18:15 fun fact that actually when they asked him on the flight to tehran how he felt that the revolution was successful he literally answered "NOTHING"
my friends dad was a colonel in irans air force under the shah. He was forced to resign and his family was under constant surveillance. when iran had pro democracy portests in 2010 my friend was thankfully only arrested, his dad was able to get him out and they fled to the states claiming political asylum. He loves his homeland and apparently a lot of Persians hate their government, which is why they have mass protests every few years, only reason theres never any change is because the government hires gangs and enlists the military to "squash" any protesters
Hi Chris I'm from Iran and I have to say this video is very accurate even the part where Khomeini says "I feel nothing" and the "you shouldn't have" to the former head of secret police nowadays alot of women go outside without hijab(mostly the young generation) and after the recent protests no one has the balls to say anything to women because they know they will be kicked to death by everyone on public and I have to say the revolution wasn't just backed by Islamist behind Khomeini (they were the most popular) there was alot of other factions most notably the communist(the toodeh in iran) and there was alot of prosecution of them and separatist ethnic groups(mainly the kurds) after the revolution(kind of a mini civil war) that was cracked down upon the Islamists sort of hijacked the revolution and wrote everything in their name. Today there is widespread distrust in the government even by former revolutionaries but the standard of living is not as bad as some western countries might imagine... It's still bad though don't get me wrong especially in civil rights and especially especially for women and many people just outright flee the country but I have hope that it will get better. I'm probably in the minority in my country but I think the future seems bright under the new generation. thanks for making these videos hope you're having a great day. Love from Iran ❤
Interesting to here that Persian is an exonym. I don't doubt it, but I have met several Iranians over the years that insisted on being called Persian. Their reasoning was to disassociate from the current regime. I guess that doesn't rule out it being an exonym but it would be an interesting use of one.
At least back to 262 AD, what is commonly called the Sassanid Empire was officially "Eranshahr" or "Empire of Iranians" and the name has been used by Iranian dynasties ever since. Though in 1935 Iran officially requested to be called "Iran" and not "Persia" by foreign delegations. Similar to Swaziland to Eswatini, Turkey to Turkiye, and possible India to Bharat... its just countries requesting the name they have always used locally to be used internationally.
"Persian" comes from the Fars/Pars province in southern Iran (also called Persis in Greek and Latin). This is where both the Achaemenid (550-330 BCE) and Sassanid (224-657 CE) dynasties came from, so from the time of the Greeks, the empire ruled by these dynasties was called "Persia". But the locals called themselves "Arya" or "Eran" (this is also where the term "Aryan" originated from before 19th-century European scientists and later the N@zis twisted it into a r@cist myth). Sassanid Iran was called "Eranshahr" (Empire of the Iranians), and the king full title was "Shahanshah-i Eran ud Aneran" (King of Kings of the Iranians and the non-Iranians). The Parthians, for instance, were also an Iranian people, but from the northeast of modern-day Iran, so not Persian. Mazandarani people are from the southern coast of the Caspian Sea, also not Persian (Farya Faraji, who composes excellent historical music on TH-cam, is of Mazandarini origin and clearly delineates by calling what Westerners call Persia "Iran").
Iran is such a tragic tale they really should be the middle East's version of Japan. It feels the US is headed down a similar path where prominent representatives and public figures are openly discussing removing separation of church and state. Also some talls from elected officials of civil war. It should be extremely obvious which side will be on the correct side of history simply by looking at how many things people want to make illegal. Not complain online about but actually outlaw.
@@sunkings5972 ok hold on not all Republicans are evil and don't agree with trump like in most parties there's a spectrum to these things what you are referring to is the hard right of the right wing and then saying that the moderate right is on that side when that isn't the case.
@lil_jackgamez8992 the moderate right has very little political power as they don't vote in primaries in many swing districts and states and get booted from the republican party. A very effective strategy in media has been to equate the radical right (full control of republican party) with the radical left (try to find a single elected official on the radical left). Sure you can find conservative media calling democrats radical, but when you look at their actual statements and bills they support, it's just objectively false. To be fair we will see in the election, moderate Republicans will have the ability to stop the radicalism in their party by voting blue or staying home and encouraging those around them to do the same. If enough fall in line and Trump wins, he won't give a crap about anyone but his Maga cult and will actively purge everyone else from govt, he has literally shown he will. and said he will. Democrats and mainstream media accept and platform moderate conservatives even if tbey disagree, MAGA does not accept dissent from whatever Trump says. Trump has even said he doesn't want or need Haley voters. Tbh the idea that liberalism is a mental disorder (Ben Shapiro) and the idea liberals want unrealistic and silly things (Joe Scarborough) is what allowed the radicalism to spread, the first helped it spread in public the latter politics and again it will be partially up to moderate conservatives to stop Trump. Best way is to vote blue and I really don't want to sound partisan I don't love the democratic party and dam sure don't want a one party dominated system. Until Republicans can get elected promising to work with democrats to fix problems and root out real coreuption, moderate republicans have zero power and will have zero actual representation, still have a few Senators rn sometimes. Given the stupid 2 party system, not changing anytime soon so worthless caring about, current partisan combative radical Republicans just can't win elections for moderate Republicans to not be fully responsible for all the harm they cause regardless of if they like Trump or not. If the 30% or so of true moderate Republicans voted for Biden and democrats for senate and house (do what you want with state positions they vary so much more) Trumpism will be dead forever. Believe it or not bt the plus side would be congress would be able to make the changes neccesary to limit the power of radicals from either side, after all red state democrats aren't the same as blue state democrats and its really hard to get 60 votes in any senate and a majority in the house. I'd bet they would also add justices to the courts that would finally allow congress to tear down our massive pay to play corruption problem as there would be tons and tons of pressure to do so from... well everyone but especially the left. Red state demo would block anything that would hurt their re-eletion chances and if you don't believe me actually read some of the bills that have been passed and proposed and I strongly suggest folks do that especially before a presidential election.
Honestly changing the calendar away from the Islamic calendar does have precedent. Ataturk did it as part of his secularization of Turkey and he's still a beloved figure. Cyrus the Great as a historical hero of Iran, it's easy to see why he might have thought it would work.
The difference is Ataturk had earned the people's loyalty by seeing them through a war against foreign powers, and winning spectactularly. That's how he was able to push through so many reforms in so little time. And even then, he faced opposition in the form of Kurdish revolts, and Young Turk coups. Pahlavi, by comparison, was brought into power twice via foreign intervention toppling his (relatively) popular predecessors. So the people of Iran didn't have nearly as much respect for him and the people of Turkey had for Ataturk. So, when he tried to make similar reforms as Ataturk, he faced a lot more pushback, and his enemies exploited that.
Great content, both Chris and the original creator! Need more content like this which subtly pushes back against the type of hyperbolic narratives we often see, such as those about the events in Iran of 1946, 1953 and 1979. One of my best friends going back to high school is a first generation American whose family had to flee Iran for America in 1979. They are Iranian Christians, and exclusively refer to themselves as “Persian” to disassociate from the current regime, though their family is also from the Parsa region, and holds great reverence for the Persian Achaemenid emperors such as Cyrus the Great, Darius, Xerxes, etc (which was also the direction Mohammad Reza Shah was taking the country, including his famous “2500 years of the Persian Empire” banquet in 1971 where he hosted something like ten foreign kings and two foreign emperors) I sincerely hope that, one way or another, the current regime will see its end and my friend will be able to visit his homeland for the first time ever, and his parents will be able to return home for the first time in decades.
Thanks, for showing Jack some love, Chris! Jack Rackham's video's on, King Charles I, and John Wilkes Booth are all amazing and with a some have surprising cameo's from other TH-camr's.
I agree with the point that you made about the Shah being too progressive and making too many changes too quickly, because the religious leaders weren’t happy with him giving voting rights to women or taking land from the Khans and distributing it among the serfs. But I guess he saw how advanced the west had become compared to his own country and he just couldn’t wait and not do anything about it when he knew he had the power to make change.
