the Department perceives no reason why this Government should not do so. You are authorized in your discretion to take appropriate steps to indicate that this Government accords recognition to him.
Please keep the Department fully informed regarding extent of Russian sympathy toward Armenian and other separatist movements, and whether there are indications that Soviet activities in this direction are inconsistent with Soviet assurances regarding the territorial integrity of Iran.
HULL
891.00/1783a: TelegramThe Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the Soviet Union
Washington, September 25, 1941 — 7 p.m.
1078.The Legation at Tehran has informed the Department of reports that Russians in occupied zone in Iran are at least lending sympathy to Armenians and to others in separatist movements. Please keep the Department fully informed; concerning information you may obtain on this subject and whether there are indications of Soviet activities inconsistent with assurances respecting the territorial integrity of Iran.
HULL
U.S. Department of State (September 27, 1941)
891.00/1784: TelegramThe Minister in Iran to the Secretary of State
Tehran, September 26, 1941 — noon. [Received September 27 — 11:25 a.m.]
167.The British Minister is much perturbed about the difficult position in which Iran has been placed by Russian occupation of the north. In telegrams to London and Moscow he has described Iran’s present economic situation as very bad, cut off as it is from revenue and food and other necessary products formerly supplied by the rich northern provinces. He told me frankly that he does not see how present unsatisfactory condition can continue much longer. In addition to remarking on the harm being done to Iran, he stated “furthermore I do not see how the British can utilize the railways and transportation facilities efficiently until conditions in Iran are restored to normal”. In support of this statement he mentioned interference in connection with a recent shipment of jute by the British to Russia, when the Soviet soldiers in the north of Iran confiscated the gasoline the trucks were carrying. Factories, he said, are closing for want of raw materials, food is short and many businesses are at a standstill. Although Russian forces entered Iran a month ago, no effort seems to have been made by them to reopen communications or reestablish commerce. The Minister said for example that although there are four telegraph lines to Tabriz and Russian military are using only two no one can explain why communications have not been reestablished on the other two. There appears to be no coordination between Russian civil and military and dealings with either are a complete enigma. The British Consul at Tabriz in a series of reports shown me by the Minister paints a sorry picture of conditions in that area, including opening of jails, requisitioning of houses and crops, political intrigue, looting by rabble and sympathy on the part of Russians to separatist movements. I must point out, however, that Dr. Cochrane, an American missionary doctor who was in Tabriz until a few days ago gives much more moderate report. While admitting there was looting by Armenian and Turkish rabble at the beginning, mainly of premises of Germans and fleeing Iranians, he reports that public security on the whole is good and the troops well disciplined.
He confirms, however, what other observers report — namely widespread intrigue and open sympathy on the part of the Russians to aspirations of Armenians and others in separatist movements. In this regard as reported in my No. 158 the Russian Ambassador has recommended to the Iranians that elections be held and that a greater amount of local autonomy be granted.
My own impressions based on investigations which are still continuing are that Russian forces are well disciplined and that public security is being adequately maintained. Iranian sources report numerous cases of looting and violence on the part of Russians at Kazvin but I have been unable to confirm them. From the political and economic angles, however, there is much to cause worry. By their political intrigue and failure to reestablish communications, and commerce, the Russians are not only doing great harm to Iran but are failing to live up to their pledge to respect the territorial integrity and independence of the country. The Iranians are willing to accept the pledged word of Great Britain referred to in the Department’s No. 95 but they have serious reason to doubt the parallel promise of Russia. How little confidence the British have in the promises or intentions of their ally may be judged from the above views of the British Minister.
The Department may wish to urge Russia at the Moscow Conference to cease interfering in the political life of this unfortunate country and to cooperate in or, at least, to refrain from obstructing a return to normal communications and commerce.
DREYFUS
U.S. Department of State (September 29, 1941)
891.00/1787: TelegramThe Minister in Iran to the Secretary of State
Tehran, September 28, 1941 — noon. [Received September 29 — 2:25 p.m.]
171.Reference my No. 167 and Department’s 96.
