Military Review

Tehran-41: Unclassified Operation "Consent"

29
Operation Consent, which 75 carried out Soviet and British troops years ago, does not receive much attention from historians. Nevertheless, to call it “secret”, as in the era of the Cold War, the Western mass media hastened, there is no reason.


Tehran-41: Unclassified Operation "Consent"


It is quite clear in his correspondence, first published only in 1957, that both Stalin and Churchill mention the deployment of the Red Army troops in Iran. In the first official Soviet stories The Great Patriotic War also said about this in passing. Otherwise, it would be quite difficult to explain why Tehran was chosen as the place for the first Big Three conference.

This highly dubious victory is uninteresting to military specialists, and even diplomats who, with surprising promptness, agreed on the very idea of ​​a “double invasion”, have nothing to be proud of. Moreover, the long-term consequences of the operation “Concord” turned out to be too ambiguous not only for Iran, but also for the USSR and Great Britain.

After a month and a half since the beginning of the war, having suffered a series of heavy defeats, the Red Army achieved relative stabilization on the Soviet-German front. After a stubborn and bloody Smolensk battle, the Germans were preparing for an offensive in Ukraine and near Leningrad, which gave the Soviet command an opportunity to strengthen the defenses in the Moscow sector. The Soviet headquarters continued to pull up reserves from Siberia and the Far East, but it was out of the question to transfer combat-ready units from Azerbaijan and Central Asia.

The real threat of joining not only Turkey, but also Iran to the German-Italian bloc remained. The Shah state, which was customarily considered almost a British colony, suddenly turned into a potential ally of Hitler Germany in just a couple of years. At least, the pro-German sentiments surrounded by Rezah Shah Pahlavi, who had been reigning for a decade and a half, did not embarrass anyone at all. How this Nazi diplomats and intelligence officers managed to achieve this is still a mystery even for specialists. But in fact, the Soviet Union and Britain, which had just become allies in the anti-Hitler coalition, were quite unexpectedly faced with the need to do something with Persia.

The allies in Persia, officially renamed Iran only in 1935, had something to protect. Thus, the British, just two years before, had completed the construction of the Trans-Iranian railway, which provided them with not only the possibility of free transportation of Iranian oil, but also a direct connection of Interfluvelands with Indian possessions. As early as May 1941, a rebellion in Iraq was suppressed, which almost threatened transit and military supplies through the Persian Gulf. In turn, the USSR was interested in ensuring reliable protection of the Baku fields from the south, and at the same time continuing to contain neutral Turkey.

But the main reason for the efficiency of the allies was still Lend-Lease. Washington immediately with the outbreak of hostilities in Russia made it clear that it was not against supplying it, like England, with weapons, ammunition and military materials. Among the possible supply routes, Persian was not even considered at first, but the Allied specialists were able to evaluate its convenience and cheapness very quickly.

It is characteristic that in August 41 didn’t declare any war to Shah Reza. For a start, he was simply offered "to take on its territory" allied forces, after having expelled German agents from the country. But the aging Shah proudly refused, although the proposal was clearly one of those that were easier to accept.

The situation worsened, Moscow and London did not rule out the possibility of a pro-German coup in Tehran, although they had no idea that it was in August 1941 that Admiral Canaris, the head of the Abwehr, secretly arrived there. 25 August Moscow sent Tehran the last note with reference to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the current Treaty with Iran from 1921, which provided for the Soviet troops to enter in case of a threat to the southern borders of Soviet Russia.

And on the same day the invasion began. Soviet troops, like the Transcaucasian Front under the command of General Kozlov, who moved from the territory of Azerbaijan, and General Trofimenko’s Separate Central Asian 53 Army, which operated from Turkmenistan, showed almost no resistance. And this is despite the formidable Shah memorandum and a whole series of conflicting orders to the troops. The case was limited to several clashes with the border guards and the landing on the southern coast of the Caspian Sea, where they managed to capture the entire Iranian Caspian fleet: the Shah's yacht, several boats and boats.

The air supremacy of the Red Army Air Force was complete, although it was not actually required. However, the chairman of the Iranian parliament said that the "red falcons" allegedly bombed Tabriz, Mashhad, Ardabil, Rasht, Bender-Pahlavi and other cities. There were eyewitnesses who spoke about the bombing of the summer camps of the military academy in the suburbs of Tehran Larak. However, from declassified not so long ago Soviet sources, it became clear that all "combat" work aviation came down to conducting reconnaissance and scattering leaflets. At that moment, when almost every cartridge was counted, no one would hide the necessary consumption of ammunition.

