On May 19, 2010, the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences hosted a scientific conference under this name, organized by the Iran sector of the Center for the Study of BSV Countries and the Embassy and Cultural Representation of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Moscow. The conference was dedicated to the 65th anniversary of the victory of the USSR and the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition in World War II. It was attended by representatives of Moscow's scientific community, employees of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Russian Federation and the Cultural Representation of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Russia, as well as graduate students of the Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and other Moscow universities. 15 reports were presented, reflecting the views of Russian and Iranian scientists on the analyzed problem and giving its assessment from the standpoint of the XXI century.

The conference was opened by the head of the Iranian sector, N. M. Mammadova, who noted the relevance and timeliness of the conference in the anniversary year for the Russian Federation. In her report, she focused on the main aspects of relations between Iran and the USSR on the eve and during the war. Noting certain positive changes in the development of relations between the two countries until the mid-1930s, despite the presence of many negative manifestations, the author focuses on the problems that arose in bilateral relations after the German attack on the USSR and the unification of the latter's interests in Iran with the interests of Britain and America, namely, the introduction of troops into the and expresses its complete disagreement with the assessment of this act as a manifestation of traditional imperial policy and as an occupation. N. M. Mammadova also considers it illegal to raise the issue of compensation to Iran for the presence of allied troops on its territory, since all claims were finally settled in 1954.V. I. Sazhin (IB RAS) dwelled in more detail on the introduction of troops to the territory of Iran in his report. He noted that this operation was the actual basis for further closer Soviet-British cooperation, one of the important components of which was the transition to regular military supplies along the southern transit route to the USSR, and also saved Iran from German influence and, possibly, from turning it into a satellite of Nazi Germany with all the ensuing consequences.. According to the speaker, the statements of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about the intention to assess the damage caused to his country by the presence, and absolutely legitimate, of military contingents of the anti-Hitler coalition countries almost 70 years after the end of World War II are completely unfounded.

The head of the Cultural Representation of Iran, Abuzar Ebrahimi Torkaman, analyzed the consequences of the Second World War for Iran, noting the most significant ones from his point of view. First of all, the abdication of Reza Shah hit the middle and older military generation, who owed everything to his military regime and wanted to return to the pre-war situation. In the minds of the new army generation, the principle of loyalty to the first person of the state was undermined; some of it was nationalistic, while others were inclined to the left-wing internationalist ideology. In addition, as a result of military events, Iran for many years became the object of ambitions of the West and the East in the face of Turkey, which began to create a secular state. Further, a significant number of parties were formed that did not contribute to the preservation of Iran's political stability. Finally, the influence of the cultures of the allied countries on the culture of Iran, including the Persian language, has persisted for a long time.

Representative of the Iranian Embassy in Russia Mohammad Hassan Mahdiyan briefed the audience on Iran's position on key issues related to its participation in World War II and relations with the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition. He noted that the Iranian leadership, through its Embassy in Moscow at the end of June 1941, made a statement about Iran's complete neutrality in the war and subsequently acted on its basis. The speaker considers the entry of Soviet and British troops as an invasion of Iran, and the sending of diplomatic notes is only a pretext, since the Shah's regime has actually become a hostage to the country's geostrategic position. He expresses his complete disagreement with some Russian historians who consider the presence of Anglo-Soviet troops on the territory of Iran as a certain positive factor. As for the position of the speaker on the USSR's interest in southern Azerbaijan, which was part of Iran, he believes that from the very first days of the Second World War

page 170
During the Second World War, the Soviet Union, along with solving a number of other tasks, also pursued the goal of territorial expansion.

A different point of view on the situation in Iranian Azerbaijan was contained in the report of A. I. Polishchuk (IB RAS). In his opinion, the presence of Soviet troops in Iranian Azerbaijan during World War II and the active assistance and assistance of the leadership of the USSR and Soviet Azerbaijan contributed to the development of the national democratic movement in this national region and, as a result, to the implementation of a number of democratic reforms (legal, administrative, legislative, trade), which led to the proclamation of self-government in Azerbaijan. However, after the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Iran in April-May 1946, the USSR ceased to provide assistance to the Azerbaijani democrats, effectively abandoned them to their fate, and the national democratic movement was suppressed by the central government.