Foreign Minister yesterday expressed to me his great preoccupation at present unsatisfactory political and economic position of this country. Iran, he says has willingly met every demand only to be presented with new ones. Deputies and others are asking when will the Allies stop making demands and do something concrete to help Iran out of its difficulties. Since this conversation British Minister has informed me his Government is presenting to the Iranians a draft of a treaty of alliance, which will make definite guarantees and give substantial assistance. In addition Wavell is here discussing among other things the withdrawal of troops from Tehran. Telegraph service has been reestablished with almost all points in the north including Tabriz.
While British indicate their desire to assist Iran and live up to their formal assurances Russian propaganda continues. A Russian newspaper printed in Persian called Thoughts of the People is disseminating Russian propaganda. In a recent number it refers to high prices in Iran and asks when will the people stop living an impoverished life and begin to live like human beings. It prints a caricature of the former Shah, it criticizes the Foroughi Government and it calls attention to the happy state of the United States [sic], begs [sic] now that they are Sovietized.
While public security is being adequately maintained by occupying forces in the cities it is degenerating in the rural areas. There are widespread and apparently true reports of restlessness and disorder among the tribes particularly the Kurds and Lurs who have obtained arms abandoned by Iranian forces. The benefits of the ex-Shah’s greatest achievement, that of subduing the tribes, may be lost unless energetic action is taken by the Iranians who will probably in view of their present weak condition require assistance from occupying forces.
DREYFUS
U.S. Department of State (October 1, 1941)
891.00/1789: TelegramThe Minister in Iran to the Secretary of State
Tehran, September 30, 1941 — 11 a.m. [Received October 1 — 8:57 a.m.]
173.The British Minister informs me that Eden has informed Maisky that he considers any undue interference in Iranian affairs or sympathy towards separatist movements by Russian forces in north of Iran would be most harmful. The Ambassador promised to communicate this information to his Government.
DREYFUS
891.001 P 15/220Memorandum of Conversation, by the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs
Washington, October 1, 1941.I called on the Iranian Minister last Saturday afternoon to get his reaction to the recent events in Iran leading to the abdication of Reza Shah Pahlavi.
The Minister stated that, in his opinion, the British had committed a great blunder in forcing the abdication of Reza Shah and that the results of this blunder would soon come home to plague them. He said he referred to the rearming of the native tribes of Iran. It had taken Reza Shah twenty years to disarm effectively these tribes and to start integrating them into the civilized life of the country. Before they were disarmed, the tribes had rendered travel in Iran precarious by reason of the pillaging, plundering and kidnapping expeditions along the main routes of travel (it may be recalled in this connection that the Lurs captured three American consular officers and held them for ransom in the mountains some years ago, and only by a miracle and, in fact, inadvertently were they rescued by the Iranian military.)
The name of Reza Shah, continued the Minister, had been a magic one in Iran in preserving law and order and, whatever the temptation to banditry, the tribal population had such a fear of the Shah that they dared not move. The Minister claimed that, in subduing the tribes, the Shah had not pursued a merciless policy of killing the leaders but had brought several of them to Tehran and kept them under surveillance in comfortable quarters.
Expressing the opinion that Iran had been thrown back forty years in her latter day reforms and progress, the Minister said he believed the British may have created a situation which would require a far larger occupying force in the country than they had anticipated. If this were the case, the British might, he said, use this argument for any failure to evacuate the country at the termination of their present hostilities with Germany.
Of interest in the above connection is the following comment made by Mr. Dreyfus in the concluding paragraph of his telegram no. 171, September 28, noon:
While public security is being adequately maintained by occupying forces in the cities it is degenerating in the rural areas. There are widespread and apparently true reports of restlessness and disorder among the tribes particularly the Kurds and Lurs who have obtained arms abandoned by Iranian forces. The benefits of the ex-Shah’s greatest achievement, that of subduing the tribes, may be lost unless energetic action is taken by the Iranians who will probably in view of their present weak condition require assistance from occupying forces.
WALLACE MURRAY
U.S. Department of State (October 3, 1941)
891.00/1784: TelegramThe Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom
Washington, October 3, 1941 — 11 p.m.
4218.The Legation at Tehran has submitted to the Department telegraphic reports substantiated by information supplied by the British Minister to Iran that the Russians in the occupied zone are engaging in political intrigue, disseminating Soviet propaganda, and are displaying open sympathy toward Armenian and other separatist movements. Russian Government support of this activity has been indicated by a recent suggestion of the Russian Ambassador in Tehran to the Iranian Government that special elections should be held and a greater degree of autonomy granted to certain areas in Iran.
