@@bootybunkerspelunker yes, Persia was the Greek name for the area. They officially asked the international community to change their name for the country in 1935.
Hello, as an Iranian myself I have to explain few things The name "Iran" actually means "The land of Aryans"( Aryans were migrants and they moved to iran and India and also to Europe in ancient times ) and it was used during the Sassanid era which they called it"Iranshahr" "Iran"reffers to all ethnic people that live in this nation.( We have so many ethnic groups like Kurds,turk, Baloch and many more ) But Persia is actually a region in iran and by the way the Sassanids and Achaemenid empire came from this region And the name was officially changed back to iran from persia in 1936 Love your content Chris♥️♥️
About the name. Persia has never been use by Iranians to refer to their own country. Even in the time of Parthian and Sassanian Empires (contemporary to the Romans) the native name was Eranshar= empire of Iran/Iranians. Persia is a word used by the Greeks and Romans to refer to the whole country, but originally it meant just a region of the country (even today, Fars). It would be like if foreigners called the USA "New England". New England is a part of the USA, but not all states are New England
@@kaiserwilhelmiii8373 For example. It's a quite common thing if you think about It. I am italian, and here in Italy people from USA are sometimes called Yankees, which Is ironic considering that in the USA that Word describes Just people from the north-east.
Nicely explained, marco. Perhaps there's an even better parallel in how so many people confuse the name "England" with Great Britain. Even us Brits do it, from to time!
1:26 Fun fact: the Crimean War led to the U.S. purchasing Alaska because Tsar Alexander II of Russia felt that selling Alaska to the U.S. was a great way to make back the money it lost during that war.
It was also a way to prevent further British expansion into the North Pacific. Considering at that time USA and British relations became strained during the ACW so they thought better the USA than the British control Alaska since the USA didn’t appear to have imperial ambitions in the Pacific.
One of the lead CIA operatives involved in Operation Ajax to bring down Mossadegh was Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., grandson of Theodore Roosevelt. He was awarded a National Security medal for his involvement.
In my view, as a Middle Easterner, the presenter here followed the typical "the West is responsible for everything routine" as opposed to looking at internal issues. While he indicated correctly that Iran had a number of different political cores in the Post-WWII situation: royalists, secularists, Islamists, and communists, but stressed the British influence on these entities while minimizing the powerful intergroup dynamics. For example, he does not delve on why Kashani (leader of the Islamists) abandoned Mossadegh (leader of the secularists) in the fall/winter of 1952. The abandonment had practically nothing to do with British interference as Kashani was strongly anti-Western but had to do with Mossadegh not agreeing with Kashani that (1) religious scholars should be part of the government apparatus and (2) that religious approval be sought for cabinet appointments. If Mossadegh had appeased Kashani, it is quite likely that Operation Ajax would have never been attempted, let alone be successful. Sure, Iran would not have been as effectively governed as Mossadegh was able to to in early 1953, but his government would have survived. (A good counterexample parallel here that VTH might connect to is how despite Lincoln being an abolitionist, he made common cause with slave states in the Union in order to preserve the Union rather than completely edging them out of power and thereby having no constituency large enough to hold power.) Another point here is that very little is made of Mossadegh's attempts to concentrate more power in his person (like the 30 Tir Uprising and its aftermath) which related to internal Iranian power issues.
The point is that the US and UK have no right meddling in other countries in how they run. If Mossadegh was acting this way, it doesn't give the US or UK the right to try and overthrow him. Its not like the US or UK even cared about Iranian people. The reason they did it was ideological and business focused.
@@lemurforlife My comment does not justify the overthrow or claim that it has some moral veneer, but my argument is that, quite often (as was done in the original video), the domestic issues in a Non-Western country are glossed over in order to paint a picture of the West stepping into this idyllic garden and dropping napalm on it. That's not what happened. What happened is that the US ambled into a tinderbox and barely lit a match. If there had been no Operation Ajax, there is a serious possibility that the Islamists would have worked out a deal with the Iranian mafiosos (that the Americans ended up working with in Operation Ajax) that would have overthrown Mossadegh anyway. The Communist Tudeh party was not terribly popular and Mossadegh's increasing reliance on them was alienating a significant part of a relatively religious country -- never mind that Tudeh had supported the incredibly unpopular continuing Soviet Occupation in 1946 over northwest Iran, which was seen as catering to Soviet imperialism over Iran. We should have conversations about the domestic Iranian situation because, ultimately, that set the stage for the coup being successful. (It's worth noting that the 1953 coup was one of the US's first and was very poorly executed, nearly failing without buy-in from Iranian counterparts who had their own interests -- like Zahedi.)
