Tehran Conference (EUREKA)

98

The Pittsburgh Press (December 6, 1943)

BIG THREE PACT REVEALED
Three-front war to knock out Germany; formula for lasting peace adopted

Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin map victory, push from east, west, south
By Oskar Guth, United Press staff writer


Historic meeting of Marshal Joseph Stalin, President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill brought this picture of the three Allied leaders sitting on the portico of the Russian Embassy at Tehran, Iran. Mr. Churchill is in the uniform of an RAF marshal.


With military, naval aides, Marshal Joseph Stalin, President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill pose on the portico of the Russian Embassy at Tehran after their conference. In the background are Gen. H. H. Arnold, Chief of the U.S. Army Air Forces; an unidentified British officer; Adm. Sir Andrew Browne Cunningham, British Chief of Naval Staff, and Adm. William Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Roosevelt.


Outside the Tehran Embassy, a group of Allied leaders are shown after the conference. Gen. George C. Marshall, U.S. Army Chief of Staff, shakes hands with an unidentified man. others are Harry Hopkins, an interpreter, Marshal Stalin, Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov and Russian Marshal Kliment Y. Voroshilov.

Tehran Conference in brief

The men

  • Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President of the United States
  • Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
  • Joseph Stalin, Premier of the Soviet Union

The place
Tehran, capital of ancient Iran, where the mechanized military might of the Western nations who have made Iran a supply route for Russia contrasts with the customs of the Orient unchanged for centuries.

What they did
Agreed to work together in the war and in the peace to follow; agreed to the scope and timing of the final assault upon Germany from east, west and south; agreed to write a peace welcoming all enemies of tyranny into a world of democratic amity.

Tehran, Iran –
President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill and Premier Stalin have agreed on a master plan to crush Germany by powerful offensives on three fronts – including invasions of Western Europe and possibly the Balkans – and have mapped a peace that should endure for “many generations.”

The “Big Three” of the Allied nations announced their decisions in broad terms in a declaration issued today after 100 hours of unparalleled conferences that embraced military, diplomatic and political questions both of the war and the peace to follow.

After concluding their four-day sessions last Wednesday, Premier Stalin returned to Moscow and Messrs. Roosevelt and Churchill to Cairo to translate into action the decisions that their joint declaration said guaranteed “victory will be ours.”

With the Tehran Conference, the Allies completed the blueprint for the war in the months to come in both the Atlantic and Pacific. The previous week, Messrs. Roosevelt and Churchill conferred with Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and laid down the broad strategy calculated to bring Japan to her knees.

Specifically, the three heads of states proclaimed in their joint Tehran declaration:

  1. “We have reached complete understanding as to the scope and timing of operations which will be undertaken from the East, West and South.”

  2. “No power on earth can prevent our destroying the German armies by land, their U-boats by sea, and their war plants from the air. Our attacks will be relentless and increasing.”

  3. “We recognize fully the responsibility resting upon us and all the United Nations to make a peace which will command good will from the overwhelming masses of the world and banish the scourge and terror of war for many generations.”

  4. “We will welcome… as they may choose to come into the world family of democratic nations… all nations, large and small, whose peoples in heart and in mind are dedicated, as are our own peoples, to the elimination of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance.”

  5. “We came here with hope and determination. We leave here friends in fact, in spirit and in purpose.”

Contrary to expectations in many quarters, the declaration contained no ultimatum to the German people to throw out their Nazi leaders and surrender unconditionally to avoid complete devastation of their homeland.

It was believed that the “Big Three” may have decided to delay any such ultimatum until a moment when success is assured. Most Allied authorities agree that German morale has not yet reached the breaking point.

Messrs. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, in a subsidiary statement on Iran’s part in the war, said they counted upon the participation of all:

…peace-loving nations, in the establishment of international peace, security and prosperity after the war, in accordance with the principles of the Atlantic Charter, to which all four governments (including Iran) have continued to subscribe.

Though the conference laid the groundwork for an international post-war organization to build and enforce a lasting peace, the immediate military decisions overshadowed all else.

Anglo-American plans for the opening of a “second front” by an invasion of Western Europe and how it can be coordinated with a mammoth Red Army offensive from the East and new blows from the Mediterranean presumably dominated the discussions.

Military conferees who accompanied the “Big Three” included Gen. George C. Marshall, U.S. Chief of Staff and likely choice as Supreme Commander of the assault from the west, and Marshal Kliment Y. Voroshilov, hero of Stalingrad and one of Russia’s ablest military leaders.

The declaration’s reference to “complete agreement” on all major aspects of the three-front war by land, air and sea confirmed for the first time that Russia has accepted the date proposed by Messrs. Roosevelt and Churchill for a second front.

It also indicated that Stalin for the first time had informed the United States and Britain of the most secret details of the Red Army’s plans for offensive blows from the East.

Disclosure that operations will also be undertaken “from the South” pointed to a possible Allied thrust into the turbulent Balkans, either across the Adriatic from newly-won bases in southern Italy or from Africa and the Levant into the Aegean, in addition to a quickening of the current campaign in Italy.

Turkish participation would be most helpful in any Balkan operation and there has been widespread speculation that Turkey at least will grant bases to the Allies under the terms of her mutual-assistance pact with Britain.

Held in place

The Tehran Conference sessions were held in an old Persian palace which now serves as the Soviet Embassy. All servants of the Embassy, except for some U.S. Army cooks, were Russian secret police. British soldiers and Indian Sikhs stood guard around the compound wall and armored cars were stationed at each street intersection.

Other elaborate precautions were also taken because the Germans still have many agents in Iran seeking to stir up the natives.

Marshal Stalin, making his first trip outside Russia’s borders since he went to Krakau, Austria, in 1912, arrived in Tehran Nov. 26 and Messrs. Roosevelt and Churchill on Nov. 27.

Guest of Stalin

Mr. Roosevelt went to the U.S. Legation the first night, but moved into the main building of the Soviet Embassy as Premier Stalin’s guest the following night and remained there throughout the rest of the conference. Premier Stalin stayed in a small house in the Embassy compound, while Mr. Churchill stayed at the British Legation across the street.

The social program of the conference included a birthday party on Mr. Churchill’s 69th birthday Nov. 30, at which the 34 guests drank at least 34 toasts, including those by Marshal Stalin to both Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill, whom he called “my fighting friends,” and to American production, in which he mentioned victory in the past tense.

Roosevelt gives bowl

Mr. Roosevelt gave Mr. Churchill an old Persian bowl which connoisseurs called a “fair antique” with a card expressing the hope “may we be together for many years.” Marshal Stalin did not give a present.

Another high spot in the program was the dramatic presentation by Mr. Churchill to Premier Stalin and Marshal Voroshilov of the British honor Sword of Stalingrad on behalf of King George VI and the British people.

The conferees recognized Iran’s part in the war as a transit base for Allied supplies bound for Russia in a statement that promised all economic assistance possible during and after the war and expressed their desire for the maintenance of “the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iran.”

Roosevelt and Stalin meet in closely guarded room

Tehran, Iran (UP) –
The moment which President Roosevelt had said would be the realization of his fondest hope – his meeting face to face with Joseph Stalin – occurred at about 3:15 p.m. Sunday, Nov. 28.

Mr. Roosevelt, who had driven on his arrival Saturday to the U.S. Legation, had just moved over to the handsome Russian Embassy, a former palace located in a compound guarded by Russian secret service men, Russian officers bearing Tommy guns, British Army Sikhs and Tommies.

Stalin strode up the gravel path from his villa within the grounds, wearing the dark blue uniform of a Soviet marshal and a long coat. Behind him a few steps came V. M. Molotov, Soviet Foreign Minister. Behind Molotov were several generals.

They vanished from view through the handsome portal.

Packed with guards

Eyewitnesses to the historic handclasp are not available. It occurred in a building closely packed with guards. Almost every few feet within the building was a Soviet secret service man. They were described as standing for hours without moving.

There were also many U.S. Secret Service men. In the kitchen were U.S. Army cooks to prepare the President’s meals.

Stalin was closeted with the President for 90 minutes while Molotov waited in an adjacent room. Mr. Churchill arrived about 4:45 p.m. and the initial plenary session began.

Four such meetings were held, one each day. The “Big Three” dined together each night.

Meanwhile, the military men of the three nations met almost continuously.

Nine-foot table

The table at which Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin conferred was made of oak and was about nine feet in diameter. The Russian Embassy gave a Tehran carpenter an order for the table shortly before the conference.

By Friday, when Stalin arrived, the Embassy compound was a fortress. Huge screens had been put up at each end of the street in which the Soviet Embassy and British Legations face one another and a four-block area, swarming with guards, was blocked off.

The excitement started long before Stalin’s arrival. For days the city’s streets had been abustle with innocent-looking Russians, Americans with broad-brimmed hats and rain-coated Englishmen. Miles of telephone wires were strung by American soldiers between the various United Nations embassies and legations.

