Selected Secret Documents from Soviet Foreign Policy Documents Archives

Selected Secret Documents from Soviet Foreign Policy Documents Archives - 1919 to 1941

Concentrated on 1st and 2nd WW Correspondence and Meetings related to Turkey, Balkans and Iran, with some additions from Afghanistan and India.

Download PDF

Recording of the conversation of the interim attorney of the USSR in Turkey o. I. Nikitnikova with the secretary general of the MFA of

Turkey Menemencioglu

April 29, 1939 Top Secret

On behalf of comrade Potemkin, I spoke with the secretary general of the foreign ministry Numan Menemencioglu about the following:

1. Referring to ismet Inonu’s promise to comrade Potemkin to provide us with the texts of Turkish responses to English sentences, I asked if Numan could give them to me now. Menemencioglu replied that he had not prepared copies for us, as he had not yet received instructions from Saracoglu. Therefore, he promised to ask the minister about this, and then immediately give an order to remove copies of the Turkish replies, which will be sent to the embassy tomorrow by noon with the personal secretary of Numan.

2. In response to my question about the date of Britain’s delivery to Turkey of the second proposal, which Numan mentioned in his conversation with me on April 13 ***, the secretary general replied that the second proposal was received by Turkey around the 20th, on the 25th it was answered108.

3. Along the way, Numan said a few words concerning the history of the development of the question of British guarantees to Greece. According to him, the case began when the Italian chargé dʹaffaires said in London that Italy was giving guarantees to Halifax not to claim Corfu. At the same time, Italy indicated that, in her opinion, it was England that threatened Corfu. This forced England to declare that she had no claims to Corfu and that if any other power had claims to this island, it could end in a very serious way for the aggressor.

After that, England made Turkey on April 12 the first offer of assistance to Greece in connection with chamberlainʹs speech *. Numan noticed at the same time that there was nothing in the first sentence, except what he had already told me on the 13th.

4. A) to my question about what ʺother conditionsʺ are mentioned in paragraph 1 of the Turkish answer to the British of April 25, Numan replied that by ʺconditionsʺ one should understand all the points of the Turkish answer of April 25, since Turkey will agree to conclude an agreement on mutual assistance with England only on condition that England fully accepts all the points indicated by Turkey in her reply. If at least one point is not accepted by Britain, Turkey will refuse to conclude an agreement.

B) to my question about exactly which areas are implied in § 1 of the Turkish answer in the event of a war with Italy (i.e. Where these wars should take place in order for Turkey to consider itself obligated to provide assistance to England in the event of Italian aggression), Numan said that in § 1 the areas of the Mediterranean are understood. However, in the event of a war between Italy and England anywhere (be it in the red sea or in any other part of the world) Turkey will still provide England with any kind of assistance, the form of which will be determined later.

Menemencioglu explained § 1 as follows: § 1 (as well as § 2) is directed against the ʺaxisʺ Rome ‐ berlin6. If, for example, Germany commits aggression and as a result Italy enters the war with England on its own initiative or on the initiative of England, Turkey will assist England in the fight only against Italy. England will act in the same way in relation to Turkey if the latter collides with Italy. ʺif, for example, ‐ said Numan, ‐ Germany starts a war against Belgium and if England finds it necessary to act against Italy as a result, Turkey will help England in the fight only against Italy, but not against Germany.ʺ “in general,” concluded Numan, “the first paragraph directed against the“ axis ”means exclusively Italy, and Turkey will act jointly with Britain in the event of any aggression, as well as if England considers it necessary to act against Italy, in order to suppress the aggressive intentions of the latter ”.

5. To my question whether it was meant that France would also provide assistance, Numan replied that all the negotiations that Turkey and England are now conducting concern only England. However, the possibility is not excluded that France will join this agreement. But thatʹs her business.

6. A) to my question on paragraph 2 of the Turkish answer of April 25, whose aggression in the Balkans is meant, Numan replied that the aggression mentioned in paragraph 2 should be understood as the aggression of the ʺaxisʺ countries berlin ‐ Rome, that is, both Germany and Italy. “however,” he said, “it is quite natural that with regard to Italy, paragraph 2 repeats the provision of § 1, which covers literally everything that concerns Italy. Paragraph 2 refers mainly to Germany. In the event of a German aggression in the Balkans, mutual assistance begins only if Turkey declares that this aggression is a danger to it. Even when England opposes Germany in the Balkans, Turkey has the right to remain neutral if she considers that this aggression does not directly threaten her. If Italy attacks the Balkans, Turkey will act jointly with Britain.

