Why did the USSR and Britain invade Iran?

7 446 54
Why did the USSR and Britain invade Iran?
Red Army units enter Tabriz, Iran. Pictured is a 7,62mm quadruple anti-aircraft machine gun mount, model 1931 (M-4), mounted on a GAZ-AA truck.


prehistory


At the beginning of the 20th century, Iran was within the sphere of influence of Russia and England. After the collapse of the Russian Empire, the Russians lost their position in Northern Persia. The British retained dominant economic influence in Persia.



In 1925, a palace coup in Iran resulted in the seizure of power by the Minister of War and Prime Minister, Reza Pahlavi. He deposed Ahmad Shah of the Qajar dynasty (which had ruled Persia since 1795) and established his own dynasty, the Pahlavis.

Until this point, Persia had long been ruled by Turkic dynasties and a Turkic elite—political, military, and economic. The Turkic cities of Tabriz, Ardabil, Qazvin, and Hamadan dominated the country.

The Pahlavi regime embarked on a large-scale modernization of the country according to European standards. The country was renamed "Iran" ("land of the Aryans") in honor of their ancestors, the "Aryans." Ideas of "Parthianism" (the Parthians were an Iranian-speaking people who created the vast Parthian Empire, which successfully held off the Roman onslaught) and Aryan "purity" were developed. The ideas of Italian fascism were taken as a model, and the example of the Third Reich became even closer to Iranian nationalists. Young people and officers were raised on the idea of ​​"Aryan purity."

Tehran, despite the predominance of British capital in the country, is clearly leaning toward Nazi Germany. Berlin has also taken notice of this potentially useful asset. The German Reich is taking relations with Iran to a new level. The Germans are actively involved in the modernization of industry, the development of transport infrastructure, and the Iranian army.

Iranian military personnel and young people began studying in Germany. Almost all Iranian doctors received German education. Hitler's propaganda declared them "sons of Zoroaster" (Zarathushtra is the founder of the Vedic religion Zoroastrianism and is considered the author of the Avesta), and the Persians were considered "true Aryans."

In 1937, Hitler Youth leader Baldur von Schirach visited Iran. His visit was widely publicized in Iran, and he met with Shah Reza Pahlavi. In 1939, Iran formed its own youth organizations, modeled on the German ones, with Crown Prince Mohammad Reza Pahlavi becoming their formal leader.

The Nazis understood perfectly well the importance of schools (the education system) for the country. As early as the mid-30s, the Germans had taken control of the Iranian education system. At the same time, cooperation was underway in the social and cultural spheres. Many Iranian students who studied in Germany became Nazi agents of influence. Germans played a key role in key industries, transportation, and communications.

Thus, on the eve of World War II, Berlin used soft power to make Tehran its ally. The country, with its "Aryan leanings," could have joined the German bloc at any moment, even though Iran formally maintained a neutral stance.


Reza Shah Pahlavi, ruler of Iran from 1925 to 1941

Strategy


Why, with the Red Army suffering heavy losses and retreating under the blows of the German Wehrmacht, did Moscow decide to deploy troops from the Transcaucasian Front to Iran? The answer lies in geopolitics (the "Great Game") and geostrategy.

The threat arose that Germans would appear in Iran, whose leadership was leaning toward an alliance with the Third Reich. A Berlin-Tehran axis would emerge. This posed a serious threat to the British Empire and the USSR. The Nazis were approaching India, the crown jewel of the British colonial empire.

The Germans also gained access to the Soviet Caucasus and the Caspian Sea through Iran. They could establish military bases for attacks on the USSR from the southern strategic direction. Iran's defection to Germany would have had a serious impact on Turkey, which might have given up its biding time and openly sided with the German Reich. Moscow would have been forced to create a front against Turkey.

Also under threat were the USSR's important oil fields in Baku, as well as the oil fields controlled by the British in southern Iran and in the border area with Iraq. The British position in Iraq itself was deteriorating. Germany was receiving an important source of strategic raw materials (oil is the fuel of war). For example, the Abadan refinery alone processed 8 million tons of oil in 1940.

The Germans could have intercepted the most important transport corridor – through the ports of Iraq and Iran to Soviet Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan. The southern Lend-Lease route was the safest (in the north, in the area of ​​Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, the Germans were striking with fleet и aviation) and shorter than the eastern route via Vladivostok.