Saturday guards around the British Legation were tripled and the city swarmed with new groups of mysterious foreigners.

Planes circle city

In midafternoon, several large planes circled the city and crowds in the streets cried:

Here they are! Roosevelt! Churchill!

The airfield was surrounded by troops armed with Tommy guns and bayonet-tipped rifles.

Mr. Roosevelt, surrounded by tanks and armored cars, led and followed by motorcycle troops, sped through Tehran to the legation at the other end of the city.

By comparison, Mr. Churchill was almost unguarded. Iranian police and horse guards lined some streets along his route.

Tehranites gathered on the main streets and cheered Mr. Roosevelt as he whizzed past.

So far as could be ascertained, Voroshilov was the only high Soviet military official participating in the vital sessions other than Stalin.

Final session Wednesday

The final conference started with a luncheon on Wednesday and continued without interruption until 10:30 p.m. Among those who participated were the three leaders, Molotov, Harry Hopkins, British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, U.S. Ambassador to Russia W. Averell Harriman, U.S. Ambassador to Britain John Winant, Adm. William D. Leahy, Gen. George C. Marshall, Adm. Ernest King, Gen. H. H. Arnold, and Lt. Gen. Brehon Somervell.

Other British participants were Sir Alan Brooke, Adm. Sir Andrew Browne Cunningham, Air Marshal Sir Charles Portal, Sir John Dill and Clark-Kerr.

Military decisions were completed by 4:00 p.m. Thursday, after which a 10-hour session was devoted to drawing up the communiqué. The final conference broke up after Dec. 2.

Axis propaganda stresses delay

By Paul Ghali

Berne, Switzerland –
The delay in issuing a communiqué concerning the Tehran tripartite conference is being exploited by Axis propagandists to belittle its importance and reassure their apprehensive peoples concerning its outcome.

From both Berlin and “Fascist circles in northern Italy” come widely-publicized reports that the conference has not attained the results hoped for by Washington and London. It is even stated that Stalin has returned from his trip a very disappointed man.

Fascist circles, according to Chiasso dispatches today, speak of a “sensational diplomatic surprise” which forthcoming days reserve for those Fascists and Nazis who have never doubted final victory.

99

Conference in Tehran is also ‘family affair’

Tehran, Iran (UP) –
The Tehran Conference was a “family affair” for President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

With the President was his son, Lt. Col. Elliott Roosevelt, and his son-in-law, Maj. John Boettiger.

Accompanying Mr. Churchill was his daughter, Sarah Churchill Oliver, and his son, Capt. Randolph Churchill.

100

Cross-Channel assault hinted by Big Three pledge

Gen. Marshall may direct invasion of Europe this winter
By Reuel S. Moore, United Press staff writer

Washington –
Military observers today interpreted the Tehran “victory conference” pledge to smash Germany from east, west and south as an omen of early land invasion of Western Europe.

Gen. George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, is expected to lead that attack to be launched this winter or in early spring.

The Roosevelt-Churchill-Stalin declaration seemed to remove almost all doubts that may have existed as to whether the Allies would venture the attack from the west for which they have steadily been assembling powerful forces.

The announced decision of the American, British and Russian leaders, is to undertake a three-way attack on Germany by air, sea and land – from the east, west and south.

The unofficial Army and Navy Register suggested Saturday that decisions in Tehran might make an invasion of Western Europe unnecessary. But most military circles discounted that view. In the light of the Tehran Declaration, they believed the “Big Three” have even decided the time when the squeeze will be applied.

May attack in winter

The winter months or late spring would be the logical time to undertake the difficult western phase of the grand assault on Germany’s so-called Fortress Europe.

The advantages of a winter campaign include frozen highways which could support heavy equipment; fog or low-visibility conditions in the English Channel and North sea which could help protect invasion forces; and long nights which would permit more sustained aerial blows on vital German targets.

Has disadvantages

But winter would also have its disadvantages – rough seas that would increase difficulties of amphibious operations and the vagaries of the weather. In late spring, the roads would be sufficiently dried out and weather conditions would be more stable.

Military experts here believe that when the invasion comes, Allied forces will strike at numerous points along a front extending from northern Norway to northwestern France.

At the same time, observers here said, new invasions may be attempted from the south. For instance, the reborn French Army of Liberation could provide the Allies with a great psychological advantage if it landed in southern France. A drive across the Adriatic into the Balkans and an invasion of Greece from the Eastern Mediterranean are other possibilities.

Meanwhile, the Russians are expected to contribute a powerful new offensive in the east.

101

Writers score early release

Hit scoops on conferences by Reuters, TASS

Cairo, Egypt (UP) –
Seventy Allied newspaper correspondents, in a resolution to Brendan Bracken, head of the British Ministry of Information, and Elmer Davis, head of the OWI, today protested against press arrangements and breaking of releases dates on conferences of Allied leaders in the Middle East.

The resolution said:

Correspondents twice have been let down in the matter of safeguarding releases. The responsible government department so underestimated the importance of the occasion as to entrust its handling to an official with only the slightest experience in press or public relations.

The resolution added:

Many assurances given to the correspondents were not honored.

The correspondents – who watched the initial break on the Cairo Conference come from Reuters in a Lisbon dispatch and the news of the Tehran Conference released by the Russian news agency TASS via the Moscow radio – felt that the fault lay not with British or OWI officials who handled the press relations, but with Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt.

Correspondents were not allowed any access to Mr. Churchill, Mr. Roosevelt or Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek in Cairo, and repeated requests for a press conference were turned down. After Gen. Chiang left Cairo, it was learned that he would have been glad to see the newspapermen.

102

balkanmap
Invasion of the Balkans was hinted today as one of the possible Allied blows mapped at the Tehran Conference. Berlin, evidently fearing that Turkey might be drawn into the war, was reported massing troops on the Bulgarian-Turkish border (1). Allied planes bombed Salonika, Greece (2). Meanwhile, in Italy (3) Yanks seized three more heights dominating the main road to Rome.

103

The Pittsburgh Press (December 7, 1943)

Berlin terms parley U.S.-British sellout

By the United Press

Axis propagandists today described the Tehran Conference as a sellout by Great Britain and the United States and a “diplomatic victory” for Marshal Stalin, said second front mention was vague and declared the Allies would have realized their intentions against Germany long ago “if they had been able to do so.”

The Nazi home radio belittled the statement following the conference as “even more meager and empty than the announcement issued in Moscow,” referred to the principals as “the American big capitalist, the English Tory and the Bolshevik dictator.”

Prime Minister Churchill, the radio said, was “bringing up the rear in keeping with the satellite role to which England has sunk.”

Berlin broadcasts wondered why an appeal was not made to the German people and said Germany would not lay down her arms until victory was won.

In the first Japanese reaction, the Dōmei News Agency said an attempt to “destroy German morale on the basis of the successful propaganda used against Italy will be futile: and declared that the communiqué “doesn’t in the least affect Japan’s determination to crush the United States and Britain.”

DNB, the German news agency, said the Tehran communiqué was a “farce” and that it indicated that Mr. Churchill and President Roosevelt were “capitulating all along the line to Soviet demands.”

Roosevelt: ‘Very successful’

Cairo, Egypt (UP) –
President Roosevelt in two speeches to American soldiers in Iran said that he, Premier Joseph Stalin and Prime Minister Winston Churchill at a “very successful” Iran conference made plans to win the war as soon as possible and work for a world “for our children” in which war would cease to be a necessity, it was announced today.

Early last Thursday, just before he left Tehran, the President addressed “walking” patients at an American post hospital and later American troops at an Iranian base.

They were friendly, chatty speeches calculated to cheer men far from home.

‘Very successful’

The President said:

I have had conferences with Marshal Stalin and Prime Minister Churchill during the past four days – very successful, too – laying plans insofar as we can to make it unnecessary for us again to have Americans in Iran just as long as we and our children live.

I got here four days ago to meet with the Marshal of the Soviet Union and the Prime Minister of Great Britain to try to do two things.

The first was to lay military plans for cooperation between our three nations looking forward to winning the war just as fast as we possibly can and I think we have made progress toward that end.

Must win first

Our other purpose was to talk over world conditions after the war – to try to plan for a world for our children when war would cease to be a necessity. We have made great progress in that also. But, of course, the first thing is to win the war.

In addressing the hospital patients, the President said:

This place is a good deal like home. I landed about 10 days ago. This is the nearest thing to the United States I have seen yet.

The President said of plans for a warless world:

I think that is worth fighting for, even being sick for, in Iran.

