The historian spoke about the lessons of Tehran-43: the secrets of big politicians

The leaders of Russia, America and England once met… In the current conditions, such a situation looks unreal. But there was a time when the heads of the three leading countries organized multi-day summits. The first of them took place 8 decades ago in the capital of Iran, where Secretary General Stalin, President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill arrived at the turn of the calendar winter of 1943.

A lot has been written and said about the epoch-making meeting, the anniversary of which is now being celebrated. In our conversation with the scientific director of the Russian Military Historical Society, Professor Mikhail Myagkov, we were able to look at the Tehran Conference and its results from a slightly different angle.

“I would like to project the events of 80 years ago onto the modern situation,” Mikhail Yuryevich immediately emphasized. However, the beginning turned out to be historical; the conversation turned to the most important agreement reached then by the leaders of the partner states in the anti-Hitler coalition.

— One of the main issues that the leaders of the Big Three decided upon when they gathered in Tehran was the timing of the opening of the second front. This is what the Soviet Union has been striving for since 1941. By the way, when Molotov flew to London and Washington in May-June 1942, Roosevelt, when meeting with him, promised that a second front would be opened in 1942. But such presidential guarantees were not ultimately confirmed in practice. Anglo-American troops landed in Northern France only on June 6, 1944. During these two years – from the summer of 1942 to the summer of 1944 – according to our data, over 5 million Red Army soldiers died on the Soviet-German front. This is the price of delay – the reluctance of the Allies to open a second front.

What is important to emphasize when speaking about the meeting of the Big Three is that even before the Tehran summit, in August 1943, a conference was held in Quebec, Canada, with the participation of Roosevelt, Churchill and the military leadership of the two allied countries. When discussing possible future developments, including Operation Overlord in Normandy, US Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall – the same one who later headed the State Department and initiated the famous Marshall Plan – asked his British colleagues: how? In your opinion, will a defeated Germany behave in the event that we have to “throw out” (this is the expression that was used) the Red Army from Europe? Will the surviving Wehrmacht divisions help the American and British troops in this?

That is, already in the middle of 1943, when the battle on the Kursk Bulge was still going on, the breath of the Cold War began to blow! Then the “loyal allies” of the USSR in the fight against Nazism began to understand that the Soviet Union would be able to independently defeat Hitler’s Germany—and take Berlin and reach the English Channel. So the Anglo-Saxons conceived insidious thoughts of “throwing out” the Russian army from Europe by starting military operations against them.

However, at the Tehran conference, common sense prevailed among the leaders of Great Britain and the United States. As a result, a decision was made to open a second front. Stalin insisted on this, and Roosevelt clearly stated during the meeting of the three leaders on November 30 that Allied forces would land on the coast of Northern France in May 1944. Although here, too, our “partners” nevertheless betrayed the promise they had made, carrying out the landing operation “Overlord” only at the beginning of June.

Perhaps the most important result of the Tehran meeting of the three leaders was the Declaration of Three Powers signed by Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill on December 1, 1943. I would like to quote her fragment: “As for peacetime, we are confident that the agreement existing between us will ensure lasting peace. We fully recognize the great responsibility resting on us and on all the United Nations to bring about a peace which will receive the approval of the overwhelming mass of the peoples of the globe and which will eliminate the disasters and horrors of war for many generations.”

Is it possible, looking at how the current leaders from Washington and London behave, to believe that they remain faithful to the most important principles adopted by their predecessors? Do President Biden and Prime Minister Sunak really care about just such a strong, long-term peace that will receive the approval of the overwhelming majority of the world’s population? No, the goal of these gentlemen is different – a world system organized according to their rules – the rules of subordination, the rules under which there is a unipolar world led by the United States. That is, they actually want to send everyone back to the era of the notorious colonialism, only dressed in different clothes.

We see a striking difference between what happened in Tehran-43, how the then Western leaders imagined the future world order, and what is happening now.

It should be emphasized that the most important decisions on the structure of post-war Europe were made at the Tehran Conference. However, this all happened – it must be clearly understood, especially in the current difficult times – only under pressure created by the successes of the Red Army at the fronts. Neither Roosevelt nor Churchill longed for a “hot embrace” with Russia. But when they realized that the initial plans to bleed the USSR in the war with Germany, on which they pinned their hopes at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, did not work, that the Red Army was gaining power day by day and was capable of independently defeating the Third Reich and freeing the entire continental Europe – then the Allies seriously thought about landing their troops in Normandy, and about resolving the issue of establishing a long-term peace that would suit everyone.

So it was precisely the inability to ignore Russia’s military force that forced the American and British leaders to meet our demands and proposals halfway when resolving many issues, which would ensure the security of the Soviet country.

The situation is the same today. No matter how many negotiations we conduct with the West – if there are any, of course – no matter what discussions and consultations are held, we must firmly remember: these gentlemen respect only force.

This is an absolute constant. As soon as America and Europe understand that they have a really strong Russian army in front of them, which they have nothing to oppose, they become ready to make some kind of compromises and concessions. However, one should not naively hope that Western “partners” will honestly enter into such a dialogue. They negotiate, taking into account the opinion of the other side, only when they are confronted with real force.

This is exactly what happened in Tehran. Then Stalin had very convincing trump cards for the political party being played: victory on the Kursk Bulge, the successful crossing of the Dnieper by our troops, the capture of Kyiv and the attack on Right Bank Ukraine. It should be noted that the Soviet leader very skillfully used the cards he had in his hands.

This is the main lesson to be learned from the experience of the Tehran Conference.

We should also pay attention to the fact that world leaders communicate directly with each other. In the Iranian capital, Stalin and Roosevelt met for the first time, as they say, in person. Personal acquaintance of the leaders and the impression they made on each other, of course, played a huge role. Now let’s project that situation onto current circumstances. Is it possible to “put Mr. Biden and Mr. Roosevelt on the same level”? This is heaven and earth!

Roosevelt, no matter how much we criticize him, relied on general security in the world, which should be ensured by the two greatest powers – the USA and the USSR. But here we have Biden. Even putting aside his decrepitude, dementia, and the fact that the owner of the White House often loses his mind, we have to admit: the current president of America is in captivity of illusions not even of yesterday, but of the day before yesterday – about a unipolar world, about the dominance of the United States, and also that Russia can be inflicted a strategic defeat. All normal people understand perfectly well that this is impossible to do!

The political elite in the West has become very small today. Here it is time to ask the question: can their leaders at some stage turn the emerging political situation around and direct it towards the path suggested by the Tehran Conference? I am sure that sooner or later such a development of events is inevitable. Another thing is who by that time will be at the helm “on the other side” – Biden, Sunak? Or someone else?