According to the Legation at Tehran Mr. Eden has informed the Soviet Ambassador in London that he considers most harmful any Russian interference in Iranian affairs or sympathy toward separatist movements. Please telegraph to the Department a detailed report on this conversation.
You should inform Mr. Eden at the earliest opportunity that the Department is gratified that he has taken up the matter with the Soviet Ambassador. During your conversation with him you should state that, in view of British and Soviet assurances that the political independence and territorial integrity of Iran will be respected and in view of the President’s message of reassurance to the Shah, this Government views with concern Russian political activities in Iran and is extremely apprehensive of the effect upon Turkey of any display of Russian sympathy toward an Armenian separatist movement in Iran. You should express to Mr. Eden the hope of this Government that he will continue his endeavors to implement the assurances which he and the Soviet Government have given to respect the political independence and territorial integrity of Iran.
Please inquire of Mr. Eden whether it would prove helpful if this Government made representations of a similar character to the Soviet Government.
HULL
U.S. Department of State (October 4, 1941)
891.00/1792: TelegramThe Ambassador in the United Kingdom to the Secretary of State
London, October 4, 1941 — 8 p.m. [Received October 4 — 7:55 p.m.]
4724.Personal for the Secretary and Under Secretary.
I communicated with Mr. Eden at once. I have followed this situation in all its detail and know for a fact that Mr. Eden has considered Russian interference in Iran affairs or efforts towards separatist movements by them as harmful and unwarranted.
He told me some time ago that he had taken up this situation with the Soviet Ambassador and has pressed the matter since. He also has pointed out to the Russian Ambassador that political activities on the part of his country in Iran will inevitably have harmful effects in Turkey. It is his intention to continue:
…his endeavors to implement the assurances which His Majesty’s Government and the Soviet Government have given to respect the political independence and territorial integrity of Iran.
He asked me to tell you that he is deeply grateful for your interest in this matter.
In regard to the last paragraph of your message Mr. Eden suggests that you might instruct me to take up with Mr. Maisky the interest of our Government in supporting the political independence and territorial integrity of Iran. This might enable us to coordinate our efforts with greater precision.
My conversation was carried on with Mr. Eden on the telephone over “the scrambler” as he is not in London today.
I await your wishes.
I am attaching hereto Mr. Eden’s cable to Sir Stafford Cripps (Moscow) of September 23, 1941.
Sir,
When the Soviet Ambassador came to see me this afternoon I spoke to His Excellency about the position in Iranian Azerbaijan. I understood that there had been a movement, especially among the Armenian minority, in favor of the separation of that province from Iran and its eventual federation with the Soviet Union. Considerable apprehension appeared to exist lest these separatist tendencies should be encouraged by the Soviet military authorities in Tabriz. It appeared that, on their first arrival, the Soviet forces had armed many Armenian irregulars to keep order in Azerbaijan, but that these Armenians had since been disarmed. About first September a large open air meeting had been held at Tabriz which was chiefly attended by Armenians, who demanded independence for Azerbaijan and its federation with the Soviet Union; but the Soviet military authorities had wisely prevented a second public meeting from being held with the same object in view. A petition had, however, been circulated in the same sense. It seemed to me most important that no encouragement should be given to the movement for autonomy in Azerbaijan by the Soviet Government. The effect of any such action on Turkey and on the Moslem population in other parts of Iran would be deplorable.
- The Ambassador replied that he felt sure that the Soviet authorities had no such intention. Indeed, I myself had told him that the Soviet military authorities had prevented the second meeting. I replied that though this was so, I attached so much importance to the matter that I hoped that the Ambassador would telegraph to his Government reporting what I had said. M. Maisky undertook to do so.
I am, et cetera. ANTHONY EDEN
WINANT
U.S. Department of State (October 8, 1941)
891.00/1792: TelegramThe Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom
Washington, October 8, 1941 — 1 p.m.