The entry of British troops into Iranian territory passed with far greater complications. With the seizure of the port of Bender-Shahpur, already in our time in a revolutionary manner renamed Bender-Khomeini, a real battle broke out. The German gunboat was sunk, after the bombing, the oil terminals were burning for several days. The British had to bomb and resist Iranian units, airfields and even some localities.

But it took literally a few days to advance to Tehran both the Russians and the British. Despite the fact that the Iranian units opposing the Allies capitulated on both fronts, the Shah tried to "defend" the capital. However, the invaders preferred to a bloody assault ... a change of the Shah. He lost support even from the inner circle of Shah Reza on the throne was replaced by his son Mohammed Reza-Pahlavi, sociable, less arrogant and already popular among the people. His candidacy seemed to suit everyone immediately. The abdication of the old Shah and the accession of the young Shah happened on September 12, and already on September 16, in order to maintain order, Tehran still included parts of the allies.

After an almost “bloodless” invasion and the accession of the new sovereign, the situation in Persia stabilized very quickly, especially as products and goods from the USA and other countries began to flow into the country, as if in a burden to supplying lend-lease. Of course, almost 100-percent cleansing of the country’s territory from Nazi agents also had a positive effect, although public opinion in Iran, if you could talk about it at all in those years, almost immediately turned towards the Allies.

Meanwhile, the situation on the Soviet-German front again became threatening, which forced the Soviet command to withdraw all the air units from Iran, and then a significant part of the 44 and 47 armies of the Transcaucasian Front. Only 53-th separate Central Asian army was detained there for several years, passing through it thousands of recruits from Central Asia, from Altai and from Transbaikalia.

It is interesting that, despite the “peaceful” nature of the invasion, and as if forgetting about Stalin’s established warm relations with the new Shah, during the war years, the Politburo addressed the issue of “developing success in the Iranian direction”. Thus, according to some memoirists, with the light hand of Beria and Mikoyan in the Soviet occupation zone, they even tried to create the Mehabad Kurdish Republic. Moreover, it is also to “single out” South Azerbaijan as an autonomy. However, Stalin did not dare to so cheekily tease Britain and Churchill personally. The leader of nations did not forget that the Iranian corridor for lend-lease supplies remained hardly the main supply artery of the entire southern front of the Red Army.

Another confirmation that there was no talk of any occupation is the fact that the Soviet troops, that is, the very same 53-I separate army, stood in Iran only until May of the 1946 year. And that is mainly out of fear of a possible strike from Turkey.
Author:
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. andrewkor
    andrewkor April 6 2018 07: 27
    +1
    And Vlad Savin’s in the Sea Wolf is different, according to ours!
  2. Arakius
    Arakius April 6 2018 07: 37
    +8
    Another confirmation that there was no talk of any occupation

    You confuse annexation with occupation. The occupation was, annexation - no

    Also, one of the main reasons why Stalin did not annex Iranian Azerbaijan was not at all fear of Churchill’s reaction, but the reaction of Iranian society. Iranian society, and therefore the country, due to territorial losses, could become anti-Soviet and become a conductor of British and US influence in the region. And Stalin needed a neutral Iran than Iranian Azerbaijan and another enemy on the southern borders
    1. podymych
      April 6 2018 12: 34
      +2
      Occupy usually a country defeated. And at first, while there was an old Shah, there could still be a talk about occupation. Then all the same was the introduction of troops. The British, by the way, do not accuse us of occupation, because then you will have to recognize yourself as occupiers
      1. Arakius
        Arakius April 7 2018 23: 47
        +1
        The introduction of troops into the country without the consent of its government is called occupation. And one more thing: the British do not hesitate to call a spade a spade: "occupation" by occupation, and "invasion" by invasion
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_inva
        sion_of_Iran