2:41 In 1975 Nelson Rockerfeller (also the one in the picture) was the vice president under Gerald Ford. Spiro Agnnew (as you probably meant) resigned in 1973.
As a 35 years old Iranian who lives in Iran, my perspective is really close to this! Thoes years around 1953 were very complicated. The culture was exploding and all of those paradoxical aspects lead to the disaster of Islamic Republic. And wow...what a republic!! People wanted a progressive democracy, they ended up having the most incompetent dictatory leadership that Iran ever had. We usually compare the level of ruinatin and devastation caused by this regim with what happend to Iran by mongol invasion, which you know...was a catastrophe...
While not Iranian, I am Muslim, and what I can say about not just the Iranian situation but islamist revolutions in general is that many Muslims often find themselves sandwiched between one regime that forces their specific view of Islam upon its people with deadly force (which is strictly prohibited in the Quran), and another regime that seems to do everything it can to remove islamic influence and practices from its culture (also strictly prohibited in the Quran). It leaves many of us at a crossroads of whether to support a misled version of your religion, or a government that removes all traces of your religion
@@mojorisin069 _Every_ country. It’s impossible to be a politician without your worldview being informed by some view, philosophy or doctrine regardless of whether it’s based in traditional religion or the post-enlightenment brands of Liberal, secular dogma. The only people who can actually achieve a style of leadership devoid of worldviews are psychopaths.
"Persian" comes from the Fars/Pars province in southern Iran (also called Persis in Greek and Latin). This is where both the Achaemenid (550-330 BCE) and Sassanid (224-657 CE) dynasties came from, so from the time of the Greeks, the empire ruled by these dynasties was called "Persia". But the locals called themselves "Arya" or "Eran" (this is also where the term "Aryan" originated from before 19th-century European scientists and later the N@zis twisted it into a r@cist myth). Sassanid Iran was called "Eranshahr" (Empire of the Iranians), and the king's full title was "Shahanshah-i Eran ud Aneran" (King of Kings of the Iranians and the non-Iranians). The Parthians, for instance, were also an Iranian people, but from the northeast of modern-day Iran, so not Persian. Mazandarani people are from the southern coast of the Caspian Sea, also not Persian (Farya Faraji, who composes excellent historical music on TH-cam, is of Mazandarini origin and clearly delineates by calling what Westerners call Persia "Iran").
I would like to add that the modernist fashion of pictured pre-1979 Iran are from upper-class, urban backgrounds who have more exposure to western, irreligious fashion. This is not quite representative of Iranian women in general, especially in rural areas that are super-religious and lack western exposure.
hi I'm from Iran and want to thank you for this great video. by the way the part when Khomeini is coming back to Iran and journalist ask him what is your feelings and he says nothing is real. also the part when he says I'm going to kick your teeth in and I appoint the government is also real. thanks for great videos and hope you have a fantastic day
Always a win to learn something new about something we know about at some level. On that note, may I recommend the video Kingdom of Okinawa - The Venice of Asia by Kings and Generals? We all know about WWII, but K&G shines some light on what’s been going on before that.
I’d recommend other videos like Brains4Breakfasts on Irans modern history because it is really interesting and Jack only scratches the surface Like Khomenis islamists weren’t the only faction opposing the Shah, there were just as many communists, republicans, even constitutionalists who liked the position of Shah, they just didn’t like all the oppression and killing It’s just that at the national convention where there would be a vote on the kind of government Iran would have, the Islamists won out. I also recommend looking into the game “Revolution 1979.” It’s a point and click type game from the perspective of a journalist documenting the protests and the various political movements opposing the Shah.
as a person living in Iran I think that the explanation about white revouloution was biased it was a land reform but this reform has done in an ineffective and destructive way that we don't have any big land owner today in Iran. most important thing that the video glossed over the economic problems occurred between 1971 and 1978 and exclusively the high inflation in result of decreasing the oil price.
True, land reform just frustrated everyone in the country. It could have worked but the peasants in question were nomads so they were not about to stay and till the land, the landlords obviously were annoyed and the urbanites were whining @~?£$%&! Also that last bit makes no sense whatsoever, how does low oil prices cause inflation?
@@johnnotrealname8168the 1973 oil crisis flooded Iran with foreign currency (because they didn't embargo the US and Europe like the Gulf). Thus causing high inflation though oil prices probably spiked, not decreased.
Also, the video doesn't discuss that one of the main reasons that led to the collapse of the Shah regime is that he lost support among all the major "classes" in Iranian society: the working class, the middle class, and the more religious segment of the population. The economic crisis, the extensive repression of student and workers' movements, foreign oil companies depleting their most important resource with minimal benefits for the Iranian people-it is astonishing to look at the party celebrating the 2,500 years of the Persian Empire, and months later, the Shah fled the country.
@@Lucas0JA The party was a good 5 years at least before the revolution and the Shah got the oil deals renegotiated in 1973 I think. He was not a Western puppet.
The Shah also had a massive ego. When he followed events from exile, what grated him most was that the Iranian media just referred to him as "The Shah", rather than using his proper imperial title, Shahanshah Aryamehr, i.e. King of Kings, Light of the Iranians.
The Shah actually was violent during the Islamic Revolution such as Black Friday where at least 100 people were shot dead by the army. I’m not saying Khomeini was any better but I feel like there was limited mention about the Shah’s brutality
I mean his brutality was limited in this video because it’s the dominant view of the shah overall. So it’s something that someone should already know before engaging in the topic.
I'm old enough to remember the Night Line counts every night, "Today, it's day 343 of the Iranian Hostage Crisis." I was an adult with two small children (my oldest is your age). My brother and I used to watch that and wonder what in the world was going on. And you would think those in power now, who are older than I am, would remember that oil crisis and what it did to the economy because we were at the mercy of whomever owned the oil. The whole hostage thing was bad.
It really is interesting to wonder how history would have been different, especially in Asia and the middle east, with a secular Iran. My first thought was how the secular, Shia-dominated Iran would be pitted, possibly, against the secular, Sunni-dominated Turkey, and what those power dynamics would have looked like over the turbulent late 70's and 80's. But that also relies on Reza's successor being competent as well, which is a big "if," when it comes to monarchies. (Reza had cancer even before his abdication, so it's still likely he wouldn't have survived much later than he did in our timeline.)
Hossein Takbalizadeh admitted he was a member of a four-man arson team, that burned Cinema Rex. He said that they did it for Islam. He was hanged publicly for his crime at the hands of the Islamic Republic. Its theatrical trial was done mostly behind closed doors in 1980. His district attorney was also the judge and the whole trial lasted from the 25th of August to the 4th of September of the same year.
iranian people in the 70s didn't know what they got until they lost it, it wasn't perfect back then as nothing can be but as it was mentioned in the video shah was at least reasonable about it and was open to change. the islamic regime has been able to stay in power mostly by keeping the average people poor and fool. i don't konw how many more generations are going to be doomed in the hands of them. hopefully not too many
@@johnnotrealname8168 I've passed the whole 12 year public school system in iran and people have no idea about the indoctrination the average student goes through and higher education isn't much better. the only reason the government hasn't been totally successful in its brainwashing is the internet and satellite tv
_”What would the Middle East look like today if the Shah wasn’t overthrown?”_ Well, for one, the hijab and other veiled dress for women wouldn’t be anywhere near as prominent. When the Ayatollah came to power, he enforced religious dress upon the entire country, with officers of the state at every level demanded to observe these regulations. In one example, university staff stood outside the doors handing out veils to women who hadn’t yet gotten the message. (Forget which institution it was exactly ://) As a consequence, the rest of the Islamic world started to follow suit. In spite of the Sunni-Shia split, or perhaps because of it and not wanting to be outshone, Muslim women in neighbouring nations like Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Turkey began to voluntarily wear hijabs or more conservative clothing in spite of the fact that they weren’t being told to do so and hadn’t done so before. It’s a small example, but in this you can see the wider trend that took place in the Middle East at this time: In spite of the state not enforcing these things in Sunni majority countries, the example of Iran was seen as an example to follow and the cultural shift thereafter turned what could have been a pro-western - or at least ambivalent to it - secular, progressive, nationalist tide into a reactionary, anti-modern Islamist surge the effects of which are still with us today and will be with us long into the future.
