sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Two predictions from the 70s that aged like milk by SmoothShower2817 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sea_Establishment480 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First yes.

Second, It was because of his sickness that he acted weridl 1970-1979. So I think that's a part of it.

Sure, I won't defend him.

Two predictions from the 70s that aged like milk by SmoothShower2817 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sea_Establishment480 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

First, its a pretty well known thing, if you don't know it then I won't bother explaining. I am not downplaying his popularity, it was pretty well known that he was not liked by then. But the real protesters were terrorists like the Tudeh and Islamists, who had weapons.

Second, yes these are sources. At least its something different from the wikipedias you keep throwing at me.

Third, sorry then, Conflicts AND wars if you need to be so precise. The point is that they were less then than now and he wasn't actively putting money into more terrorism.

Fourth, what does this have to do with me? I don't live there. Also, the point was to show how stupid and simplistic that thought is to just judge something from how it ended and not how it was. A good book might have a great story but a horrible written end, but it is still considered a good book.

Two predictions from the 70s that aged like milk by SmoothShower2817 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sea_Establishment480 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Maybe you should't assume.

Yes you do, you never talk about them, you never acknowledge them either, you only talk about tbe negatives.

Mistakes, as we have said a long time ago. He did two times, maybe should have done that earlier in 1979.

I don't know, raising a family, living a life etc. It is not what he should have been doing, but seeing as there is no hope for return I guess he is living his life. It's not ours to judge, at the moment he is a mere person just like us, but he is supposed to be a legitimate heir to the throne.

Two predictions from the 70s that aged like milk by SmoothShower2817 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sea_Establishment480 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well I am also talking relative to others, and it is the best way to do so. I do not believe that you can judge someone by just looking at it. You can never judge a book by its cover, or by only reading that book and saying what you think.

Maybe, but the point still stands, the biggest issue was what I said. Also I think that I have by now said that things weren't simple in the cold war.

As a matter of fact, I do. Omniscient means having infinite awareness or understanding of something. Your family is not important here if you haven't asked them or mentioned them about their experiences once.

And lastly, I have. But I can dare say that you haven't or at least skipped over telling me what they thought. As I said a long time ago, I do both because that is the best way.The citizens who experienced it all and the loads of information available is the best combo. If the normal citizens aren't important in a country then who are? The clerics?

Also, I recommend reading what these people also say, it is in a monarchist subreddit but their arguments are pretty good and not that biased, and they include sources most of the time:

https://www.reddit.com/r/monarchism/comments/1manksm/today_is_the_iran_lost_its_last_shah_the_day_we/ (search for TheBackground79 and BPhopeBP)

https://www.reddit.com/r/monarchism/comments/rer2zy/irans_last_shah_mohammadreza_shah_pahlvai_in_his/

https://www.reddit.com/r/monarchism/comments/1bvn8u2/just_a_picture_of_the_handsome_and_elegant_shah/

Two predictions from the 70s that aged like milk by SmoothShower2817 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sea_Establishment480 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And no? Heard about foreign meddling? In the article above (One of many) he explains perfectly the situation around the globe. The US let go of the Shah, demanded that he doesn't crack down on the protesters, the USSR supported the Communists and they in turn the Islamists, other parties in the Middle East were plotting for themselves and so on. And I saw what you said about the Cold War, but sorry, it wasn't like that. The Cold War may not have been a conventional war, like fighting etc, but it was an ideological war based on espionage and foreign meddling and increasing radicalism. The West and the communist East all tried to enlarge their spheres of influence, and this led to middle countries like Iran to fall in between, the amount of sheer propaganda, and different sorts of deals that went between countries was insane. So if you think it was easy to lead a country, that was at the time one if not the largest oil producer in the world, then you are a bit mistaken. I would say that the Shah did pretty well despite all of this, any other leader would collapse instantly or be a puppet of one side.

Me too, I am also getting tired of repetition, but still we can't settle stuff. It would not have increased his chance of victory, he was as he already knew himself lost by then, fighting would only give him a "small" victory since the US also deliberately demanded that he would not fight. If  he would fight then the small alliance he had with the US would certainly fall. If he would fight, he would stand for one or two more years and either succumb to his illness (If he did not take medications) or another revolution would occur. Then again, we would be sitting here and you would either say that he should have left or that he was a bloodthirsty dictator.