4298.In accordance with Mr. Eden’s suggestion, you may discuss with the Soviet Ambassador the interest of this Government in the preservation of the political independence and territorial integrity of Iran, explaining the attitude of this Government as set forth in the Department’s 4218, October 3, 11 p.m.
You should thank Mr. Eden for his helpfulness, state that you are complying with his suggestion that you discuss the matter with the Soviet Ambassador, and inform him that our Embassy at Moscow has been instructed to take the matter up there directly with the Soviet authorities.
For your information there is repeated the following telegram which has been sent to Moscow by the Department:
[Here follows text of telegram printed infra]
HULL
891.00/1792: TelegramThe Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the Soviet Union
Washington, October 8, 1941 — 1 p.m.
1124.Subsequent to the Department’s 1078, September 25, 7 p.m., the Legation at Tehran has submitted to the Department further telegraphic reports, substantiated by information supplied by the British Minister to Iran, that the Russians in the occupied zone are engaging in political intrigue, disseminating Soviet propaganda, and are displaying open sympathy toward Armenian and other separatist movements. Russian Government support of this activity has been indicated by a recent suggestion of the Russian Ambassador in Tehran to the Iranian Government that special elections should be held and a greater degree of autonomy granted to certain areas in Iran.
Mr. Eden has taken this matter up with Ambassador Maisky in London, pointing out that Soviet political activities in Iran will inevitably have harmful effects in Turkey, and he has informed Ambassador Cripps by cable of this conversation.
You should seek the earliest opportunity to inform the Foreign Office that this Government views with concern reports which have been received concerning Russian political activities in Iran and is extremely apprehensive of the effect upon Turkey of any display of Russian sympathy toward an Armenian separatist movement in Iran. In this connection you should refer to the assurances that the territorial integrity and political independence of Iran will be respected, contained in the Soviet Government’s note of August 25 to the Iranian Ambassador and you should refer also to Dekanozov’s reaffirmations of these assurances reported in section 4 of your 1632, September 6, 2 p.m. Referring to the President’s message of reassurance to the Shah, you should state that this Government is confident that the Soviet Government will make sure that effective measures are being taken to implement the assurances which it has given to respect the territorial integrity and political independence of Iran.
HULL
U.S. Department of State (October 9, 1941)
740.0011 European War 1939/15733: TelegramThe Minister in Iran to the Secretary of State
Tehran, October 9, 1941 — 4 p.m. [Received 7:10 p.m.]
182.I was received in audience by the Shah at his revue [sic] yesterday at 5 p.m. We conversed alone in French for 2 hours.
Shah began by expressing his belief in Allied victory and added that he voluntarily espouses democratic cause because he is strongly against totalitarian doctrine.
He regretted delay in signing treaty of alliance which he attributed to lack of understanding between the two allies which he added prevented him from beginning to prepare his army for vigorous defense against Germany.
He stated that while he does not object to British occupation, he does seriously object to that by the Russians which is having a disastrous effect on Iran. He repeated some of the numerous stories of Russian atrocities and political connivance which now form the main topic of conversation here. He added that if there is much more delay in signing the alliance and if the present Russian conduct continues the Majlis and the people may refuse to support Russia as an ally.
Shah accused Turkey of lack of loyalty to the Allies in their negotiations with Germany.
After remarking that his father had been unfortunate in being surrounded by bad advisers, he said he would govern constitutionally and look after welfare of his people. He closed the conversation by referring warmly to the United States which he thought would play an important role in the peace. He said he would be very happy to be an ally of America.
DREYFUS
740.0011 European War 1939/15734: TelegramThe Ambassador in the United Kingdom to the Secretary of State
London, October 9, 1941 — midnight. [Received October 9 — 6:54 p.m.]
4820.Your 4298, October 8, 1 p.m., was communicated orally to Mr. Eden this afternoon. He expressed his appreciation and pleasure at the action the Department has taken, which he believes will have useful results.
He requested that the Department be informed in the strictest confidence that he had suggested to the Soviet Government through Mr. Maisky that either at the time of signing the tripartite treaty with Iran or as soon thereafter as possible the British and Soviet military forces be taken out of Tehran and back to their original line of occupation. To his surprise the Soviet Government indicated its assent almost immediately although he said he had not yet received any Soviet reaction to the draft tripartite treaty.
WINANT