Would you be so kind as to provide a cite for where it was proven that the vote was “clearly rigged?” Because in reality, this is nothing short of western rationalizing for what amounted to an act of war.
Mossadegh was dissolving parliament because it had been hand picked by the Shah and his father. The original coup had included plans to use the parliament to re-install the Shah. Mossadegh got wind of this and thought he would preempt such a move by dissolving parliament. Moves like that are not uncommon at all when a government is ridding itself of an entrenched power. It was, after all, a revolution. I agree that it worked to his disadvantage and allowed the west to further disparage him as a crazy strongman. The fact that he willingly, and against the overwhelming opposition of the Iranian people, surrendered his position to the Shah proves that the “strongman” nonsense is worthy of nothing but a hearty flush.
Another bullshit western myth. Cite for where he was forging closer ties with the Soviets?
How about the fact that the national referendum over whether to support Parliament resulted in 99.9% of the vote going for the “yes” side. Considering the fact that the shah had many supporters, I find the fact that the vote was honest highly suspectable.
Mossadegh surrendered because forces loyal to the Shah were moving regiments into the capital and bombing his residence. Mossadegh was a strongman; there is no other way to put it. He made thorough sweeps of the government ridding it of pro-Shah individuals, from the parliament to other branches. He tried to force the Shah out of the country and when the Shah wouldn’t leave, prepared to use force of arms. As for his overwhelming popularity, I highly doubt this existed, considering that efforts at reform and economic recovery had failed under his watch. His popularity initially held despite the failure of the nationalizing of British oil but as time wore on his supporters became fewer.
How about his ties with the Tudeh Party, along with his socialist policies, in conjunction with the fact that people of like stripes tend to hang out with each other. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that associations with a pro-Soviet party and pro-socialist acts might be the base for forging ties with the USSR.
note to Zagadka: I apologize for this rabid hijacking. *
Cites please. I had not heard of that 99.9% figure before nor have I read it. And you are incorrect. The Shah did not have very much support in the military (outside of General Zahedi) and almost none amongst the populace.
And he had several generals on his side. His decision to not turn it into a bloodbath is further evidence of him not being a strongman. The fact that he still permitted the Shah to wield any authority shows how he still held a high regard for the rule of law. A strongman would have summarily dismissed all members of the parliament and passed an edict outlawing the monarchy like Khomeini did. He would have held kangaroo courts and had dissenters executed like the Shah did. But he didn’t because Mossadegh was no strongman.
He forced the Shah to leave? No one had to force the “suitcase monarch,” as he was known throughout the west, to leave; either the first or second time. He was such a chicken shit, Mossadegh couldn’t have kept him there if he had tried.
Wrong. The economy tanked because the British blockaded Iran. It had nothing to do with his economic policies.
Incidentally, ask yourself why, if Mossadegh’s nationalization policies were so bad and “socialistic” and evil, how come the Shah doesn’t get branded as being the same (or even worse) for not reversing the order when he came back to power? In fact, he further purged the NIOC of any former businessmen in a vain attempt to endear himself to the people. Mossadegh, on the other hand, had recognized the importance of their talent and asked them to stay on in the newly formed NIOC.
“Failure” of nationalizing the oil? Considering he did it, I don’t see how he failed. Secondly, it wasn’t British oil. The Shah and his dad thought like you as well. That’s why the Iranians threw Pahlavi out and why Mossadegh is, to this day, more popular with Iranians than any other leader outside of Cyrus.
Cite please. What “ties” to the Tudeh party? Because he didn’t summarily execute every communist and allowed them to have say in the political process unlike the western ass puppet the Shah? Because of that he has “ties” to the Tudeh party? If not, what ties are you talking about? Where do you get this crap??
Oh, I see. Them commies are all the same. Well, then I guess most of Europe communist since they all have such socialist policies. And you know what that means.
Right. Make close ties with the country that has been trying to swallow your country whole for several hundred years because of your political ideology. No, you see genius, that would have made him about as popular as the Tudeh party with Iranians… and about as significant.
Ah I see how this works. Because I do not agree with your anti-US propaganda, my information is crap. Sorry, but it is just the facts. For someone who seems to think highly of himself/herself in terms of Iranian history, you sure are missing some key pieces.
FYI, my “cite” would be this:
I also read two books on Iranian history during high school. Presently their names escape me, due to the passage of time and, probably more importantly, the fact that Iranian history is not my chief interest.
[QUOTE=Nietzsche]
Cites please. I had not heard of that 99.9% figure before nor have I read it. And you are incorrect. The Shah did not have very much support in the military (outside of General Zahedi) and almost none amongst the populace.
From my “cite”.
As for the military, the Shah did have support. The Premier fired many pro-Shah individuals; some of these then requested US and UK help in overthrowing him.
As for your claims that the Shah had little public support, this is blatantly false. His supporters may have been a minority but they were not few in number. His followers energetically demonstrated for him whenever he needed them to.
He surrendered because he had lost. Plain and simple. He was strategically outmaneuvered and his support was shaky. Supporters of the Shah had been brought in by the busload to take control of the city and the radio. His power trips had failed and he knew that there was no way to make an easy win. As for permitting the Shah to wield any authority, he himself did not have control over that. Elections over the past few years had been shaky and suspicious at best and the Shah was still deemed a legitimate ruler, even if the consensus was for him to have a limited role in affairs of state.
The Premier had emergency powers declared for himself. He silenced Parliament by rigging a referendum. This man was as undemocratic as any, and people accuse the US of destroyed democracy in Iran? Ridiculous.
Mossadegh told the Shah that he should leave. He wouldn’t, and tried to get rid of the Premier. He refused, and since violence was imminent the Shah had to leave. No, the Premier didn’t show him the door, but he was responsible for making him flee temporarily. Many leaders would do the same. The Shah was forced out his country by a greedy power hungry Prime Minister who would not relinquish his power.
Hilarious. Please, what caused the British blockade in the first place? gasp His economic policies! Who knew that the British wouldn’t be pleased over the fact that they just lost a major investment in Iran and would react to that. I would have never seen that coming.
Doing so would have created more disorder. The Shah was left with the damage caused by Mossadegh, and rather than overturning it, which would have caused even more instability, he decided to try and salvage what had already been done.
He failed in his goals. Nationalization was supposed to increase the economic strength of Iran, which it clearly did not.
Actually, it was. The British were allowed to find, extract, and ship that oil on their own. See the concessions of 1908 and 1933 (the latter reducing the area of British expansion).
Also to this day, Thomas Jefferson is considered one of our greatest leaders ever, despite the fact that his version of the Declaration of Independence was considered mediocre, that he was a slave holder, that he committed adultery, that he was an absolute horrible president, that he allowed the US to enter its first economic depression by enacting laws that destroyed American shipping, by supporting his former vice president in a bizarre plot to sieze Mexico, by attempting to interfere with the judicial process after the plot was revealed, by sacrificing his own principles in accepting the Louisiana Purchase while being grossly indecisive of the matter, and of running his family into debt by the time of his debt. Doesn’t mean he was a great leader; its just a figure for the populance to look up to.
Yeah c’mon, get it out of your system. C’mon, call me a “kkkapitali$t imperiali$t Amerikkkan bourgouise oppressor”, the west is so evil!!!
OK, now that that’s done:
The Premier supported the Tudeh Party. Despite being banned in 1949, it became supportive of the Prime Minister in his struggles against the Shah. This was quite natural, as the Shah had western allies. Mossadugh took advantage of the Tudeh and relied on them for their support. Really, its not that hard to know who’s going to side with whom here.
Well maybe, except for this little overriding fact that historians like to call “World War II” which left Western Europe as a target of Soviet and later Warsaw Pact expansionism. Socialists may not make great allies, and some may result in failures, such as Yugoslavia, China and Albania, as history has shown, but they WILL attempt to initially ally with each other, as history has also shown.
OK, this was just dumb. I’m sorry, but that fact has to be pointed out.
Leaders aren’t stupid. Very rarely have leaders been blinded enough by their hatred so that they can’t logically look at who makes the better ally. After over two centuries of animosity, the Austrians and French became allies during the Seven Years War. The Afghani government attempted to become Soviet allies in the 1950s. Sunnis and Shi’ites used to be the worst of enemies, for Christ’s sake. Leaders don’t stay embroiled in the past; they choose alliances that will help them in the present.
Also consider:
Russia != the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The British were just as imperialistic in Persia as the Russians had been.
The British were the object of intense hatred at the time, as opposed to the Soviets.
If the Soviets really were a threat, an alliance with them could neutralize that threat.
No, I called your information crap because it’s crap. Your lack of cites other than “I read it in high school” and one wikipedia article further confirms it.
And since you’re new here, allow me to explain something to you. Here at the Straight Dope one needs to furnish proof of their assertions when asked. This is especially true in Great Debates. I wasn’t asking for a cite to make life hard for you.
No, he didn’t lose, he relinquished power granted to him by the people of Iran because he didn’t want a bloodbath.
Hmm… makes one wonder why his supporters had to be bussed in if he had any support amongst the populace. Perhaps it was because they were hired thugs?
What a psychopathic communist USSR lover, huh? He wouldn’t even suppress the treasonous scum posing as press!
Thank you for proving my point for me. You just repeated what I said. Mossadegh was no strongman and his adherence to the letter of the law proves that. Phrase it any way you like, it still says the same thing.
No, what’s ridiculous is people like you who are still trying to pass a foreign intervention by a colonialist power as something noble and worthy of support.
Mossadegh did not “give himself emergency powers.” Parliament did that.
Right, and in fact, the Shah did manage to anger Mossadegh enough to get him to quit. But by overwhelming outcry from the people (in the form of 3 days of rioting), the Shah was forced to reinstate him.
You just don’t get it, do you? No, that was the people of Iran making him flee. They didn’t like the fact that he was opposing Mossadegh’s moves to protect Iran’s national resources. They didn’t want the Shah. That’s why he left.
If fact, the little pussy wouldn’t even return until the colonizers staged pro-monarchy demonstrations for him (which they couldn’t do without hiring folks to show up).
Wow… just wow.
I quote from my earlier cite of All the Shah’s Men
Yeah, he sounds like a real power hungry strongman alright. At least Mossadegh didn’t have to pay for his supporters to show up. They did so willingly (and for free). No bussing required even!
No, it was his mandate to protect Iran’s natural resources from being looted by the British. Your attempts to paint his economic policies as being failures is just ripe bullshit.
He saw it coming too and he took the matter to the UN. The Truman Administration agreed with Mossadegh and the Brits had to back down. That’s what lead to them planning a covert operation.
Okay, follow me closely here. He didn’t just leave well enough alone. He came in and * further purged the pro-British businessmen.* Did you catch that? That’s not the same as leaving it alone for fear of causing more instability. That’s doing what he thought would help endear him to the people whom he knew hated him even if it caused more instability to the oil industry.
Actually, it did once the jack boot of the colonialists was lifted.
Unbelievable. You’re referring to agreement of 1919 signed by the parliament of al-Doleh? The one that effectively made Iran a semi-colony of the British? You do realize the al-Doleh and his ministers had received £131,000 as a bribe, right? cite
Tell me something. Seriously, you’re completely okay with the concept of semi-colonies or perhaps even classic-style full colonies, aren’t you?
Because for you to even suggest that the British had any legal right to do what they were doing is preposterous. They were taking Iran’s oil ** for free ** and only paying a royalty for the use of the land. This is akin to your gardner taking any gold he finds in your garden and still charging you for the gardening services.
I’m either being whooshed here or you need to really re-evaluate your logic. No one claimed those men were saints or that they were Jesus resurrected. They were great men and they were great leaders. But in the end, they were just men tasked with the tremendous burden of overseeing the births of new nations. Yes they both made mistakes and yes they both can be looked at with a critical eye when one puts on 20/20 hindsight specs.
Well, if it walks like a duck and quacks.
Mossadegh did rely on the Tudeh party as well as the Islamists as well as the nationalists. In short, he counted on everyone who wanted the natural resources of Iran to belong to Iranians. What I objected to you saying was that he had “ties” to the Tudeh party. I’m still awaiting your proof of such ties. By his inclusion of as many political factions as were willing to join doesn’t make him have any suspicious ties to communism or communist leanings.
No, what’s dumb is your assertion that Mossadegh would have ever considered forging ties with the USSR for anything longer than about 2 seconds at most. You obviously do not know Iranian culture and how much they hate the Russians. While the distrust and animosity between Iran and Britain was probably at its height in the late 40’s and early 50’s, it didn’t run centuries deep as it does with the Russians. And while I agree that under the most extreme circumstances, nations will ally with foes, Iran in the early 50’s was under no such dire threat. Remember, the UN had found in Iran’s favor and the British were in no shape to invade.
Did you just say that? If this is true, why didn’t the US just ally with them and spare themselves 50 years of a cold war?