Marx-Engels | Lenin | Stalin | Home Page
Selected Secret Documents from Soviet Foreign Policy Documents Archives - 1919 to 1941Concentrated on 1st and 2nd WW Correspondence and Meetings related to Turkey, Balkans and Iran, with some additions from Afghanistan and India.
Download PDF
Letter of the plenipotentiary representative of the USSR in Turkey Terentyev to the general secretary of the VKP (B) central committee
December 7, 1939, Top Secret
A number of facts that have taken place over the past month and a half after the signing of the Anglo‐French‐Turkish pact of mutual assistance255 and the return of Saracoglu from Moscow clearly indicate that Turkey has completely joined the orbit of the Anglo‐French foreign policy, abandoned the position of neutrality and prepares to take part in the war on the side of Anglo‐French imperialism.
Speaking on November 8 in the majlis * in connection with the ratification of the Anglo‐French‐Turkish pact of mutual assistance, Saracoglu called this document a “great creation”, adding that the delegates of the three parties “did not quarrel or bargain with each other during the negotiations, but mutually helped to make this creation succeed. ʺ he regards the signing of the pact of mines | isr] foreign affairs as ʺa turning point in world history.ʺ and further: “whatever may be said about the significance of the pact, but this agreement contributes to the cause of peace, being a product of goodwill. The true concept of this document is the beginning of a new era for us, both in the political, military and social spheres”.
Speaking further about the ʺmutual gravitationʺ towards rapprochement between England, France and Turkey, Saracoglu gave a short interpretation of protocol no. 2 **, portraying it as ʺa sign of Turkeyʹs friendship with Russia.ʺ
Saracoglu ended his speech with the following words: ʺfrom the height of this rostrum and on your behalf, I repeat to those who still doubt it that we will be jealous of our rights and conscientious about our duty.ʺ it should be noted that these words were largely directed at the USSR.
In a special press review sent with this mail, we have detailed the assessment that was given by the Turkish press of both Saracogluʹs speech and of the mutual assistance pact itself. Most of the newspapers under the directive from Ankara blatantly attacked the Soviet Union, although they tried to present their attacks in a veiled form. A striking example is at least an excerpt from an article in the “Cumhuriyet” dated November 9: “we are not hypocritical people, whose hands shed blood, but whose lips speak of peace. Therefore, our love of peace is not false, but sincere. The malicious intentions of those dissatisfied with the pact are clear ‐ they seem to have secret goals. The true peacekeepers and even the belligerent countries are satisfied with the pact, and among the disaffected there are seemingly peace‐loving states, while in reality they are supporters of war. ʺ there has never been such an outrageous tone in the Turkish press. Speaking about the guarantees given to Romania, the deputy of parliament Yalchin openly stated that now these guarantees have moved from the theoretical to the practical sphere.
Such statements were inspired by the press allied to the Turks and specifically by the article by Pertinax, which appeared on October 28 in the ʺAerope nouvelleʺ. The author frankly stated that “the AngloFrench‐Turkish treaty strengthened the Franco‐British coalition morally, because the Ankara government took part in the cause of western democracy; now the former friend of Turkey ‐ the USSR ‐ is on the other side of the barricades; materially, because according to the agreement of October 19, England and France can count on the opening of the straits. ʺ referring to art. 5 of the pact, Pertinax continued that “the convention concluded at montreux251 will have as its consequence, under modern circumstances, the expansion of Franco‐British naval operations in the black sea, which Germany, based on its agreements with Moscow, wanted to consider as a supply route, avoiding any external control. ʺ
What the Turks are still trying to keep silent about is blatantly blurted out by their allies. Both the British and the French are absolutely confident that Turkey will open the straits for their warships and armed transports in the event of any conflict in the black sea and, in particular, if Romania was involved in this conflict. ...
Various sentiments are seeping out of the circles close to the current government elite of Turkey, which basically boil down to the following: until the Soviet Union was active in the international arena, Turkey felt calm, and was taken for granted here the need to preserve SovietTurkish friendship. However, as soon as the USSR, especially in recent years, took an active part in foreign policy events in Europe, among some strata of Turkey, the pro‐British clique began to stir up sentiments of such an order that “the Russians returned to their previous plans for a free exit to the Mediterranean and that former fears about Russians should alert Turkey. ʺ ʺ
On the other hand, propaganda persistently sticks out with the aim of exalting Britain, which, they say, having no claims against Turkey, meanwhile, can help this country ʺinterfere with the plans of both Italy and the Soviet Union.ʺ essentially, pro‐English sentiment could have been noticed here a couple of years ago.
