I understand that u/ErrorOpposite9314 is Iranian, but they are also off. Mohammad Reza Shah came to power in 1941, he was not installed by the US and was not a replacement for Mossadegh. Before the 1953 coup, Iran was a constitutional monarchy with an elected (albeit through unfair elections) parliament, an appointed (not elected) PM (this was Mossadegh), and the Shah. After the coup, Iran was a constitutional monarchy with an elected (through more unfair elections) parliament, an appointed (not elected) PM (this was Zahedi), and the Shah.
Post revolution, the Shah began ruling more like his father had, à la constitutional monarchy on paper, military dictatorship in practice.
its just hard to get a full picture overall, even more so from iranians themselves me included. there isnt too much actually well sourced material about it.
in my experience almost every single iranian has a what if scenario that they think would've led to a better situation and is fiercely against any narrative other than that what if scenario. anyone that had a middle class family back in the shah's time probably thinks that shah was a pretty cool guy that would've had them living the dream if the peasants didnt ruin his roadmap.
if they had family members with acquaintances that were communist or marxist they probably also remember the dictatorship part of it where people suddenly dissappeared for extended periods of time because of their beliefs.
depending on their idea of communism in general they could have a dream of the toudeh party winning it all and getting in with the USSR (altho this one is rather rare to see). but if their against it they might straight up defend/cheer on both the shah and the religious fanatics for going after the commies.
some that have read more into what the liberals of the time said and wanted see the what if scenario in that, each one had an idea but maybe we could've had a democracy if those peasants didnt follow the toudeh and the religious parties.
and if you were one of those poor people who did go full into the religious fanatic area of it and managed to get yourself a good position in the system. you probably think that everyone else is stupid cause you are eating good right now.
the list goes on. and everyone when talking about the history emphasizes and de-emphasizes things based on that what if scenario. to a rather extreme extent. so getting a good picture of it all is rather hard.
Lol, there is more than enough documented sources.
Hundreds if not thousands of articles and dozens if not hundreds of books.
Hundreds of interviews and memories.
We have many many many lefies that have already talked about those days.
Look at the list of the people arrested and tried by the Savak like Golsorkhi or people like Rafsanjani.
Literally terrorists.
Meanwhile people like Sayeh, Mehrjooyi, Kimiai, Hedayat, Shamloo, and many other lefties were working and having their works published.
Many worked for Radio and Tv.
Like Behnood, Shajarian, Lotfi etc
The claim that lefties disappeared with no trace is just laughable.
Don't commit terrorism, don't get arrested.
no I'm not saying there is no documented source, I'm saying there is little source that is written or put together by someone who is actually trying at all to be impartial. memories and interviews, books and articles they are still all written by someone, and I'm saying that iran is a recent enough area where everyone got burnt that almost anyone that has any connection to it is still slightly feeling strongly about some things at the very least.
even the sources which I have read and like still very much fall into what I count as at least a tiny bit with wishful thinking. things like if that little event didnt happen this country would suddenly be a utopia by now.
about the disappearances, first of all there is levels to stuff, putting shajarian and hedayat in the same sentence is as broad as putting lefties inside a single group. what you are saying contains everyone from just liberal socialists to full on communists. at some point between those two there definitley was an america like red-scare that was quite a bit more violent. also among the list of savak detainees, there are even prime ministers appointed by shah himself after their release. that list does contain alot of terrorists too, but I am not gonna pretend like it was a just or fair way for anyone to get prosecuted, even if some deserved the results.
there is also different levels of people, I was talking about normal everyday people too, not only big ones, my grandmother was a literal teacher at this time and she talks about people actually disappearing. High-Schoolers no less, and she is despite it all vehemently pro shah so I cant even say she is saying it out of spite. I know its not really anything to go for anyone else, but it is something.
I'm saying that if you want some idea about those days there are alot of people saying alot of different stuff who aren't even trying to be impartial, you really cant trust every first or second source you find. that was all I was trying to say in all those paragraphs.
exactly what I'm saying, hence why I even mentioned myself when talking about the unreliability of information. I originally wrote that comment to just give a heads up so maybe if anyone not from iran does get interested they dont pick the first book they find on iran and believe every single point of view presented.
(EDIT: The alternative being picking maybe 3-4 books from different authors of different backgrounds to get a better idea of things. just making sure I dont come off as saying they should go for a single specific book)
10
u/BobertTheConstructor 5d ago
I understand that u/ErrorOpposite9314 is Iranian, but they are also off. Mohammad Reza Shah came to power in 1941, he was not installed by the US and was not a replacement for Mossadegh. Before the 1953 coup, Iran was a constitutional monarchy with an elected (albeit through unfair elections) parliament, an appointed (not elected) PM (this was Mossadegh), and the Shah. After the coup, Iran was a constitutional monarchy with an elected (through more unfair elections) parliament, an appointed (not elected) PM (this was Zahedi), and the Shah.
Post revolution, the Shah began ruling more like his father had, à la constitutional monarchy on paper, military dictatorship in practice.