104

Völkischer Beobachter (December 8, 1943)

Das klägliche Ergebnis von Teheran –
Ein Dokument widerwärtigster Heuchelei

Weltsklaverei als Ziel der drei großen Räuber

vb. Wien, 7. Dezember –
Mit einem Stimmenaufwand ohnegleichen, als die größte Sensation des Krieges angekündigt, hat die Konferenz von Teheran mit einem phrasenhaften Kommuniqué ihren Abschluß gefunden. Nachdem Stalin sich vier Tage mit seinen Kumpanen Churchill und Roosevelt, die er gebieterisch herankommandiert hatte, verhandelt hat, sind fünf Tage und fünf Nächte verflossen, bis diese Verlautbarung formuliert war. Sie verrät denn auch nach Inhalt und Form alle Verlegenheiten, die zur Abhaltung dieser Konferenz zwangen. Die Bluffkonferenz schloß also mit einem Bluffkommuniqué, das in seinen Formulierungen weit unbestimmter ist, als die Verlautbarungen, die nach den Konferenzen von Casablanca und Moskau herausgegeben wurden. Sie ist mit einem Wort ein Wunschzettel, den nun die feindliche Agitation schon als einen durchschlagenden Erfolg sich ins Bewußtsein der Völker einprägen möchte. Auf den geplanten Aufruf an das deutsche Volk und seine Verbündeten hat man wohlweislich verzichtet, da man sich doch Rechenschaft davon geben mußte, wie völlig wirkungslos ein solcher Roßtäuschertrick angesichts der unbeugsamen Entschlossenheit Deutschlands sein müsse.

Das äußere Bild dieser, Konferenz war dadurch gekennzeichnet, daß sie in der Hauptstadt eines unglücklichen Landes stattfand, das die Sowjets und Briten gemeinsam unterjocht haben, und dadurch, daß die GPU die wesentlichsten Teilnehmer an den Besprechungen in der Teheraner Botschaft aufs strengste zu bewachen hatte.

Den Beobachtern erschien es, als ob Stalin die Konferenz beherrschte. Seine Stimmung wechselte von lebhafter Vergnügtheit an nächtlichen Festtafeln zu Augenblicken undurchsichtiger Gefühllosigkeit.

So schildert ein Reuters-Bericht nicht übel das Wesen dieser Konferenz, die im wesentlichen nur die Wünsche Stalins zu befriedigen hatte, und in der besonders Churchill nur noch die Rolle eines Mitläufers spielte.

Nur 44 Zeilen umfaßt das Kommuniqué, das zunächst zum soundsovielten Male die „Entschlossenheit bekundet, daß unsere Nationen im Krieg und dem darauffolgenden Frieden Zusammenarbeiten sollen.“ Daß dann weiter zeitlich festgelegte Operationen in allen Richtungen der Windrose angekündigt werden, mit dem Ziel einer „Vernichtung der deutschen Streitkräfte,“ besagt angesichts der bestehenden Kriegslage sehr wenig, den Wunsch nach einem Sieg haben die Teilhaber der Raubkoalition schon bei all den zahlreichen vorangegangenen Konferenzen immer wieder geäußert und schließlich haben sie den Krieg ja auch entfesselt, um dies Ziel zu erreichen, ohne es trotz der stärksten Anstrengungen verwirklichen zu können. Daß sie« es jetzt wieder obenan auf ihren Wunschzettel setzen, rechtfertigt in keiner Weise die bombastischen Behauptungen, ihr gemeinsames Einverständnis „verbürge den Sieg.“

Wie dieses Ziel unerreichbar vor ihnen liegt, so steht es auch mit dem sogenannten „dauerhaften Frieden,“ über dessen Wesen die Völker der Erde nach den aufschlußreichen Bekundungen der bolschewistischen und amerikanischen Weltherrschaftspläne schon besser im Bilde sind, als dies den Spießgesellen von Teheran lieb sein kann.

Grotesk und lächerlich

Es ist jedenfalls eine groteske Selbsttäuschung, wenn sich diese Burschen einbilden, ihre Absicht, die Welt zu bolschewisieren oder plutokratischer Ausbeutung zu unterwerfen, werde „von der überwältigenden Masse der Bevölkerung der Welt mit Bereitwilligkeit aufgenommen,“ und daß diese erbarmungslose Diktatur des Goldes oder der GPU „den Fluch und den Schrecken des Krieges auf viele Generationen hinaus beseitigen wird.“ Wären sie ernstlich dieser Ansicht, so würden nicht führende Männer Englands und Amerikas bei jeder Gelegenheit erzittern, man müsse nach dem Krieg eine ungleich stärkere Rüstung betreiben als vor 1939, eine Tatsache, zu der das fortgesetzte Heraufbeschwören des Gespenstes eines dritten Weltkrieges allerdings vorzüglich paßt.

Es ist daher von einer vollendeten Lächerlichkeit, wenn die drei großen Räuber sich so gebärden, als ob sie den Sieg sicher in der Tasche hätten, und irgendwie über einen geschichtlichen Auftrag verfügten, allen Völkern ihr Joch aufzuerlegen. Wo sie zum Zug kommen konnten, haben sie schon zur Genüge bewiesen, was hinter ihren öligen Phrasen von Freiheit und Wohlfahrt steckt. Davon konnte nicht zuletzt Iran ein Lied singen und mit ihm die ganzen Länder des nahen Ostens, Indien, die Kolonialvölker des Empire, die mit deutlicher Annektionsabsicht besetzten französischen Kolonien und jene kleinen Völker Europas, denen gegenüber England seine feierlichen Garantieverpflichtungen nicht einlöste und die es heute widerstandslos an die Sowjets auszuliefern bereit ist.

Es ist ja kein Zufall, daß gerade am Abschluß der Teheraner Konferenz die Preisgabe der serbischen Emigrantenregierung zugunsten des bolschewistischen Partisanenhäuptlings Tito steht und Stalins Leiborgan eindeutig feststellt, daß die Sowjets nur die polnischen Partisanen anerkennen, die auf Moskaus Weisung hinarbeiten und dafür belobt werden, daß sie jene Partisanen umbringen, die vom Londoner Polenausschuß dirigiert werden.

Unter diesem Gesichtspunkt ist es zu bewerten, wenn das Kommuniqué mit den folgenden Sätzen eine beispiellose dreiste Verfälschung der Tatsachen versucht:

Wir werden die Mitarbeit und die aktive Teilnahme aller Nationen suchen, sobald ihre Bevölkerungen der Beseitigung der Tyrannei, der Sklaverei, der Unterdrückung und der Intoleranz ergeben sind, wie dies bei unseren eigenen Völkern der Fall ist.

Wir haben bereits die „eigenen Völker“ angeführt, die die Ausführung dieser edlen Grundsätze am eigenen Leib zu verspüren hatten. Zu ihnen treten aber auch in hohem Maße die Bürger Englands, der USA und der Sowjetunion selbst.

Stalin markiert also Abscheu vor Sklaverei, Tyrannei, Unterdrückung und Intoleranz! Wir sind ja von den Bolschewisten allerhand gewöhnt, aber diese Frechheit übersteigt wohl selbst das Begriffsvermögen der weitaus meisten Untertanen jener Länder, deren Machthaber sich zu der Bekundung dieser ungeheuren Heuchelei in Teheran eingefunden haben. Mit heller Begeisterung werden wahrscheinlich die 18 Millionen Sklaven in den Zwangsarbeitslagern der GPU diesen frommen Sprüchen lauschen, von denen ja auch die 25 Millionen nicht wieder erwachen, die der Bolschewismus durch Genickschuß oder Hungersnöte hingemordet hat, und auch nicht die polnischen Offiziere, die im Wald von Katyn abgeschlachtet wurden.

Daß aber Roosevelt und Churchill ihre Unterschriften unter diese widerwärtige und verlogene Fälschung geschichtsnotorischer Tatsachen gesetzt haben, ist weiter nicht überraschend, denn die Ideale, zu denen sich diese drei Gangster bekannt haben, stehen ja auch unter dem Union Jack und dem Sternenbanner weithin nur auf dem Papier, ganz abgesehen davon, daß man in London und Washington geradezu in einen Begeisterungstaumel geriet, als Stalin seine Absicht bekanntgab, nach dem Kriege viele Millionen Deutsche als todgeweihte Arbeitssklaven nach Sibirien zu verfrachten.

Was bedeutete es auch weiter als Unterdrückung und Intoleranz, wenn vier Fünftel der Amerikaner in einen Krieg ziehen mußten, von dem sie nichts wissen wollten und in den sie Roosevelts persönliche Politik hineingehetzt hat? Man hat es mit Toleranz zu tun, wenn Plutokraten und Bolschewisten drei grüßen Völkern dieser Erde vorschreiben wollen, welchen Lebensstil und welche Regierungsform sie haben sollen? Die Worte Sklaverei und Tyrannei nehmen jene Leute auch besser nicht in den Mund, die in ihren eigenen Ländern den schaffenden Menschen nur die fragwürdige Freiheit lassen, durch Massenarbeitslosigkeit hinzusiechen, in Slums zu verkommen und unter sozialen Zuständen zu leben, die so unerträglich sind, daß die Churchill und Roosevelt den Krieg entfesselten, um die Aufmerksamkeit von diesem Skandal abzulenken.