@@jeffslote9671 True, but that’s more talking about the governments responding to that incident. I’m more focusing on the cultural changes that spilled over from Iran and why even in countries that were in theory secular republics, you had a growing amount of religious revival that gave rise to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS at the most extreme, and a feeling that returning to their religious roots is what was needed more generally.
@@jeffslote9671 Sure, but it’s not the only factor. Wahhabism is still a minority position outside of Arabia itself, and they’ve been exporting that ideology for decades regardless. But the actual shift in Middle Eastern societies, broadly speaking, only takes place in the aftermath of the 1979 revolution.
@@jeffslote9671Lol no. If anything it increased authoritarianism. The “religious fundamentalist” aspect died when prominent imams like Ibn Baz passed away
>no IR regime = more people observant of hijab This is absolutely delusional. The MENA nations that didnt wear hijab only did so after being taken over by secular regimes lead by Nasser, Assad and Abdul Karim Qassim. MENA has always been religiously conservative including parts of Turkey and equating more conservative Shias taking over Iran contributing to women in MENA wanting to be more religiously observant is nonsensical if not dishonest because no majority Sunni nation, secular or not would ever take the IR seriously
@@jeffslote9671 exactly, the Saudis are still there while this is going on. They developed that habit of exporting their religious extremists abroad and funding movements that parroted their specific brand of Wahabism. Those same religious extremists would play a big role in stoking sectarianism in Pakistan and Afghanistan before even the US and Soviets entered the picture.
The Sha ran a very oppressive regime as well. The guy had his secret service beat up people who were protesting against him with 2x4 by in the open street. Oh...not in Tehran mind you, but in West-Berlin during a state visit.
I'm a 23 years old persian girl currently living in the capital, Tehran. I never saw shah himself nor Iran under Pahlavi rule but one thing i can talk about surely is that comparing to the dictator ruling the contry now , he was an savior. At least Iran had some reputation,economy was not hammerd and more importantly, woman had rights . But now everything is messed up here. the dictator and his pets are the only people having the best life , but for the majority, especially women, it's an absolute disaster . I wish to see my country free and my fellow persians happy again. Thank u for the video btw.
Over and over in history people fail to learn that just because you are pissed at one tyrannical regime you should not assume that the first 'liberator' will present something better. Heck this misconception runs so strong even VTH incorrectly stated in a previous video that South Korea was a 'democracy' during the Korean War.
Historiography around the Shah has been flawed for decades-- tending to exaggerate his autocratic tendencies and downplay his work towards women's rights, his massive economic achievements, his dismantling of outdated power structures, and his efforts to put Iran on the track towards democracy. Absolutely a flawed leader, and one with much to criticize, but the dominant image of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as a brutal, bloodthirsty tyrant has never been true and historians are only in recent years beginning to come around to that.
@@FireMarshallStev I didn't say they invented his autocratic tendencies, they were definitely there. That being said, the Shah was never directly involved in SAVAK's operations and there is plenty of evidence that he actually sought to curb their worst excesses when he became aware of them. Even if he wasn't directly responsible, though, he had to know what SAVAK was doing on some level and he has culpability for it. Also, SAVAK's abuses were definitely exaggerated by the post-1979 regime in a bid to influence historiography and poison westerners against the Shah... Which certainly worked.
It's more that his successors HAD to paint him as a monster in order to legitimize their need to overthrow him. Otherwise it just makes you look like opportunistic power-grabbers.
I don't agree with you, mostly because no one has the right to deislamise an islamic country, just like israel causing a whole situation because they were a colony. You cannot change iran to be like the west with out angering all of your population, but the europeans Don't care, they like it when people copy them
The statements by the reviewer and by Jack Rackham extolling the progressive policies of the Shah of Iran during the 1970s completely ignore the imprisonment without trial, torture, and executions committed against Iranian dissidents by SAVAK under the Shah and his father. Yes, members of the upper classes and the developing educated middle class did quite well under the Shah. The lower classes and those who opposed a monarchy, not so well. Iran during the 1970s was not much different than Cuba prior to Castro. A nation in which the wealthy did quite well, the middle class was comfortable and had privileges, but everyone else was subject to persecution if they had any objection at all to the right-wing governments or domination of the country's economy by the USA and other Western countries.
Comedian, Jim Jeffries just released a podcast about the titanic over on his channel;”I don’t know about that” I don’t know if there’s a commentary opportunity for you? But it’s definitely worth a listen!
Yeah the Shah basically gave up the country and allowed the radical elements to takeover the country. In addition, it was foreign governments that had elevated and exiled his father mainly the British. However, the balancing act he had to do was never going to workout in the end. Either the foreigners would be calling for another change in government, the people would gave been upset or the establishment would have been upset. So in the end I believe he did the right thing and stepped away from the chaos. A lot of people want to say that the Middle East is still suffering from imperialism and colonialism but really there are too many factions in the region to ever get along with one another. Plus, the region has pretty much been dominated by authoritarian strong men.
It's always interesting when you step of your comfort zone in history topics and always great video I do suggest you pay visit to armchair historian video on the Iran Iraq war as the aftermath of the Iranian revolution revolution.
Maybe someone a little more familiar with the region can elaborate, but Iran is majority Shia, which means the majority Sunni countries in the middle east kinda hate their guts. I could see a strong progressive western-allied Iran being treated pretty similarly to Israel.
12:26 Why does that sound familiar? 14:00-16:50 I think all of this shows that the smart thing to do would have been to abolish to secret police altogether.
Love the videos as always! You excited for Champions League football, Chris? Always love the football jerseys you wear. I have two for Arsenal, one for Man City, two for England, and one for Belgium.
It’s a big what If if the us and uk left the 1953 election alone. Does The war in Afghanistan go differently cause the taliban would if they were beaten by the US military just go to either Pakistan or Iran and have sanctuary where the US military can’t get them and the taliban would just rest and rearm and go back to Afghanistan and the whole process would repeat itself where they go back and harass the US military and the cycle would repeat itself. Also does radical groups in the Middle East have a weaker argument for recruitment cause jihad was fueled by the ww1 French British treaty to carve up the Middle East, 1953 Iran election, Soviets invading Afghanistan and US troops In Saudi Arabia in the gulf war.
While the Shah did implement some positive changes, he was a brutal ruler as well who tolerated no dissent. He wasn't at the level of MBS but neither was he all that far off either.
Well Iran under the Shah wasn't really democratic. It still had the progressive trajectory that began under Mossadegh but lost the democratic element to legitimise it and to have the voice of the people heard. Worse as the Shah was installed by Britain and the US his position actually delegitimized many of the good changes under him and many peoples eyes.
Shias have 12 Imams who are the deputies of God (Allah) on the Earth. They have to be the Caliph of Muslims. 11 of them were killed during the early years of Islam. The twetlth one disappeared around the year 900, and it is believed that he is still alive and watching over his followers from the heavens. And because he is an Imam, he has to be the Caliph of the Muslims and make an Islamic government, but he is dissappeared, thus Khomeini thought he was the deputy of Imam Mahdi on Earth and had to make requirements for his appearance. I just said the beliefs of Shia due to the Quran and the Hadith
I mean, there are also Sevener Shi'ites who only believe there have been seven imams. Twelvers are just the majority among Shi'a Muslims, who are themselves a minority compared to Sunnis.
@samrevlej9331 You are right. Shi'ite has many branches. Some believe in 4,5, or 7 Imams. But the majority are the twelvers, and we're talking Iranians who are mostly Twelver Shias
Hey Chris. I'm from Iran, and I'm 18. Khomeini cared more about Islam rather than the country. He wanted to make an Islamic country to be an example of an Islamic country. He even made a law in Shariah, which allowed him to be the Supreme Leader without any limitations. Cuz he thought he was the deputy of Imam Mahdi on Earth. I'll write Imam Mahdi in another comment. He executed thousands of people in the name of Islam and ruled with iron fists. His successor Khamenei is even worse than him. Inflation, corruption, civil rights, poverty, and a lot of other things have made Iranians mad at the regime, and that's why they prefer Shah now. Not to mention people are less religious now.