B) when I asked whether Turkey would provide assistance only to England or also to France, Numan replied that since the British declared that they would act jointly with France, Turkey would thus help France as well. “however,” Menemencioglu repeated again, “if Turkey does not consider that German aggression in the Balkans threatens it directly, it will be neutral even if Britain or France also opposed Germany.”

7. Regarding § 4 of the Turkish answer of April 25, I asked: do we really understand that assistance between Turkey and the USSR can be provided in the straits and in the black sea. Numan replied: “Turkey believes that common mutual assistance is needed between Britain and the USSR. Turkey does not interfere with the terms of the Anglo‐Soviet agreement. At the same time, she (Turkey) would like to have an agreement on mutual assistance with the Soviet Union in approximately the same spirit, but, of course, with different conditions. Turkey believes that it can provide assistance to the USSR in the straits (in the sense of not allowing the ships of the aggressor to pass through) and in the black sea. Mutual aid could extend to the Balkans as well”.

8. To my question on § 5 of the Turkish answer of 25 April about what specific requirements have been put forward by Turkey regarding economic and financial assistance and military supplies, Numan replied: “Turkey needs: 1 ‐ military equipment; 2 ‐ financial assistance; 3 ‐ economic aid, which can be expressed in the purchase of Turkish goods by England, which Germany refuses. At present, the specific requirements of Turkey have not yet been proposed to England. However, the Anglo‐Turkish mutual assistance agreement will not be signed until England agrees to specific demands from Turkey on the above issues. Therefore, immediately after Britain’s agreement in principle, a special commission will be set up, which will work out concrete proposals on what exactly and in what quantity Britain should give Turkey. Turkey will demand that ʺmoney be put on the table,ʺ Numan said, meaning Turkey will not sign the agreement until England agrees to Turkish specific economic and financial demands and to supply Turkey with military equipment.

At the same time, Numan added (to my question) that Turkey will demand the fulfillment of all its specific requirements immediately after the conclusion of an agreement on mutual assistance, but not expecting a war.

9. I checked with Numan who exactly (Gafenku or the Romanian ambassador) told Saracoglu that the polish‐Romanian pact was not directed against the USSR. Numan confidently and definitely replied that Saracoglu had told Gafenku about this.

10. In conclusion, I asked Numan if I understood correctly yesterday (during Saracogluʹs conversation with comrade Potemkin in the presence of Numan) in Turkish and English language on Turkeyʹs neutrality. According to Numan, I wrote down both Turkish and English wording.

Turkey proposed to formulate the clause as follows: “la turquie gardera la neutralité tant quʹune agression nʹest pas commise en méditerranée ou dans les Balkans” (“Turkey will remain neutral until aggression is committed in the Mediterranean or the Balkans ʺ).

The English wording: “si une agression est commise en méditerranée ou dans les Balkans, la turquie ne pourra pas garder sa neutralité” (“if aggression is committed in the Mediterranean or the Balkans, Turkey will not be able to maintain its neutrality”).

The difference between the Turkish and English language is, according to Numan, the following: the Turkish language says that “I am neutral everywhere. Wherever there is war, I do not interfere. Only in the event of an attack on the Mediterranean Sea or the Balkans will I be forced to enter the war. ʺ England insisted that Turkey not say that it would be neutral at all. England believed that it was not necessary to use the words ʺwill remain neutralʺ, but it is imperative to point out that ʺTurkey will not be neutral.ʺ

Numan believes that there was a very significant nuance between these two formulations that distinguished them. “however,” concluded Numan, “as a result of the negotiations, we nevertheless accepted the English proposal, which was formulated somewhat differently in §§ 1 and 2. Thus, Turkey agreed to a positive form of neutrality.

[temporary] charge dʹaffaires of the USSR in Turkey

O. Nikitnikova avp rf, f. Oil, on. 4, p. 31, d. 166, l. 140‐145.