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 the conversation of the charge dʹaffaires of the USSR in Turkey with and. About. Minister of foreign affairs of Turkey Saracoglu. May 17, 1937

May 17, 1937

1.                   I asked whatʹs new from Bucharest and London. Saracoglu replied that Aras did not report anything about his conversations in Bucharest. From London, however, there is a telegram from Inonu, announcing meetings with comrade Litvinov. Inonu had two meetings with the peopleʹs commissar, each lasting about three hours. Reading by telegram, Saracoglu said that Inonu writes that both interlocutors stated the invariability of Soviet‐Turkish friendship and that this friendship is a permanent element in general international relations. Inonu stresses the positive outcome of this meeting.

2.                   When I expressed my satisfaction with what I had heard, Saracoglu said that he wondered how we could think that Turkey is pursuing an Italophile policy.

I replied that we hardly thought that Turkey was fundamentally revising its policy. We could not have objections to the normalization of Italian‐Turkish relations, but rapprochement with Italy took place at a time when Italy began to act especially aggressively against the USSR.

In our country, further, we could not help but be aware of what goals Italy pursues in striving for rapprochement with the Balkan countries. It is clear that she did this in order to be able to carry out a policy of aggression with greater freedom in the western Mediterranean. Thus, it may be against its will, but by its policy of rapprochement with Italy, Turkey objectively contributed to the strengthening of the position of the aggressor powers. Hence the definition that Turkey supports the berlin‐Rome axis could have come from.

Saracoglu began to argue that, in fact, there was only a date in Milan, which Aras could not refuse, since several times a year he enjoyed the hospitality of Italy when he passed through its territory.

I replied that, firstly, not only a meeting in Milan, there is further Turkish activity in the matter of concluding an Italo Yugoslav pact; second, the tone of the Turkish press, which extolled the new era in Italian‐Turkish relations, should be taken into account; thirdly, to this it should be added that the Italian press, the devil knows what they wrote about the results of the Milan meeting. Italian commentary was picked up by the press in other countries, which gave the impression that Milan was a turning point in Turkish politics.

Saracoglu noted that in the past there were also misunderstandings, for example, dissatisfaction with comrade Litvinov’s trip to Rome, but this dissatisfaction was never reflected in the press. I jokingly replied that if the newspaper articles helped to clarify the situation, then these articles can only be welcomed.

“finally,” said Saracoglu, “the Turks also had reason to be dissatisfied with you, namely during the Montreux conference, when you refused to support Turkeyʹs thesis on the closure of the straits, although at one time this thesis was defended by Chicherin in Lausanne.”

I objected that the Turks could not have any reason for discontent. On the contrary, the divergence of the Turkish position from the Soviet one caused a very strong impression in Moscow.

As for the thesis about the closure of the straits, then during the Lausanne period it was correct, because there the threat consisted in the alliesʹ intention to penetrate at their own discretion into the black sea and it was more profitable to close the straits completely than to leave them open to both. Since then, the situation has changed, as the balance of power has changed. The Lausanne convention left open the straits for the black sea powers. Why was it necessary now to close the straits for the black sea countries? Was Turkey interested in this? The thesis put forward by the Turkish delegation of the same regime for the black sea and non‐black sea powers could only have a tactical significance for Turkey and not be caused by its real interests, meanwhile it seriously affected our interests. Why did Turkey choose to enter the conference with a disagreement between us on this essential issue? We assessed the situation more correctly than Turkey, which is shown by the strait

convention. The Turkish delegation, by its tactics, opened up an opportunity for other delegations to oppose the implementation of our wishes. It goes without saying, I concluded, that the fact that Turkey was taking a position contrary to our interests and not dictated by its own caused a very painful impression.

If it were not for the Franco‐Soviet pact and our behavior towards England during the Italo Abyssinian conflict, we would never have received what we have, Saracoglu defended. Precisely because Moscow took these facts into account, it correctly assessed the situation, I objected. Turkey was wrong and, having made a mistake, opposed us. Thus, for Montreux, the Turks may not be in a claim, but, on the contrary, we are against the Turks.

3. I asked Saracoglu how the situation with the [Alexandretta] sanjak problem is now. The minister replied that there are still open questions about the language and about the two counties. I observed that it would probably have been easier to reach an agreement if the French government had been confident that such an agreement would lead to a decisive improvement in Franco‐Turkish relations.

“how can we go for a far‐reaching rapprochement with France,” exclaimed Saracoglu, “when it has such an uncertain policy. Today she is with some, and tomorrow she will be with others. France still dreams of rapprochement with Italy, and you cannot rely on its policy. ʺ

As an example of French insincerity, Saracoglu pointed out that, having agreed to send a mixed commission to investigate border incidents, the French government is now declaring that the issue of smuggling should not be a matter for the commission. Meanwhile, said Saracoglu, everything rests on smuggling, on the basis of which border incidents occur.

Charge dʹaffaires of the USSR

In Turkey

G. Zalkind