No. They changed their name from Persia to Iran to send a signal to Hitler that they were Aryan, NOT Semitic. Islam and the Nazis were closely allied, and the Grand Mufti spent some time hanging with Hitler in the Reichstag.
I feel like this video was wayy too pro-Shah lol. The White Revolution and the Shah's reformations wasn't nearly as popular as the video made it out to be lol. And the secret police SAVAK probably should've been discussed more
The video was good , but had so many misinformations like , the burning the cinema , after rev. it was found out that burning was the work of the revolutioneries not SAVAK .
My only hope is that the USA doesn't interfere with the current revelation ongoing in iran. Their recent policies were all beneficial for the government, and my people are starting to dislike usa policies.( mainly biden and his insists on keeping afairs with the regime).
Good video though i have to say that at 2:40 it seem like you and the creator of the video have repeated the classic myth of Iran being some sort of progressive paradise in the 70's. Even though it is true that Iran was still way more progressive than today. Those image shows the urban elite lived not how the countryside and much of the common people lived which wasn't that much different from today. We shouldn't forgot that the iranian islamic revolution had big popular support so i think it shows that much of the people of iran were still religiously conservative.
It is true that 11% supported the revolution but it was the very same urban groups who supported it with their notions of progression. Also yes, the countryside was poor but it had been that way for a while and the Shah was changing that a lot.
What if the next emperoro of... the world hahaha, is watching you, and because of your history lesson and his hate for Woodrow Wilson take him to conquer the world. Then you being born is VERY relevant to Iran history. I like those kind of stretches.
"Unemployment rates" are a joke in this country. I don't buy those figures for a second! 3.8% my ass, if we didn't bend over backwards trying to make every single person who doesn't work somehow not qualify as "Unemployed" then we'd have an actual number! Nevermind that like a quarter of our population is either living in poverty or straight up homeless, 3.8% ACTUALLY translates into 15-25% so I highly doubt that unemployment was "Worse" in the 1970s than it is now!
I hope the new movement, WOMAN LIFE FREEDOM, would bring real reforms and a secular government at the end of the day… and kick the ayatollahs and their mosques to the curb
@@iamjohnfarlow idk, I thought there was one where the only difference between men and women's rights was the hijab, I could be being dumb but I don't know
@@drayreign0391 I don’t really know enough about it myself but I’m pretty sure Turkey and Israel have the most individual freedoms, in the Middle East that is.
A lot of Americans like to fantasize about how Iran would be if only they stayed Western. The reality is that it is not possible in that area, nor is it necessarily desirable. We've tried to install "democratic" (a buzz word for Western) governments in Iraq and Afghanistan as well and they always fail. Just because that system works for us, doesn't mean it works everywhere for everybody. I would prefer the US pull out of pretty much everywhere and let those nations determine their own system of government (or lack thereof). Moral of the story, we (the US) inevitably cause problems that come back to bite us when we interfere.
"Not possible in that area"? As someone from that area, you don't know what you're talking about. Iranians want democracy. They don't have it not because it's "not possible" (nor, for that matter, because of US intervention). You have to engage with the issue on a level deeper than just "it's not possible" or "America screws everything up".
This is an enticing story but is kind of demeaning, I do not particularly like democracy by the way, and woefully untrue. You are no doubt thinking of Iraq *SIGH* I am tired of Americans thinking they failed the country or something, it is a free, democratic, independent and sovereign country now without death-squads by the way. The only @~?£ they failed at is the lack of protection for Christians (However Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti promoted religious fanaticism in the last decade of his rule so not all on America.) and messing up the transition. Stop believing this nonsense.
But the US weren't trying to force democracy or "modernity" onto Iran. Quite the opposite in fact. Modernisation was from the government, yes, but not due to any push from the West, but from a desire to "catch up" to developed countries that was and still is quite common during and after decolonization in the developing world. Democratic reforms like the multi-party system, on the other hand, were concessions to demands by sections of the public opinion like the liberals, or attempts to preempt such demands by the government. You can criticize plenty with the US's foreign policy on the Middle East throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, including the 1953 coup in Iran. But it's difficult to blame the Iranian Revolution on them.
Iraq and Afghanistan's post invasion governments were destabilized even before the US was involved. Afghanistan was known as the Prussia of the East, a title given by Germany itself. And Iraq before Saddam was a strong and prosperous country. It would take way too long to explain but both countries were broken by regional conflicts, economic troubles, foreign intervention, disillusionment by the public, and failure of other ideologies like nationalism and socialism, paving the way for Islam to take over as a popular movement.
The Shah's reputation for dictatorship has been exaggerated for years, often fueled by propaganda from the post-1979 government, and historiography is only now beginning to correct that hyperbole. Yes, he was a monarch, not a democratically elected leader, but he was pushing Iran in the right direction, and I don't think anyone can realistically claim that what came after him wasn't much, much worse.
US basically betrayed shah...tho shah should have never trusted US. I don't blame US, tho. Their policy was always about having influence over the world.
The VP who admired the Shah was Nelson Rockeffeller, who was Ford's VP at that time (1975) as Nixon resigned a year earlier.
This was mentioned in the video I thought.
@@johnnotrealname8168 he said that VP resigned. I think he was mistaking Rockeffeller with Agnew.
@@jacobduncan2142Oh okay. Thank You for the clarification.
Literally just went to comment that too
18:15 fun fact that actually when they asked him on the flight to tehran how he felt that the revolution was successful he literally answered "NOTHING"
my friends dad was a colonel in irans air force under the shah. He was forced to resign and his family was under constant surveillance. when iran had pro democracy portests in 2010 my friend was thankfully only arrested, his dad was able to get him out and they fled to the states claiming political asylum. He loves his homeland and apparently a lot of Persians hate their government, which is why they have mass protests every few years, only reason theres never any change is because the government hires gangs and enlists the military to "squash" any protesters
And the regime still enjoys support in the rural areas.
Hi Chris I'm from Iran and I have to say this video is very accurate even the part where Khomeini says "I feel nothing" and the "you shouldn't have" to the former head of secret police nowadays alot of women go outside without hijab(mostly the young generation) and after the recent protests no one has the balls to say anything to women because they know they will be kicked to death by everyone on public and I have to say the revolution wasn't just backed by Islamist behind Khomeini (they were the most popular) there was alot of other factions most notably the communist(the toodeh in iran) and there was alot of prosecution of them and separatist ethnic groups(mainly the kurds) after the revolution(kind of a mini civil war) that was cracked down upon the Islamists sort of hijacked the revolution and wrote everything in their name. Today there is widespread distrust in the government even by former revolutionaries but the standard of living is not as bad as some western countries might imagine... It's still bad though don't get me wrong especially in civil rights and especially especially for women and many people just outright flee the country but I have hope that it will get better. I'm probably in the minority in my country but I think the future seems bright under the new generation. thanks for making these videos hope you're having a great day. Love from Iran ❤
Interesting to here that Persian is an exonym. I don't doubt it, but I have met several Iranians over the years that insisted on being called Persian. Their reasoning was to disassociate from the current regime. I guess that doesn't rule out it being an exonym but it would be an interesting use of one.
Persian refers to the majority ethnic group specifically. It is not synonymous with Iranian.
At least back to 262 AD, what is commonly called the Sassanid Empire was officially "Eranshahr" or "Empire of Iranians" and the name has been used by Iranian dynasties ever since.
Though in 1935 Iran officially requested to be called "Iran" and not "Persia" by foreign delegations. Similar to Swaziland to Eswatini, Turkey to Turkiye, and possible India to Bharat... its just countries requesting the name they have always used locally to be used internationally.
"Persian" comes from the Fars/Pars province in southern Iran (also called Persis in Greek and Latin). This is where both the Achaemenid (550-330 BCE) and Sassanid (224-657 CE) dynasties came from, so from the time of the Greeks, the empire ruled by these dynasties was called "Persia". But the locals called themselves "Arya" or "Eran" (this is also where the term "Aryan" originated from before 19th-century European scientists and later the N@zis twisted it into a r@cist myth). Sassanid Iran was called "Eranshahr" (Empire of the Iranians), and the king full title was "Shahanshah-i Eran ud Aneran" (King of Kings of the Iranians and the non-Iranians).