The mood of alertness fueled by the USSR did not appear the same immediately. This mood was not felt particularly acutely only because Ankara believed that the Soviet Union was busy with its internal affairs; the memory of the assistance rendered by the Soviet Union to Turkey during the period of the national liberation struggle was still fresh in my memory; it was also difficult to forget that Turkey owed its existence to the USSR, which is its powerful neighbor. All this for the time being forced the Turks to scatter rather falsely under all circumstance’s assurances about the strength of the traditional friendship that exists between the two countries.
Now the situation has changed dramatically. The British, with the help of the French, apparently without much difficulty, convinced the Turks that only England and France could save Turkey from any danger that would threaten her from both the Mediterranean Sea and the Balkans. The leading role in the matter of not only rapprochement, but, in essence, the subordination of Turkish foreign policy to the wishes of the British and French are played here, as I have already indicated earlier, Fethi Okyar, Saracoglu, Kazim Ozalp and the same ismet Inonu, who is implementing in practice a clearly pro‐British policy ...
The current rulers of Turkey are well aware that the mutual assistance pact signed with the British and French is unpopular in wide popular circles. This unpopularity is further increased by the fact that the Turkish people have a real feeling of friendship for the peoples of the Soviet Union, because only among the working population do they really remember well the disinterested assistance that the Soviet Union rendered Turkey in its time in the struggle against its then enemies ‐ England and France, who have now become Turkeyʹs allies at the behest of the current rulers. It is among the people that you can hear talk that the government sold Turkey to the British and French for gold, for which it will pay with the blood of Turkish soldiers.
In conditions when present‐day Turkey is not yet ready to actively engage in the armed conflict on the side of its allies, Ankaraʹs leaders are trying by all means, on the one hand, to camouflage relations with the USSR and at the same time to inspire Anti‐Soviet sentiments among the so‐called party circles, as well as the highest and middle bureaucracy. Throughout November, the Ankara and Istanbul press periodically printed notes and correspondence emanating from foreign sources, indicating that the Soviet‐Turkish negotiations were underway, that they had not stopped and that some delegates from Moscow were expected to arrive to complete these negotiations. ... All this was brought under the sauce that these negotiations would continue on the basis of the Turkish proposals.
The same form of camouflage can serve as a response to Saracoglu to the Hungarian envoy Maryasi. When asked by the latter, whether or not there are negotiations between Turkey and the Soviet Union, Saracoglu replied: “it cannot be said that there were negotiations, but constant contact is maintained. Terentyev asked me a number of questions to which I gave answer. My answers are now being studied in Moscow. ʺ all this is sheer fiction, since October 27, that is, for 40 days, I have not had any meetings or conversations with Saracoglu and, therefore, no answers to my questions are being studied in Moscow.
It follows from this that public opinion in Turkey is being systematically prepared by Ankara in the spirit that, they say, nothing special has happened in relations between the USSR and Turkey, and that Turkeyʹs rapprochement with England and France is almost the result of positive advice that was given the government of the USSR.
The Anti‐Soviet propaganda, carried out, albeit in an open form, by the current rulers of Turkey, aims to form an idea of the inevitability of a clash between Turkey and the Soviet Union. This explains the chauvinistic statements of officials of the republican peopleʹs party and other Anti‐Soviet elements that ʺsooner or later, but the Caucasus will be ours and the entire Muslim population will belong to Turkey.ʺ the reactionary elite, flaunting their bravery, declares that before Turkey had enemies, Italians and Bulgarians, but now Turkey, after signing a pact with the British and French, is not afraid of either one or the other, and at the same time “does not want to lag behind the Soviet Union ʺ.
Recently, the spread of all kinds of Anti‐Soviet fables and provocative gossip has been especially noticeable. The press widely reprints all Anti‐Soviet slander, which comes mainly from English and French sources. The same slander is also spread on the radio. As for the achievements of the Soviet Union, the newspapers are silent about this, and the Turkish radio has been completely silent about this recently.
The British, apparently, have firmly hammered into the heads of the current Turkish rulers that Turkey from now on, in alliance with England and France, is an invincible country. Statements of this kind are not at all isolated: “now we are not afraid of anyone. We have good allies, who have a lot of gold and a large navy, and we Turks are rich in spirit that no other army in the world has. ʺ
And yet the Turkish government decided not to force events and in every possible way to avoid a clash with the USSR. However, in case such a clash turned out to be inevitable, the Turkish army would have been tasked with rapidly re‐equipping and being ready to take part in one or another armed conflict by the spring. Not being properly prepared for a war with anyone, the Turks naturally refrain from a conflict with the Soviet Union, as they understand that they ʺcan lose a lot without gaining anything.ʺ despite this, there is still a danger that the British may not ask the Turks, embarking on one or another adventure, spreading the fire of war to the Balkans and in the black sea region, and, forcing the straits, will present the Turkish government with a fait accompli. With this provision, no doubt, we will have to reckon with.