        In English, in general, the word "occupation" is neutral. Therefore, for example, the occupation by the allies of Germany in 1945 is called the "occupation" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied-occupied_G
        ermany
        1. yehat
          yehat April 10 2018 19: 29
          +1
          The introduction of troops into the country without the consent of its government is called occupation

          this is called intervention, an invasion from the point of view of the government.
          but if the people do not mind at all, this is called otherwise
          the occupation should, to some extent, take part of the political power and other levers of control over itself, which did not happen during these events.
        2. podymych
          23 May 2019 06: 18
          0
          In Russian it is honor, in French and in Polish it is ambition. So it is with the "occupation".
  3. parusnik
    parusnik April 6 2018 07: 50
    +3
    It’s not only Lend-Lease ... Turkey’s position was very pro-German .. When in 1942 there were fights in the Stalingrad region, Turkish military representatives visited the Germans, brought gifts, tobacco food .. The Turks visited the Germans back in 1943 on the Kursk, but already without gifts ...
    1. yehat
      yehat April 10 2018 19: 30
      0
      Turks were part of the Reich trade, especially products
      this is a direct help.
  4. Olgovich
    Olgovich April 6 2018 09: 41
    +1
    The USSR and England intervened in an independent neutral state in order to exclude it from the list of Germany’s actual allies, deprive it of Iranian oil and other resources and ensure a land-lease.
    England did the same in Iceland.
    The Entente did the same in the RSFSR in 1918.
    1. apro
      apro April 6 2018 10: 16
      +3
      I understand that it is not legal? And the agreement with the Persians in 1921?
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich April 6 2018 12: 41
        +2
        Quote: apro
        I understand that it is not legal? And the agreement with the Persians in 1921?

        No one threatened the southern borders of the RSFSR.
        1. apro
          apro April 6 2018 13: 09
          +5
          And how do you know? Nazi coup in Iraq. Stirring up Nazi agents with Iran is such a joke? Protecting the main Baku oil-bearing region is the most important task of the Red Army. And here any methods are acceptable. As the units of the Red Army in Xinjiang stood during the war.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich April 6 2018 13: 56
            +2
            Quote: apro
            And how do you know? The Nazi coup in Iraq.stirring Nazi agents from Iran it's so jokes?.


            Is "stirring" a basis for intervention? belay
            IRAN-agreed to the intervention? No? What are we talking about?
            The troops entered correctly, yes, but double standards are not necessary.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA April 6 2018 14: 15
              +6
              According to Article 6 of the Treaty, the consent of Persia was not required - a warning was enough, after which the USSR had the right to send troops.
              And even the completed actions of third countries were not required - their attempts to do something in Persia + inaction of official authorities or inability to cope with the situation were enough (moreover, they evaluated these actions / inaction of the USSR). smile
              Both High Contracting Parties agree that if third parties try to carry out an invasive policy in Persian territory or turn Persian territory into a base for military actions against Russia through armed intervention, if this threatens the Russian borders Of the Socialist Federative Soviet Republic or its allied powers and if the Persian Government after warning from the Russian Soviet Government itself does not render I power to avert this danger, the Russian Soviet Government will have the right to send troops into the territory of Persia, in the interests of self-defense to take the necessary military measures. To eliminate this danger, the Russian Soviet Government undertakes to immediately withdraw its troops from the borders of Persia.
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich April 7 2018 04: 27
                +1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And even the completed actions of third countries were not required - it was enough of their attempts to do something in Persia + inaction of official authorities or inability to cope with the situation (and assessed these actions / inaction of the USSR)

                belay Have you read the Agreement quoted by you? Feeling that no:
                If third countries try by armed intervention implement an exciting policy in Persia .....

                WHERE was the "armed intervention" (intervention) of third countries ?! belay
                It was Soviet and was the first armed intervention. Although, according to the agreement, it was from him that they should ... protect ..
                And Iran categorically disagreed.
          2. panther
            panther April 6 2018 21: 56
            +3
            My grandfather first served in Iran, then in Xinjiang, Urumqi. And they wore a Chinese uniform. Then he fought in Manchuria. But he was not sent to the German front.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 6 2018 12: 37
      +2
      Quote: Olgovich
      England did the same in Iceland.

      Iceland is also a good example of how one neutral state occupied another neutral one. smile
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich April 6 2018 12: 48
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Quote: Olgovich
        England did the same in Iceland.

        Iceland is also a good example of how one neutral the state occupied another neutral one. smile

        England in the war with 1939 g, its intervention in Iceland - 1940.
        And all that was then-already just a consequence of the capture of England .....
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 6 2018 14: 11
          +2
          Quote: Olgovich
          England in the war since 1939, its intervention in Iceland - 1940.
          And all that was later, was just a consequence of the capture of England .....

          I'm just about then. When the formally neutral USA introduced its armed forces into the territory of another neutral state - Iceland, replacing the British occupying forces there.
          By the way, Britain in WWII had a rich experience of intervention in neutral states: the occupation of French Syria, the occupation of French Madagascar, the operation “Torch” in the end. Oh yes, there’s also a “catapult” - where, on the basis of the unsteady probabilities of the French fleet passing into the hands of the Nazis, an attempt was made to copenhagenize this very fleet. Consent of the French to this, which is characteristic, was not. smile
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich April 7 2018 04: 14
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            I'm just about later. When the formally neutral USA introduced its armed forces into the territory of another neutral state - Iceland, replacing the British occupying forces there.

            So I’m talking about "later": the intervention was ALREADY implemented earlier and what difference does it make then how many: the Americans entered into English territory under the Treaty with the British
            1. bnm.99
              bnm.99 April 7 2018 18: 01
              -1
              Iceland became an independent state only on 26.04.1944/1940/XNUMX, before that it was in a union with Denmark, which, in turn, had been under German occupation since XNUMX, so this is not all clear.
  5. bubalik
    bubalik April 6 2018 09: 55
    +5
    However, from recently declassified Soviet sources, it became clear that all the "combat" work of aviation was reduced to conducting reconnaissance and scattering leaflets. At that moment, when almost every cartridge was counted, no one would hide the necessary consumption of ammunition.



    https://pamyat-naroda.ru/documents/view/?id=11472
    5201&backurl=q%5C%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD::us
    e_main_string% 5Cfalse :: group% 5Call :: types% 5Copers
    vodki: rasporyajeniya: otcheti: peregovori: jbd: direk
    tivi: prikazi: posnatovleniya: dokladi: raporti: dones
    eniya: svedeniya: plani: plani_operaciy: karti: shemi:
    spravki: drugie :: page% 5C20
    1. podymych
      April 6 2018 12: 36
      +3
      Thank you so much for the link. It is not too contrary to the author’s comment. But someone still had to be bombed ...
    2. Olgovich
      Olgovich April 6 2018 12: 53
      +1
      Wow, wow, "scattering leaflets from airplanes": in one barracks in Rasht alone, 300 soldiers died as a result of the bombing!
      1. podymych
        April 9 2018 10: 28
        +1
        All the "combat" work of aviation has been reduced to conducting reconnaissance and scattering leaflets. At that moment, when almost every cartridge was on the bill, no one would hide the necessary expenditure of ammunition. [/ quote]

