3/3/2026 at 2:26:00 PM
Really fascinating to read this next to the Wikipedia page on Iran.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
Very different account of Reza Shah:
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.
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.
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.
by xrd
3/3/2026 at 4:01:59 PM
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).
by jamesgill
3/4/2026 at 2:51:33 AM
In all likelihood the same thing would be happening if the Iranian government wasn’t a religious or nationalist government.by kelipso