As I have already said, the main program of the Turksʹ actions is based on the desire to arm their army and bring it to the appropriate combat readiness by the spring of 1940. The Turks are already hastily arming themselves. In the last two or three months alone, they received from the British and French up to 300 aircraft, about 400 cannons and up to 200 tanks. Obviously, in connection with the events in Finland, the Turkish command hastily began to strengthen the Bosporus. Now they are building concrete fortifications on both sides of the Bosporus, where 13 11‐inch guns have already been delivered. I was told that these guns, recently received from the British, seem to have been transferred from Canakkale, where they were to be installed. 16 tractor‐drawn 4.5‐inch guns were also sent to the Bosporus region. In addition to these guns, there are 36 light field guns and 12 anti‐aircraft artillery guns on the shores of the Bosporus. In my last post, I have already reported to you on a number of measures that the Turks are carrying out to fortify the Bosporus.
In this regard, the question of the passage of the straits by commercial ships armed with artillery rivets our attention. We know the fact that during the war in Spain the Turks were forced to remove the guns from the ships that belonged to the republicans and passed through the straits from the black sea to the Mediterranean into their holds. The Turks now adhere to a completely different point of view on this issue, allowing the British and French the passage of commercial ships armed with artillery. We were able to register a number of facts of this order, when British and French transports, delivering military materials for the Turks, came to Istanbul and other ports, armed with several guns.
It is very likely that the Turkish army, if the war expands to the Balkans or the middle east, will act as a barrier on its Transcaucasian borders and in Thrace in order to ensure the possibility of transferring AngloFrench troops from Syria, Palestine and Iraq through Greece and Yugoslavia for hitting southeast Germany. This point of view is especially actively adhered to by the German ambassador Von Papen, who, according to him, recommended that his government refrain for the time being from effective military action by German troops against England and France, so as not to call the British to create an eastern front until spring. A decisive blow, in his opinion, should be inflicted on the Anglo‐French army in the spring of 1940, bearing in mind that by this time Germany would be able to well arm the Bulgarian army and put it into action on its side.
As you know, over the past month and a half, British warships have been cruising in the waters of the Aegean Sea near the entrance to the Dardanelles. It is not excluded that the British warships may use the numerous Greek islands as shelters for temporary anchorage. It is known that many of these islands are completely uninhabited, and the stay of the English squadron may go unnoticed even by the Greeks. The experience of the world war showed that such a possibility is not excluded, since German submarines in those days were often based in the bays of these uninhabited islets.
To openly violate Greek neutrality in order to ensure long‐term anchorage of British warships in any major Greek port, the British are now unlikely to dare, as it would be disadvantageous for both England and Greece. However, as soon as the same England recognizes, by virtue of circumstances arising from the general political situation, it is advantageous for itself to send its squadron to certain major Greek ports, she can do it at any time. Our naval attaché, comrade Rodionova, who had just arrived from Athens, informed me that the Greeks themselves recognize the possibility for the British fleet to enter Piraeus at any time and present any ultimatum to the Greeks in any form. It is clear that the Greeks will only have to obey this ultimatum and fulfill the requirements of the British.
Judging by some data, the desire of the Greek rulers is now reduced to preserving their neutrality as long as possible, because the beginning of a war in this small and poor country will cause a severe political and economic crisis.
The British still hold the Greeks tightly in their hands. The English envoy in Athens visits Metaxas at least twice a week, and a couple of months ago, in a conversation with the king, he said that England would allow food to be imported into Greece only as long as the Greeks did not violate the English anti‐smuggling law. ... It is advantageous for the British to support the food crisis that began in Greece, since by doing so they can keep the Greek government constantly in strong dependence on themselves.
It follows from all this that we must be extremely careful to monitor the maneuvers of the British in the eastern Mediterranean, as well as in the areas adjacent to the Dardanelles. I repeat again that the possibility of the passage of Anglo‐French warships through the straits into the black sea is not at all excluded. As for the Turks, they would hardly want to take the path of opposing this action, and if they tried to outwardly protest, the British would still not reckon with them as allies. Personally, I am not even sure that the Turks would want to prevent the passage of the Anglo‐French fleet, and, most likely, they would help facilitate the implementation of this operation.
During November, the Turkish press and public opinion made a lot of noise about the so‐called Balkan problem. Quite recently, at the behest of the Ankara rulers, newspapermen shouted that the red army, after the liberation of western Ukraine and western Belarus, blocked the path for German expansion into the Balkans and that Turkey, having concluded a pact with the British and French, thereby frightened the Italians, who decided to remain neutral. Forgetting their plans to seize the western coast of Turkey. Moreover, the Turks began to flirt with the Italians, putting forward the thesis that henceforth the danger could come only from Germany and even the Soviet Union. The Turkish press widely published the Anti‐Soviet comments of the Italian press on comrade Molotovʹs report. With a feeling of special praise, Turkish public opinion was presented with ideas of such an order that the Italians decided to counteract Soviet influence in the Balkans by creating a neutral bloc of south‐eastern European countries.264 some newspapers blurt out what the Turkish rulers are silent about, claiming that the British and French decided to get ahead of the Soviet Union and Germany and secretly form a bloc in the Balkans.
