Re: Re: Re: The Arab world and 9/11
That dates your story to 1945-46, which would be before the period about which I wrote. With the Brits occupying the Southern half of Persia, I doubt the Communists would have been successful in a coup. Furthermore, given Stalin's orders to Commies all over the globe to cooperate with the West in this period, I find it odd that it would be different here. Stalin may well have felt that Persia was supposed to be part of the Soviet Union given Russia's historical expansion in that direction. When the US threatened the USSR with nuclear attack in 1946 if they did not leave Iran, that was the end of matters.
It has no bearing on the overthrow of Mossagdeh in 1953, or the training of Savak, or US efforts to undermine the revolution in 1979.
Also consider that while Communists around the globe were more than willing to take aid from the USSR, with the exception of the Communist Party in the US, we almost never took orders from them, even when given. I'm not just refering to us anti-Stalinist commies. Maoists, of course, viewed the USSR as social-imperialist, and as bad as or worse than the capitalists. Nationalist commies (like the Sandinistas or the MPLA of the Vietnamese) refused to listen to Soviet orders to compromise, which is where there were so many revolutions and guerilla wars. Even Cuba refused to obey the USSR, even breaking with it for a period in the late 60s. So if the world's commies weren't Moscow puppets, it's doubtful that liberals and progressives were Moscow's puppets.
Ned, Imran's right about the women of Iran. While urbanized women were embrasing the West, rural women looked with horror on what was happening. As the movement against the Shah grew, many Westernized women began adopting the shawl as a symbol of protet against the regime. Westernization became tired to the Shah. It is ironic that despite being such an anti-women regime, the Revolution granted women the right to vote, which they still have today.
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Many of these so-called "democratic" reformers were in fact puppets of the Soviet Union. For example, documents released by the Soviets in the 1990s show that the Iranian communists were indeed planning to take over Iran with the aid of Soviet troops still occupying parts of northern Iran.
Many of these so-called "democratic" reformers were in fact puppets of the Soviet Union. For example, documents released by the Soviets in the 1990s show that the Iranian communists were indeed planning to take over Iran with the aid of Soviet troops still occupying parts of northern Iran.
It has no bearing on the overthrow of Mossagdeh in 1953, or the training of Savak, or US efforts to undermine the revolution in 1979.
Also consider that while Communists around the globe were more than willing to take aid from the USSR, with the exception of the Communist Party in the US, we almost never took orders from them, even when given. I'm not just refering to us anti-Stalinist commies. Maoists, of course, viewed the USSR as social-imperialist, and as bad as or worse than the capitalists. Nationalist commies (like the Sandinistas or the MPLA of the Vietnamese) refused to listen to Soviet orders to compromise, which is where there were so many revolutions and guerilla wars. Even Cuba refused to obey the USSR, even breaking with it for a period in the late 60s. So if the world's commies weren't Moscow puppets, it's doubtful that liberals and progressives were Moscow's puppets.
Ned, Imran's right about the women of Iran. While urbanized women were embrasing the West, rural women looked with horror on what was happening. As the movement against the Shah grew, many Westernized women began adopting the shawl as a symbol of protet against the regime. Westernization became tired to the Shah. It is ironic that despite being such an anti-women regime, the Revolution granted women the right to vote, which they still have today.
Comment