DogOnPorch Posted June 21, 2017 Report Posted June 21, 2017 Just now, CITIZEN_2015 said: I didn't apologize for Nazis. I just tried to explain why Shah's father (also a shah) was close to Germans because the British and Soviets wanted to divide Iran and capture it. It was playing politics. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Surely you are not implying that I am a Nazi are you???? No I don't have to pretend. Your post is up there as evidence. You say Stalin invaded Iran but no mention of Churchill or the British invading Iran at the very same time from the south. There was no such collusion between Stalin and Chamberlain or Stalin and Churchill re: Iran. I've been discussing this for days now and yes...I have mentioned the role of the British already. You're free to pretend I haven't though. You're the one at bat for the Shah's papa. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted June 21, 2017 Report Posted June 21, 2017 To reiterate: The British invaded from the south in reaction to Stalin invading from the north. There was no way in Hell Churchill was going to allow Stalin to seize Iran for his own. Had the British not invaded, the Russians would have still crushed Iran all by their lonesomes...and try and get 'em out after that. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
CITIZEN_2015 Posted June 21, 2017 Report Posted June 21, 2017 It was a coordinated invasion. Yes the invasions occurred same day same time even at very early hours in the morning and yes Stalin and Churchill colluded for sure on this invasion. The two ambassadors went to see the Shah together to inform him of invasion. 1 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 21, 2017 Report Posted June 21, 2017 U.S. foreign policy...Hollywood style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBzhQl4agvg Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted June 21, 2017 Report Posted June 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said: It was a coordinated invasion. Yes the invasions occurred same day same time even at very early hours in the morning and yes Stalin and Churchill colluded for sure on this invasion. The two ambassadors went to see the Shah together to inform him of invasion. Indeed...a solid front is presented. But you imply that these two had the invasion of Iran on the burner from before WW2. Remember, Stalin and Churchill hated each other. It took the chaos of Barbarossa for Stalin to have the nerve to invade. The British were happy to deal with Iran if they ejected all the Nazis hanging about. But getting cross was all they could muster. By themselves, they didn't have the spare troops to even dream about taking on Iran's sizable army. But the Soviets had more than enough to do the job by themselves...and would have regardless of British participation. Churchill wasn't about to let Stalin occupy the oilfields. It wasn't share and share alike. It also led to the UN's first crisis when the Soviets...as predicted...didn't want to leave certain regions when the war ended...with the support of the Tudeh Party that Mossadeq used later to win his democratic election. So ultimately, you can thank the British...and later the Americans...that Iran even exists today...rather than as a lonely oblast in the former Soviet Empire...thoroughly looted and broken into parts. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
CITIZEN_2015 Posted June 22, 2017 Report Posted June 22, 2017 Yes Russians refused to leave the Azari province in North west Iran as it is typical of Russians same action in every country they so called liberated from Nazis in Eastern Europe. And it was America and United Nations which helped Iran to get its province back. Plus the fact that the Shah sent an army and crashed the tiny minority Azari traitors and their Tudeh party traitors. The people of that province also rose up against these traitors at the same time the army entered the province helped too. In all I think without the UN and American help liberation of the province (not the whole Iran) would not have been possible which brings me to my point I have made many times that Russians are a lot worse than Americans. Quote
kactus Posted June 22, 2017 Report Posted June 22, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: I say not, otherwise they would have done so without so much foreign investment and technology. The Royal Navy was Iran's biggest oil export customer. "After 1953" we still find many foreigners involved with production and exploration. Even today, there are many hundreds of foreign oil services companies keeping Iran's petroleum industry viable: http://iranoilgas.com/companies/listforeign?p=1 Ofcourse it was all about oil.... Churchill badly needed to secure access to Iran's oil before the Nazi Germans in world war II. It was a tactical move by Brits from South and the Russians from North. No matter how people want to paint this scenario the whole communist fiasco was 'sugar coated' by the Brits who were pissed at the decision by Dr Mossadegh to nationalise Iranian oil and collaborated with CIA to stage the coup against him... Edited June 22, 2017 by kactus 1 Quote
CITIZEN_2015 Posted June 22, 2017 Report Posted June 22, 2017 4 minutes ago, kactus said: Ofcourse it was all about oil.... Churchill badly needed to secure access to Iran's oil before the Nazi Germans in world war II. It was a tactical move by Brits from South and the Russians from North. No matter how people want to paint this scenario the ehole communist fiasco was 'sugar coated' by the Brits who were pissed at the decision by Dr Mossadegh to nationalisr Iranian oil and collaborated with CIA to stage the coup against him... Very factual statements of the events. Well said. Quote
eyeball Posted June 22, 2017 Report Posted June 22, 2017 6 hours ago, DogOnPorch said: So ultimately, you can thank the British...and later the Americans...that Iran even exists today... ...in it's present state you should have added. Quote rather than as a lonely oblast in the former Soviet Empire...thoroughly looted and broken into parts. Its far far more likely the Soviet Union would have collapsed all the sooner with yet another population chafing under its rule. Your soft bigotry of low expectations that Iranians would rather submit to Russia is every bit as disgusting the hard bigotry we inflicted on them for not submitting to us. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
DogOnPorch Posted June 22, 2017 Report Posted June 22, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, eyeball said: ...in it's present state you should have added. It's right where you want it: an Islamic theocracy...not the decadent West with its rights and freedoms. 7 hours ago, eyeball said: Its far far more likely the Soviet Union would have collapsed all the sooner with yet another population chafing under its rule. Your soft bigotry of low expectations that Iranians would rather submit to Russia is every bit as disgusting the hard bigotry we inflicted on them for not submitting to us. You missed the part where I detailed the Iranian Army's hatred of the Soviet gulag system and their 4 year tour through it, eh? Not surprised...or if you did you now conveniently lie about my position...as usual. It's you with the soft bigotry of lower expectations. You're happy sentencing women to the horrors of Sharia with the rest of the severely bearded men. And you wonder why you're alone on your boat. Iranian women protest the new Islamic order in Iran circa 1980. Didn't work. Edited June 22, 2017 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
eyeball Posted June 22, 2017 Report Posted June 22, 2017 4 hours ago, DogOnPorch said: You missed the part where I detailed the Iranian Army's hatred of the Soviet gulag system and their 4 year tour through it, eh? Not surprised...or if you did you now conveniently lie about my position...as usual. WTF are you babbling about? When I say that dictatorships are crimes against humanity what do you actually hear me saying? When I do say this I mean all of them. Not just some but every last one. Are you of the opinion some dictatorships are fine or moderate? I'm certainly not. They're all the same to me which is to say they're all bad. So take your accusations of convenience and shove then back where you got them. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.