It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by GenerationGap
That's what I was alluding to when I mentioned "condensed version" and "more aspects." There was just no way to possibly cover a single percent of everything that has happened to lead up to this.
Reza Shah (the original Western puppet) was actually able to keep the people of Iran happy while he went about his changes. He was very impressed with Western culture and succeeded in large part in Westernizing Iran, including the name change. His major contribution from the West's perspective, however, was the continuing national complacency toward Western control of oil supplies.
The legacy of Reza Shah includes the beginning of Tehran University, the Trans-Iranian railway, an impressive increase in the number and quality of highways, a large increase in industry outside the oil-exporting industry which already existed, increased tolerance for the Jewish people, and even increased rights for women, although such were still dismal compared to our modern Western society. Some of these changes were actually at great personal risk since they angered the ultra-conservative clergy.
The Bretton-Woods agreement was not implemented under Reza Shah Pahlavi, but under his son Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi. Mohammed Reza took the throne after British forces forced the abdication of Reza Shah in 1941; The Bretton-Woods conference was held in 1944 and full implementation of the Bretton-Woods system was implemented in 1945.
Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was the one often referred to today as the "Shah of Iran." The term Shah is actually a general parallel to our term "President." How confusing would it be in 50 years if someone simply said "President Bush" without specifying which of the two they are talking about?
During all the modernization Reza Shah undertook, he developed a large trading partnership with Germany which lasted right up to the eve of WWII. So yes, he traded quite regularly with the Nazis, but then again so did the USA and several other countries. During WWII, however, Iran maintained a stance of neutrality, even when Iran was sometimes in the middle of a battle theater. Was he sympathetic towards the Nazis? Maybe, and if so that would explain why British forces demanded his abdication. But he also transferred Iranian economic control from the British Imperial Bank to the National Bank of Iran, cancelled the agreement made with William Knox D'Arcy, and made many other movements which would not have sat well with the British.
In the end, all we have on that single point about Nazi sympathies is speculation, and where speculation is concerned, yours is as good as mine.
Reza Shah tried to minimize involvement with Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR; formed from the Russian Empire in 1922), although Britain, through its ownership of the Angelo-Iranian Oil Company, controlled all of Iran's oil resources. But many of his development projects required foreign technical expertise. To avoid awarding contracts to British and Soviet Companies, Reza Shah preferred to obtain technical assistance from Germany, France, Italy and other European countries. This made problems for Iran after 1939, when Germany and Britain became enemies in World War II. Reza Shah declared Iran a neutral country, but Britain insisted that German engineers and technicians in Iran were spies with missions to sabotage British oil facilities in southwestern Iran and demanded that Iran expel all German citizens. Reza Shah refused, claiming this would adversely impact his development projects.
it is about keeping the economy broken but functional.
reply to post by Helious
Hence my concerns about even posting this thread. There is nothing that we can do about the situation at this point; what is, is. This is a no-win situation for all sides. So is it better to let people keep their heads safely buried in the sand, or to point out the obvious and help them see the truth?
I honestly can't answer that this time. But with the recent problems getting the American people to back the Syrian strike, and the associated probability of a terrorist strike in the US to change that dynamic, I decided to speak up one more time.
reply to post by TheWetCoast
There is no stalemate. Either the plan works or it doesn't. If the plan works, the US economy has a chance to exist for a while longer, but Iran and Syria are decimated and the world probably goes to war; people die. If the plan doesn't work, the US economy crashes and burns, taking most of the developed world with it and people die.
There is no middle ground at this point, no outcome that doesn't involve the conclusion "people die."
I know my plans: post this thread so as many as possible will at least be aware of what is coming, and sit back and wait this out. I am a redneck, and rednecks survive; it's what we do. There is an end to come of every war, and someone has to be here to rebuild.
And to help people remember the lessons of history this time.