@@Coolinteresting876 How would Mossadegh have dealt with the Islamists? His refusal to negotiate with Kashani was one of the major reasons for his increasing political isolation.
As others have pointed out, "Persia" was always something other people called Iran, the natives have called it Iran as far back as the Achaemenid Empire
Hi, I am an Iranian viewer. Big fan. Persia or the land of the Pars people is the greek name that was given to our country by the greeks during the achaemenid dynasty’s long time conflicts with Greece and it sort of stuck around. Then, in 1935 Shah (King) requested all foreign delegates to use the word Iran. Because while Persian are also the majority ethnic group, they are not the only one. Iran means land of children of Arya (aryans) who were central asian nomadic tribes who moved inside the iranian plateau (among other places such as Europe and India) almost all of Iran’s ethnic groups are descendants of these early tribes. Shah wanted to use an all encompassing umbrella term instead of just Persia.
I’m not from Iran but I found out that the Iranians always called it Iran Persia is the Roman name and everyone called it Persia until they made everyone call it Iran by rejecting diplomats who called it Persia I think
There were vanishingly few Jeffersonian democrats in Persia. Mossadegh was a member of the previous dynasty, and was under threat from Islamists and Communists. Nationalization was basically indistinguishable from stealing from foreigners, and Communist doctrine. The British were able to offend anyone they dealt with, and all the royalties from the Anglo-Persian oil company stayed with the central government, so there was no popular support for the industry. Mossadegh was unlikely to remain in power, it was a matter of who staged a coup first.
This is extremely fairly done by the creator (despite the clickbait title that would lead you to believe otherwise) and I have to commend him for that, although I must say it is not exactly accurate in portraying Eisenhower as blindly following Churchill’s lead on this, he considered the facts and did not just take the word of his hawkish advisors or of Churchill. Eisenhower made the decision for American participation on his own, based on his interpretation of American interests in the steadily-worsening diplomatic and military crisis in Iran. Now going to watch part 2 of your reaction!
Countries will always do what's in their self interest...even if a country helps another country, it's always with strings attached. Charity is for individuals as far as a country's concerned, but in all fairness, that's because the gov't duty is to the people of that country before any other coutry.
In rare ocasions.... Countries don't do "charity" itself with another one, but follow an abstract concept of "closeness" with another country, doing exactly what it's NOT in their best interest... (Looking at you, Chincha Islands War between Peru/Ecuador/Bolivia/Chile against Spain... and Chile getting with the main port destroyed prize ¬¬')
This was for business interests of the US, not for the people. Since Mossadegh wanted to nationalize their oil, the US and UK did not want that so they helped overthrow him.
Hey Chris, been binging your stuff again recently, love your perspective on things like WW1 and the American Civil war. I also loved hearing you talk about the Gallic Wars in the reaction to Kings and Generals’ video, and was wondering if you have any plans to watch their videos on the Roman Civil War. Even more fascinating stuff there I’d love to hear you talk about. I think they’ve got two compilation videos for the civil war, Caesar against Pompey, and How Caesar Won the Roman Civil War. Look forward to seeing those videos if you ever do them.
Actually Mosaddegh didn’t flee the country, he went in hiding for one day and then he turned himself in. A military court found him and his cabinet guilty and he was sentenced to exile for life and his Secretary of State, dr. Fatemi was executed. In Mossadegh’s son memoir it is said that Shah eventually allowed his children to take Mosaddegh with them to France but their father refused to leave the country.
as a history enthusiast i have always been interested in england and uk history and how they literally shaped the todays world but as an iranian citizen i look the country and feel awful about its lost potential to be an advanced country like south korea or japan. and i can't say what the uk did in instances like this wasn't a factor in iran's current misery
Also just wanna mention the Qajars. The dynasty that ruled Iran for the 19th century until their overthrow in 1925, are widely considered one of if not the worst dynasty in Iranian history Yes the great powers of Britain and Russia played a big part but the Qajar Shahs made 0 attempts to modernize or reform for essentially the entire century despite the constant attempts by high ranking scholars and clergy. Like this one wasn’t impossible, Japan, Ethiopia and even Thailand has managed to modernize and keep the European powers at arms length, but the Qajars again did literally nothing. And the clergys reputation as the only class not corrupted by the decadence and negligence of the Shahs would come in handy for them in 1979 when everyone was deciding what kind of government they wanted.
The British gentleman in the scene with the poison, stab, hang and shot buttons (slight error it should be shoot) is a divisive figure from UK politics at the time Ramsay MacDonald. He was the first Labour Prime Minister in 24 and from 29 to 31. He also led a national government from 31 to 35 dominated by tories.
We often take away the wrong lesson from these stories; which is that Eisenhower should've just vetoed the plans when given to them sighting the litany of issues from conflict of interests to planners lacking expertise. These unhinged schemes should've never been greenlit.
Note how Most Asia and Africa states Don't have a Problem with GERMANY yet lots of anti French-British-Chines-American -etc. but most are ok with the Former Central Powers!!! Central Asia has a Anti Russian feeling more that Africa dose. All related to the Colonial era
Amazing work as always, I saw Mr. Terry reacted to a video you might find interesting which is "The most gangster politician ever" granted the language is not exactly family friendly but the guy it is about can fairly be compared to Andrew Jackson, Harriet Tubman, and Theodore Roosevelt in terms of just how badass he was
JACK RACKHAM I AM BEYOND HYPED! I think youd really enjoy his teddy roosevelt video it focuses more on his life in general rather than focusing on his presidency
Not to mention the dictatorships established in South American countries that also had encouragement from the USA, to erase any possibility of having a communist government. The 1964 military coup in Brazil overthrew President João Goulart, who was suspected of being a communist. There were 20 years of censorship, torture and exile for anyone who was seen as opposing the military government. I know that Argentina and Chile also had dictatorships established with support from the USA.
Hey Chris, are you familiar with the channel History Calling? I actually found it through reading the comments on an old video of yours. She does a lot of content about the Tudors, I think you'd enjoy it.
I just saw you where at my old school Letchworth central school in new york if you where ever out this way again a cool place to stop in is the council grounds at Letchworth State Park. Keep up the great work!!
While the country has at various points through its long, long history been called either Iran or Persia, the least confusing way to refer its inhabitants is "Iranians" since the Persians are just one ethnic group (about 60% of the population) out of many that call that country home. Most of the ethnic groups are Iranian and speak Aryan (same linguistic root as Iran) languages. Examples include Kurds, Balochis, Tats, Talysh, and Mazandaranis and Gilakis (closely related). And just so this doesn't seem like erasure: Between a fifth and a fourth of the population has Turkic origins. Most of those are Azeris, but there endemic Turkic peoples to Iran, for example, the Qashqai (the namesake of the popular Toyota model).
Its interesting how much access to oil played a role in American policy. The reason why the Navajo tribe even has a tribal government in the first place was because the US kind of made it for us in early 1900s. One of the amendments that was made to our treaty in the 1800s specified that the Americans couldn't just extract any natural resources they had to have permission first. This was the 1860s of course and since we didn't have gold or silver the US was willing to make that concession. Then the 20th century comes, and suddenly crude oil is the new gold. Oil was discovered on Navajo so to give themselves permission to drill it the DOI formed a whole tribal council for us out of thin air to approve leases for drilling. We still follow that style of government to this day.
While access to petroleum was important for US policy as concerns the Navajo and became a mainstay of US policy by the 1970s, the US was not actually interested in Iranian petroleum in 1953. The British were the ones interested in Iranian petroleum because of the D'Arcy Concession of 1901 and the lack of petroleum in British territory. The US intervened in Operation Ajax because (as the presenter points out in an oversimplified way) the British argument that Mossadegh was being supported by the Tudeh Party (Communists) was sufficient for the Americans to fear (with Domino Theory) that not only would Iran go communist but so would much of the Middle East. Operation Ajax was done (from a US perspective) to limit communism, not acquire petroleum.
@@oremfrienIt was for both to limit communism and Iran's oil. Neither are good justifications to illegaly overthrow a democratically elected leader of another country though.
@@lemurforlife I completely agree that toppling a government is unwarranted, but we should be clear about motivations. The US was not interested in Iranian petroleum in 1953, but the UK was. Each of those two countries did it for different reasons and the comment I was responding to argued that petroleum was a key driver in US policy, alluding to the video's reference to Operation Ajax and my argument is that petroleum was NOT a driver for the US in Operation Ajax.
@@oremfrien I know the US wasn't. But British control of their oil was key to the British Empire having influence in the Middle East and by extension the US also wanted a share of that influence. It was primarily ideological but also to help an ally's business interests that could potentially help their own business interests.
Hey Chris, I'm from Iran and one of your very early subscribers. Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah are pretty popular now between younger generations. They may have made some mistakes, but they led Iran to a prosperous future, and during the 70s, Iran was the diamond of the Middle East. Unfortunately, Americans were not very happy with the powers that Iran had and its advancements and didn't help Shah during 1978-79 revolution. Now, the younger generation and even the elders who did the revolution regret what they have done.
