Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran

and finally:

hh

 

Arguable, frankly, but even if true then only because Hitler lost, and thereby didn't get to (fully) enact the Hunger Plan.

Genocidal-scale mass murder was an indirect result of Stalinist and Maoist policies, whereas actual genocide was pretty much the raison d'etre for the Nazis.

You still haven't told us.

It's funny that the Shah's justification of brutality is the same as that of other dictator's you have cited.

 

i believe i asked you a question related to this that youve decided to deliberately sidestep.

no response to my questions about churchills financiers either. very telling.

and who told you that? the jewish press?

hh

Moderator Action:
"The Jewish press" is a reference to the notion that Jews control many/most Western media. This is considered an anti-Semitic trope and is not allowed on this site. You're bordering on other anti-Semitic references too re: financiers. Do not make such comments. - Bootstoots
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

I think this tells us everything we need to know.

 

There weren't any oilfields of strategic value in North Africa during WW2. Those didn't come into play until way later.

The reason why Iran got invaded, was because it was the easiest way to supply the Soviets, and to a lesser extent to deny Germany access to Persian oil. The "Persian Corridor" was in fact extremely vital because it was the only one that could be used under all weather conditions. And the reason why the Allies helped the Soviets was because of the very old concept of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It would have been rather stupid of them not to help them. If the Soviets had fallen, Germany's position would have been largely untouchable, and if the Soviets had managed to beat Germany on their own, they would have been far less inclined to come to any sort of understanding over the nations of Europe.


That you actually went out of your way to speak about the "jewish press" is just asinine. That is nothing but conspiracy theory level here. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King may have had some issues with the press, but they weren't stupid enough to turn it into a conspiracy about Jews.

 

Moderator Action: References to the press as "Jewish" or comments about Jewish stereotypes such as financing or otherwise manipulating political events behind the scenes are considered anti-Semitic and are not allowed here.

If some individuals who were Jewish, or organizations with mostly Jewish membership, did own newspapers with certain editorial positions, finance particular political activity, or the like, you may talk about these individuals or groups specifically. But you may not try to paint this as representing the general behavior of many/most/all Jews as a religious or ethnic group.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

Given that the word ‘Israel’ is what the I in the title represents and the OP is about israel in international politics, is this thread going to remain open?

Also, maybe it could be moved to World History if we're going to discuss the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran? Because if we remove the anti-Israel bits then it's definitely not current events.

 

Wow. I’m coming around on hh being a troll because to claim that the shah was a popular figure in any regard is just... patently false, pretty much. He was incredibly unpopular.

 

I'd like to plug the 2500 year celebration of the Persian Empire in 1971.
Almost 80 princes, kings, presidents, and other big wigs attended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,500_year_celebration_of_the_Persian_Empire

 

Not to his supporters.

 

From what I've read despite his achievements in terms of education, female emancipation and other areas the Shah's autocratic, arbitrary rule and inability to trust anyone or delegate anything meant he had no real loyal powerbase or support, not even the military or educated middle classes. Some in the Iranian disapora may now look back on his reign as a golden age but in 1979 almost noone supported him.

 

I mean he was seen as a corrupt puppet, essentially. The 2500 anniversary extravaganza was only one specific event in an entire career of trying to draw legitimacy from kingship. His strategy was to fabricate a heritage in Iran to the Achaemenid Persians, and to move the cultural identity away from Shia Islam and towards the tradition of the Shah. Obviously this pissed off the clerical class, which was huge and powerful, but he also made enemies of the left and tons of other significant political tides.

A lot of the hoopla about his social reform was quite invented, much of it the work of people literally sent from American institutions to legitimize his government. On the ground very little was practically achieved from his reforms. His legacy to the Iranian people was repression of religious and political opposition.

 

https://en.radiofarda.com/a/the-shah-died-but-he-continues-to-influence-iran-politics/29721956.html

interesting reading, not sure how far to credit it.

 

As someone who is Iranian myself, I'll say that I do think MRP did a lot of good, but I REALLY don't want to be on the same side as someone who believes in Jewish conspiracy theories or someone who believes "the Nazis didn't do brutal genocide".

I'm not even sure if Reza himself would agree with those opinions, either. The current regime most likely would, but he wasn't the current regime.

Either way, people who hold these types of views should be left out of this conversation entirely.

 

Oh, definitely, he was the typical pro-US strongman ‘reformer’ of the era, but most of those who fled Iran were his supporters, or, at least, people who preferred him over the mix of Tudeh/Islamists/etc. who were certain to take power sooner or later.

 

Radio Farda is the Iranian branch of Radio Free Europe/Liberty. Its US government funded.

 

Hahaha see. Back in the day when the shah actually was in power the us government was also funding “research” about how stable and popular his government was. Except in those days you actually had to present it as research, not just editorial articles.

 

Well, I don't think the interest of the article is the flattery of the Shah's regime but rather the claims that a movement is emerging to restore the rule of the Shah. I didn't think the US could possibly be dumb enough to think attempting to undermine the Islamic Republic by propping up the Shah would make sense. My understanding is that the Islamic Republic has never been especially popular and has only become less popular over time.

 

It's only been forty years. Forty-ish years after the destruction of the Chetniks and Ustashe the US started ‘helping’ fund neo-fascist groups that helped disintegrate Yugoslavia (of course, it was ultimately done in by own goals but that's for another thread). The US still defends Taiwan more than forty years after it decided that the PRC deserved the Chinese seat at the UN Security Council, internally it still tries to uphold as much of anti-Negro legislation and practices as practicable… being pigheadedly idiotic for a few decades has a lot of precedence, y'know.