Talk:Tehran Conference

Untitled
The following sentence is factually false: "While the numbers that were proposed varied widely and never came to fruition, the powers would effectively divide modern Germany into two parts until the end of the cold war." It was not two zones at first. Initially, there were four zones: UK, USA, French, and Soviet. Then the UK, French, and USA zones got merged to form the Federal Republic of Germany (1949-1990). I can make the edit myself (I'm new, but I've learned that much) but I'd like to hear consensus from 2-3 other people first.Gregorybard (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This sentence:
 * Took note on November 30 that Operation OVERLORD would be launched during May 1944, in conjunction with an operation against Southern France.

Seems a bit odd since the Overlord was actually launched in June, not May. Is this sentence in error, or was the operation delayed? Please update the article accordingly. ---mav 06:38, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No it's correct - Overlord had to be postponed, and Anvil (Dragoon as it became) was postponed further.

The picture in the article is at the Yalta conference.

The picture in there now is of Teheran. Roosevelt looked a lot more ill by Yalta.

''Later on, critics claimed that Roosevelt and Churchill were weak, refusing to stand up to Stalin. However, looking back on the conference, it is arguable that it was Stalin who was forced to make the most concessions and to fight the hardest for what he wanted.''

Wait. This doesn't make sense. It may be true that Stalin fought the hardest for what he wanted but that doesn't contradict that Roosevelt and Churchill were weak. Also, looking at the "Major Conclusions" I don't possibly see how Stalin could have made the "most concenssions". Support Turkey and... be supported by Western Powers and get the borders with Poland he wanted. This should be changed or at least clarified.radek 22:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add in some information and someone just deleted it. What gives? The addition was referenced to Stalingrad by Tony Beevor..User:Reagar

a robot deletes it automatically. reager. and look at your user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Aaron 6 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The final clause of this sentence: Churchill and Roosevelt also gave Stalin free rein in his own country, and allowed the USSR to set up puppet communist governments in Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Baltic states, Romania, and other Eastern European countries what has become a reason of loss of freedom by these countries for next fifty years and genesis of Cold War. does not seem to make sense, or appears to be at the very least clumsily constructed. Dajon (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Simonekjo, 204ted, Missi1705, Rstever2018, Kennjones.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Combine
Yes, merge the small Tehran Declaration page into the Tehran Conference article Hugo999 (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WRONG HISTORY!!!!!!!
Stalin did NOT SUPPORT UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDOR AT TEHRAN. HE objected to it.

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1943CairoTehran&isize=L&submit=Go+to+page&page=513

right from the words of the US state department. But roosevelt didnt really care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This entry is horribly biased to the American view. It needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.216.106.168 (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Im going to try to do that! Farawayman (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The given text does not say Stalin objected to a demand for unconditional surrender, he objected to an unclarified unconditional surrender - and it will require a source that analyses that statement to explain it rather than taking it (a primary source) at face value. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Citing wikipedia?
Why does this article cite the 2006 Wikipedia articles?Sadads (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tehran Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060118153742/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/01/documents/yalta.html to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/01/documents/yalta.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

More resources/references for this article
Roberts, Geoffrey. "Stalin at the Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam Conferences." Journal of Cold War Studies, vol. 9, no. 4, Fall2007, pp. 6-40. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=31h&AN=27246858&site=ehost-live.

Vanderlippe, J. M. (2001), A Cautious Balance: The Question of Turkey in World War II. Historian, 64: 63-80. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.2001.tb01477.x Kennjones (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Pentagon Papers
In the summary of section one of the papers (https://nara-media-001.s3.amazonaws.com/arcmedia/research/pentagon-papers/Pentagon-Papers-Part-I.pdf, page 1) it briefly mentions discussion of the independence of French Indochina by Roosevelt. This page does not state that (although as a high school student, I don't want to edit a page this important without confirmation). Can anyone take a minute to confirm this? Thanks!

Bensjones (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Getting there
Given the logistics, and the need for secrecy, the process of getting three leaders and their entourages to Tehran must have been quite a process. Yet there's almost nothing about how this was accomplished. We see that Stalin was reluctant to leave Moscow and refused to fly. . . and then they are arriving at the embassy. The logistics of travel could likely even be a separate section (but I don't know anything about the topic). Anybody? --Minturn (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting subject. Churchill and Roosevelt met in Cairo before the Tehran Conference. Churchill sailed there in the 1916 battlecruiser HMS Renown (old, but newly refitted, good for 32 knots and armed with six 15-inch guns), while FDR came from the US in the brand-new battleship USS Iowa (33 knots, 9x16-inch) as far as Mers-el-Kabir, Algeria, and then presumably by air because it's nearly 2,000 miles. From Cairo, WSC and FDR both flew to Tehran, Churchill aboard the specially fitted RAF Avro York named Ascalon (after the legendary sword of St George), a 'VVIP' transport reserved for him and King George VI. Roosevelt did not yet have his famous Douglas VC-54C Skymaster, 'The Sacred Cow', complete with wheelchair elevator, so he and his party presumably travelled in a less special C-54. After the conference, both Western leaders flew back to North Africa.

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/stalin-roosevelt-and-churchill-meet-in-tehran/


 * Roosevelt then returned to the US aboard the Iowa. Churchill had to recuperate from pneumonia in Marrakech and then returned to England in January on the newish battleship HMS King George V (28 knots, 10x14-inch)which, with HMS Rodney, slew the Bismarck in May 1941.

https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-148/getting-there-churchills-wartime-journeys/


 * I think Stalin did find himself having to fly part of the way to and from Tehran, instead of travelling in his usual luxurious armoured train. He hated this, but I don't know if he had anyone shot for it. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)