Kannibalismus und Verantwortungslosigkeit

Der Kannibalismus Stalins und die soziale Verantwortungslosigkeit seiner plutokratischen Spießgesellen lassen unschwer erahnen, was von ihren Verheißungen in Teheran zu erwarten Wäre, wenn sie in die Lage kämen, nach ihrem Belieben zu verfahren. Sie versprechen den Völkern der Welt mit eiserner Stirn, sie würden „unberührt von der Tyrannei und in Übereinstimmung mit ihren eigenen verschiedenen Wünschen und ihrem eigenen Gewissen ein freies Leben führen können.“ Das geschieht im gleichen Augenblick, da man in England und Amerika unterstreicht, daß selbstverständlich die Sowjetgrenze von 1941 wiederhergestellt werden müßte, womit die Karelier, die baltischen Völker, die Bewohner Ostpolens und Bessarabiens wieder unter die grausame Tyrannei gebeugt würden, die sie schon einmal erleben mußten, ehe die deutschen Waffen die Bolschewisten dort verjagten. Weit über diese Sowjetgrenze hinaus aber würde Land für Land unter das Sowjetjoch gebeugt werden, wenn sich die Wünsche der drei großen Banditen von Teheran verwirklichen ließen.

Wir glauben ihnen gerne, wenn sie versichern, sie hatten Teheran „verlassen als Freunde, zur Tat, im Geiste und in unserem Vorhaben geeint.“ An dieser Geistesverwandtschaft und an dem Willen, alle freien Völker der Erde zu versklaven, haben wir nie gezweifelt. Zwischen den unsauberen Wünschen dieser drei. Tyrannen und der Verwirklichung ihrer mörderischen Pläne steht aber das deutsche Schwert und die Kraft der Verbündeten des Reiches, steht die Willensmacht aller Völker, die einen wirklichen Frieden in Freiheit, Würde und Arbeit erstreben und niemals dulden werden, daß sie zur Beute des Bolschewismus und der Wall-Street-Juden werden.

Sobald die Todfeinde Europas und Ostasiens zu dem Waffengang antreten sollten, von dem sie sich so viel versprechen, werden sie sehr schnell merken, wie die Dinge in Wirklichkeit aussehen. Von ihren persischen Luftschlössern wird dann nichts mehr übrigbleiben. Das Kommuniqué aber, das Stalin seinen Bundesgenossen in die Feder diktierte, wird für alle Zeit als ein Meisterstück widerwärtigster Verlogenheit in die Geschichte eingehen. Wenn sich nach der Gepflogenheit des Raubbundes dann schon wieder eine Konferenz als nötig erweist, wird sie sich mit ganz anderen Problemen zu befassen haben, als mit prahlerischen Voraussagen und faulen Nachkriegsplänen und jenen Kautschukformeln, die alles erdenkliche Glück verheißen und deren Ausführung Stalin schon in gewohnter Weise besorgen würde.

Wir sehen dieser Kraftprobe im Gefühl unserer Stärke und inneren Entschlossenheit und in der Gewißheit unseres Sieges ruhig ins Auge und sind im übrigen der Überzeugung, daß auch kein anderes Volk, das noch über einen Funken politischen Instinkts verfügt, sich in seiner Beurteilung der Kriegslage irgendwie durch die agitatorischen Phrasen des Teheraner Kommuniqués beirren lassen kann, das nur der Verschleierung eines Fiaskos dient und wirkliches Kraftbewußtsein lediglich durch öde Kraftmeierei ersetzt.

105

London erwartet ‚Erläuterung der Erklärung‘ –
Teheran – ein Komplott von Schwerverbrechern

Von unserem Berner Berichterstatter

b—r. Bern, 7. Dezember –
In London kann man nicht recht Erstaunen und Enttäuschung darüber ver­bergen, daß die Mitteilung über die Konferenz von Teheran trotz der großen Ankündigung so kurz und nichtssagend ausgefallen ist. Man erklärt verlegen, daß „eine nähere Erläuterung des tieferen Sinns der Erklärung“ abgewartet werden müsse. Es scheine sich zu bestätigen, daß Stalin auch diesmal wieder dem Versuch, seine Ansprüche festzulegen, ausgewichen ist.

Stalin bewohnte ein Gebäude im Garten der sowjetischen Gesandtschaft in Teheran, während das eigentliche Gesandtschaftsge­bäude Roosevelt zur Verfügung gestellt war. Dieser hatte sich in die amerikanische Gesandtschaft begeben, war aber kurz da­ nach in die der Sowjetunion übersiedelt. Hier wurde er durch seine „Bundesgenos­sen“ gründlich überwacht. Er wohnte zu­sammen mit seinen nächsten Mitarbeitern und dreißig amerikanischen Verwaltungs­beamten als Büropersonal. Außerdem durfte er einen amerikanischen Koch mitnehmen, im übrigen aber wurde die eigentliche Be­dachung und das gesamte Personal durch die GPU gestellt, die, überdies das ganze Haus mit Posten und Patrouillen spickte.

‚Weltbeglücker‘ durch Panzerwagen geschützt

Die Sicherheitsmaßnahmen für die Teil­nehmer an der Konferenz gingen eher noch weiter als vorher in Kairo. Teheran war von der Umwelt abgeschnitten, sein Rund­funksender schwieg, es wurden keine Telegramme zur Beförderung angenom­men, die Grenzen Irans waren während der Konferenztage gesperrt. Starke Truppenabteilungen mit Panzerwagen und Ma­schinengewehren umstanden die Gesandt­schaften, deren Mauern nachts durch Scheinwerfer beleuchtet wurden. Zu die­sem Wachtdienst waren neben sowjeti­schen auch indische Truppen herangezogen worden. Zwischen der sowjeti­schen und der britischen Gesandtschaft hatte man einen besonderen Gang zwi­schen eigens errichteten Mauern angelegt, um eine völlig gesicherte Verbindung zwischen den Wohnsitzen Stalins und Roosevelts einerseits und Churchills ander­seits herzustellen. Auch diese Mauer und die umgebenden Stadtteile waren natürlich von schwer bewaffneten Truppen bewacht. Die drei „Weltbeglücker“ hatten offenbar das überzeugende Gefühl, sich vor der Dankbarkeit und Liebe ihrer Mitmenschen beschützen zu müssen.

Auch ein Ergebnis der Konferenz –
Stalin setzt Exkönig Peter ab

Unmittelbar nach Abschluß der Kon­ferenz in Teheran ist im Auftrag Moskaus die von England anerkannte Emigranten-,Regierung“ des Königs Peter für abge­setzt erklärt worden. Unter dem Vorsitz des Kommunisten Dr. Iwan Ribar wurde an unbekanntem Ort in Anwesenheit einer Reihe von bolschewistischen Parteifunk­tionären eine sogenannte „provisorische Regierung“ gebildet, der bolschewistische Bandenführer Tito wurde zum „Marschall“ des sogenannten Roten Jugoslawien er­nannt.

Die Emigranten-„Regierung“ König Peters in Kairo ihrerseits bezeichnete in ihrer Stellungnahme dieses Vorgehen als Akt einer „Bewegung terroristischer Gewalt,“ die das Volk „in ihrem sozialen und natio­nalen Geist“ keineswegs repräsentiere und die das Ergebnis der auswärtigen feind­lichen Agitation einer auswärtigen Macht – sprich Sowjetunion – sei, zu deren Erfolg obendrein die eigenen Verbündeten beigetragen hätten.

Damit ist nunmehr auch zwischen den bisher von England garantierten und ge­stützten serbischen Emigranten und den von Stalin eingesetzten roten Banden­führern, wie seinerzeit zwischen den Mos­kau und London angehörigen Polen der offene Konflikt zum Ausbruch gekommen.

Sträfling als „Ministerpräsident“

dnb. Agram, 7. Dezember –
Die bolschewistischen Tito-Banden haben eine eigene Regierung gegründet, gegen welche die „Jugoslawische Exilregierung“ in Kairo bereits Protest eingelegt hat. „Staatschef“ ist der bisherige politische Kommissar Titos, Ivan Ribar, „Ministerpräsident und Kriegsminister“ Tito selbst, der sich erstmalig als der ehemalige kroatische Sträfling Josip Bros bekennt.

Die kroatische Presse weist in ihrem Kommentar darauf hin, daß die Mitglieder dieser „Regierung“ durchweg als Kommunisten begannt sind, bar jeden völkischen Empfindens und daß sie in Wahrheit für die Weltrevolution kämpfen.