A Red Army artillery regiment enters the Iranian city of Tabriz. Iranian operation. August 30, 1941.


Soviet light танк A T-26 and its crew in the Iranian city of Tabriz.

Operation Consent


It's clear that Britain and Soviet Russia couldn't leave such a threatening situation to chance. In peacetime, you can tolerate such games and turn a blind eye. In wartime, you have to act quickly and decisively before you're devoured.

With the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War on June 22, 1941, Russia and England automatically became allies. Negotiations began on the Iranian issue and on preventing the Nazis from appearing in Iran. Thus, on July 8, 1941, Stalin, in a conversation with Cripps, the British ambassador to Moscow, raised the situation in the Middle East. Moscow noted the high concentration of German agents in Iran and the danger of Tehran joining the German Axis. A serious threat was emerging on the southern borders of the USSR.

The British, masters of such games, understood all this perfectly well. They also feared the strengthening of German influence in the Near and Middle East. Egypt and India were under threat. On July 19 and August 17, Britain demanded the expulsion of Germans from Iran. These demands were also supported by the Soviet Union. On August 23, Tehran announced the expulsion of German nationals, but it was too late.

Britain, which had a military contingent in Iraq, was preparing an invasion. Two infantry divisions and three brigades, a total of approximately 200 troops (the British divisions had the strength and equipment of a conventional corps), plus naval forces, took part in the operation. General Edward Pellew Quinan led the operation.

On July 8, 1941, the NKVD of the USSR and the NKGB of the USSR issued Directive No. 250/14190, "On measures to prevent the transfer of German intelligence agents from Iranian territory." This document effectively marked the beginning of preparations for the Iranian operation. Fyodor Tolbukhin, Chief of Staff of the Transcaucasian Military District and the future front (formed on August 23, 1941), was directly responsible for the operation's preparations. The front was commanded by Lieutenant General Dmitry Kozlov.

Three armies participated in the operation: General Alexander Khadeyev's 44th Army (four divisions and a tank regiment) and Vasily Novikov's 47th Army (seven divisions, including two tank divisions). They were reinforced by Sergei Trofimov's 53rd Army (rifle and cavalry corps) from the Central Asian Military District. The tank formations and units were armed with up to 1 T-26 tanks. The Caspian Flotilla also participated in the operation. Two armies of the Transcaucasian Front covered the Turkish border.


Soviet and British troops at a meeting near Tehran. Soviet BA-10 armored cars and T-26 tanks are in the background. Soldiers and officers of a British Indian Army unit are in the foreground.

Захват


Early in the morning of August 25, 1941, the Soviet-British Operation "Agreement" began, aimed at disarming and demilitarizing Iran. British and Soviet air forces struck key targets. The Iranian Air Force (four air regiments) was suppressed early in the operation. Subsequently, the Soviet Air Force focused primarily on reconnaissance and propaganda (dropping leaflets about the "liberation" of Iran).

Soviet troops easily crossed the border, occupied mountain passes where they could be delayed, and began advancing deeper into the country. Minor attempts at resistance were crushed by Allied air forces and tanks. Tabriz was captured on the very first day.

British ships captured Iranian ports. The British also advanced rapidly, taking control of Khuzestan province and the cities of Kermanshah and Hamadan. Iranian troops offered little resistance, retreating north and east.

Iran, which was modernizing its army and had nine divisions totaling between 125 and 200 troops, was unable to resist the invasion of two great military powers. The allies had complete superiority in manpower, air force, armored vehicles, and aircraft. The troops were demoralized by the lack of will to fight among the top leadership.

At the same time, part of the command, which sympathized with the British and was a hidden opponent of the Pahlavi dynasty, contributed to the collapse of the front in front of the British army.

Iran's military and political leadership had no intention of fighting to the end. The Shah asked the Americans to intervene. Washington adopted a neutral stance. Reza rejected the military's logical proposal to destroy key transportation facilities to slow down the enemy. He did not want to destroy the results of his many years of work. Therefore, the allies moved quickly along Iran's roads. By August 29, seeing that resistance was futile, the Shah ordered the army to surrender. An armistice was signed with the British that same day, and with the Russians on August 30.


Iranian army soldiers before surrendering near the city of Qazvin.


Soviet and British servicemen meet on a road near Qazvin in Iran.


British soldiers inspect a Soviet BA-10M armored vehicle in Iran.

On August 29–31, the advance forces of the Soviet and British troops met in the areas of Sanandaj, Hamadan, and Qazvin.

As a result, resistance was minimal, as were losses. During the operation, Soviet troops lost 40 men killed, approximately 150 wounded, and three aircraft. The British lost 22 men killed, 50 wounded, and one tank destroyed. The "Land of the Aryans" lost 800 men killed, over 200 wounded, as well as six tanks and six aircraft, and several ships were sunk.

On September 8, Iran was divided into occupation zones: southern (British) and northern (Russian). Tehran pledged to expel all Germans and citizens of countries allied with Germany. Tehran maintained strict neutrality and pledged not to interfere with British and Soviet military transit. The country's politics and economy were under Allied control.

The allies decided to replace the Shah. On September 15, allied troops entered Tehran. Reza Pahlavi abdicated in favor of his son and left the country.

Thus, Moscow and London solved a strategic problem. Quickly and decisively. During the World War II, the territory was used as a transport corridor for military supplies to the USSR. Up to a third of Lend-Lease cargo passed through the Persian Corridor.

At the same time, Stalin had plans to create allied states in the north of Iran – the Republic of Azerbaijan (historical South Azerbaijan) and the Republic of Kurdistan. In December 1945, these states were proclaimed. But under pressure from the "international community," Moscow was forced to abandon these plans. The republics, left without Soviet support, were liquidated by Iranian forces.

In 1946, British and Russian troops left Iran.


Soviet pilots inspect an A-20 Boston bomber, prepared for delivery to the USSR under Lend-Lease. This photo was taken in 1942 at Abadan Field Air Force Base in Iran.


British Spitfire fighters supplied under Lend-Lease are being prepared for delivery to the Soviet Union at Abadan Airfield in Iran. From Iran, the aircraft will be ferried to the USSR by Soviet pilots. 1943.
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    28 August 2026 04: 27
    Somehow, in this heat, it’s not entirely pleasant to see our soldiers, dressed in boots and tightly buttoned tunics, against the backdrop of the English soldiers in shorts and with their shirt sleeves rolled up.
    1. +2
      28 August 2026 09: 42
      Quote: Schneeberg
      Somehow, in this heat, it’s not entirely pleasant to see our soldiers, dressed in boots and tightly buttoned tunics, against the backdrop of the English soldiers in shorts and with their shirt sleeves rolled up.

      In the USSR, gymnasterkas were worn full-length until they fell apart, along with breeches.
      The "Afghanka/Varshavka" system began to be introduced almost 3 years before the collapse.
      1. +5
        28 August 2026 09: 59
        In the USSR, gymnasterkas were worn full-length until they fell apart, along with breeches.
        Actually, since 1972 - a jacket and breeches.
        1. +2
          28 August 2026 10: 20
          Quote: 3x3zsave
          In the USSR, gymnasterkas were worn full-length until they fell apart, along with breeches.
          Actually, since 1972 - a jacket and breeches.

          I apologize - the jacket was completely different from the tunic in the number of buttons, and for some reason the breeches were no different from the riding breeches.
        2. +2
          28 August 2026 10: 26
          Quote: 3x3zsave
          In the USSR, gymnasterkas were worn full-length until they fell apart, along with breeches.
          Actually, since 1972 - a jacket and breeches.

          Not breeches, but jodhpurs
          1. +4
            28 August 2026 15: 10
            Quote: Konnick
            Not breeches, but jodhpurs
            We called it all "gymnastics." But individually, the top was called a tunic, and the bottoms were called trousers. I don't know what the correct official title was...
          2. 0
            29 August 2026 23: 55
            In all official documents regarding the uniform of military personnel of the Russian Imperial, Red, and Soviet armies, the term "breeches" was never used. The following terms were used to describe the cut of trousers tucked into boots: sharovary (wide trousers), including in the so-called "Zhukov uniform," breeches (only in the pre-war commanders' uniform), and, beginning with the 1969 USSR Ministry of Defense Order No. 191, "trousers tucked into boots."
            In the Soviet Union, the "trousers-in-boots" cut could not be officially called "breeches" for ideological reasons. Marquis Gaston Alexandre Auguste de Galliffet is famous not only for being credited with inventing the trousers' cut, for being France's Minister of War, and for reforming the French cavalry, but also for being the one who drowned the Paris Commune in blood.
      2. 0
        28 August 2026 10: 17
        Quote: your1970
        In the USSR, gymnasterkas were worn full-length until they fell apart, and breeches were worn
        In Central Russia or Siberia, a tunic and boots are just right! But in hot climates, not so much!
        1. AMG
          +2
          28 August 2026 10: 34
          In hot climates, they wore Panama hats and yuft boots. Find photos of the Central Asian Military District and Turkic Military District uniforms online.
          1. -1
            28 August 2026 10: 37
            Quote from AMG
            In hot climates, they wore Panama hats and yuft boots. Find photos of the Central Asian Military District and Turkic Military District uniforms online.

            I was in Uzbekistan in the late 1980s and didn't see any boots on the soldiers. The only difference was that they had hats, while soldiers from other regions...
            cap
            1. AMG
              +3
              28 August 2026 10: 50
              The correct word is not a hat, but a Panama hat. Boots may not be required by all branches of the armed forces. Don't be lazy and search for the Central Asian Military District. I just watched "British infantry in combat in Africa photo." Impressive! Long bayonets and lying in the sand in shorts. Unfortunately, I can't send you a ready-made link.
              1. +1
                28 August 2026 10: 52
                Quote from AMG
                "English infantry in battle in Africa photo." Impressive! Long bayonets and lying in shorts on the sand.
                And also in their famous flat helmets wink
      3. +1
        29 August 2026 05: 32
        You're wrong. I served in Central Asia from 1970 to 72. Air Defense Forces of the Country. Tajik SSR, Kulyab, Kirghiz SSR, Frunze. I also traveled a lot on assignments and training exercises. So... I experienced (they gave me that in training) the so-called "Mabutu. Summer tunic with short sleeves and a turn-down collar. Trousers with cuffs on buttons. Yuft boots and, of course, a Panama hat! The tunic was worn tucked into the trousers under the belt. The trousers were chosen to be longer. At the bottom, they went down to the boots and covered the cuffs. It turned out to be quite a tolerable look. Ironing the trousers and creasing the Panama hat was strictly prohibited. The Panama could only be slightly wrinkled so as not to look like the famous character - Dunno. This is in the summer. In the winter, a tunic with buttons and breeches with boots and a Panama before the snow. In the cold, everyone knew the soldier's cap. The following summer, they were already issued a summer tunic with buttons. The collar almost to the navel with a buttoned collar. Trousers and boots. Panama. The tunic was worn on release and belted with an ordinary belt with a buckle. Almost with a half-meter-long rag, and then button the collar. It sat crooked and askew. Pure horror!
    2. AMG
      +2
      28 August 2026 09: 51
      Do you think it's more comfortable for an infantryman to crawl on sand or rocks in shorts? And tunics could only be buttoned up during parade inspections.
      1. -1
        28 August 2026 10: 19
        Quote from AMG
        Do you think it's more comfortable for an infantryman to crawl on sand or rocks in shorts?

        Soldiers don't spend most of their time crawling over rocks and sand. For that, they had slightly different uniforms, such as woolen gaiters.
        1. AMG
          +3
          28 August 2026 10: 29
          A soldier must be ready for battle at any time. So, before battle, their soldiers will be issued woolen gaiters? They won't protect their knees, will they?
          1. +1
            28 August 2026 10: 32
            Quote from AMG
            So, before battle, their soldiers will be given woolen gaiters? They won't protect their knees, will they?

            I read that in North Africa, English soldiers were given out at night
            Wool leggings. It's cold in the desert at night. I don't think Iran is the Arctic either. There are plenty of photos of British soldiers in positions wearing short shirts and shorts.
            1. +2
              28 August 2026 23: 24
              Schneeberg (Oleg), sir, Iran isn't exactly the Arctic, but it is mountainous. Tabriz has snowy winters: in January, the average temperature is -3°C, dropping to -8°C at night and +1,6°C during the day. In February, the average temperature is -0,5°C, dropping to +4,3°C during the day and -5,3°C at night. And in Qazvin, where our troops met with the British, the mountains are lower and the Caspian Sea is closer. In winter, there's rain and sleet, but snow rarely lies on the ground, with average temperatures ranging from 0°C to +3°C.
    3. 0
      29 August 2026 11: 31
      Quote: Schneeberg
      Somehow, in this heat, it’s not entirely pleasant to see our soldiers, dressed in boots and tightly buttoned tunics, against the backdrop of the English soldiers in shorts and with their shirt sleeves rolled up.

      And also in steel helmets
  2. +5
    28 August 2026 05: 11
    The southern Lend-Lease route was the safest (in the north, in the area of ​​Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, the Germans attacked with the help of the navy and air force) and shorter than the eastern route through Vladivostok.

    Lend-Lease deliveries through Iran were, yes, the safest, but still, the sea route was not close... and no less dangerous from encounters with the Japanese or Germans.
    Approximate ratio in cargo handling - shares of Lend-Lease deliveries to the USSR along different routes:
    Pacific - 47,1%
    Persian Corridor - 23,8%
    Arctic - 22,6%
    Black Sea - 3,9%
    1. +1
      28 August 2026 09: 45
      Quote: Lynx2000
      and no less dangerous from meetings with the Japanese

      Who pumped oil on our half of Sakhalin...
      The danger posed by Japan was greatly exaggerated in the USSR as an excuse to deflect the US. Selling oil to an ally's enemy—the same one sending you Lend-Lease—wouldn't be comme il faut.
    2. +4
      28 August 2026 13: 26
      Quote: Lynx2000
      Lend-Lease deliveries via Iran were, yes, the safest, but the sea route for delivery was still not short...

      It wasn't even a matter of shoulders, but a complete backside, with communications the size of all of Iran. The Shah certainly didn't expect such a flow of cargo from south to north. smile
      The Iranian bottleneck took two years to clear. Initially, the British did the job, but by 1942, they realized they couldn't cope and invited the Americans. The Americans arrived... and, in their inimitable manner, simply took control of Iran, sidelining not only the local leadership but the British themselves. However, we must give the Yankees their due – they did an excellent job of establishing a transport corridor through Iran.
      And then Iran followed the United States - until the Carter administration decided to replace the discredited Shah with a pro-American intellectual... Khomeini. laughing
      1. 0
        28 August 2026 16: 50
        During the 1909-1911 intervention, Russian engineering troops quickly extended a railway line from Julfa (near Nakhichevan) to Tehran. Incidentally, it was actively used.
      2. +1
        28 August 2026 23: 06
        Alexey RA (Alexey), sir, I need to correct you a bit. Back in the summer of 1941, the British placed orders for Iranian railways: with their own companies for 100 diesel locomotives, and with Canadians for about 1000 boxcars. All manufactured goods were delivered to Iran in November. In September, the British requested American assistance in designing a modernization project for the port of Khorramshahr; naturally, the Americans accepted the order. And in November 1941, a mission led by Brigadier General Raymond Albert Wheeler (who would command the US Army Corps of Engineers from 1945 to 49) arrived in Iran. The American engineers began by constructing piers and deepening the channel at the port of Khorramshahr, and built a truck assembly plant. With the help of local workers, they reconstructed the highway between Khorramshahr and Ahvaz. The Americans then established a barge factory to transport heavy cargo along the Karun River, connecting these cities... In October 1942, it was decided that the United States, instead of Great Britain, would assume primary control over the organization of supplies to Russia via Iran. The rationale was that the British, freed from work in Iran, would be able to deploy more troops to fight the Japanese in India and Burma...
  3. +9
    28 August 2026 06: 43
    The country was renamed Iran
    No one renamed the country—Iran has always been called Iran, since the time of the Achaemenids. Persia is the Greek name for Iran, which has gradually migrated into European languages. The Iranian government simply sent letters to foreign ministries demanding that all official documents refer to the country as Iran, not Persia. It would be like Finland demanding to be called Suomi, and Germany demanding to be called Deutschland...
  4. +3
    28 August 2026 06: 50
    The troops were demoralized by the lack of will to fight among the top leadership.
    At the same time, part of the command, which sympathized with the British and was a hidden opponent of the Pahlavi dynasty

    Actually, that's the whole "secret" of success... as they say, "feel the difference" @ :)
  5. +3
    28 August 2026 08: 05
    What Russian troops? Soviet troops. The author is instantly recognizable. laughing
    1. +1
      29 August 2026 11: 29
      Until February 25, 1946, the primary military formation of the USSR was known as the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army (RKKA, Red Army). The term "Soviet Army" first appeared in the 1946 Internal Service Regulations of the USSR Armed Forces, enacted by order of the Minister of the USSR Armed Forces on July 24, 1946.
      1. 0
        29 August 2026 23: 25
        For the first time, in the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of July 24, 1940, "On the Composition of the Main Military Council," the prefix "Workers' and Peasants'" was omitted from the new composition of the supreme military body. Following this resolution, on July 26, 1940, the USSR People's Commissariat of Defense issued Order No. 0037, which consolidated the new name throughout the entire structure of the central apparatus. Thus, the General Staff of the Red Army was renamed the General Staff of the Red Army. The Main Directorates became known as the Main Directorate of the Red Army Air Force, the Main Artillery Directorate of the Red Army, the Main Armored Directorate of the Red Army, the Main Military Engineering Directorate of the Red Army, etc. This was a consequence of the adoption of the USSR Law "On Universal Military Service" of September 1, 1939. According to this law, the army was transformed from a class-based organization into a people's army.
  6. 0
    28 August 2026 08: 57
    I found Mauser cartridges with Arabic script in the Caucasus; Soviet Armenian and Azerbaijani divisions formed in the Transcaucasus were armed with captured Iranian Mauser rifles.
    1. +5
      28 August 2026 11: 05
      Azerbaijani, Armenian, and Georgian divisions were formed there. For example, the 63rd Mountain Rifle Division, the 396th Rifle Division, and so on. After the Iranian operation, they were transferred to Crimea (the Kerch landing operation), and then the "Burdard Hunt" happened...
    2. +3
      28 August 2026 22: 05
      They tried to establish production of the PPSh-41.
      But it was only possible to establish production of 7,62x25 cartridges.
    3. AMG
      0
      29 August 2026 21: 55
      Or perhaps the cartridges were from the civil war? And where did the information about the use of Iranian trophies come from? How would the troops have been supplied with ammunition then?
      1. -1
        29 August 2026 22: 13
        Quote from AMG
        And where did the information about the use of Iranian trophies come from?

        There's a ton of information out there - do a search: Iranian Mausers in the USSR.
  7. Des
    +5
    28 August 2026 10: 12
    However... the rationale for introducing troops into Persian (Iranian) territory is found in the friendship treaty (!) of February 26.02, 1921, between the RSFSR and Persia. It clearly states:
    Article V
    Both High Contracting Parties undertake:
    1) Not to allow on their territory the formation or presence of organizations or groups, whatever their name, or individuals whose goal is to fight against Persia and Russia, as well as against states allied with the latter, and likewise not to allow on their territory the recruitment or mobilization of personnel into the ranks of the army or armed forces of such organizations;
    2) prohibit those states or organizations, whatever their name, which aim to fight against the other High Contracting Party, from importing into the territory of each of the High Contracting Parties or transporting through it anything that can be used against the other High Contracting Party;
    3) prevent by all means available to them the presence on their territory of troops or armed forces of any third state whose presence would create a threat to the borders, interests or security of another High Contracting Party.
    Article VI
    Both High Contracting Parties agree that in the event that third countries attempt, through armed intervention, to implement a policy of conquest on the territory of Persia or to transform the territory of Persia into a base for military action against Russia, if this threatens the borders of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic or its allied powers, and if the Persian Government, after a warning from the Russian Soviet Government, is unable to avert this danger, the Russian Soviet Government will have the right to introduce its troops into the territory of Persia in order to take the necessary military measures in the interests of self-defense. Upon the elimination of this danger, the Russian Soviet Government undertakes to immediately withdraw its troops from the borders of Persia.

    On the website of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
    Respect for the USSR.
  8. +2
    28 August 2026 10: 55
    Quote: your1970
    Quote: Lynx2000
    and no less dangerous from meetings with the Japanese

    Who pumped oil on our half of Sakhalin...
    The danger posed by Japan was greatly exaggerated in the USSR as an excuse to deflect the US. Selling oil to an ally's enemy—the same one sending you Lend-Lease—wouldn't be comme il faut.

    So what?! They pumped according to the concluded concession agreements.
    In Kamchatka, right up until the declaration of war on Japan, Japanese enterprises operated to catch and process fish, crab, and other seafood.
    There was no war as such with Japan, but there were attacks on our ships and detentions... For the USSR, a war with Japan before 1945 would have been a very difficult circumstance...
    Several submarines were being transported from Vladik via Alaska - California - the Panama Canal - repairs on the east coast of Canada - Murmansk, one was attacked by a Japanese submarine, perished, the other evaded.
    There were many incidents involving the Japanese at sea, from the First Kuril Strait to the Tatar Sea and in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.
    Anna Ivanovna Shchetinina, if I'm not mistaken, was the first woman captain of a long-distance voyage, and while commanding a ship, she was subjected to attacks.
    1. +1
      29 August 2026 08: 06
      Quote: Lynx2000
      So what?! They pumped according to the concluded concession agreements.

      Well, what about the locals' favorite line, "They would have sold oil to Hitler in 1942!!" (C)
      ??? !!
  9. +3
    28 August 2026 10: 56
    Why did the USSR and Britain seize Iran?
    1. Remove the sheikh who sympathizes with the Germans.
    2. Land corridor for Lend-Lease (about 35% of cargo ultimately passed through it).
    1. +1
      28 August 2026 11: 07
      Shah, of course, a typo...
    2. +1
      29 August 2026 08: 00
      Short and clear! Plus)
  10. +4
    28 August 2026 13: 38
    The threat arose that Germans would appear in Iran, whose leadership was leaning toward an alliance with the Third Reich. A Berlin-Tehran axis would emerge. This posed a serious threat to the British Empire and the USSR.

    Britain, among other things, already had experience in neighboring Iraq, where a pro-German military coup occurred in April 1941. And the British were forced to fight in Iraq as well.
    Apparently they decided that with Iran Prevention is the best cureIt is better to introduce troops now in advance than to spend a month scraping together forces and then fighting for another month. smile
    1. 0
      29 August 2026 21: 47
      Well written good The Arabs had an unhealthy love for Hitler and the like. If you recall the post-war period, how many former SS and Abwehr officers settled in Syria, Egypt, and so on.
      1. 0
        29 August 2026 21: 52
        "On November 28, 1941, Mufti al-Husseini met with Adolf Hitler. The Arab leader called Hitler the "defender of Islam" and declared that Arabs and Germans had common enemies—the British, Jews, and communists—and therefore they would fight together in the war that had begun. The Mufti appealed to Muslims to fight on the side of Nazi Germany. Muslim volunteer units were formed, comprising Arabs, Albanians, Bosnian Muslims, representatives of the Caucasian and Central Asian peoples of the Soviet Union, as well as smaller groups of volunteers from Turkey, Iran, and British India." - the article was here.
        https://topwar.ru/75199-germanskie-nacisty-i-blizhniy-vostok-dovoennaya-druzhba-i-poslevoennoe-ubezhische.html
  11. 0
    28 August 2026 15: 12
    The Nazis understood perfectly well the importance of schools (the education system) for the country. As early as the mid-30s, the Germans had taken control of the Iranian education system.
    And not only the Nazis... Our schools still haven't completely freed themselves from American influence.
    1. 0
      28 August 2026 16: 38
      Quote: Fitter65
      Our schools still haven't completely freed themselves from American influence.

      It's hard for me to judge the present times, I think you mean the legacy of the 90s... in the old days, the Americans, envious of the quality of Soviet school education, in the late 50s - early 60s started a reform of their...
      1. 0
        28 August 2026 16: 46
        Quote: Rodez
        It's hard for me to judge the current times, I think you mean the legacy of the 90s

        I don't know whose legacy it is, but I judge how and what my granddaughters are taught by a very different approach from what my daughter was taught. But it's a difference, not a distinction...
        1. +1
          28 August 2026 18: 46
          Quote: Fitter65
          I don't know whose legacy it is, but I judge how and what my granddaughters are taught by a very different approach from what my daughter was taught. But it's a difference, not a distinction...

          Are you talking about English or history? I can't imagine what kind of American influence there is in teaching, for example, physics...
          1. +1
            28 August 2026 19: 39
            Quote: 2 level advisor
            Quote: Fitter65
            I don't know whose legacy it is, but I judge how and what my granddaughters are taught by a very different approach from what my daughter was taught. But it's a difference, not a distinction...

            Are you talking about English or history? I can't imagine what kind of American influence there is in teaching, for example, physics...

            And history too... Physics, simply put, in the Soviet era, they not only taught the fundamentals of physics but also how to apply them. And now? A student with an A in physics doesn't know the difference between alternating and direct current. They know Ohm's law, but have no idea what it's for. And so they're surprised when their phone gets covered in pubic hair when they pick up a charger from another gadget... A few years ago, it dawned on them that a child not only needs to know something, but also be able to apply some of that knowledge in real life. At the very least, they should know what kind of charging current comes from this charger, what it means, and how it connects to their gadget. And so on. When a certified "bachelor" tells me... on a 220V AC power supply, when connecting a consumer, polarity must be observed... when asked (they were joking) whether the switch should be set to live or neutral, this specialist deigned to set it to positive, on the AC power supply!!!! And this is pure physics...
            1. 0
              28 August 2026 21: 29
              Quote: Fitter65
              A student with an A in physics doesn't know the difference between alternating and direct current. He knows Ohm's law, but has no idea what it's used for. So he's surprised when his phone gets covered in pubic hair when he charges another gadget. A few years ago, it dawned on him that a child not only needs to know something, but also be able to apply some of that knowledge in real life. At the very least, he should know what current the charger uses, what it means, and how it connects to his gadget. And so on. When a certified "bachelor" tells me... when connecting a consumer to a 220V AC power supply, you need to observe polarity...

              I agree with you, but I don't think it's worth blaming American influence, it's all under the control of our "native" officials... as they say, it's not Obama who's shitting in the entryway hi
            2. +2
              29 August 2026 08: 10
              Quote: Fitter65
              When a certified "bachelor" tells me... on a 220V AC power supply, when connecting a consumer, polarity must be observed... when asked (they were joking) whether the switch should be set to live or neutral, this specialist deigned to set it to positive, on the AC power supply!!!! And this is pure physics...

              When the change did everything against the laws of physics in Chernobyl - was that also apparently American influence in education?

              Quote: Fitter65
              Physics, in simple terms, if during the Soviet era they not only taught the basics of physics, but also taught how to use them.
              - Oh really? And what did you use? Just spinning an electric motor, nothing more...
  12. 0
    28 August 2026 16: 30
    At the beginning of the 20th century, Iran was in the sphere of influence of Russia and England—according to the 1907 agreement, Iran was divided: the northern part was under Russian influence, the south was under British influence, and the central part was neutral, possibly under German influence. In 1911, Russian troops entered Iran twice, protecting Russian subjects and merchants from raids by nomadic Azerbaijanis and Kurds and driving the Turks out of Western Azerbaijan when Ottoman troops occupied the border passes. Regarding the operation of 1941, it can also be added that a significant portion of the invasion force consisted of national divisions formed in Transcaucasia from the local population. The British, meanwhile, had Indian units (Indians/Pakists).
  13. -1
    29 August 2026 08: 38
    Quote: your1970
    Quote: Lynx2000
    So what?! They pumped according to the concluded concession agreements.

    Well, what about the locals' favorite line, "They would have sold oil to Hitler in 1942!!" (C)
    ??? !!

    Well, what do you mean - local?
    Mixed sour with green...
    The USSR fought with Hitler in 1942, but not with Japan. Yes, you can talk as much as you like about appeasing Japan, but we would have certainly won such a war on two fronts, but with great losses and a long war.
  14. 0
    29 August 2026 19: 46
    In the end, General Belov, about whom there is not a word in the article, was shot.
  15. AMG
    0
    29 August 2026 22: 04
    Dear author! If you consider the actions of the USSR and England in August 1941 to be an invasion of Iran, then how do you assess the actions of the Warsaw Pact countries toward Czechoslovakia in August 1968?