O. I. Zhigalina (IV RAS) devoted her report to the impact of the events that took place during World War II on the territory of Iran - the struggle between the allies for influence in the oil - bearing regions of Iran, on another national region-the area where Kurds live, which led to the "Kurdish crisis". Anglo-American intrigues contributed to the fact that the tribal elite, adhering to the slogan of independence, was created back in 1941. An Independent Kurdish Region (NGO), began lobbying for the proclamation of the Kurdish Autonomous Republic (KAR), the Mehabad Republic, which was contrary to the Iranian constitution and was perceived by the Iranian leadership as a challenge and threat to the country's disintegration. The USSR supported the leader of the Kurdish Democrats, Kazn Mohammed, who advocated an autonomous form of self-government of NGOs within Iran, which generally did not contradict the basic law of the country. Thus, the creation of the Mehabad Republic, according to the speaker, became a bargaining chip of the great powers in their struggle for influence and gaining advantages in the oil-rich regions of Northern Iran, including in Iranian Kurdistan.

The report of E. V. Dunaeva (Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences), which examines the Iranian historiographical sources about the Second World War, is of great interest. Comparing the materials and studies that have appeared in Iran in recent years, the author identifies three main approaches to assessing the events of this period: 1) national-religious, associated with the condemnation of the policy of Reza Shah, called unsuccessful neutrality for insufficient opposition to world powers; 2) pro-German, whose supporters do not recognize the pro-German orientation of Reza Shah, blame England for everything and consider the presence of German military advisers only an external pretext for seizing Iran; 3) anti-German, pro-English, It is based on the statement about the existence of a significant pro-German lobby in the country and the influence of Germany on the policy of Reza Shah, which led to the occupation of the country. At the same time, most historians and former political figures agree that Iran managed to play an important role in World War II on a global scale and become a "bridge of victory" for the allies, which, unfortunately, has not yet been properly evaluated.

N. A. Kozhanov (Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences) showed in his speech how the countries of the region - Afghanistan, British India, Egypt, Iraq and Turkey-reacted to the entry of British and Soviet troops into Iran. Under the influence of a large-scale propaganda campaign by Britain and the USSR, despite appeals from the Reza Shah government for help to their neighbors and Berlin's attempts to force regional states to support the Iranians, they maintained their neutrality. At the same time, all states had different reasons. Afghanistan feared a repeat of the Iranian events in its own country. Egypt, on the one hand, was concerned about the future fate of the Pahlavi dynasty, with which the local rulers had kinship ties, and on the other - a strong argument in the form of an Anglo-Indian contingent did not make it possible to provide real support to relatives. British India, like other countries subordinate to London, supported the military action. As for Turkey, the USSR and Great Britain had concerns about its loyalty to the declared neutrality, but after official consultations in 1941, Turkish neutrality was confirmed.

A number of reports were devoted to the policy of European powers-Britain, the United States, and Germany in Iran.

In the report of G. P. Yezhov (ISAA MSU), devoted to the preparation of the German General Staff for combat operations in Iran, it was noted that in this operation an important role was assigned to the Luftwaffe air force. Especially for German pilots, special secret documents were developed that were supposed to serve as a nstruction

page 171
when flying over Iranian territory. Familiarity with them allows us to conclude that the German military authorities spared no effort and money to study the countries that make up the bridgehead of German military operations-Turkey, Iran, Iraq, parts of Afghanistan and British India, and created by them in 1941.these documents are still of interest to specialists today.

A. B. Orishev (Yelets State University) also addressed the problem of relations between Germany and Iran during the Second World War on the basis of archival materials. Germany considered Iran as its trade, economic and raw materials partner and wanted to extend this cooperation to the military sphere, seeking to turn Iran into a springboard for advancing deeper into the Middle East and further into British India, while relying on Reza Shah. The Germans conducted active propaganda, created espionage centers, and established contacts with tribal representatives (Kashkais, Bakhtiars), emigrants from the republics of Soviet Central Asia and Transcaucasia. However, gradually by the end of the war, the nationalist groups operating in Iran, which were the base for German agents, disappeared from the political arena of the country, because they chose the German fascists as their allies, for whom the freedom and independence of Iran were only a propaganda trick. Both sides were united only by hostility to Great Britain, which was not enough for a fruitful cooperation.