The Parthians, for instance, were also an Iranian people, but from the northeast of modern-day Iran, so not Persian. Mazandarani people are from the southern coast of the Caspian Sea, also not Persian (Farya Faraji, who composes excellent historical music on TH-cam, is of Mazandarini origin and clearly delineates by calling what Westerners call Persia "Iran").
It should also be noted that the language has the endonym "Farsi" a cognate of "Persian"
Edit: Removed Accidental Tag (sorry)
It is. That part of the world has always referred itself as Iran which is a distortion of Aryan.
2:46 That is Ford's VP Nelson Rockefeller who was shown in the video. You were thinking of Spiro Agnew. 😉
Iran is such a tragic tale they really should be the middle East's version of Japan. It feels the US is headed down a similar path where prominent representatives and public figures are openly discussing removing separation of church and state. Also some talls from elected officials of civil war. It should be extremely obvious which side will be on the correct side of history simply by looking at how many things people want to make illegal. Not complain online about but actually outlaw.
I'd say the Shah and his supporters are on the bad side
@@minestar2247 So is Trump and the entire Republican party and their political media.
@@sunkings5972 yes, that s what I said. Is there something I missed? Cause both are evil to me
@@sunkings5972 ok hold on not all Republicans are evil and don't agree with trump like in most parties there's a spectrum to these things what you are referring to is the hard right of the right wing and then saying that the moderate right is on that side when that isn't the case.
@lil_jackgamez8992 the moderate right has very little political power as they don't vote in primaries in many swing districts and states and get booted from the republican party. A very effective strategy in media has been to equate the radical right (full control of republican party) with the radical left (try to find a single elected official on the radical left). Sure you can find conservative media calling democrats radical, but when you look at their actual statements and bills they support, it's just objectively false. To be fair we will see in the election, moderate Republicans will have the ability to stop the radicalism in their party by voting blue or staying home and encouraging those around them to do the same. If enough fall in line and Trump wins, he won't give a crap about anyone but his Maga cult and will actively purge everyone else from govt, he has literally shown he will. and said he will. Democrats and mainstream media accept and platform moderate conservatives even if tbey disagree, MAGA does not accept dissent from whatever Trump says. Trump has even said he doesn't want or need Haley voters. Tbh the idea that liberalism is a mental disorder (Ben Shapiro) and the idea liberals want unrealistic and silly things (Joe Scarborough) is what allowed the radicalism to spread, the first helped it spread in public the latter politics and again it will be partially up to moderate conservatives to stop Trump. Best way is to vote blue and I really don't want to sound partisan I don't love the democratic party and dam sure don't want a one party dominated system. Until Republicans can get elected promising to work with democrats to fix problems and root out real coreuption, moderate republicans have zero power and will have zero actual representation, still have a few Senators rn sometimes. Given the stupid 2 party system, not changing anytime soon so worthless caring about, current partisan combative radical Republicans just can't win elections for moderate Republicans to not be fully responsible for all the harm they cause regardless of if they like Trump or not.
If the 30% or so of true moderate Republicans voted for Biden and democrats for senate and house (do what you want with state positions they vary so much more) Trumpism will be dead forever. Believe it or not bt the plus side would be congress would be able to make the changes neccesary to limit the power of radicals from either side, after all red state democrats aren't the same as blue state democrats and its really hard to get 60 votes in any senate and a majority in the house. I'd bet they would also add justices to the courts that would finally allow congress to tear down our massive pay to play corruption problem as there would be tons and tons of pressure to do so from... well everyone but especially the left. Red state demo would block anything that would hurt their re-eletion chances and if you don't believe me actually read some of the bills that have been passed and proposed and I strongly suggest folks do that especially before a presidential election.
Honestly changing the calendar away from the Islamic calendar does have precedent. Ataturk did it as part of his secularization of Turkey and he's still a beloved figure. Cyrus the Great as a historical hero of Iran, it's easy to see why he might have thought it would work.
The difference is Ataturk had earned the people's loyalty by seeing them through a war against foreign powers, and winning spectactularly. That's how he was able to push through so many reforms in so little time. And even then, he faced opposition in the form of Kurdish revolts, and Young Turk coups. Pahlavi, by comparison, was brought into power twice via foreign intervention toppling his (relatively) popular predecessors. So the people of Iran didn't have nearly as much respect for him and the people of Turkey had for Ataturk. So, when he tried to make similar reforms as Ataturk, he faced a lot more pushback, and his enemies exploited that.
Wait, Rockefeller didn't resign, it was Spiro Agnew
Yeah I got my timelines off...I was thinking early not mid 70s.
Great content, both Chris and the original creator! Need more content like this which subtly pushes back against the type of hyperbolic narratives we often see, such as those about the events in Iran of 1946, 1953 and 1979.
One of my best friends going back to high school is a first generation American whose family had to flee Iran for America in 1979. They are Iranian Christians, and exclusively refer to themselves as “Persian” to disassociate from the current regime, though their family is also from the Parsa region, and holds great reverence for the Persian Achaemenid emperors such as Cyrus the Great, Darius, Xerxes, etc (which was also the direction Mohammad Reza Shah was taking the country, including his famous “2500 years of the Persian Empire” banquet in 1971 where he hosted something like ten foreign kings and two foreign emperors)
I sincerely hope that, one way or another, the current regime will see its end and my friend will be able to visit his homeland for the first time ever, and his parents will be able to return home for the first time in decades.
Funny enough it was actually Muhammad Reza Pahlavi Shah that helped popularise for other nations to call the country Iran instead of Persia
The Shah that officially changed Iran's name, from Persia to Iran, was Reza Shah, the father of the Shah discussed in this video.
Thanks, for showing Jack some love, Chris! Jack Rackham's video's on, King Charles I, and John Wilkes Booth are all amazing and with a some have surprising cameo's from other TH-camr's.
I agree with the point that you made about the Shah being too progressive and making too many changes too quickly, because the religious leaders weren’t happy with him giving voting rights to women or taking land from the Khans and distributing it among the serfs. But I guess he saw how advanced the west had become compared to his own country and he just couldn’t wait and not do anything about it when he knew he had the power to make change.
2:41 In 1975 Nelson Rockerfeller (also the one in the picture) was the vice president under Gerald Ford. Spiro Agnnew (as you probably meant) resigned in 1973.
As a 35 years old Iranian who lives in Iran, my perspective is really close to this! Thoes years around 1953 were very complicated. The culture was exploding and all of those paradoxical aspects lead to the disaster of Islamic Republic. And wow...what a republic!! People wanted a progressive democracy, they ended up having the most incompetent dictatory leadership that Iran ever had. We usually compare the level of ruinatin and devastation caused by this regim with what happend to Iran by mongol invasion, which you know...was a catastrophe...
While not Iranian, I am Muslim, and what I can say about not just the Iranian situation but islamist revolutions in general is that many Muslims often find themselves sandwiched between one regime that forces their specific view of Islam upon its people with deadly force (which is strictly prohibited in the Quran), and another regime that seems to do everything it can to remove islamic influence and practices from its culture (also strictly prohibited in the Quran). It leaves many of us at a crossroads of whether to support a misled version of your religion, or a government that removes all traces of your religion
Appreciate you sharing your perspective on this. Not all that different than what many Christians experienced a few centuries back.
I thought for sure that you were gonna use Palpatine from Star Wars as the primary example for taking advantage of temporary emergency powers lol.
The regression of Iran is another great example of why religion and leading a country should never mix!
Every country is led by religion, it just depends what your religion is.
@@Longshanks1690not every country.
@@mojorisin069 _Every_ country.
It’s impossible to be a politician without your worldview being informed by some view, philosophy or doctrine regardless of whether it’s based in traditional religion or the post-enlightenment brands of Liberal, secular dogma.
The only people who can actually achieve a style of leadership devoid of worldviews are psychopaths.