        Of course, famously reduced, it was necessary to note some elements of really "combat" work. But 300 killed, as they say today - frank "fake". And someone for such “beautiful” reporting and orders with medals, perhaps, got
  6. nivander
    nivander April 6 2018 10: 26
    0
    the command of the 53rd army of General Managarov in the spring of 1943 was transferred to Kursk
  7. panther
    panther April 6 2018 21: 53
    0
    My grandfather served there in 1942. They had an unloved upstart commander. I got everyone. Once during a skirmish with local basmachs, he received a bullet in the back from his own. Charged to the Iranians.
  8. Disobedient
    Disobedient April 11 2018 00: 34
    +1
    It is surprising how it is now customary to condemn the Soviet Union for "invasion," "occupation," and in general for all sins.
    Regarding the occupation of Iran, I will add the following: when the Red Army entered the territory of Iran in the battles between Soviet and Iranian forces, the Red Army lost 60 people killed and missing, about 1000 wounded. Iran lost 800 soldiers and 7000 prisoners (including the wounded) dead and missing. During the hostilities in Iran, the Soviet Air Force lost 3 aircraft. When attacking the southern coast of the Caspian Sea, 2 barges of the Iranian Navy were sunk.
    Soviet-British aggression against Iran was caused primarily by the entry of Iran and Turkey into an informal alliance with Germany and its satellites. It was thanks to this that the allies of the anti-Hitler coalition managed to prevent Turkey and Iran from entering the war on the side of the fascists in 1941, which possibly decided the outcome of the war or (at least) saved hundreds of thousands of people from death (including the citizens of Iran and Turkey themselves). One can imagine what would happen - if the Turkish-Iranian (and with them the German-Romanian from Turkish and Iranian territory) air force and navy strikes at oil producing and oil refining enterprises of the Caucasus, ships and bases of the Red Banner Black Sea Fleet, Soviet airfields and troops, peaceful Soviet cities. At the same time, not only Turkish-Iranian, but also German and other allied Nazis troops could move to join the German-Italian-Romanian-Hungarian forces through the Caucasus, as well as to Central Asia, where they were then deployed from Nazi-occupied parts of the USSR military plants. I will remind the forgotten ones: near Moscow and in Stalingrad in 1941-1942 the fate of billions of people and the human race as a whole was decided. Through Iran, the Nazis could strike in India, where the Japanese-Thai invaders were then tearing.
    Through Iran, the Soviet Union delivered military aircraft, equipment, weapons, ammunition, industrial raw materials, valuable goods, food, clothes, toys for Soviet children - all this not only helped us survive, but also saved many thousands of human lives, eased the torments of millions of people . Through Iran was the safest way to us and from us: how many sailors did not die, how many ships and valuable goods did not sink due to this way! Iran connected China, India, Burma, French Indochina with the Middle East, Africa and the Mediterranean.
    Thanks to the Soviet-British occupiers, thanks to the Black Sea sailors, thanks to our and British diplomats and scouts, thanks to the Kurdish rebels who fought against the Turks then, thanks to our Iranian friends !!! If it weren’t for them, the USSR would have been hit in the back at the most dangerous moment. Glory and eternal memory to the Soviet and British soldiers who died in Iran!
    Some doubt that fascist agents "stirred" in Iran. Let me remind you that she "moved" so much that if it were not for Soviet intelligence and the Iranian citizens who were cooperating with her, Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt would have been the victims of killers, which could have destroyed the whole world.
    Regarding Iceland (as well as Greenland and the Faroe Islands), I recall that Iceland has been an independent state since September 1, 1939 (albeit in a union with Denmark). The Icelandic parliament (as well as the authorities of Greenland and the Faroe Islands) did not recognize the surrender of Denmark. Iceland, by the will of its people and government, joined the fight against fascism and there was no occupation there. The Icelanders, together with the Americans and the British who saved them from fascist terror, also fought against fascism, patrolled coastal waters, neutralized Nazi sea mines, tracked the Nazis' submarines, and delivered food (fish) to the Soviet Union. Having occupied Denmark, the Nazis executed more than 6000 Danes. Americans and British saved from this fate Icelanders, inhabitants of the Faroe Islands and the Greenland Eskimos, whom the Nazis considered inferior people. Moreover, having landed on the islands, our allies prevented the colonization by the Nazis and the Japanese of North America and saved it from bombing by fascist aircraft. The humanistic significance of this “occupation” cannot be overestimated.
    In 1941, in Syria, the Vichists were defeated first of all by the French themselves (the troops of the Battle of France led by Charles de Gaulle). This was caused in particular by the fact that the traitors of the French people went to cooperate with the Nazis: Pétain signed a declaration on helping the Nazis to conquer North Africa and Asia. During the uprising of pro-fascist forces in Iraq, the Peten government provided Syrian airfields for the needs of German and Italian air forces bombing British troops in Iraq. And during the landing of the allies in Africa in 1942, troops loyal to Peten fought with them. Naturally, after this the Anglo-French troops liberated Syria from the Vichy and this did not contradict the will of the fighters of the French resistance led by Charles de Gaulle - i.e. true representatives of the will of the French people.
    I recommend to everyone who is interested in the history of the defeat of fascism and Japanese militarism the wonderful book by the historian-patriot A. A. Chichkin, “Unknown Allies of Stalin: 1941-1945,” published in Moscow by Veche Publishing House in 2012. In particular, the chapter "Iranian Victory Bridge".
    Those forces who would not mind taking revenge after the Nuremberg trials are trying to present the forces of the anti-fascist coalition as "occupiers". To do this, they need to pervert our idea of ​​the history of mankind, and in particular the history of the Second World War. These attempts are doomed to failure because history does not go back!
    1. bubalik
      bubalik April 12 2018 00: 12
      0
      when the Red Army entered the territory of Iran in the battles between Soviet and Iranian troops, the Red Army lost 60 people killed and missing, about 1000 wounded.

      -Wounded 61
      -confused 40
      deified 2
      evacuated due to 3934 disease
      During the hostilities in Iran, the Soviet Air Force lost 3 aircraft.


      ,,, anti-aircraft artillery shot down 3 aircraft; did not return after completing the combat mission of 3 aircraft. -17 accidents and 9 accidents occurred on its territory.

      ZAKFRONTA Chief of Staff
      Major General Tolbukhin