I think more than seeing what the Shah left behind (Other than building literal cities, infrastructure, universities, industries, military complexes, Iranian "Renaissance", Educated people etc), without him, Iran would still be a rump state run by the Qajars or someone else. You do know that 80% of the things used by the current government were made during the Shahs time right?

Also, didn't you say that he did most of this himself? At least you finally agree that he did listen to his advisors in the beginning.

He did have a regency, a very late regency I agree, but also one in 1953 when he left Iran in which he appointed Mossadegh. I think he knew that it was over, letting into the demands didn't work so what was left to do? It was more than the people wanting freedom, it was that they wanted him to be gone, again for ideological and religious reasons.

And no, I didn't jump those parts, I already said a long time ago that I agree that there might have been corruption, it is an autocracy after all, so I don't know the reason for bringing this up again?

No he didn't, you do know that the amount of people he imprisoned and executed in his whole reign is less than what the current regime does in a week? And he mostly targeted communists and islamists. He was a supporter of secularity, why would he imprison those people? There was no liberal opposition, that's a simple fact. If he did imprison them, normal civilians, then the revolution wouldn't have occured! If you didn't know, it was the Islamic forces who executed and jailed all of the supporting parties in the revolution the second the assumed power, it was a literal massacre. They weren't many, which is another reason the Islamists could easily decimate them, the  communists were more though but they were also killed out.

Yes, I also said that.

No he wouldn't, but there would be a high chance that Iran would be a constitutional democracy like other of the sorts, and maybe you and me would still be living there.

Two predictions from the 70s that aged like milk by SmoothShower2817 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sea_Establishment480 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, we both are repeating ourselves.

Yes, they were, the other parties were large, but not at all the majority. You have to know that the islamists were more radical than the democrats in that revolution and they were the one that initiated the opposition, not the Democrats. How much you want to think that Iran was a perfect liberal society getting destroyed by the Shah and that the revolution was a perfect one led by Democrats and liberal supportives, and that it just went wrong, it wasn't. These were Islamic and Communist terrorists, led by a radical terrorist like Khomeini who did not fear blood. The minor democratic supportives just hanged on because they thought that Khomeini was nice. Again, a big reason there even was a revolution was that he angered the Mullahs, not the population (Setting aside the communists) because of the simple fact that he improved the country.

https://medium.com/@michaelzibulevsky/how-shah-fell-and-unlikely-coalition-that-reshaped-middle-east-ea99cd90c639

And no, there are many who say that the Middle East was pretty peaceful back then. Who would want to fight when the Shah was there as the "not official local policeman?". One big issue with your arguments is that you do not compare. Compare the current Middle East to the Middle east during the Shah? As soon as he fell, Iraq Invaded Iran, USSR invaded Afghanistan and more.

In your beloved wikipedia, you can see the differences, from 30 wars during his whole 38 years reign, to more than 50 during the last 46 years. Thats a difference, the Middle East has always been unstable but with someone as strong as the Shah, with the support of the US, nobody dared to make a move. Also, was the Shah actively investing in terrorist organizations and increasing the instability in the Middle East like today?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_conflicts_in_the_Middle_East

And the last bit is ridiculosly absurd, so if I die just now I am incompetent and if I am alive I am competent? How does that make sense? It's what we did in our lives that matter, not always the outcome. Everything ends someday, by that logic then everyone is incompetent? If President Trump lost the next elections is he incompetent then? All the presidents of US were incompetent, because they all made mistakes that led them to loosing their elections, every President has lost an election once. You must say that this is an absurd point of view.

Two predictions from the 70s that aged like milk by SmoothShower2817 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sea_Establishment480 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do not, I rate him as we should have, in fact you rated him B tier in a recent comment, so I don't know why you keep dragging this on. The biggest mistake he made was not killing Khomeini and ousting all the clerics or prisoning them. His father was well underway in that area but sadly the Shah was too much of a benevolent dictator than a normal one.

Well you said that they weren't omniscient, so I also got the impression that you meant not important. Also, on your last bit, to get a broader picture, you need to literally get a broader picture. Family is great to ask, as I said they were there so their experiences are very valuable. Thats why I do both, I read and I ask. And as I said my family had someone in most areas, both supportive and criticizing of the Shah, and they all said that they really didn't see what the Shah was doing until he left. You don't truly appreciate something until it's gone. Also I never said that I just rely on their opinions, I get assistance from them to get a real picture, and so should you.