@@mojorisin069 There is an animating philosophy in every country.
Or just shia.
"Persian" comes from the Fars/Pars province in southern Iran (also called Persis in Greek and Latin). This is where both the Achaemenid (550-330 BCE) and Sassanid (224-657 CE) dynasties came from, so from the time of the Greeks, the empire ruled by these dynasties was called "Persia". But the locals called themselves "Arya" or "Eran" (this is also where the term "Aryan" originated from before 19th-century European scientists and later the N@zis twisted it into a r@cist myth). Sassanid Iran was called "Eranshahr" (Empire of the Iranians), and the king's full title was "Shahanshah-i Eran ud Aneran" (King of Kings of the Iranians and the non-Iranians).
The Parthians, for instance, were also an Iranian people, but from the northeast of modern-day Iran, so not Persian. Mazandarani people are from the southern coast of the Caspian Sea, also not Persian (Farya Faraji, who composes excellent historical music on TH-cam, is of Mazandarini origin and clearly delineates by calling what Westerners call Persia "Iran").
I would like to add that the modernist fashion of pictured pre-1979 Iran are from upper-class, urban backgrounds who have more exposure to western, irreligious fashion. This is not quite representative of Iranian women in general, especially in rural areas that are super-religious and lack western exposure.
hi I'm from Iran and want to thank you for this great video. by the way the part when Khomeini is coming back to Iran and journalist ask him what is your feelings and he says nothing is real. also the part when he says I'm going to kick your teeth in and I appoint the government is also real. thanks for great videos and hope you have a fantastic day
Always a win to learn something new about something we know about at some level. On that note, may I recommend the video Kingdom of Okinawa - The Venice of Asia by Kings and Generals? We all know about WWII, but K&G shines some light on what’s been going on before that.
I’d recommend other videos like Brains4Breakfasts on Irans modern history because it is really interesting and Jack only scratches the surface
Like Khomenis islamists weren’t the only faction opposing the Shah, there were just as many communists, republicans, even constitutionalists who liked the position of Shah, they just didn’t like all the oppression and killing
It’s just that at the national convention where there would be a vote on the kind of government Iran would have, the Islamists won out.
I also recommend looking into the game “Revolution 1979.”
It’s a point and click type game from the perspective of a journalist documenting the protests and the various political movements opposing the Shah.
Your videos are my favorite videos to watch at work while having lunch
as a person living in Iran I think that the explanation about white revouloution was biased it was a land reform but this reform has done in an ineffective and destructive way that we don't have any big land owner today in Iran. most important thing that the video glossed over the economic problems occurred between 1971 and 1978 and exclusively the high inflation in result of decreasing the oil price.
True, land reform just frustrated everyone in the country. It could have worked but the peasants in question were nomads so they were not about to stay and till the land, the landlords obviously were annoyed and the urbanites were whining @~?£$%&! Also that last bit makes no sense whatsoever, how does low oil prices cause inflation?
@@johnnotrealname8168the 1973 oil crisis flooded Iran with foreign currency (because they didn't embargo the US and Europe like the Gulf). Thus causing high inflation though oil prices probably spiked, not decreased.
@jc-mendoza That makes more sense. I know there was high inflation but his explanation Edit: "made" no sense.
Also, the video doesn't discuss that one of the main reasons that led to the collapse of the Shah regime is that he lost support among all the major "classes" in Iranian society: the working class, the middle class, and the more religious segment of the population.
The economic crisis, the extensive repression of student and workers' movements, foreign oil companies depleting their most important resource with minimal benefits for the Iranian people-it is astonishing to look at the party celebrating the 2,500 years of the Persian Empire, and months later, the Shah fled the country.
@@Lucas0JA The party was a good 5 years at least before the revolution and the Shah got the oil deals renegotiated in 1973 I think. He was not a Western puppet.
Iranian Revolution makes me think of "Housemaid's Tale" story for some reason
The Shah also had a massive ego. When he followed events from exile, what grated him most was that the Iranian media just referred to him as "The Shah", rather than using his proper imperial title, Shahanshah Aryamehr, i.e. King of Kings, Light of the Iranians.
That is awesome.
@@johnnotrealname8168 Yes, out of touch despots in exile are awesome.
@@samrevlej9331 He was not out of touch though, he liberalised the country when asked to and had some of the best welfare policies in the region.
@@johnnotrealname8168so Mozadegh would have been a better option. Welfare polcies intact with less despotism.
@thatindiandude4602 The latter part is debatable and the former is too I guess.
Unfortunately this wasn't Americas last time.
Iranian music prior to the revolution is pretty cool. A lot of psychedelic/funk music.
The Shah actually was violent during the Islamic Revolution such as Black Friday where at least 100 people were shot dead by the army. I’m not saying Khomeini was any better but I feel like there was limited mention about the Shah’s brutality
I mean his brutality was limited in this video because it’s the dominant view of the shah overall. So it’s something that someone should already know before engaging in the topic.
@@dkoda840 that’s fair but I feel you need to look at both sides
I'm old enough to remember the Night Line counts every night, "Today, it's day 343 of the Iranian Hostage Crisis." I was an adult with two small children (my oldest is your age). My brother and I used to watch that and wonder what in the world was going on. And you would think those in power now, who are older than I am, would remember that oil crisis and what it did to the economy because we were at the mercy of whomever owned the oil. The whole hostage thing was bad.
It really is interesting to wonder how history would have been different, especially in Asia and the middle east, with a secular Iran. My first thought was how the secular, Shia-dominated Iran would be pitted, possibly, against the secular, Sunni-dominated Turkey, and what those power dynamics would have looked like over the turbulent late 70's and 80's. But that also relies on Reza's successor being competent as well, which is a big "if," when it comes to monarchies. (Reza had cancer even before his abdication, so it's still likely he wouldn't have survived much later than he did in our timeline.)
Hossein Takbalizadeh admitted he was a member of a four-man arson team, that burned Cinema Rex. He said that they did it for Islam. He was hanged publicly for his crime at the hands of the Islamic Republic. Its theatrical trial was done mostly behind closed doors in 1980. His district attorney was also the judge and the whole trial lasted from the 25th of August to the 4th of September of the same year.
iranian people in the 70s didn't know what they got until they lost it, it wasn't perfect back then as nothing can be but as it was mentioned in the video shah was at least reasonable about it and was open to change. the islamic regime has been able to stay in power mostly by keeping the average people poor and fool. i don't konw how many more generations are going to be doomed in the hands of them. hopefully not too many
Education in that country is actually really high for men and women and they have a decent social safety net.
@@johnnotrealname8168 I've passed the whole 12 year public school system in iran and people have no idea about the indoctrination the average student goes through and higher education isn't much better. the only reason the government hasn't been totally successful in its brainwashing is the internet and satellite tv
Things khomeini says in the video is about exactly what he said in those days
_”What would the Middle East look like today if the Shah wasn’t overthrown?”_
Well, for one, the hijab and other veiled dress for women wouldn’t be anywhere near as prominent. When the Ayatollah came to power, he enforced religious dress upon the entire country, with officers of the state at every level demanded to observe these regulations. In one example, university staff stood outside the doors handing out veils to women who hadn’t yet gotten the message. (Forget which institution it was exactly ://)
As a consequence, the rest of the Islamic world started to follow suit. In spite of the Sunni-Shia split, or perhaps because of it and not wanting to be outshone, Muslim women in neighbouring nations like Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Turkey began to voluntarily wear hijabs or more conservative clothing in spite of the fact that they weren’t being told to do so and hadn’t done so before.
It’s a small example, but in this you can see the wider trend that took place in the Middle East at this time: In spite of the state not enforcing these things in Sunni majority countries, the example of Iran was seen as an example to follow and the cultural shift thereafter turned what could have been a pro-western - or at least ambivalent to it - secular, progressive, nationalist tide into a reactionary, anti-modern Islamist surge the effects of which are still with us today and will be with us long into the future.