The idea of this bloc is not a secret: it is primarily directed against Germany and even against the Soviet Union. In a recent conversation with me, the Romanian ambassador said that the Turks are quite sympathetic to this bloc and that the sole purpose of organizing such a bloc is to prevent the spread of the war in the east and southeast of Europe. Romanian also added that, while maintaining absolute neutrality, the bloc member states must find some measures in order to alleviate the financial and economic situation of the states of southeastern Europe, which are experiencing great difficulties due to the war and the blockade. The idea of creating a neutral bloc comes, no doubt, from the British side. This was frankly published even in some Turkish newspapers, which emphasized that Britain, France and Turkey want to dominate the Balkans and that Turkeyʹs cherished dream is to eliminate all external influence from the Balkans, understanding the Soviet Union and Germany by this influence.
Fulfilling the role of the clerk of Anglo‐French imperialism, the Turks go out of their way to put together a bloc of southeastern countries so that this new organization could paralyze the actions of the member states of the bloc and thereby fully provide the opportunity for Britain and France to create an eastern front for the fight against Germany. The ideologues of creating a bloc see the only inconvenience in Bulgaria, which, apparently, will not enter into this combination. Naturally, when the Anglo‐French army moves from Thessaloniki or Kovali through Greece and Yugoslavia against Germany, Bulgaria, which is outside the bloc, will pose, with the help of Germany, a serious danger to the British and French. This, in fact, explains the noticeable pressure that the Turks and the British have been carrying out against the Bulgarians lately.
Acting to please their masters, the Turkish rulers are working in that direction to draw the Saidabad people into the orbit of Anglo‐French influence. I learned that, at the insistence of the British, Sarajoglu worked hard to supplement the Saidabad pact ʺ4 with a special military convention obliging afghans and Iranians, not to mention Iraqis, to act on the side of the Anglo‐French if necessary. The only one who seems to have objected to the conclusion of this convention is marshal Fevzi Chakmak, who said that it would be enough for Turkey and the commitments it had undertaken in the Balkans and the Mediterranean.
The afghans turned out to be more susceptible to Anglo‐Turkish pressure, while the same cannot be said about the Iranians, who resolutely refused to conclude a military convention with Turkey and declared their intention to adhere to strict neutrality. In the circles of Turkish officers, there is talk that the Iranians allegedly told the Turks that they would never fight the Soviet Union, as they are absolutely sure that the USSR will not attack Iran. Moreover, the Turks became furious, allegedly because the Iranians informed the Soviet Union about the Turkish proposals.
The most insolent hostile Anti‐Soviet position was taken by the entire Turkish press, no doubt at the behest of the Ankara rulers, on the issue of assessing the events taking place in Finland. Tass telegrams are placed in very limited numbers and then only in the backyards of newspapers. Every day, the entire press is replete with big notices and hats, calling for public opinion to be outraged by ʺSoviet aggression against the valiant heroic Finnish people.ʺ articles about fraternal ties linking Turkey and Finland, which belong to a single ʺTouraine nationʺ, are published.
Telegrams emanating from Helsinki, information transmitted by both Reuters and Havas, are presented to public opinion in the form that the red army is presented as an army suffering huge defeats. The first pages contain all kinds of insolent slander about tens of thousands of red army men captured by the Finnish army, about the destruction of dozens of Soviet tanks and aircraft, about the sinking of a destroyer and much more. The Turkish press adopted an extremely cheeky, hostile tone towards the USSR, calling our country an ʺaggressorʺ, ʺinvaderʺ, etc. There has never been such a tone in the Turkish press before.
All this is happening with complete impunity, and more than that, as I know, it is constantly being inspired by the relevant bodies of the Turkish government.
In conclusion, we can conclude that the Turkish rulers, having completely sold out to Anglo‐French imperialism, are forcing their country along the path of including it in the war on the side of England and France.
Under the directives of Britain and France, the Turkish government takes an increasingly hostile position towards the USSR. The advice of the current Turkish friends boils down to the fact that the main danger for Turkey, they say, can only come from the Soviet Union, that the Soviet Union has an intention to seize the straits, and thereby encroach on the sovereignty of Turkey, and if so, then Turkey should close even closer with England and France and prepare for the fight against the USSR. This is the nature of the present foreign policy of the Turkish government.
Plenipotentiary of the USSR in Turkey a. Terentyev
Wua rf, f oil. On 4.n 31 d 166, l 331‐344.