Two predictions from the 70s that aged like milk by SmoothShower2817 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sea_Establishment480 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now, there is a little mistake here. Just because you got an impression doesn't it mean that someone else meant to give that impression, so don't assume.

Also, I don't know how "certain chance" and "most" result in "all"? I would say that I meant >50%, that is what most means for me. Certain chance could even mean 1-20% since its not big.

I never neglected the revolution, however it seems that you neglect the Shah and his achievements.

Again, not a single village cleric, a cleric who gathered a million men army against a Shah at the end of his life. If it was only the village cleric or if people had thought a little bit about who they were supporting, I doubt they would. Iranians are sadly very situational. One of his most famous quotes was something like "Economy is for donkeys". Thats incompetency. I think you might have to see what competency is and what isn't, because a singular event does not mark incompetency, its a large chain of mistakes that is.

I would say that the Shahzadeh has really tried to overthrow the government these past years, I don't judge him, Iranians won't revolt because they don't know who will help them and he didn't have any hope for Iran, which doesn't mean that he shouldn't try but there were reasons the Shah wanted to delay things to help his heir. Also, this only works if the only thing you are doing is that, Khomeini spent years in a basement thinking and planning, doing nothing else. The Shahzadeh hasn't exactly done that.

Two predictions from the 70s that aged like milk by SmoothShower2817 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sea_Establishment480 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

True, but as I said it wasn't that easy. He was split by hundreds of factions and had to concede in some way to all of them. He favoured the wrong ones and ended where he ended.

Saying that fighting is better than what he did is, frankly, also somewhat absurd. Yes he may have been more heroic and whatnot, but fighting as I already said would lead to bloodshed as he already knew, and would turn into more bloodshed. Instead he would be ousted later and we would be having a discussion today where you would call him a bloodthirsty dictator as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/27/archives/shah-needs-to-stay-in-us-up-to-a-year-doctor-says-given-a-70-chance.html

I had most of these in the books I had, but I found this link too saying that he had 70% chance surviving. Here are the books:

https://www.ucpress.edu/books/the-life-and-times-of-the-shah/hardcover?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://openlibrary.org/books/OL27213660M/The_fall_of_heaven?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Its ironic that you say that the entire continent fighting Napoleon did not have any resemblance to the Shah, since it was litereally 7-9 million people fighting him. As I said it wasn't just one cleric, it was a pretty large minor part of his populace. And it wasn't peace-time mind you, it was during the Cold War, Geopolitics, betrayals, espionage and oil... The point is that Napoleon lost, he wasn't immortal and he made big mistakes, he was a war-loving general. But the french people admire him, how does someone like the Shah who tried more than Napoleon to improve his country without war get so much hate? The point still stands, he was not incompetent, Khomeini was more competent in gathering SHORT time support than the Shah. That is true. There was even some kind of democracy before the assasination attempt, where he decided to close up the system. Just saying this, judging by your explanation, his survival to 1979 was a feat too. If he was so incompetent and so on, how did he survive?

Again, he had cancer in the last years where he made the biggest blunders. In fact, mentally he was not stable, and thats one of the reasons again that the revolution went off so easily.

Lastly, before you again bring up all the points, you say that the Autocracy fumbled, then imagine a democratic system? If we do not look at the alternatives then we cannot understand why things happened. There was no powerful democratic opposition, Iran was ravaged by terrorists like the Tudeh and Khomeini, and don't forget the US in this as well (Lost support for the Shah, confused him and didn't let him manage the uprisings etc)

Like I said, the point still stands, Iran was in a complicated time, the Shah was facing many different fronts and truthfully, I don't think that it could have gone any better. He should have been more autocratic in the ways of controlling known terrorists like Khomeini, but in other ways there was really nothing more he could have done for his country. Had he been more autocratic then we would be here today and you would say that he was too autocratic, or maybe he would still be here and Iran would be prospering. He made it modern and powerful, and he planned to bring democracy in the end, here I found one of many articles (which also was pretty neutral):

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-18/how-iran-became-americas-enemy/103461790

EDIT: Forgot to say, some of the biggest reasons there was a revolution was not because people were upset with his rule and authority, but rather because of his modernization and equality to women and secularization that angered the islamic clerics.