@@jeffslote9671 True, but that’s more talking about the governments responding to that incident. I’m more focusing on the cultural changes that spilled over from Iran and why even in countries that were in theory secular republics, you had a growing amount of religious revival that gave rise to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS at the most extreme, and a feeling that returning to their religious roots is what was needed more generally.
@@jeffslote9671 Sure, but it’s not the only factor. Wahhabism is still a minority position outside of Arabia itself, and they’ve been exporting that ideology for decades regardless. But the actual shift in Middle Eastern societies, broadly speaking, only takes place in the aftermath of the 1979 revolution.
@@jeffslote9671Lol no. If anything it increased authoritarianism. The “religious fundamentalist” aspect died when prominent imams like Ibn Baz passed away
>no IR regime = more people observant of hijab
This is absolutely delusional. The MENA nations that didnt wear hijab only did so after being taken over by secular regimes lead by Nasser, Assad and Abdul Karim Qassim. MENA has always been religiously conservative including parts of Turkey and equating more conservative Shias taking over Iran contributing to women in MENA wanting to be more religiously observant is nonsensical if not dishonest because no majority Sunni nation, secular or not would ever take the IR seriously
@@jeffslote9671 exactly, the Saudis are still there while this is going on. They developed that habit of exporting their religious extremists abroad and funding movements that parroted their specific brand of Wahabism. Those same religious extremists would play a big role in stoking sectarianism in Pakistan and Afghanistan before even the US and Soviets entered the picture.
The Sha ran a very oppressive regime as well. The guy had his secret service beat up people who were protesting against him with 2x4 by in the open street. Oh...not in Tehran mind you, but in West-Berlin during a state visit.
I'm a 23 years old persian girl currently living in the capital, Tehran. I never saw shah himself nor Iran under Pahlavi rule but one thing i can talk about surely is that comparing to the dictator ruling the contry now , he was an savior. At least Iran had some reputation,economy was not hammerd and more importantly, woman had rights . But now everything is messed up here. the dictator and his pets are the only people having the best life , but for the majority, especially women, it's an absolute disaster . I wish to see my country free and my fellow persians happy again. Thank u for the video btw.
Thank you for sharing your perspective!
We will free our country from these rotting corpses. Stay strong. Woman Life Freedom.
The war doesn't in any way end the great depression
Perfect timing!!! Thank you for these, Chris 🙏
Over and over in history people fail to learn that just because you are pissed at one tyrannical regime you should not assume that the first 'liberator' will present something better.
Heck this misconception runs so strong even VTH incorrectly stated in a previous video that South Korea was a 'democracy' during the Korean War.
We should revisit jack rackham during the doldrums of waiting for oversimplified to upload
Afghanistan was a different place too at that time, I beileve Kabul was called "the Paris of the Orient" or something like that.
Historiography around the Shah has been flawed for decades-- tending to exaggerate his autocratic tendencies and downplay his work towards women's rights, his massive economic achievements, his dismantling of outdated power structures, and his efforts to put Iran on the track towards democracy. Absolutely a flawed leader, and one with much to criticize, but the dominant image of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as a brutal, bloodthirsty tyrant has never been true and historians are only in recent years beginning to come around to that.
The easiest example is what he did when asked to change, he changed.
Explain SAVAK.
@@FireMarshallStev I didn't say they invented his autocratic tendencies, they were definitely there. That being said, the Shah was never directly involved in SAVAK's operations and there is plenty of evidence that he actually sought to curb their worst excesses when he became aware of them. Even if he wasn't directly responsible, though, he had to know what SAVAK was doing on some level and he has culpability for it.
Also, SAVAK's abuses were definitely exaggerated by the post-1979 regime in a bid to influence historiography and poison westerners against the Shah... Which certainly worked.
It's more that his successors HAD to paint him as a monster in order to legitimize their need to overthrow him. Otherwise it just makes you look like opportunistic power-grabbers.
I don't agree with you, mostly because no one has the right to deislamise an islamic country, just like israel causing a whole situation because they were a colony. You cannot change iran to be like the west with out angering all of your population, but the europeans Don't care, they like it when people copy them
11:03 keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
The statements by the reviewer and by Jack Rackham extolling the progressive policies of the Shah of Iran during the 1970s completely ignore the imprisonment without trial, torture, and executions committed against Iranian dissidents by SAVAK under the Shah and his father. Yes, members of the upper classes and the developing educated middle class did quite well under the Shah. The lower classes and those who opposed a monarchy, not so well.
Iran during the 1970s was not much different than Cuba prior to Castro. A nation in which the wealthy did quite well, the middle class was comfortable and had privileges, but everyone else was subject to persecution if they had any objection at all to the right-wing governments or domination of the country's economy by the USA and other Western countries.
Comedian, Jim Jeffries just released a podcast about the titanic over on his channel;”I don’t know about that” I don’t know if there’s a commentary opportunity for you? But it’s definitely worth a listen!
One Jack Rackham video I'd suggest is his on Malik Ambar.
Love from Pakistan 🇵🇰❤️
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer
Yeah the Shah basically gave up the country and allowed the radical elements to takeover the country. In addition, it was foreign governments that had elevated and exiled his father mainly the British. However, the balancing act he had to do was never going to workout in the end. Either the foreigners would be calling for another change in government, the people would gave been upset or the establishment would have been upset. So in the end I believe he did the right thing and stepped away from the chaos. A lot of people want to say that the Middle East is still suffering from imperialism and colonialism but really there are too many factions in the region to ever get along with one another. Plus, the region has pretty much been dominated by authoritarian strong men.
Iran/Persia Pre 1978 sounds like a nice place. Religious extremists in government is always a bad idea.
It's always interesting when you step of your comfort zone in history topics and always great video I do suggest you pay visit to armchair historian video on the Iran Iraq war as the aftermath of the Iranian revolution revolution.
You should check out Historia Militum he covers Roman history.
10:08 Chris having a Ferris Bueller moment.
Maybe someone a little more familiar with the region can elaborate, but Iran is majority Shia, which means the majority Sunni countries in the middle east kinda hate their guts. I could see a strong progressive western-allied Iran being treated pretty similarly to Israel.
God forbid we ever become like Israel though, or western
12:26 Why does that sound familiar?
14:00-16:50 I think all of this shows that the smart thing to do would have been to abolish to secret police altogether.
VTH is cancelled for that pun😂🤣 love all your videos! My fav history TH-camr
Love the videos as always!
You excited for Champions League football, Chris? Always love the football jerseys you wear. I have two for Arsenal, one for Man City, two for England, and one for Belgium.
11:24 also the fun fact is that they exiled him to France, the most freedom of speech place.
It’s a big what If if the us and uk left the 1953 election alone. Does The war in Afghanistan go differently cause the taliban would if they were beaten by the US military just go to either Pakistan or Iran and have sanctuary where the US military can’t get them and the taliban would just rest and rearm and go back to Afghanistan and the whole process would repeat itself where they go back and harass the US military and the cycle would repeat itself. Also does radical groups in the Middle East have a weaker argument for recruitment cause jihad was fueled by the ww1 French British treaty to carve up the Middle East, 1953 Iran election, Soviets invading Afghanistan and US troops In Saudi Arabia in the gulf war.
This assumes nothing would change with almost fifty years passing.
@@johnnotrealname8168 yea your right. No guarantees on what changes only assumptions
When I was in high school we read a book called Persepolis about this (not sure schools would allow it today due to the content, though).
The Ayatollah's son having a heart attack seems about as likely as all those Russians today that keep falling out of windows...
While the Shah did implement some positive changes, he was a brutal ruler as well who tolerated no dissent. He wasn't at the level of MBS but neither was he all that far off either.
"What happened in the meantime? I was born" So, it was your fault
Day 3 of asking for a video of the war for Spanish Succession "Queen Anne's war"
This is the definition of something coming back to bite you in the butt.
As an iranian, i confirm that khomeini was a monster💀 and the revolution was a terrible mistake🤦
Well Iran under the Shah wasn't really democratic. It still had the progressive trajectory that began under Mossadegh but lost the democratic element to legitimise it and to have the voice of the people heard. Worse as the Shah was installed by Britain and the US his position actually delegitimized many of the good changes under him and many peoples eyes.
Shias have 12 Imams who are the deputies of God (Allah) on the Earth. They have to be the Caliph of Muslims. 11 of them were killed during the early years of Islam. The twetlth one disappeared around the year 900, and it is believed that he is still alive and watching over his followers from the heavens. And because he is an Imam, he has to be the Caliph of the Muslims and make an Islamic government, but he is dissappeared, thus Khomeini thought he was the deputy of Imam Mahdi on Earth and had to make requirements for his appearance.
I just said the beliefs of Shia due to the Quran and the Hadith
I mean, there are also Sevener Shi'ites who only believe there have been seven imams. Twelvers are just the majority among Shi'a Muslims, who are themselves a minority compared to Sunnis.
@samrevlej9331 You are right. Shi'ite has many branches. Some believe in 4,5, or 7 Imams. But the majority are the twelvers, and we're talking Iranians who are mostly Twelver Shias
We should learn from this but we won't. We never do.
You are like a father figure and guide. Can you also talk about 'life' sometimes?
Hey Chris. I'm from Iran, and I'm 18. Khomeini cared more about Islam rather than the country. He wanted to make an Islamic country to be an example of an Islamic country. He even made a law in Shariah, which allowed him to be the Supreme Leader without any limitations. Cuz he thought he was the deputy of Imam Mahdi on Earth. I'll write Imam Mahdi in another comment. He executed thousands of people in the name of Islam and ruled with iron fists. His successor Khamenei is even worse than him. Inflation, corruption, civil rights, poverty, and a lot of other things have made Iranians mad at the regime, and that's why they prefer Shah now. Not to mention people are less religious now.
11:30 isn't that basically how the Russian revolution started?
Jack is amazing on his content right? You should do his carolus rex video!🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤
100%
US also support the autocrat in Philippines Marcos
Uncle Philly!!!!!
You got to admit, Persia sounds way cooler than Iran, even without it's history.
No. They changed their name from Persia to Iran to send a signal to Hitler that they were Aryan, NOT Semitic. Islam and the Nazis were closely allied, and the Grand Mufti spent some time hanging with Hitler in the Reichstag.
how does he do it
HE lore is out!
I feel like this video was wayy too pro-Shah lol. The White Revolution and the Shah's reformations wasn't nearly as popular as the video made it out to be lol. And the secret police SAVAK probably should've been discussed more
The video was good , but had so many misinformations like , the burning the cinema , after rev. it was found out that burning was the work of the revolutioneries not SAVAK .
HOW DO YOU KNOW SO MUCH AVBOUT HISTORY
It is pretty sad when you look at what Iran was compared to today, and it is all the fault of Jimmy carter helping the Ayatollahs back into power.
Ww2 didnt get america out of the depression
My only hope is that the USA doesn't interfere with the current revelation ongoing in iran. Their recent policies were all beneficial for the government, and my people are starting to dislike usa policies.( mainly biden and his insists on keeping afairs with the regime).
What's the current revelation?
Hi
Good video though i have to say that at 2:40 it seem like you and the creator of the video have repeated the classic myth of Iran being some sort of progressive paradise in the 70's. Even though it is true that Iran was still way more progressive than today. Those image shows the urban elite lived not how the countryside and much of the common people lived which wasn't that much different from today. We shouldn't forgot that the iranian islamic revolution had big popular support so i think it shows that much of the people of iran were still religiously conservative.
It is true that 11% supported the revolution but it was the very same urban groups who supported it with their notions of progression. Also yes, the countryside was poor but it had been that way for a while and the Shah was changing that a lot.
What if the next emperoro of... the world hahaha, is watching you, and because of your history lesson and his hate for Woodrow Wilson take him to conquer the world. Then you being born is VERY relevant to Iran history. I like those kind of stretches.
"Unemployment rates" are a joke in this country. I don't buy those figures for a second! 3.8% my ass, if we didn't bend over backwards trying to make every single person who doesn't work somehow not qualify as "Unemployed" then we'd have an actual number! Nevermind that like a quarter of our population is either living in poverty or straight up homeless, 3.8% ACTUALLY translates into 15-25% so I highly doubt that unemployment was "Worse" in the 1970s than it is now!
So the Shah was a good leader who did not deserve to be overthrown? Wow, thanks for this video.
I hope the new movement, WOMAN LIFE FREEDOM, would bring real reforms and a secular government at the end of the day… and kick the ayatollahs and their mosques to the curb
Is it iraq or Iran that is the most free of all the middle east I can't remember
Do you mean least free?
@@iamjohnfarlow idk, I thought there was one where the only difference between men and women's rights was the hijab, I could be being dumb but I don't know
@@drayreign0391 I don’t really know enough about it myself but I’m pretty sure Turkey and Israel have the most individual freedoms, in the Middle East that is.
@@drayreign0391 I think you are thinking of Jordan maybe? They have been progressing well. Turkey too but hijabs are not really emphasised there.
Iraq is pretty good actually.
But its kinda like Saruman the white, you think he's gonna be the good guy but nah.
A lot of Americans like to fantasize about how Iran would be if only they stayed Western. The reality is that it is not possible in that area, nor is it necessarily desirable. We've tried to install "democratic" (a buzz word for Western) governments in Iraq and Afghanistan as well and they always fail. Just because that system works for us, doesn't mean it works everywhere for everybody. I would prefer the US pull out of pretty much everywhere and let those nations determine their own system of government (or lack thereof). Moral of the story, we (the US) inevitably cause problems that come back to bite us when we interfere.
"Not possible in that area"? As someone from that area, you don't know what you're talking about. Iranians want democracy. They don't have it not because it's "not possible" (nor, for that matter, because of US intervention). You have to engage with the issue on a level deeper than just "it's not possible" or "America screws everything up".
This is an enticing story but is kind of demeaning, I do not particularly like democracy by the way, and woefully untrue. You are no doubt thinking of Iraq *SIGH* I am tired of Americans thinking they failed the country or something, it is a free, democratic, independent and sovereign country now without death-squads by the way. The only @~?£ they failed at is the lack of protection for Christians (However Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti promoted religious fanaticism in the last decade of his rule so not all on America.) and messing up the transition. Stop believing this nonsense.
But the US weren't trying to force democracy or "modernity" onto Iran. Quite the opposite in fact. Modernisation was from the government, yes, but not due to any push from the West, but from a desire to "catch up" to developed countries that was and still is quite common during and after decolonization in the developing world. Democratic reforms like the multi-party system, on the other hand, were concessions to demands by sections of the public opinion like the liberals, or attempts to preempt such demands by the government.
You can criticize plenty with the US's foreign policy on the Middle East throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, including the 1953 coup in Iran. But it's difficult to blame the Iranian Revolution on them.
Iraq and Afghanistan's post invasion governments were destabilized even before the US was involved. Afghanistan was known as the Prussia of the East, a title given by Germany itself. And Iraq before Saddam was a strong and prosperous country. It would take way too long to explain but both countries were broken by regional conflicts, economic troubles, foreign intervention, disillusionment by the public, and failure of other ideologies like nationalism and socialism, paving the way for Islam to take over as a popular movement.
@jc-mendoza Even Libya too, there have been whispers of returning the Monarchy there as well.
Are you crazy? The Shah was a murder, a dictator. What kind of historian are you?
Every historian has naivety rooted in their logic.
The Shah's reputation for dictatorship has been exaggerated for years, often fueled by propaganda from the post-1979 government, and historiography is only now beginning to correct that hyperbole. Yes, he was a monarch, not a democratically elected leader, but he was pushing Iran in the right direction, and I don't think anyone can realistically claim that what came after him wasn't much, much worse.
@@mkhedart0mt0avari Similar to Mohammad Zahir Shah.
Well, there are 2 types of dictators:
Beneficial and non Beneficial. Shah was a beneficial one. Compared to Khomeini and khamanei, he was a Saint.
Cope harder brother
Iran is so much worse off as a result of the US not stepping in and helping the Shah
US basically betrayed shah...tho shah should have never trusted US. I don't blame US, tho. Their policy was always about having influence over the world.