106

Die Gastgebräuche der GPU

vb. Wien, 7. Dezember –
Gezählt waren die Worte, die acht Tage nach ihrem Abschluß endlich die Konferenz von Teheran der Welt sachlich zu sagen hatte; 44 Zeilen genau, davon vier im Stile des Gottesgnadentums „Wir, der Präsident…“ der Einleitung, eine der Unterschrift gewidmet, bei der Churchill an letzter Stelle rangiert. Ungezählt sind bisher die Worte, die den tauben Kern hinter einer bald undurchdringlichen Schale byzantinischer Hofberichte anscheinend schamhaft verstecken sollten. Selbst amtlich wird mitgeteilt, daß die Gabelfrühstücks- und Abendessen in ihrer Häufigkeit nur von der genußsüchtigen Übung ihrer drei Teilnehmer zu bewältigen waren; ohne jede weitere Tafelfolge genügt die Kenntnis der Quantitäten, die allein den Herren Roosevelt und Churchill auf der Rückreise in Jerusalem aufgetischt wurden. 26 Flaschen Whisky, 12 Flaschen Champagner, 3 Flaschen Kognak, Jahrgang 1864, sowie 17 Flaschen verschiedene Weine spülten im intimsten Kreise den Staub, von Teheran aus den anglo-amerikanischen Kehlen.

Da Stalins Stimmung lebhafte Fröhlichkeit bei den nächtlichen Banketten zeigte, wie seine Hofberichter kundtun, wird sich die Getränkekarte in Teheran von der Jerusalemer in Quantität und Qualität kaum nachteilig unterschieden haben. In einem wunderbaren Kamelhaarmantel, der bis zu den Knöcheln reichte, Haar und Schnurrbart jetzt stahlgrau, und mit jenen tiefen Linien auf seinen kräftigen Zügen, die der russische Krieg ihnen eingegraben hat – der deutsche Leser merkt mühelos, daß wir wörtlich den Hofberichten folgen – kehrte der Bluthund sehr befriedigt und in bester Stimmung in den Kreml zurück.

Dies konnte er wohl, denn in Teheran hatten sich seine Kumpane auch äußerlich ziemlich restlos dem Bolschewismus ausgeliefert. Nur der eigene Koch blieb den beiden Plutokraten gestattet, alles andere stellte die GPU. „Die Konferenz wurde unter äußerst vertraulichen Umständen abgehalten,“ hieß das offiziell. Roosevelt bezog ein angewiesenes Zwangsquartier in der Sowjetbotschaft, einem viereckigen gelben Ziegelbau, wie ein großer Kasten.

Fast alle paar Schritt standen innerhalb des Gebäudes GPU-Männer, sie wirkten wie Bildsäulen, sie erwiesen keine Ehrenbezeigungen, sie standen vier Stunden, ohne einen Muskel zu rühren.

Diese Atmosphäre wurde „herzlich und voll Begeisterung“ genannt. Die Bewegungsfreiheit der Gäste war äußerst eingeschränkt.

Nie zuvor gab es solche Sicherheits- und Vorsichtsmaßnahmen. Jäger der sowjetischen Luftstreitkräfte gaben den Flugzeugen von Churchill und Roosevelt das Geleit, als sie auf dem Flugplatz Gale Morghe bei Teheran landeten, der ringsum von russischen Truppen besetzt war, die in blauen Hosen und khakifarbenen Röcken steckten, Khakimützen trugen und mit Maschinenpistolen bewaffnet waren. Alle persischen Grenzen wurden geschlossen, die Funkstationen hielten alle Telegramme nach dem Ausland an, ebenso wurde die Beförderung von Reisenden unterbunden, alle Transporte waren lahmgelegt, kein Flugzeug, keine Eisenbahn, kein Kraftwagen verkehrten mehr.

Die Bewachung in Teheran wies das gleiche Ausmaß auf. Die Sowjettruppen hatten die Stadt mit Maschinengewehrnestern gespickt, und um das Geheimnis der Exterritorialität dort unter Sowjeteinfluß ins rechte Licht einer lächerlichen Farce zu setzen, führen an den vier Ecken der britischen Gesandtschaft Panzerkraftwagen auf, die das Gebäude des Nachts in grelles Scheinwerferlicht tauchten. „Die Mitglieder aller Abordnungen ließ Stalin besonders scharf bewachen,“ und der USA.-Botschafter in Großbritannien, John Winant, wurde am Eingang zur USA.-Botschaft zur Feststellung seiner Person sogar arretiert. Die Delegierten hatten strenge Anweisungen, wie sie sich zu verhalten hatten, und man ließ sie nicht einen Augenblick „ohne Schutz,“ um sicherzustellen, daß überhaupt keine Berührung mit der Außenwelt eintrat (wie es wörtlich heißt).

Unter solchen äußeren Umständen feierte Churchill am Konferenzort seinen 69. Geburtstag. Mrs. Sarah Oliver erstand für den Papa schnell eine kleine alexandrinische Silbermünze bei einem Trödelhändler Teherans, die 300 Jahre vor Christi Geburt gemünzt worden sein sollte, Roosevelt schenkte seinem Trabanten mit einer Porzellanschale die ironische Widmung „seiner Zuneigung und die Hoffnung, daß sie noch viele Jahre zusammenbleiben mögen.“

Churchill hatte sich als Ehrenoberst des 4. Husarenregiments verkleidet, wohl, um sich passend von Stalin als „mein kämpferischer Freund“ anreden zu lassen. Das war so der Jargon der Unterhaltung, W. C. bezeichnete Roosevelt als den „großen Mann“ und den Meister ihrer GPU-Gastgebräuche titulierten die beiden Angelsachsen nur als „Stalin den Großen.“ Die Jovialität und Freundlichkeit des bei den Verhandlungen in undurchdringlicher Gefühllosigkeit eiskalten bolschewistischen Henkerfürsten ließen vermuten, daß zumindest er „mit dem Verlauf der Konferenz zufrieden war.“ Mit solchem Ausdruck wird uns der Schluß nahegelegt, daß der Alkohol in Jerusalem den plutokratischen Rückwanderern aus dem GPU-Gefängnis mehr als nur den Reisestaub vertreiben mußte.

Ihre vier Freiheiten scheinen sie jedenfalls in Teheran nicht vorgefunden zu haben.

107

U.S. State Department (December 8, 1943)

740.0011 EW 1939/32243: Telegram

The Ambassador in the Soviet Union to the Secretary of State

Moscow, December 8, 1943 — 9 a.m.
2144.

Supplementing my 2131, December 6, 7 p.m.

I had occasion to ask Molotov last night how it had happened that TASS had made a statement regarding the conclusion of the Tehran Conference. He explained that (one) Reuter’s [Reuters] from Lisbon had predicted the meeting and (two) Senator Connally had announced it was going on. TASS could not ignore these reports and therefore stated the truth to end further rumors which were considered to affect adversely our mutual interests. It is my personal opinion that the British and we have more to explain to the Soviet Government than they have to us. I therefore recommend that we do not pursue the matter further with the Soviets.

HARRIMAN

108 
891.00/2072: Telegram

The Minister in Iran to the Secretary of State 

Tehran, December 8, 1943 — 5 p.m.
1096.

In reply to my inquiry as to reason for premature publication of declaration regarding Iran, my 1090, December 5, Soviet Chargé told me he had heard Iranians were going to release text on morning of December 5 and that his Embassy therefore rushed publication in order not to be left behind.

In a separate conversation with an officer of this Legation and Major Henry, Hurley’s aide, Soviet Press Attaché denied all knowledge of any agreement regarding release date for publicity on Tehran conference and further intimated he had not understood declaration on Iran to form part of general release.

It is obvious that these two statements are conflicting and both seem implausible. If Soviet Chargé had heard of Iranian intention to break deadline, he could easily have intervened with the Iranian authorities, at same time notifying his American and British colleagues. Likewise, the Press Attaché’s plea of ignorance is vitiated by fact that he was present at meeting with Major Henry and British representatives on December 4 at which release arrangements were discussed. However, I have not pressed the point and shall take no further action unless instructed.

DREYFUS

109

Curse you newspaper. You were supposed to keep it a secret.

2 Likes
110

U.S. State Department (December 9, 1943)

Memorandum by the First Secretary of Embassy in the Soviet Union

Moscow, December 1943
Secret

There are given below some incidental remarks which occurred during dinners or luncheons of the President, the Prime Minister and Marshal Stalin which were not sufficiently important to include in the regular memoranda or minutes of the conference or were merely briefly mentioned. These are set forth here as of possible general interest.

At the dinner given by Marshal Stalin on November 29 at which Stalin was so industrious in his attacks on the Prime Minister, he told Churchill that there was one thing he was glad of and that was that Mr. Churchill had never been a “liberal.” This was said with an expression of great contempt for the word “liberal.” It is doubtful if the President heard this statement since he remarked that he felt himself somewhat between the two political views as represented by the Marshal and Mr. Churchill.

During this same dinner the Munich agreement was discussed, and the Prime Minister remarked that at the time he had held the same views as the Soviet Government as to the stupidity and shame of the Munich agreement. Stalin replied that he personally had never believed that the Czechs meant to fight; that he had sent some Soviet aviation experts to look into the question of the use by the Red Air Force of Czech bases in the event of war; and that they had reported that the Czechs would not fight. He said he knew that this was not in accordance with Mr. Churchill’s views. Later on in the discussion, in reply to the Prime Minister’s statement that he must admit that after the last war he had done everything in his power to prevent the spread of Bolshevism in Europe and the setting up of Communist regimes, Marshal Stalin said ironically that Mr. Churchill need not have worried quite so much, as they (the Russians) had discovered that it was not so easy to set up Communist regimes.