The British policy in Iran during the war was analyzed in the report of L. M. Kulagina (Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences). The deterioration of Anglo-Iranian relations is associated with the time when the coalition war cabinet of W. Churchill came to power in England, and it became especially evident as Germany's military successes increased. The German attack on the USSR in 1941 created the prerequisites for Soviet-British cooperation in the fight against German influence in Iran. W. Churchill, being a principled opponent of communism, understood the need for an alliance with the USSR and the impossibility of sending troops alone to Iran. Therefore, on July 12, 1941, an agreement was signed on joint actions in the war against Germany, including the entry of troops into Iran, which was carried out at the end of the summer of 1941, and in September of the same year, Allied troops entered the capital of the country. After the abdication of Reza Shah and the transfer of the throne to his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, an alliance treaty was signed between Iran, Great Britain and the USSR, establishing the political and legal basis for relations between these states during the war with Germany.

In her report, Irina Fyodorova reviewed the US policy in Iran during World War II, which was largely determined by the interests of the anti-Hitler coalition. The US government acted in concert with its allies in addressing the main issues of Iranian policy. At the same time, taking advantage of the weakening of both Great Britain and the USSR, the United States increased its expansion into Iran, drawing it into the system of its global politics and undermining their positions. The most important steps in this direction were provoking and supporting Iran during the discussion of the withdrawal of Soviet troops in the UN Security Council in the first half of 1946, as well as active actions to prevent the ratification by the Mejlis of the Soviet-Iranian agreement on the creation of a mixed Iranian-Soviet oil society.

A special place in this block of reports is occupied by the report of S. B. Druzhilovsky(MGIMO (U)). Russian Foreign Ministry), dedicated to the Tehran Conference and Iran's role in this landmark event. The speaker shows that Iran's participation in the conference and in the anti-Hitler coalition as a whole was significantly more significant than the wordless fulfillment of the will of the great powers, which is usually attributed to it, and its policy to defend its national interests during the Second World War was purposeful and effective. An analysis of the materials of the rare publication of the Iranian Foreign Ministry dedicated to the second anniversary of the Tehran Conference allowed us to elaborate on the history of the signing of the triple treaty and its conditions, the joint struggle against the German agency aimed at destabilizing the situation in Iran, and conclude that Iran will become a full-fledged ally of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition by the beginning of the Tehran Conference, which can act on an equal footing with other participants and enjoy their trust, which did not always find a positive response from the three leading allied powers.

Two reports were devoted to the national and cultural problems of Iran during the Second World War and the peculiarities of the development of socio-political thought in the country in the 1940s and 1950s.

page 172
M. S. Kameneva (Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences) highlighted the state of affairs and certain achievements in such areas as the press, radio broadcasting, prose and poetry, cinematography, and theater, and noted the impact on the development of culture and, in particular, its individual areas, especially literature, of democratic sentiments, the growth of which was due to the victories over fascism Who attacked German agents and their supporters in Iran. As part of the strengthening and development of cultural ties between Iran and the USSR during this period, the establishment of the Iranian Society for Cultural Relations with the USSR in Tehran on October 30, 1943, with branches in many major cities of the country, was of great importance. The speaker also drew attention to the situation of national cultures, primarily Azerbaijani and Kurdish, which at the end of the war achieved significant success in their development. In general, the tense political situation that developed during the war in Iran not only did not prevent the progressive development of Iranian culture, but even contributed to the achievement of significant success in some of its areas, for example, in the field of literature and the press.

The report of A. N. Fedoseenkova (Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences) analyzed new trends in the social and political thought of Iran, which followed the abdication of Reza Shah in 1941 and were associated with the end of the era of dictatorial, anti-democratic and secularist politics. Defining this period as a period of political and intellectual freedom, the speaker calls it the dominant trends of the ideology of Western liberalism, which is already traditional for the Iranian society, and the communist ideology that has re-emerged as part of the paradigm of socio-political development of the country, the bearer of which is the People's Party of Iran "Tudeh". At the same time, the Shiite clergy (traditionalists and oppositionists) reappeared in the social and political arena, giving Iran and the entire Islamic world such outstanding thinkers as Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Abol Qasem Kashani, Sayyid Mahmoud Taleghani (later Ayatollah Taleghani), Marjeat-taqlid Sayyid Mohammed Hossein Borujerdi and others.

The conference ended with an active discussion, during which it became obvious that Russian and Iranian scientists not only do not agree on many issues related to the events of World War II, but even have diametrically opposite points of view. The conference also demonstrated that the events of the Second World War, 65 years after its end, have not lost their relevance.

page 173

Permanent link to this publication: