861.00/11975: Telegram

The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Standley) to the Secretary of State

151. I have been impressed by the unanimity of opinion among those of my colleagues who represent the states contiguous to the Soviet Union with respect to Soviet post war foreign policy. Although all agree that full and friendly cooperation with the outside world would assuredly serve the economic, social and political interests of this country, they are seemingly doubtful that such a policy is likely to be followed. For example, the Afghan Ambassador83 expressed to me the opinion that although the Russians and British had formally agreed to work together in close and friendly collaboration for a period of 20 years after the war, he personally would not be surprised to find the Russians disregarding this agreement within 6 months or even 6 days—if it were in their interest to do so. He described Russian foreign policy as completely Machiavellian and maintained that “the Soviet system makes real cooperation impossible.[”] The Iranian Ambassador84 remarked to me that “all of us” must expect continuing difficulties with the Russian “enfant gâté” and appeared to be very doubtful of Soviet cooperation after the war. Although he admitted that Stalin had assured him that the Soviet Union had no territorial aspirations in Iran and had promised that the Soviet troops would leave Iran upon the cessation of hostilities, he remarked with some cynicism “l’appétit vient en mangeant” and he did not appear to place much faith in Stalin’s expressions of intentions. As I have previously reported, the Turkish Chargé is skeptical of Soviet postwar collaboration and of Stalin’s desire wholeheartedly to enter [Page 624]into a world union of nations. Although he has not been as outspoken, I feel sure that the Polish Chargé85 shares these views. Of all the neighboring representatives, the Chinese have not thus far [expressed?] opinions on this question.

Standley
  1. Sultan Akhmed Khan.
  2. Mohamed Saed.
  3. Henryk Sokolnicki.