Marx-Engels |  Lenin  | Stalin |  Home Page

  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 peopleʹs commissioner for foreign affairs of the USSR V. M. Molotov with the ambassador of Turkey in the USSR a.kh. Aktaem

December 28, 1939 secret

The ambassador begins the conversation by suggesting that the chairman of the Soviet government is already aware of what he has come to talk about. The ambassador states the following:

On December 22, at the direction of my government, I handed over to the deputy peopleʹs commissar for foreign affairs Mr. Dekanozov a copy of Turkeyʹs response to the Romanian project to create a bloc of neutral powers in southeastern Europe. At the same time, Mr.

Dekanozov said that the Soviet government considers this project antiSoviet.

I have been instructed to tell the head of the Soviet government that the government of the Turkish republic can never be an instrument for creating an Anti‐Soviet bloc.

We have been waiting for more than 40 days, the ambassador continues, for the views of the Soviet government on this proposal. Having received no answer, my government came to the conclusion that the USSR did not consider this project worthy of study. And, being in this conviction, we handed over to the Rumanian government the answer, which is now known to the Soviet government.

If the Soviet government did not hesitate in responding until the moment when our response was handed over to the Romanians, then the Turkish government would have no difficulty in finding such a formula that would satisfy the government of the USSR.

After listening to the ambassador, comrade Molotov asks him if his statement means that the Turkish government wants to say by this that the Soviet Union is now responsible for the Turkish response to the Romanians regarding this bloc.

Aktay assures comrade Molotov that the question of responsibility is in no way raised by his government.

I take note of the statement by Mr. Ambassador, says comrade Molotov, and adds that, in his opinion, comrade Dekanozov was right in saying that, among other qualities, this project also has an Anti‐Soviet quality. Further, comrade Molotov tells the ambassador that he read a transcript of the conversation between the Soviet ambassador to Turkey, comrade Terentyev, with the Turkish foreign minister, Mr. Saracoglu. In this conversation, Saracoglu said that the Turkish government considers the Romanian project to be stillborn. It came, according to Saracoglu, to this conclusion a week after receiving the Romanian project.

The ambassador states that he does not know that Saracoglu, in a conversation with Terentyev, said that a week later he realized that the said project of the bloc was stillborn.

Comrade Molotov reads out to the ambassador that part of comrade Terentyevʹs telegram, which refers to Saracogluʹs statement that a week after receiving the Romanian draft it became clear to him that it was a stillborn project, since Italy, Bulgaria and Hungary refused to participate in this bloc. After that, comrade Molotov remarks that during his last conversation with Aktay he had the impression that the Turkish government was sympathetic to the project of creating a bloc. If, however, the Turkish government itself considers this case to be stillborn, then why engage in dead affairs, does not the Turkish and Soviet governments have enough deeds of the living?

To this Aktay states that his government believes that relations between Turkey and the Soviet Union are of the greatest importance for maintaining the status quo in this part of Europe. Further, the ambassador assures comrade Molotov that the Turkish government is interested in maintaining friendly relations with the USSR and that Turkey and the USSR have no disputes that would separate them. In support of this, the ambassador refers to recent statements by the president, prime minister and minister of foreign affairs of Turkey. The ambassador asks comrade Molotov about the opinion of the Soviet government on this question.

Comrade Molotov points out to the ambassador that the latter is aware of our frank statements about Soviet‐Turkish relations. I only want to say, says comrade Molotov, and Mr. Ambassador will probably agree with me that, on the one hand, it is true that the statements of leading figures are of great importance, but, on the other hand, actions, acts, in which foreign policy finds expression, are no less, and in some cases more important than some statements.

The ambassador asks comrade Molotov if he saw anything in the acts and actions of the Turkish government that would be at variance with its statements friendly to the Soviet Union. The ambassador will be grateful to Molotov if he names them to him so that he can draw the attention of the Turkish government to this.

Comrade Molotov replies that for todayʹs conversation he did not collect such facts and questions but met with the ambassador because the ambassador had something to say to him. Then comrade Molotov asks the ambassador if the one‐sided Anti‐Soviet line of the Turkish press reflects the opinion of the leading circles of Turkish public opinion, or should this be considered random speeches?