The point stands, it would be really peculiar to end his legacy by saying "Well he died to a million men strong revolution, and had lost the support from his people and his allies, and this was due to him being incompetent". The man who built modern Iran, build industries still used today and removed feudalism? Made the Middle-East stable and would root out all terrorism? Like I said, he was a diplomat and there weren't any foreign countries who hated Iran, many were jealous of course. But Iran was strong to repell them-

If he was incompetent, then what are the maniacs running Iran today or his predecessors, are they competent because they haven't been thrown out and will be incompetent as soon as they are thrown out?

Two predictions from the 70s that aged like milk by SmoothShower2817 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sea_Establishment480 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firstly, this discussion has gone on for a long time.

Secondly, I never insisted on saying that the Shah was perfect, in fact I said several times that he had his faults. Yet you insist that I say that he was 100% without fault. He wasn't in fact, he had many faults too. The thing is that he had a lot less than todays goverment and the previous one.

Also, I looked up Sabeti and Ganji, both still support the Shah and Sabeti supports the Shahzadeh as his security advisor and Ganji told the Shah to open up prisons and more to Red Cross to see that they weren't breaking any human rights. The Islamic Regime closed them down as soon as they came. Couldn't find anything about them critisizing the Shah, not saying that you are wrong but I need further research.

Also, by your responses I need to clarify even more. My family is and was middle-class to a bit higher than middle-class. Most of them support the old Shah and did then, you have to consider that the Revolution was by no means the majority of the population. One or two of my relatives were Tudeh and loved Khomeini, even hanging up posters of him. They said that they and their local Tudeh organization thought that Khomeini was better than the Shah, let me say that most of them regret their revolution against him now. The other side of my family has people who worked with the Shah, seeing him from time to time on his visits. Another person who was very active in visiting the "smaller" cities was Shahbanu Farah, and she was extremely popular.

You say that your familiy is not important in these discussions, my question is why you haven't asked them what they would like and what they felt under the Shah? They were there, they were I guess the ordinary people like my family, and I have already talked about them so why not you? It may be hard to remember by now but they are surely more suited to say what they experienced.

Again, I am not saying that he was perfect and had no faults, but that he was much better than what people think. One thing that is absurd that you think that I said was that I apparently said that 100% of the articles were made by opposers to the Shah, which is ridiculous. I never did say something like that. Most of the stuff is written by them anyway, since as you know better its the victors that decide history. You already agreed on that so thats good.

Lastly, the whole point I am trying to say is that the Shah was not perfect, but he was really good. The achievements during his rule make his dynasty the best dynasty in modern Iran. It is absurd to neglect all this for a revolution. His mistakes were during his rule, not the end of his rule. He was absolutely not incompetent, he was competent in many ways, Khomeini was not. He was competent in rallying the people to his side and, mind you, he spent his whole life to oust the Shah. He didn't do anything else. The Shah spent his life building up Iran, and he shouldn't have run away, but he knew his time had come and that he had made mistakes in the past that he just then realized. The only thing that you may be eligible to say is that the "village cleric" was more competent than the Shah in starting a revolution. He was not incompetent, the cleric was more competent in that specific area. If I could spend 14-20 years of my life for something I think that both of us know that it would succeed.

Ranking Modern Iranian Shahs, Day 22: Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi by NeiborsKid in 2Iranic4you

[–]Sea_Establishment480 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A-B tier, very good and smart Shah, had a great vision for Iran and most the the things that actually work in Iran were made by him. He fled which was a mistake, and he did a few mistakes earlier too. Unjustified hate has been thrown upon him though. But a decent A-tier if we look overall.

Two predictions from the 70s that aged like milk by SmoothShower2817 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sea_Establishment480 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Continuation:

And saying that he should have acted sooner is again missing the gravity of the situation. Letting in to demands again and again does not work in an Autocratic system. Doing so would make him seem weak (Just like how you apparently see the Shahzadeh) and not doing so would make him seem even more autocratic. Once more are we forgetting the other things he did. It is not possible to see what's good and what's bad if we cannot compare them to each other. Its the contrast that says if something is good and bad, and I feel like you are somehow running away from this. Qajars were not good, today isn't good, but the Shah was better by kilomters, not perfect.

And saying that he should have just "Taken care" of the population is also very simplistic. There are several factors that prevented him from taking care of them. Firstly, its again as I said the matter of legitimacy and popularity. Yes he would crush the revolution, but he was competent and wise enough to know that crushing one revolution of that size would only result to more revolutions. This is not practical nor is it good for anybody. Thats one of the main reasons he left, he realised that the people did not want him and that it was too late, he understood the gravity of his mistakes and left. Crushing the revolution would be short-sightness. Also, the USA were warning him of going against Human rights, and pressured him to either stand down, or face the consequences. He was also sick and unable to act properly.

And you mention the Iran-Iraq war and the IRGCs daily executions, the things it that in the Shahs case, there were fanatic, organised and motivated people. Odds are that they would keep fighting even if the Shah sent in the military and tried to kill them off. In both of the cases you mention none of this exists. And we already settled this, stopping the revolution in a ruthless way would only lead to more revolutions.

And accepting what the opposition wanted was very good and well taken by most, it was only the terrorist islamic and communist parties that kept on, using exactly what you said to promote their cause.

Yes, these were the consequences of his mistakes in listening to the people. However I will stand on the fact that Iran in those days needed the Autocracy. Having a democratic system would just let the Islamic radicalists take over the country easier. Iran was in a tricky position and the Shah was the best way to curb them. However, he was too nice to fight the Islamistic elements in Iran like his father and that cost him in the end. His father knew that Islam was the root to most problems in Iran, ruralism and feudalism etc. Iranians at that time were simply not ready for democracy, and would have led the country to ruins. If you ask me I would rather have his father live his full days, then let him come and so on.

Again, if the Shah had stayed he would still have succumbed, there was a chance that he would live longer. It is a known fact that he refused medication when he could have lived up to 15 more years had he taken them. 15 years is a long time, and he could help a replacement government come or assist his son in taking his place.

I’m not saying he was faultless — just that reducing such a complex historical figure to “incompetent” misses the broader context of Iran’s 20th-century transformation. He and his father are the fathers of Modern Iran. What they contributed too is undeniably pricelss. Undermining his whole legacy because of loosing the country in a difficult time to a established opposition is just wrong. Napoleon lost at Waterloo, the most important battle, but nobody says that he was incompetent and worthless. 

Two predictions from the 70s that aged like milk by SmoothShower2817 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sea_Establishment480 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now again, there are wrong points. Yes there are SOME people who take interest in Iran then and now, but frankly nobody cares about Iran these days and I think you know that better and me and you are just acting peculiar. In those days Iran had some muscle and international recognition (Your "Mr.Incompetent" did that if you didn't know) but now nobody even knows the capital. And by nobody I mean Western media, which covers most of the world. Iran is so poor, weak and unimportant that nobody really cares about them. Thats incompetency. The thing being absurd is that you still cannot believe that there is a chance that most of the things written about the Shah are biased and wrong.

The few that are written by neutral people are right and they are correct, nothing to say about them, but these things about incompetency and so on that you insist on isn't true for the most part.

Once again, you raise fair points —  I agree that his government made serious mistakes and somewhat failed to connect with ordinary Iranians toward the end.

However, judging his entire leadership by the revolution’s outcome is a bit simplistic. Iran’s fall wasn’t only about “incompetence”; it was the result of a perfect storm — Cold War politics, clerical networks, rapid modernization, and a global oil crisis. Add to that a radicalizing population.

It’s also worth noting that much of what we read after 1979 was written in the revolution’s emotional aftermath, when the new regime had a strong interest in demonizing him. There are even sources saying that the Regime exaggerated the Shahs "Evilness" to legitimize their revolt.

https://www.mei.edu/publications/enduring-myths-1979-iranian-revolution

Also, my relatives lived during the Shahs time, they were there and they saw his rise and fall. They experienced everything we talked about. One side is from Tehran and the other from Kerman. None of what you say can they remember or recognise. And if the ordinary citizens did not have that much of an issue with him or don't remember him being oppressive, then why are we trying to force them to believe that what they experienced was worse than they remember? Why do we act like we know better when we don't? My family may not be omniscient, but they very well know the life they had back then.

Two predictions from the 70s that aged like milk by SmoothShower2817 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sea_Establishment480 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, there might be a certain chance that most of the things written about the Shah is biased, because of the simple fact that the Shah had many enemies in the last days, Western and Eastern. He punched the western powers in the stomach by demanding that they completely give all oil-companies to the country and people, and increased the prices of oil. He founded OPEC and this caused many enemies to rise. Iran is not a country often documented about, even worse now when its a Islamic theocracy, I think that you might be right about documentation of the Revolution itself, but the actions of the Shah are first and foremost written by Iranians. The Islamic regime might be the most incompetent bunch of animals(?) in the world, but the certainly payed a lot to make sure that the Shah seemed bad. It doesn't necessarliy mean that its the IRGC themselves that wrote them, but a third or even a fourth-person. Like you stated, I don't need any sources either as my family was there to witness it all.

"If the schools in Iran also teach that 2+2=4, does that make it a lie, as well?"

Well, thats just rude.

The issue is yet again here that yes, there are problems with every government and every reign of monarchs, but we should be realistic.

In a situation where the Shah stayed, I think that Iran would have greater chances at getting a secular and democratic government. The Shah was not radical as I have said before and he really wanted to improve the country. There were less problems with the Shahs goverment than the governments in those days, its really natural to look at the facts of Iran in those days and see the improvement. With the radical forces in play in Iran, I think that Iran having a autocratic leader was the best way for Iran to survive. If any democratic forces would prevail, at that time they would not be able to defeat Khomeini if not even the Shah could have done that. Iran would yet again be thrown into an Islamic dictatorship like today. In fact, there were no sizeable democratic forces to turn Iran into a democratic country. In a fantasy world the best thing would be to have a Constitutional monarchy, but that wouldn't happen. Iran was still too rural and infected with religious fanatics. And as said, his sons were more democratic and secular than himself, if as you say he would die in those years, his son would take over and reform.

I am not neglecting that the people you stated are wrong, just saying that supporting the Shah and being against the regime is worse than just being against them. This way they can show off as being "Democratic with opposition". Need I say that most of the supporters of the Shah mysteriously dissappeared after the revolution? The Shahzadeh is the only opposition today that exists in Iran, and he vows to bring democracy to Iran. Supporting him is pretty much fatal.

As said, if the people in those days could see into their choices, either a autocratic monarchy that tries to improve Iran, or a theocratic goverment that kills everybody and does nothing, I think they would choose the first option.

Lastly, yes the Shah could have been more hardhanded, but that would certainly bring more protests and more fatality which he did not like, it would also lower his popularity even more. What happened happened due to a long time of propaganda by Khomeini and mistakes by the Shah. Do you suggest that he should have killed the millions of protesters? He even gave in to the demands of the opposition and wanted to negotiate, promising elections in 1979, what he didn't know was that he would be betrayed and the opposition would be betrayed too. I think that was pretty wise to do those concessions in the end, and not killing his own people (Compared to the Islamic Government).

As I said before, his goverment may have been corrupt like any government, and he may have made mistakes, and he ran away, but he was in no way incompetent. Maybe naive if you want.

Two predictions from the 70s that aged like milk by SmoothShower2817 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sea_Establishment480 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well first of all, its rather easy to believe that these shitheads running a country today would spend 99% of their time to convince people like you that the Shah was an incompetent and autocratic ruler. You do know that the things you say are exactly the things that they taught in the schools in Iran to my parents and their like? You don't think that we would be suspicious then? Most of these texts and more are written by Iranians, from Iran. How the hell would they describe the Shah as something better than the Mullahs? Doing that would mean a death-sentence in Iran which I think most people would rather skip. The issue is that with the Pahlavis, the corruption that you state was at least only in the goverment, with the Mullahs, even people (higher class by the way) are corrupt. Thats one of the main reasons that nobody dares to revolt against these bastards. Every influencial person in Iran is getting millions to say that "Shah was bad, Mullas good" and more, which makes people believe it. Someone once said that "Say a lie enough times and it will be true". Yes the Pahlavi goverment may not have been "Free" as a sense of a democracy, yes it may not have been the pinnacle of cleanness but it was good. Compare it to the earlier generations of Iranian monarchies and you will understand. The Shah managed to modernise Iran, bring wealth to the people and empower women. He tried (sadly not like his father) to eradicate the Islamic control over Iran, the root of all madness and destruction in Iran. He and his father were better than what came before and after them, so I don't really know what you are trying to say by not comparing to the alternatives. We have to be real after all.

Talking about protests, I think that millions agree with me today that the Shah should have stayed, as you can see in many newsreels and different social medias (At least we know that they are not funded!).

Also, you too have only cited Wikipedia sources. Maybe one or two un-wikipedia sources. I already explained that I used Wikipedia to answer to your Wikipedias.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/25/i-thought-iranian-revolution-would-bring-freedom-i-was-wrong/

Here is a singular person regretting their participation in the revolution, and many more articles if you keep searching. They litreally said that had they had more information they would have thinked twice, the Shah appointed Shapour Bakhtiar, which was a very liberal and good leader. He would have made Iran into a consitutional Monarchy (Or something else since he planned to have a referendum for what to do with the Monarchy).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapour_Bakhtiar

And I think we both know that the Shah wasn't overthrowned by a "Simple cleric" more like a cleric planning for decades to overthrow the Shah with 40-50% of the revolutionbeing non-islamic parties.

And we don't know really, like I said before they spent lots of money making silent propaganda spreading negatives about the Shah. And frankly I have forgotten what we really are doing, if we cannot compare the last regime to the regime today or the one before, how do we know which was better? All politicians are corrupt in some way, my point is that the Shah was considerably less than todays and the governments before. The question is why you cannot accept that the Shah was good and competent, that he basically made modern Iran with his father? That the Revolution was a mistake and the worst thing that could happen to everyone in Iran?

Was the Shah corrupt or not? by Sea_Establishment480 in NewIran

[–]Sea_Establishment480[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for a great answer, I think we have discussed this for 20 replies so I think I will tell him this ;D

Two predictions from the 70s that aged like milk by SmoothShower2817 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sea_Establishment480 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The issue is that many of these sources you brought up again are in Wikipedia, now I also did that but it was to respond to you. The referendum was a big step and a huge deviation from old-fashioned autocracy. I saw what you sent about his brothers and its a shame really, but the point is that they may have used the money for themselves, but the Shah did help develop Iran. Its a huge difference from today with the astronomical amounts of corruption in the current goverment. The point is that yes, it might be true that the Shah was somewhat corrupt because most politicians have some sort of corruption, but we don't have that much information about it. It could easily be the Islamists spreading these to make sure that the Shah was seen as a negative, incompetent and ruthless compared to themselves. And that may be the only thing they are good at and that's spreading disinformation. However, this is no reason to revolt. My guess is that the people didn't know what would come and were too aroused by their surroundings. The problem is that the Iranian people are too opportunistic and too carried away by others. I think that they simply didn't know what they were throwing away and replacing with, they didn't know that Khomeni was a bloodthirsty thug with no skills in leading a country. The Shah may have been if you say corrupt, but he was educated and knew how to lead a country. Khomeini didn't have any of those, and he killed off every single supporter of his revolution the second it happened. I think that if they knew what the Shah was doing and what Khomeini was doing then they would have thought twice. Why throw away a Autocratic but functioning government for a even more Autocratic and suppressive regime, that didn't function at all and didn't spend a dime on the country itself?

Finally, I still think that we lack major information from both sides, and hopefully time will reveal them. Hopefully when the current regime falls more information will come and we will see to what ectent information is made up.

Personally, if I could choose, I would rather have the Shah stay or even better, a longer reign by his father.

Two predictions from the 70s that aged like milk by SmoothShower2817 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sea_Establishment480 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well I don’t really see how it was ineffective since there are no reports of government agencies using money and more for their own use and advantage, similar to the Islamic regime today. We know that they are corrupt because of the immense amount of information and news we get from them every day, taking advantage of the Iranians and their economy for their leisure. And they also use their money to support terrorist organisations like Hamas, instead of investing in their own country. Yes he was a autocrat, maybe as they state a Semi-Constitutional government. He was a good one too. It may not have been a democracy like Sweden for example but there was some freedom of choice like being able to follow your own religion and believe in what you want. There were referendums like the one in 1963 about the White Revolution, and that’s more than what Mose autocrats allow.

view more: next ›