In one of his toasts to the cooperation of the three countries at his birthday dinner at the British Legation on November 30, the Prime Minister said that the complexion of the world was changing and that a common meeting ground might be found for the different colors. He remarked in this connection that the complexion of Great Britain was becoming “pinker.” Stalin interrupted to state, “That is a sign of health.” Mr. Churchill agreed provided the process was not carried so far as to induce congestion.

At the dinner in the British Legation, Stalin referred to both the President and Churchill as his “fighting friends” or “comrades-in-arms,” but in the case of Churchill he added the observation, “if it is possible for me to consider Mr. Churchill my friend.”

At the political meeting on December 1 when the question of the Polish-Soviet frontier was under discussion, Marshal Stalin evinced great interest in the maps which had been prepared in the Department of State and particularly the one showing the ethnological composition of eastern Poland. He came around the table to examine these maps personally and asked Mr. Bohlen who had made up these maps and on the basis of what statistics. Mr. Bohlen told him that they had been drawn up in as objective and scientific a manner as possible on the basis of the best available data. Marshal Stalin replied, after the map had been explained to him, that it looked as though Polish statistics had been used. Mr. Bohlen repeated that the best available statistics had been used, but that since the areas in question had been part of Poland from 1920 to 1939, most available data were of course Polish. Marshal Stalin made a somewhat vague reference to some British statistics on the question but did not pursue the matter further.

At the dinner on December 1 when the declaration on Iran was being put into final form and the Russian and British texts were being compared et cetera, a discussion arose between the Prime Minister and Marshal Stalin as to the use of the word Persia. The Prime Minister said that he would prefer to have the word Persia rather than Iran used in the declaration and that he had given orders to the British Foreign Office to have the word Persia used in all British public documents in order to avoid confusion between Iraq and Iran. Marshal Stalin brushed this statement aside with the remark that the name of the country they were in was Iran and no other. The President also insisted on the use of Iran in the declaration and the Prime Minister then said he surrendered. When the time came for signature of the declaration, Stalin insisted that Churchill sign first in order, he said, to avoid any further argument as to the designation of the country that they were in.

During the dinner when the President had made a remark in regard to the shrewdness of Yankee traders, Marshal Stalin replied that there was a Russian saying that “no Jew could earn a living in Yaroslavl because of the shrewdness of the merchants of that city.”

Towards the end of the dinner when Marshal Stalin, who was obviously exhausted and for that reason not in the best of humor, was with close attention examining the Russian text of the communiqué with the Soviet interpreter Mr. Pavlov and Mr. Molotov, the President called Mr. Bohlen over to give him a message to translate to the Marshal. Stalin, hearing an interruption in his ear and without turning to see who it was, said over his shoulder, “For God’s sake, allow us to finish this work.” Then, when he turned and realized that the interruption had come from the President of the United States, for the first and only time during the Conference he showed embarrassment and turned quickly back to the examination of the communiqué. This remark was not translated to the President.

111 
891.00/2078

The Minister in Iran to the Secretary of State 

Tehran, December 9, 1943

Secret
No. 750

Subject: DECLARATION BY THE UNITED STATES, THE USSR AND THE UNITED KINGDOM REGARDING IRAN

Sir: I have the honor to report, for the Department’s background information, the circumstances of the drawing up of the joint declaration regarding Iran signed at Tehran on December 1, 1943, by the President, Prime Minister Churchill and Premier Stalin, and on the same day declared acceptable by the Iranian Government through its Minister of Foreign Affairs.

During a visit by General Hurley and myself to Prime Minister Soheily and Foreign Minister Saed on November 25, 1943, the Iranian officials spoke of the proposed declaration on Iran which was discussed, but not approved, at the Moscow meeting of foreign secretaries October 19 to 30 (See Mr. George V. Allen’s despatch of November 4 from this Legation. I do not know how the Iranian Government learned of this Moscow proposal but assume they were informed by the British).

General Hurley informed me that on November 28 he discussed with the President the possibility of securing from the conference of the chiefs of governments a declaration pertaining to the status of Iran. The President had authorized him to see Foreign Ministers Eden and Molotov and endeavor to work something out.

On the morning of November 29, when I called at the Foreign Office regarding another matter, Prime Minister Soheily told me [he] had just seen Mr. Eden and had put forward the request that the conference should issue a joint communiqué regarding Iran, to cover the following points:

  1. Allied recognition that Iran had given every possible help in the prosecution of the war.

  2. Confirmation of the pledges given in the Anglo-Soviet-Iranian treaty of alliance with respect to the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iran.

  3. Assurance that the economic needs of Iran would be considered when the peace treaty should be negotiated.

M. Soheily said that Mr. Eden had agreed in principle but had requested that he approach the Soviet representatives and the American Minister.

General Hurley saw Mr. Eden on November 30 and advised me that he had reached agreement with the British Foreign Secretary on the desirability of a declaration such as that proposed. The Moscow draft declarations were considered, and General Hurley suggested that, in addition to the points which they covered, there should be a reaffirmation of the principles of the Atlantic Charter. Mr. Eden assented. It was further agreed that the provision of the Moscow draft calling for support for foreign advisers in Iran should be omitted.

General Hurley advised me that, inasmuch as the Moscow draft had not been approved by the Russians, he and Mr. Eden had agreed it would be appropriate to have the Iranian Prime Minister present his request himself to M. Molotov and endeavor to obtain Soviet consent to the new proposal. Later that same day, the Iranian Foreign Minister told me that Premier Stalin and Foreign Commissar Molotov had expressed their willingness to meet the request for a declaration. However, from information reaching General Hurley, it appeared that Soviet concurrence was not certain, and the following day he requested the President to speak to Marshal Stalin on the matter. General Hurley tells me he was afterwards informed that the President had done so.

December 1 was the last day of the meeting at Tehran, and there was no time for joint discussions among the American [,] Soviet and British representatives with respect to the text of the proposed communiqué. In consultation with General Hurley, this Legation had prepared a tentative draft, which was the first draft to include specific affirmation of the principles of the Atlantic Charter. It was approved by the American delegation to the conference and was submitted to Mr. Eden and M. Molotov late in the afternoon of December 1. With a few minor changes in wording, this draft was accepted by the final plenary session of the conference, held that evening. I understand time was so short that it was not practicable to make three original copies, and that only one was signed, this original remaining in possession of the American delegation. A copy of the final text is enclosed herewith.

I had previously given the Iranian Foreign Minister a copy of the Legation’s first draft, which he had discussed with the Prime Minister. I had also informed him that the proposal would be discussed by the chiefs of government on December 1. Accordingly, when the conference session ended at about 11 o’clock in the evening, General Hurley and I took a copy of the final draft to the Foreign Ministry and went over it word by word with M. Saed, explaining the slight changes which had been made in the phraseology. The Foreign Minister called the Prime Minister on the telephone and read him the altered phrases. He then informed us that the revised text was acceptable to the Government of Iran. He initialed a copy which we had brought for that purpose.

The Foreign Minister agreed to give no publicity to the Declaration until it should have been released by the three signatory governments. It was explained to him that this would probably be delayed for several days.

In the course of our conversation with M. Saed, General Hurley emphasized that the American representatives had given special support to the proposed declaration, that certain objections had been encountered, but that we had, happily, been able to secure the agreement of the British and Soviets. Since the Foreign Minister also could see for himself that the Legation’s draft declaration had been adopted almost in toto by the conference, I think there can be little doubt in his mind that the United States played a large part in the issuance of the declaration.

As the Department will recall, the Soviet delegation at the Moscow Conference resolutely opposed the issuance of any statement regarding policy toward Iran. I was, therefore, surprised at the readiness of Marshal Stalin and M. Molotov to agree to a substantially similar proposal when made at Tehran only a few weeks later. It may well be that the President’s personal appeal, coming at the end of a successful conference, was the deciding factor, although I am inclined to think that some general shift in Soviet attitude toward Iran may also have taken place in recent weeks (As I have previously reported, there are indications that Irano-Soviet relations have attained a more friendly basis). Contributing or alternative reasons for Soviet acquiescence at Tehran may have been:

  1. The opposition at Moscow may have originated with subordinates, such as former Ambassador Smirnov, who were not present here and so could not bring their views to the attention of the chiefs.

  2. At Moscow, the proposal was made by the British and supported by the Americans, no Iranian representatives being present. At Tehran, the proposal came from the Iranians themselves, and the Soviets may have felt that they could not well oppose it without placing themselves in an unfavorable light vis-à-vis the Iranian Government, especially after both the American and British representatives had indicated agreement.

  3. The Soviet leaders may have thought this a more appropriate occasion to make a gesture toward Iran, since the meeting was taking place on Iranian soil.

Respectfully yours,
LOUIS G. DREYFUS JR.

112

The Pittsburgh Press (December 9, 1943)

Iran ‘tricked’ by Roosevelt

People expected gala show, blaring trumpets
By Gault MacGowan, North American Newspaper Alliance

Cairo, Egypt –
President Roosevelt’s visit to Iran disappointed the Persian people on the whole. The average man on the streets, getting his news from conversation instead of from a steady flow of newspaper editions containing many pictures, expected to see the President of the fabulous rich country across the seas in a gorgeous uniform as Commander-in-Chief of U.S. forces.

The display-loving everyday people naturally looked forward to a triumphal arrival with all the ceremonials of an oriental welcome they got, instead of the unostentatious plunking down of a plane at a dusty airport, with the security police discouraging even spontaneous and informal demonstrations.

Two Persians overheard discoursing on the subject expressed with a fine flourish of words the fairly general impressions of their countrymen.

One of them exclaimed:

What? He wears no uniform! What trick is this they play upon us?

His friend said:

Perhaps they bring someone in the likeness of the President to deceive malefactors. Possibly we should look for his coming by a later sky carriage.

The first Persian said:

No, it is indeed he. See how they salaam him. But he has not even a trumpeter.

The other commented, with an evident attempt to look on the bright side of a somewhat disheartening situation:

The expansion of his smile is exceeded only by the width of his shoulders.

The man who had opened the chat wanted to know:

What is this lie of the fine coffee of America? There is no serving of coffee here.

A Kurd would give a better welcome, it cannot be denied.

And no spreading of carpets.

As to that, America has no carpets like Persia, and probably has not learned the custom of carpet spreading.

What is the gain of being Shah of 48 states, which they say America has, when your caravan is poorer than that of the Sheikhs of Mohammerah?

The allusion was an effective one, for Mohammerah is the oil country of Persia and a symbol of wealth in Persian household talk.

The more cheerful of the two was forced to grant:

Magnificence has truly gone from the world.

113

The Pittsburgh Press (December 10, 1943)

MacGowan: Cat’s-whisker miniature given Churchill at Tehran

Bearded Sikhs of Iran-Iraq force give tiny painting and three big cheers
By Gault MacGowan, North American Newspaper Alliance

Cairo, Egypt – (Dec. 7, delayed)
Bearded Sikhs, who are a big part of the backbone of the British Army in India, presented Prime Minister Churchill on his 69th birthday with one of the famous cat’s-whisker miniatures, painted with a single hair from the sideburns of a Persian feline upon a velvet table runner by the veteran artist Imami.

The Sikhs who selected the strikingly unusual gift are members of the PI Force, an abbreviation for Persia-Iraq Expeditionary Force. Officers and soldiers jointly subscribed for the birthday present for the Prime Minister. Tommies had chosen for their birthday remembrance an Ispahan silver cigar box on an oval silver tray, and the Imami runner was to go underneath the cigar box set.

Mr. Churchill said in expressing his thanks:

I am a stranger to the PI Force but I know what you troops have done. I hope and trust that the decisions we are making at this conference will shorten the war and enable all of you to go back to your homes in the East or West, wherever they may be.

Give three cheers

The three cheers for Prime Minister Churchill which echoed at the conclusion of his remarks were so enthusiastic and prolonged that some of those who heard the in Tehran believed that the war had ended.

A tall sergeant major called for one more cheer for Mr. Churchill “to take back to the old folks at home,” and it was given as vociferously as the others.

Most members of the Tehran delegation brought Persian carpets back with them, the best being one that the Shah of Persia gave to President Roosevelt.

Old and bearded

Imami, the artist who painted the table runner presented to Prime Minister Churchill, is bearded himself; and old – so old that no one knows quite how old. He sits all day in a vaulted archway fronting the sidewalks of Ispahan and chooses with loving care the single whiskers from the beard of his Persian cat with which he paints scenes the ancient Zoroastrian history on bracelets of bone and other souvenirs.

His cat sits beside his busy, magic hands, watching patiently while he mixes his colors and applies them, and allows itself to be cuddled affectionately whenever its artist-master needs a new whisker. American officers and GIs from the great railroad and truck highway across the mountains from the Persian Gulf stop to watch Imami work. They pet his cat and buy from him Christmas bracelets which will soon be gracing pretty wrists in America.

All know Imami

Lt. Mitchell H. Habeeb, a carpet expert of Brooklyn, New York, told me:

Everybody knows Imami and his Persian cat. He is the most famous artist of Ispahan by popular acclaim and Ispahan is the most famous art center of Persia. The city turns out the best Persian rugs – real craftsmanship – and the silversmiths do lovely work – elaborate statues, minarets and table sets wrought in designs as fine as old lace.

Lt. Habeeb’s family is of Syrian origin, though he was born in the United States.

1 Like
114

Before war yes. Population wise they are the largest. Some tribes in that have an almost 100% recruitement rate.

Nice

1 Like
115

Völkischer Beobachter (December 14, 1943)

Noch ein ‚Ergebnis‘ von Teheran –
Hull will die ‚Kleinen‘

dnb. Berlin, 13. Dezember –
Bekanntlich waren als Ergebnis der Teheraner Konferenz sogenannte „psychologische Riesenbomben“ gegen Deutschland und seine Verbündeten angekündigt worden. Nachdem die nichtssagende Verlautbarung von Teheran die Erwartungen unserer Feinde durch das völlige Fehlen solcher Erklärungen enttäuscht hat, versuchte der US-amerikanische Außenminister Hull, das Versäumte durch eine auf plumpe Täuschung berechnete Drohrede an die Adresse Ungarns, Rumäniens und Bulgariens nachzuholen.

Die Erklärung erinnert an die vor zwei Jahren erfolgte Kriegserklärung der bulgarischen, ungarischen und rumänischen Regierung an die USA und bezeichnet diese Regierungen in der Hull geläufigen Gangstersprache als „servile Marionetten.“ Hull wirft dann überheblich die abwegige Frage auf, er wisse nicht:

…in welchem Maße diese Regierungen auf die Großmut der USA gerechnet haben, ihre Völker vor den Folgen dieses übereilten Schrittes zu verschonen.

Tatsache sei, daß die an der Macht befindlichen Regierungen in diesen drei Ländern rücksichtslos ihre Teilnahme am Kriege gegen uns fortgesetzt und mit Menschen und Material die deutsche Kriegsmaschine gestärkt haben.

Die Erklärung schließt mit der üblichen Dreistigkeit, mit der die Herren im Weißen Haus mit Worten umzuspringen pflegen, wenn die militärischen Tatsachen nicht ihren Hoffnungen entsprechen. Freche Drohung und faustdicken Bluff verbinden sie zu grotesken Formulierungen, mit denen Hull auf die Ungarn, Rumänen und Bulgaren, die ebenso wie Deutschland für nichts anderes als ihre nationale Existenz und Zukunft kämpfen, Eindruck zu machen sucht: So droht Herr Hull:

Es muß ihnen klar geworden sein, daß sie mit Sicherheit die Verantwortung für die Folgen der Niederlage, welche die Vereinigten Nationen Deutschland zufügen werden, zu teilen haben.

Rumänien antwortet

Gegenüber der plumpen Drohrede Cordell Hulls an Rumänien lassen maßgebende rumänische Kreise keinen Zweifel darüber, daß die Stellung Rumäniens in dieser Frage klar und unzweideutig Stei. Schon in vielen öffentlichen Kundgebungen des abgelaufenen Jahres sei die Überzeugung zum Ausdruck gekommen, daß Rumänien im Osten um seine völkische Existenz kämpfe und seinen Kampf gleichzeitig als einen wertvollen Beitrag zur Wahrung der europäischen Zivilisation ansehe. Man verweist in diesen Kreisen auf die von den rumänischen Blättern bereits unmittelbar nach der Konferenz von Teheran den von dort ausgehenden Gerüchten gegenüber unmißverständlich und einheitlich zum Ausdruck gebrachte Haltung. So schrieb zum Beispiel der offiziöse Timpul, das von Teheran ausgehende „moralische Trommelfeuer“ könne nur dort wirksam sein, wo man lieber auf der Lauer liege als kämpfe. Im rumänischen Volk jedenfalls finde die Nachricht von dem Siege der rumänischen Truppen auf der Krim mehr Achtung als jedes anglo-amerikanische Bluffmanöver.

Die Front meldet sich zum Wort in einem Aufsatz der Porunca Vremii: So schrieb ein Hauptmann in diesem Blatt:

Die Frontkämpfer werden der rumänisch-deutschen Waffenbrüderschaft treu bleiben.

Der Feind irrt sich

Am Sonntag fand im Militärklub in Plovdiv eine feierliche Kundgebung aller Mitglieder des Verbandes der Reserveunteroffiziere des Gaues Plovdiv statt. Der Kundgebung wohnten Ministerpräsident Boschiloff und Innenminister Dr. Christoff bei. Der Innenminister unterstrich den Gedanken, daß sich der Feind durch die Luftangriffe und durch seine Agitation bemühe, die innere Front des Landes zu schwächen. Der Feind irre sich aber, denn er werde erst über die Leichen von zehn Millionen Bulgaren die bulgarische Grenze überschreiten können. Das bulgarische Volk stehe in seinem größten Teil an der Front des Staates. Der bulgarische Bauer liebe seine Scholle und sei bereit, sie um jeden Preis zu verteidigen.

Ministerpräsident Boschiloff erklärte: Die Außenpolitik Bulgariens werde von 99% des bulgarischen Volkes gebilligt. Das bulgarische Volk verlange nichts Fremdes, könne aber auf seine nationalen Ideale nicht verzichten. Die bulgarische Außenpolitik habe die Verteidigung der legitimen Rechte der Nation und die Sicherstellung der Einigkeit und Unabhängigkeit Bulgariens für die Zukunft zum Ziel. Alle guten Bulgaren müßten sich daher verpflichtet fühlen, der Regierung in ihrem Aufbauwerk beizustehen.

Fast zur gleichen Stunde also, als Hull die Bulgaren, Ungarn und Rumänen mit dem Kinderschreck eines amerikanischen Sieges auf die Rachsucht der Plutokraten gegen die stolze Tapferkeit ihres europäischen Selbstbehauptungswillens vorbereitete, wurde ihm in dieser Plovdiver Kundgebung von den Bedrohten fest und entschlossen gesagt: „Der Feind irrt sich, nur über unsere Leichen geht sein Weg auf unserem Kontinent.“

Die Liquidierung der Hullschen Großsprechereien wirkt umso eindrucksvoller, als sie so prompt und mit so viel Selbstsicherheit geäußert wurde.

Die Kundgebung sowie die Reden der Minister wurden im bulgarischen Rundfunk übertragen. Cordell Hull hätte, wenn es ihm nicht peinlich gewesen wäre, also die wahre Meinung der von ihm mit Drohungen verfolgten europäischen Völker unmittelbar hören können.

116

U.S. State Department (December 15, 1943)

740.0011–EW/12–1543

Memorandum by the First Secretary of Embassy in the Soviet Union

Moscow, December 15, 1943

The attitude of the Soviet Government toward each one of the questions listed in the attached document of course deserves detailed and special study. There are three, however, which are of particular interest since they form a pattern of Soviet views concerning post-war Europe. These three are: (1) Soviet opposition to federations; (2) Soviet determination to break up Germany; and (3) the harsh attitude toward France. To this should be added the Soviet preference for strongpoints or bases in Europe to be held by the three victorious powers as trustees. The most important indication of the Soviet concept of political organization after the war is found in the attitude toward France. The reasons advanced by Stalin for this attitude are not in themselves convincing and the facts in the French situation do not support the harshness of the treatment suggested. The real motive very probably lies elsewhere.

While this pattern obviously cannot be regarded as conclusive, it is sufficiently clear to afford a glimpse of the Soviet idea of post-war continental Europe. Germany is to be broken up and kept broken up. The states of eastern, southeastern and central Europe will not be permitted to group themselves into any federations or association. France is to be stripped of her colonies and strategic bases beyond her borders and will not be permitted to maintain any appreciable military establishment. Poland and Italy will remain approximately their present territorial size, but it is doubtful if either will be permitted to maintain any appreciable armed force. The result would be that the Soviet Union would be the only important military and political force on the continent of Europe. The rest of Europe would be reduced to military and political impotence.

There is no attempt here to analyze the motive which may lie behind the Soviet concept of post-war organization of Europe but merely to set forth the facts.

[Attachment]

Attitude of the Soviet Government on European political questions as expressed by Marshal Stalin during the Tehran Conference

Secret

These views have all been recorded in the official records of the Conference and of the conversations which took place, but as they occurred at various times and in various circumstances they are summarized here for convenient reference.

  1. International security after the war.
    No form of international organization by itself will be sufficient to restrain Germany or Japan from recovering and reembarking on a course of aggression. Only if the victorious nations acting perhaps as trustees for some such organization retain in their hands bases and other strongpoints in the vicinity of those countries and in general the important strategic points of the war, will the world be assured against the recrudescence of German or Japanese militarism. These bases will be held as trustees for the international organization, but they should probably be operated in that capacity by individual nations, particularly the Soviet Union, the United States and Great Britain. The United States might retain in that fashion bases in the Azores and at Dakar; Great Britain might increase her bases in the Iberian Peninsula and North Africa.

No specific mention was made of bases which might be held by the Soviet Union.

  1. Treatment of Germany.
    The Soviet Government does not consider that any international organization could prevent the revival of Germany within fifteen or twenty years. Any form of production could be transferred into war industry and supervision could not prevent this process being concealed. Germany should be broken up and kept broken up. The various parts of Germany should not be permitted to group themselves together in any federation either among themselves or in association with other central European states. To do so would provide Germany with the framework for developing another great aggressive state. Strongpoints (see 1. above) should be held in and in the vicinity of Germany to prevent Germany’s “moving a muscle.”

  2. France.
    The Soviet Government feels that France should be punished for its criminal association with Germany. De Gaulle represents symbolic France, while the physical France with which he has no connection is cooperating with Nazi Germany. France should be stripped of her colonies and not permitted to retain beyond her borders any strategic points. To permit France to be treated as one of the victorious powers and retain such bases would imperil the future peace of the world. Nine-tenths of the French intelligentsia are corrupt and infected with Nazi ideology. The entire French people must bear a measure of responsibility for the actions of their leaders. France should be reduced to an insignificant military power and become a charming but weak country.

  3. Confederations.
    The Soviet Government is violently opposed to the creation of any federations in eastern, southeastern and central Europe for the reasons set forth at the Moscow Conference.

  4. Poland.
    The Soviet Government considers the Polish Government-in-exile to be agents of Hitler and charges its representatives inside Poland of murdering partisans engaged in fighting the Nazis. Before the Soviet Government would consider reestablishment of relations with the Polish Government-in-exile, it must order its agents in Poland to cease fighting the partisans and must utilize its troops and call on the Polish people to fight actively against Nazi Germany. The Soviet Government, provided it is given the northern part of East Prussia including Königsberg and Tilsit, is willing to accept the Curzon Line, thereby returning to Poland those areas primarily inhabited by Poles. Although the city of Lwów is admittedly more than half Poles, it is in the center of a definitely Ukrainian area and could not be returned to Poland for that reason. The Soviet Government is prepared to help Poland achieve a western frontier along the Oder River.

  5. Finland.
    Although dubious of the result, the Soviet Government is willing to have Finnish negotiators come to Moscow to discuss peace. The Soviet conditions are:

(1) The restoration of the treaty of March 1940 and the reestablishment of the frontiers set forth in that treaty.
(a) The Soviet Government would, however, be willing to release the base at Hango in return for Petsamo, the latter town to pass into the permanent possession of the Soviet Union.

(2) The Finnish army to be demobilized to peacetime strength.

(3) Finland to make reparations in kind for fifty percent of the physical damage done to the Soviet Union because of Finnish participation in the war against the Soviet Union; these reparations in kind to be paid over a period of from five to eight years and if Finland should default, the Red Army will occupy certain areas of Finland.

(4) Finland to break off all association with Germany and expel the German forces from her territory.

If peace is established on these terms, the Soviet Government has no intention of subjugating all Finland and transforming it into a province of the Soviet Union.

  1. The British Empire.
    Because of British military contribution, the Soviet Government considers that there should be no reduction in the British Empire, but on the contrary it should if necessary be increased by turning over to Great Britain on the basis of trusteeship certain bases and strongpoints throughout the world.

  2. The Dardanelles.
    The Soviet Government would like to see the Montreux Convention in regard to the straits replaced by a regime affording freer navigation to merchant and naval vessels both in war and in peace. This question was not pursued in any detail.

117

U.S. State Department (December 18, 1943)

President Roosevelt to the British Minister of Information

Washington, December 18, 1943

Dear Brendan: Since my return to Washington, I have received a more complete report of the confusions over publicity which arose at Cairo and Teheran.

Whatever the causes, I am greatly disturbed at the results. Not only did the newspapers, news services, and broadcasters of the United States suffer a heavy penalty because they kept confidence and observed the designated release dates, but non-observance elsewhere has engendered bitter reproaches and many charges of bad faith. Such a condition is distinctly damaging to that unity of purpose and action which the conferences at Cairo and Teheran were designed to promote.

I am resolved that we will not risk a repetition. Consequently, I have decided that hereafter no news having a security value will be issued by the Government for future release, but that all such news will be given out instead at the earliest moment consistent with safety, for immediate publication and broadcast. I have issued instructions to that effect to the various departments and agencies.

Very sincerely yours,
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT