Focus Visually On Iran

As long as you're not gonna say...

... Mossadegh would have had a margin on the Natashas, I'd tell you 'whatever'...

Like our friend Masoud earlier told you...

I'm out of here!

Nice Quote from M.T. Thanks Parham

"The events you're referring to (Khrushchev et al.) are about the end of the fifties"Parham

I was trying to show you Eastern block was as stronger as ever after WWII , that's why their assessment of world leaded to proposal of revesionism by Khrushchev in 1956. Remember the red army occupied nothern part of Iran in May 1946 with their comrades Peshewary. That was right after WWII. That was the time shah made that historical statement. To cut my both hands, I won't sigh the separation of those area from Iran. USSR  could play major role in future history of Iran back in 50's.  Official write up of central committe of Tudeh party even clearly says the form of establishment in case shah wouldn't be able to come back to power in 1953. "Democratic Republic of Iran" that means disaster for Iran. I am sure they were not mourning on Stalin's death at that time,so they couldn't make up their mind. Now, Pro-shah or pro-democracy forces inside Iran had upper hands.

 We don't have problem to appreciate all who works to nationalize our oil. The problem comes once our country ran by Mosadegh and his buddies Tudeh party or shah never comes back in 1953.  I am sure after 2 or 3 years mosadegh would have been completely out of picture and we would have left with Tudeh and USSR or "Natasha" on streets of Dubie. How do you like that?  Similar situation is at present time,  "Fatima" on streets of Dubie, or "Fatimas" on streets of Turkey because of high degree of poverty in Iran and former Soviet Union. It is common practice in Iran these days:  Villa ba Gilla. 

Mullah legitimize it by making segheh. That disaster never happened when shah was on power. 

P.S

"Natasha" is common slang. Refers to prostitutes who come from former Soviet Union to Persian Gulf Arab countries or Turkey to earn money by selling their bodies because of high degree of poverty in those countries. That was what Marx and Lenin created for those poor people.

"FATIMA" is common slang. Refers to prostitutes who come from Islamic countries such as Iran or pakestan to Persian Gulf arab countries such as Dubie or Abu Zabie to earn money by selling their bodies because of high degree of poverty in Iran,etc. That was what Islam created for our people.

Siavash

The events you're referring to (Khrushchev et al.) are about the end of the fifties (1957 and up). We are talking about 1953, when the coup happened.

Now think of this: Perhaps hypocrisy extends to muddying someone, even 60 years later, who nationalized the oil in your country. How is that?

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
— Mark Twain

Parham, we are here to learn from each other for truth.

"All of this shows how much "gharaz" --contempt-- has been applied to the arguments that all the sore loser shahollahis have brought to the discussion throughout the past 60 years" Parham

No one has any "gharaz" against anybody. Unlike steven Kinzer who distorted iran history in his book "all shah men", we are trying to see the truth.

In my first paragraph, I was trying to show you that socialism under leadership of Soviet Union was not in the weak position during 50's. In fact, they were in a position being "shot caller" of the world. In a position that belittle the role of  "Imperialism" for controlling the whole world.  4 principles of revesionism proposed by Khrushchev was big indication of changing configuration of world in favor of socialism in those days.

In my second paragraph, I quoted official write up of central committe of Tudeh party.  It was not my writing. It was from Tudeh publication. It has nothing to do with "Fake Tudeh" who performed demonstration in those days. Now, about Mash Ghasem, I have to say he is hypocrat. From one hand he lived all his life in Capitalism countries (high school in Canada and the rest in America) but his passion is for Michael moore and the other left wing people. It is like those Shaikh who says boycat drinking starbuck coffee because it belongs to jews, but he secretly had starbucks coffee for breakfast that morning. We see a lot of hypocrat  people in Islamic Iran. They chant "death to america", even though they try to get an American visa. Hypocracy is hurting Iran big time.  

Once again, shah in 1953 was different with shah in 1979.

In 1953, shah was loved by majority people. In 1979, everbody hated shah. Lampoons such as Saboon or Tayyeb, and prostitudes don't make a history. Great people of Iran make their own history. Giving credit to few C.I.A agents or some lampoons and under estimating the will of our people is an insult to our great nation.

At the end, I have to say if  people are tired to dicuss about Mosadegh, please inform Tapesh never put such a blog "who was mosadegh"?

Once they put this blog, we have to discuss the issue to make sure our history not to get distorted.

Parham

We have been talking about a lot of things. Why argue with me when I am agreeing to the basic points!

I already said it in another thread: because we are Iranian and love to argue :-)

Siavash

I'm not sure I get the first part about Khrushchev and all. What relation to the topic in hand??

About Tudeh declaring a republic, again, it's widely known that that was a setup by people who were paid to pose as Tudeh (and paid by guess who!), as that had been done before. But let's say this wasn't the case. Mossadegh himself proved over and over again that he was only going to apply the constitution (which stood for a monarchy) -- so what's the deal??

All of this shows how much "gharaz" --contempt-- has been applied to the arguments that all the sore loser shahollahis have brought to the discussion throughout the past 60 years, and it still goes on and on... Leave it alone, dammit! It's a dead horse, stop beating it! Save yourselves some face. See what Mash Ghasem is telling you? It's a lost cause! Az ma goftan...

Prophet

But we've been talking about 1953, haven't we?? The title of the piece says "Mossadegh ki bood?" doesn't it?

Parham

Shah, in 1953, didn't want foreign influence out! In fact, he secured his position with the aid of foreign influence by staging a coup!

Agreed! I meant in late 1970s Shah wanted foreign influence out. That is why he is out! The West did not like him getting too uppity.

One thing: Shah was not behind the coup he was a tool used to achieve it.

Wow,this Siavash is not only an expert on Capitalism but also an

scholar on socialism and Soviet communism. Alas in reality deep down he remains an unrepentant Savaki of first order, or is  that, an unrepentant Savaki of first Odor?

Shah was brought to power by a bunch of prostitutes and thugs (shaban be mokh) and was maintained in power by the same bunch. Most probably you also belong to one of them. Your 'monarchy' is as relevant to today's Iran as is the Qajar Dynasty was to  Iran of '40's, it has zero relevanc. Keep on a dreaming. 

Parham's miscalculating and misleading information

"the USSR was extremely weak (in fact, that was one reason why it was so slow to react on 28 Mordad events) due to Stalin's death and that there was no centralized decision-making in the Soviet Union even for some time" Parham

In 1956, in 20th congress of all communist party brothers in red square, Moscow. Khrushchev proposed the 4 principles of revisionism. The first proposal was the era is the time of Socialism. From qualitative point of view, the Socialism reached to the era of controlling imperialism. In that all developing countries could mak a path toward socialism without passing through those historical process that Marx or Lenin pointed out in their classical work.

 Moe didn't attend the meeting. Some says his driver got stuck in traffic and some says he had upset stomach and wanted to use the bath room frequently. Later on Moe disagree with first principles of revisionism and call the era of imperialism. Revisionism principles is a big indication of strength of socialist blocks in those days, even though Stalin died in march of 1953.

Now, here is what tudeh party says:

It is clear that the Tudeh passed its intelligence on the pending coup to the prime-minister on August 15, 1953. The period August 16-19, 1953 was a short and crucial one and needed a quick, focused, and determined reaction by the Tudeh leadership if the situation was to be turned around. Instead, chaos and lack of determination prevailed. While on his own initiative, one Tudeh officer, Lt. Ali Ashraf Shoja'iyan, helped Mosaddeq's guards arrest Col. Ne'matollah Nasiri the courier of the royal decree dismissing Mosaddeq, the rest of the Military Organization did not take any action. On the seventeenth, the party began to call for abolition of the monarchy and establishment of a democratic republic. Tudeh members were instructed to join demonstrations for the new cause.

 What direction Iran was heading?

No, actually...

... I'm your friend. I've been trying to make you realize how out of touch what you say is! Except you just keep saying the same things over and over... : )

Shah, in 1953, didn't want foreign influence out! In fact, he secured his position with the aid of foreign influence by staging a coup!

He didn't get only arrogant, but he became a dictator, and that led to his demise, and that of the people, through an Islamic Revolution!

There.

Parham

It depends on what you mean by vision. Both Mossadegh and Shah wanted an Iran free of foriegn influence. Mossadegh wanted to kicek them out right in 1950s Shah in the 1970s. Both were unprepared for the reaction and failed.

Shah also had the problem of many other Iranian leaders. He was out of touch and arrogant. He surrounded himself with "yes" men. I don't know what Mossadegh would have done. He may have done the same thing. As Siavash says it never happened so we don't know. I am not going to guess. What Shah needed was someone to tell him what was going on. To warn him well before things got out of hand. One one hand he was celebrating 2500 years of Monarchy. On the other hand many people were fuming against him. The worst of it IMHO was Jashne Honar. That was an insult to all sensible people.Maybe that is why we should have term limits even for Monarchs :-) It prevents the power from going to their heads and rotting it.

I think we actually have more in common than it first seemed. I am not your enemy. I want a free Iran both from outside and inside dictators. That is the only way for our people to advance.

VPK

Actually...

He did NOT have the right vision. If what was done was done against a backdrop of democracy, perhaps. But the way it was done, it led to a revolution that has been eating us alive for the past 32 years. That's what I'm saying.

Parham

I am just trying to be polite in describing the Shah. How about we agree "he was not the bravest man in town"? He had the right vision but lacked courage to stand and fight for it. The actions speak louder than words. If you have any doubt: I am agreeing with you now got it?

I do not want to rewrite history. But at the same time Mossadegh was a bit to brave. When you go against the British better be well armed. 

Prophet

The reality is that he wasn't "soft", but a coward -- and not for the reasons you cite.

As long as there are people who want to re-write history, there will be those who won't let them. So if you take another shot at it, I'll intervene again. How is that?

Parham

For once I agree with this:  the Shah would never have had the balls to send someone like Mossadegh to his death

The Shah was a soft man by personality. The same way he did not execute Khomeini. A mistake he came to regret. His father would have done it without a second thought. Shah did not like to be responsible for killing people ans hence the "Goh Khordam Nameh". He would rather turn his enemies to his side. Or if that failed send them into exile. Too bad for him it did not work. 

I agree that the communist charge against Mossadegh was made up. He was hated by the British and that was his downfall. But it was Mossadegh whose miscalculation is to blame. Shah did not even want the coup. I know that because of personal sources. 

Our nation is burning and we argue the past. How about debating whether Rostam Farrokhzad should have blinded Queen Azarmidokht? Or Nader Shah blineded his son. I mean move on folks.

Now may we put aside the past and look to the future please? Or do you want to rehash 60 years ago for another 60 years! When do we move on. Time is passing and before long Mossadegh will be more history than anything.

VPK

Siavash

I know about the exchange that took place between Shah and Mossadegh. You should actually read Mossadegh's rebuttals. Actually, that "kafar hame ra ze kishe khish pendarad" that I told you comes from one of his replies to the Shah!

Look, you (and yours) are going to forever say IF there was no coup the Russians would have taken over (funny thing you should talk about "dicteye naneveshte"!) and me and mine are going to tell you forever that this was not the case, that the USSR was extremely weak (in fact, that was one reason why it was so slow to react on 28 Mordad events) due to Stalin's death and that there was no centralized decision-making in the Soviet Union even for some time after that; that this was only an excuse for the US to stage a coup and start its hegemony at the time.

In fact, I advise you to study that. I've done a lot of reading on the subject already, and as I told you before, I didn't do it only from one point of view.

Moreover, another fallacy in your argument is that the military branch of the Tudeh was all wiped out -- this is actually not the case. There was a first batch of executions, but then the rest were "morede afve molookane gharar gereftand". They all took a souvenir picture with Teymour Bakhtiar and were eventually freed thereafter.

And also just to tell you, the Shah would never have had the balls to send someone like Mossadegh to his death; so you telling me he pardoned him and all that is a little bit over the top. About Fatemi, my guess is that his demise was more the work of Ashraf, but then I couldn't really point you to a lot of support for my claim, so I'll leave it at that.

Parham Aziz, these are historical document, I didn't make it.

Yes , I think shah saved mosadegh from long term imprisonment or even death penalty for his effort of nationalizing oil. Otherwise, he would have had the same destiny as of Dr. Fatemi. All military rank of tudeh party were executed in a heart beat. Do you think anyone scared from Dr. Mosadegh.? no, my friend.

I didn't make this document. it is historical fact that shah sent that letter to court for Mosadegh. I have read that letter in many different sites. In that letter, shah also accuses mosadegh of being hypocrate, means, his action doesn't match with his speech. I didn't send you the whole detail, you may do you own research. The fact is shah appreciated those who participated in nationalizing oil that probably includes my late father. That is all.

 Now, please read the below paragraph and give me your unbias opinion. I have NOT written this paragraph, it is from Central committe of Tudeh party. Translated by Dr. Maziar Behrooz.   

According to one observer:

although diverse elements participated in the July uprising, the impartial observer must confess that the Tudeh played an important part - perhaps even the most important part. ... If in the rallies before March 1952 one-third of the demonstrators had been Tudeh and two-thirds had been National Front, after March 1952, the proportions were reversed.[29]

What direction Iran was headed?

How about

we put aside 60 year old history and worry about now! Many things happened and it is all history. Many things are happening right now. What do people plan to do about it. Just argue about 60 years ago. What about now.

Awww

Now he saved Mossadegh from certain death, did he? How magnanimous of him.

So I hear they found a signed copy of "Das Kapital" (signed by no other than Marx himself to his old buddy "Momo") under Mossadegh's pillow after he passed away in Ahmad Abad. Is that true too?
How unlucky that my path didn't cross with a history buff such as Siavash prior to this. I would have learned so much and gotten out of a long period of darkness, opening my eyes to the real light of His being, the shahanshah-e kabir. What a man. What a generous king. Alas...

Parham's concern. Proof of my claim

"And that's how they prevented the big bad bear together with their long time ally Mammad Ashtiani-e khodemoon from forming a "Democratic Republic of Iran" which was in fact not going to be democratic at all, but a communist state modeled after Bulgaria" Parham

you bet it was. Just look at D.D.R and it's secret police STASI and you will quickly learn what democratic means in the eye of left. StASI was the most corrupted secret police in eastern block. Please take a look at all those "democratic countries"  in south of Russia that was controlled by K.G.B.

 Now, in 1953, with 20,000 official Tudeh members next to Mosaddeq, guess what would have been happened. Come on, we don't want to deceive ourself.

Dear Parham,

In my previous comment, I mentioned shah appreciate mossadeq for his contribution to nationalizing our oil. I did some research and I found the below document to support my claims.

Shah in Plea to Court

When the judges returned to the courtroom at 9:25 o'clock this evening Maj. Gen. Nasrollah Moghbeli, the court president, read a letter addressed to the court by the Shah in which the monarch praised "the services rendered by Dr. Mossadegh during his first year as Premier in connection with nationalization of the oil industry which is desired by the whole nation and is confirmed and supported by the monarchy itself." The Shah said he bore the former Premier no personal animus for derogatory actions and remarks Dr. Mossadegh had directed against him.

It was widely believed the court had refused to accede to the prosecutor's demand that Dr. Mossadegh be sentenced to death or at least imprisoned for life as a result of the Shah's intervention.

Ah, so Shah was actually an angel...

... compared to Queen Elizabeth and Dwight D.
You should see Elizabeth's torture chambers -- nothing to do with Savak's state-of-the-art prisons with movie-on-demand and 24 hour room service. No no no my friend. I hear they even held a bingo night at Evin every other Thursday so prisoners wouldn't feel out of place.
And that s.o.b. Dwight D -- man, you should have seen the way he cracked that whip. Ouch! It sent shivers down everyone's spine just by the sound of it.
By all means Shah was such a hoochie-coochie baaaaayby compared to those hairy stinky mofos.

I hear Mossadegh and Stalin...

... used to spit tobacco together too; that, to see which one could spit further.
But oops, Stalin was dead by then, so who was it? Khrushchev?
No, not Khrushchev either... In fact, the Soviet Union had just lost Stalin and was in a state of shambles... So maybe that's why Americans thought "hey, why don't we have a coup in Iran while the Russians are in a state of transition? They possibly can't have a reaction while they're in the mess they are right now..."
And that's how they prevented the big bad bear together with their long time ally Mammad Ashtiani-e khodemoon from forming a "Democratic Republic of Iran" which was in fact not going to be democratic at all, but a communist state modeled after Bulgaria. In fact, they were going to declare Teheran a sister city to Sofia just to make things cuter. If not, a cousin city, but you know what I mean...
And that's how the story ended. Thank God for Sha'boon Bimokh, for without him, we wouldn't have had a crown to boast, but a polar hat.
Hallelujah.

Parham, Good Question.

So are you saying there was no torture (or killing) when the Shah was in power?

Simple answer is to torture and killing is yes to both...

Though if you compare with the USA, UK the great democracies of mankind, teachers of human rights... you would realize torture and killing in Iran were by American and British Standards extremely moderate.  Almost non-existant in scope by comparison... you would be forced to acknowledge Shah did a far better job with human rights than either of these 2 countries.

Did you read wikileaks files discussed in non western media?  The USA let dozens of assasins/killers go because they claimed to work for MI6, ofcourse only after they discovered that their claims were true.  Were you aware of all the Torture cells the cia has been using across the world wth full knowledge of Germany/France, they are openly discussed in their medias because the scale of damage and mistakes are so large.

Now if you compare torture and killings of Shahs time with say Irans neighbourhood...  USSR, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia all countries Iran has a border with... then in that scenario you would have to say Shah was an Angel.

As for Savak, Iran will definetly need another one in the future if Iranians are serious about restoring their freedom and they don't want to be bullied by foreign funded thugs, terrorists and extortionists like Iran was under the Shahs time.

Parham Aziz, Seems We are talking about 2 different issues here

There is a misconception between nationlizing oil in 1952 and driving the country toward communism. Seems my country people are making mistake between these 2 issues. One is the active participation of crowd of Iranians in Maydon-e-baharestan chanting.

 نفت ما ملی شده

Which is admirable. The other issue is to let Mosaddeq and his buddies Tudeh party declare "Democratic Republic of Iran" and not wanting shah back after 3 days being away from Iran. Nationnalizing oil has nothing to do with overthrowing monarchy (Padeshahi) and ousting shah.

The first part is perfectly legit and admirable. The 2nd part is subject of our discussion here. I am surprise that you or and the other person Comradis don't understand this simple matter.

One took place in Feb. 1952 and the other one took place in August of 1953.

Shah in his letter to court specifically appreciated Mosaddeq for his effort in nationalizing the oil, but that is different with not wanting shah back to crown and declaring "Democratic Republic of Iran"with Tudeh party back by Soviet. Seems our friends here deliberately or unknowingly mix these 2 together to prove their points. The result of nationalizing oil was the wealth that Iranians experienced during 70's , but the result of being Democratic Republic and not wanting shah back to crown in 1953 would have been misery and poverty as it was in Bulgeria and Yoguslavia. I am just hoping our friends have enough sense to distinguish between these 2  separate issues. Nobody is defending anybody, and nobody is trying to deceive himself/herself. We are just trying to understand the truth.

Sincerely,

Siavash   

BTW, my late father was very active during nationalizing the oil. he was in maydon-e-baharestan on 30 Tir.  

ComraidsConcubine

خواهش میکنم. بقول شما اصلاً دفاع نداره. این فُسیلها هم اگر میخواهند خودشونو گول بزنند، بزنند. فرقی نمیکنه.بقول دوستمان فقط انگار یک ضبط صوت بخودشان وصل کرده اند و همان حرفها رو شصت ساله تکرار میکنند... ممنون از لطف شما.

My late father was right

I wasn't brought up not to question, but the more I learn, the more I learn to know, that my late father was right. 

//iranian.com/main/image/114799

پرهام، بیگ بنگ، عمرتون بده

من تحمله دروغ، فساته فسیلیزه، و ابلاهته خودشیرینی را ندارم.

با تشکر، از شما، که دفاع از مردی، مردی، مردی با انسانیت  و با انصاف می‌کنید، که به جای تجاوز به ملته ایران، فقط با خوبی‌ جلو میرفت. 

ولی‌ آخه دفاع می‌خواد؟ 

Dear Parham, Unwritten essay doesn't have error

"And so Mossadegh and his Tudeh buddies would have turned Iran into another Bulgaria, huh?" parham

You can go on and fantasize about mosaddeq and his buddies in 1953, but you don't need to be Einstien to see what direction Iran would have been headed with 20,000 official members of Tudeh members backed by Soviet Union in those days. Iran population was about 16 millions back then. Official site of Tudeh party indicates that people were leaving J.M by joining Tudeh party. 2/3 of demonstrators were J.M and this equation reversed after Feb. 1952 , means, right after oil was nationalized 2/3 of demonstrators were Tudeh members. With slogans such as promising employment, raise salary among workers, fighting with imperialism Tudeh party was able to attract many individuals. There was a rapid increasing number of Tudeh members.

We have expression in Farsi that says:

 right in the front of his 7 year old son in his residence in Tehran and many others such as Nahidi  (C.E.O of S.A.V.A.K) in Mashhad.  The goal here is to re-establish monarchy as it was befor .

Shah killing people

I do not know what would have happened if Mossadeg prevailed. But I do know what happened when Shah did not kill Khomeini and Rajavi. I wish he had killed them. There are some times when a surgeon removed bad tissue.

Removing bad tissue amounts to killing living things. But better to kill it than let it infect the body. What do you do with gangrene? You cut it off so the body will live. Did Shah kill some *** holes: yes. But not enough; he should have done more.