To his supporters, his reign brought "law and order, discipline, central authority, and modern amenities – schools, trains, buses, radios, cinemas, and telephones." However, his reign has been characterized as a corrupt police state which provided only surface level modernization.
Versus this:
1941: Britain and the USSR jointly invaded and occupied Iran, forcing Reza Shah to abdicate and exiling him to South Africa. His 22-year-old son Mohammad Reza was installed as Shah — widely seen from day one as a Western-installed ruler.
A big difference in the wikipedia is the associated references. I love a sensationalized story and the github account seems more interesting to me, and perhaps the wikipedia is better sourced and has accounts from all perspectives.
But, I wonder which one the Iranians adopt as "true" because that seems very important, as opposed to the history held by war-phillic Americans.
If you are genuinely interested in the history of the region, the saddest part is that it's not 'sensationalized' as you put it, but the opposite--it's incredibly well-documented. Even released CIA documents confirm the coup and other actions. I don't see much disagreement between Wikipedia and what I wrote.
And Iranians, like Americans, differ in their opinions of government. There are nearly 100 million Iranians in country (and many more outside).
And of course if you read what I wrote, it's fairly clear why many Iranians didn't want a religious nationalist government, and many left over the past decades. Many of them didn't want the Shah or his Israel-trained brutal secret police, either, and many more didn't want the country's economy sold wholesale to the West (as it was).
What a sad history. Makes me glad that my country does not have oil. Russia seems to be the only country that has (so far) withstood attempts of colonization by the western superpowers.
I really have no love for the mollah regime, but I find infuriating the pedophile in charge and the genocidal maniac pretending to be humanitarian with the complicity of the western powers and media
Really fascinating to read this next to the Wikipedia page on Iran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
Very different account of Reza Shah:
Versus this: A big difference in the wikipedia is the associated references. I love a sensationalized story and the github account seems more interesting to me, and perhaps the wikipedia is better sourced and has accounts from all perspectives.But, I wonder which one the Iranians adopt as "true" because that seems very important, as opposed to the history held by war-phillic Americans.
That's me, I wrote it.
If you are genuinely interested in the history of the region, the saddest part is that it's not 'sensationalized' as you put it, but the opposite--it's incredibly well-documented. Even released CIA documents confirm the coup and other actions. I don't see much disagreement between Wikipedia and what I wrote.
And Iranians, like Americans, differ in their opinions of government. There are nearly 100 million Iranians in country (and many more outside).
And of course if you read what I wrote, it's fairly clear why many Iranians didn't want a religious nationalist government, and many left over the past decades. Many of them didn't want the Shah or his Israel-trained brutal secret police, either, and many more didn't want the country's economy sold wholesale to the West (as it was).
In all likelihood the same thing would be happening if the Iranian government wasn’t a religious or nationalist government.
What a sad history. Makes me glad that my country does not have oil. Russia seems to be the only country that has (so far) withstood attempts of colonization by the western superpowers.
[dead]
Glad to see an accessible post of Iranian history
I really have no love for the mollah regime, but I find infuriating the pedophile in charge and the genocidal maniac pretending to be humanitarian with the complicity of the western powers and media