The ambassador begins his response by saying that, despite some restrictions, the press in Turkey has some freedom. Anti‐Soviet speeches of the Turkish press began after a fierce attack on editors and heads of the Turkish press by the Soviet press. The ambassador refers to an article published in Pravda entitled “there is a bazaar in Ankara” *. This article attacked the entire Turkish press. What does the Turkish press print? Telegrams, news from abroad. This is just information. The publication of these telegrams has nothing to do with the opinion of the ruling circles of Turkey. It is impossible to find a single Anti‐Soviet article that at least in the slightest degree reflected the opinion of the Turkish government. The ambassador gives comrade Molotov a categorical and official assurance that there are no Anti‐Soviet opinions among Turkish leaders.

From what the ambassador said, says comrade Molotov, it can be concluded that these Anti‐Soviet statements in the entire Turkish press, apparently, should not be given importance. Why do such statements still take place: perhaps this is being done in the interests of developing

Soviet‐Turkish relations?

In response, Aktay gives the following example. There was an oral agreement between the German ambassador to Turkey Von Papen and Saracoglu that the newspapers of both countries would not publish articles hostile to these countries. The Turkish government invited the Turkish press to refrain from publishing anti‐German articles, but the German press failed to keep its commitment, and two weeks ago, Mr. Saracoglu told Von Papen that he was taking back his promise to the latter. After that, the Turkish press was explained that it can publish anything about Germany that the editorial offices find convenient.

Comrade Molotov points out to the ambassador that the Soviet government is not concerned with the question of relations between Germany and Turkey in the area of the press, that he is only interested in the question of the press in relation to the USSR. Further, comrade Molotov states that, judging by the example given by the ambassador, the Turkish government can still influence the content of articles in the Turkish press when it considers it necessary to do so.

Aktay admits that his government can influence the press in ʺthe form of giving advice,ʺ especially since the editors of the main newspapers are party members. Further, the ambassador says that he will draw the attention of his government to the question raised by comrade Molotov. For his part, the ambassador promises to make every effort to reduce the printing of all kinds of telegrams and messages directed against the USSR in the Turkish press. According to Aktay, the printing of telegrams does not make any impression on Turkish public opinion if there are no articles by serious Turkish press. This is not entirely the case in the USSR, where the publication of two or three telegrams makes a certain impression, and the masses begin to talk about the weakening of Soviet‐Turkish friendship.

Comrade Molotov declares that he does not address any request to the Turkish government on the issue he raised. He only wanted to find out whether any significance should be attached to the current Anti‐Soviet line of the Turkish press.

Aktay again assures comrade Molotov that his government has no

Anti‐Soviet aspirations.

To this, comrade Molotov asks the ambassador what he thinks: was the vote of the Turkish representative in the assembly of the league of nations against the USSR directed in the interests of friendly relations between Turkey and the USSR?

The ambassador begins to assure comrade Molotov with great ardor that Turkey did not vote for the exclusion of the USSR from the league. According to him, Turkey abstained. He knows the content of the instructions given by his government to the Turkish delegate in the league. It was decided in advance that all members of the Balkan entente and participants in the Saidabad pact would abstain from voting. ʺ

Comrade Molotov asks the ambassador if there has appeared anywhere in the press a message about Turkeyʹs abstaining from voting in the assembly.

The ambassador replies that there may have been such messages, but he did not see them.

Why did they decide not to publish this in the press: perhaps, also in the interests of strengthening Soviet‐Turkish friendship? ‐ asks comrade Molotov.

‐ maybe, maybe, ‐ Aktay answers.

Saying goodbye, the ambassador promises to comrade Molotov to look in the newspapers if a report has been published on the position taken by the Turkish delegate during the voting in the league of nations. The ambassador promises to inform comrade Molotov of the results of his searches.

The conversation was recorded by b. Podtserob

Avp rf, f. Oil, on. 4, p. 24, d. 5, l, 61‐66.