The thing I find the most puzzling is that when analyzing events from upwards of 50 years ago or more most people are perfectly reasonable in conceding that politics and economics play a significant role in what are little more than Machiavellian games between great powers; games in which smaller countries invariably suffer what they must as they are sandwiched between competing interests. But turn attention to more recent events that share glaringly similar patterns and many seem to believe things like this don't happen anymore, and that any insinuation of such activities are little more than conspiracy theories. Especially true of Western intelligence agencies like the CIA and MI6, principally responsible for the Iranian coup in the past and numerous other coups and assassinations during the Cold War, are treated like benign bodies that do totally harmless "spying" stuff here and there.
I would actually argue (and have done) as a Middle Easterner that the argument that weaker countries are somehow dominantly or exclusively operating at the whim of greater powers is wrong both now and in the past and we are more inclined to believe it about the past not because it is more accurate, but because we don't experience it personally. Most of the history we experience from the past comes in the form of narrative and not from individual moments of interaction. The presenter here indicated correctly that Iran had a number of different political cores in the Post-WWII situation: royalists, secularists, Islamists, and communists, but stressed the British influence on these entities while minimizing the powerful intergroup dynamics. For example, he does not delve on why Kashani (leader of the Islamists) abandoned Mossadegh (leader of the secularists) in the fall/winter of 1952. The abandonment had practically nothing to do with British interference as Kashani was strongly anti-Western but had to do with Mossadegh not agreeing with Kashani that (1) religious scholars should be part of the government apparatus and (2) that religious approval be sought for cabinet appointments. If Mossadegh had appeased Kashani, it is quite likely that Operation Ajax would have never been attempted, let alone be successful. Sure, Iran would not have been as effectively governed as Mossadegh was able to to in early 1953, but his government would have survived. (A good counterexample parallel here is how despite Lincoln being an abolitionist, he made common cause with slave states in the Union in order to preserve the Union rather than completely edging them out of power.) I agree that without American funding and direction, Muhammad Reza Shah would not have been restored in 1953, but Mossadegh would not have survived long either because his brand of secularism (which was non-communist and anti-religious) did not represent a large-enough section of the Iranian populace at the time. Too often, we don't accord enough agency to a country's internal actions.
and thanks to this, the Iran Revolution and Iran Hostage Crisis happens. Along with everything else messed up in that part of the Middle East. Thanks, Eisenhower.
The name of Iran among the people of this land has always been Iran. This is evident in minted coins, contracts, poems and travelogues. However, in Latin and European sources, Iran was known by its Biblical and Torah name, Persia. But the thought I think that the name of this country was officially changed from Persia to Iran in the world since the 1930s
Thank you so much for doing this. The second part is even better, brother! Cannot wait for your breakdown video. As an Armenian that was raised in Iran, now in the States, it's fascinating learning perspectives that I had not thought about originally.
this video of Jack is terribly disastrous why? you asked for it and you have to read (I am answering as a Persian archaeologist with specialty in 19th century). first of all, the world Iran used in Avesta that written 1000BC most probably but as official name of the country declared in 228AD by Artaxshir founder of Sassanid empire Iran in 1936 in league of nations declared it is Iran not Persia like Turkey that recently said it is Turkiye in fact. so the video itself: Russia did make Mohammad Ali shah the emperor as he did show in 3:22 he was the emperor & did a coup against Parliament because of assassination and very close coup against him (by Soltan Masud Mirza Qajar) both supported by the parliament and NO this was parliamentary men themselves who chose Ahmad shah as the new monarch not UK and Russia and it was a social democracy regime unlike 3:57 so everything he said until now was wrong. how Reza shah did coup by the help of UK while London supported Firuz Mirza Qajar with so many trucks of weapons in fact Lord Curzon ordered to the British embassy in Tehran to stop the coup. in fact we very well know he did it by the order of Ahmad shah himself that is why Gendarme too involved but the Idea was from Seyyed Zia Tabatabai who was super close to Ottoman empire & later Ataturk (in fact in 1925 Ataturk proposed to invade Iran & make Ahmad shah the monarch again) so that too was nonsense. let's see Mosaddeq: he was not a Marxist & did not like Islamists either with supported both of them so sure if he did remain in power he very well could face a coup by Commies, do you know what is bloody Saturday? when Mosaddeq sent Commies (all with scythe and hammer emblem) to the parliament and excecated 12 member of it then he declared a referendum (that still is illegal to do such thing by head of the government) & the declared 99.9% just like any other dictator, man think about what you read or hear it is super apparent that he was a dictator you know one of his future programs was to bring back fiefdom as he said in the parliament. by the constitution it was the responsibility of the Shah since 1905 that if head of the government do such things have to use force to remove it & it was exactly what he did. ask young Iranians 70% would tell you they hate Mosaddeq did you know in March 2023 a scholarly chart came out that did show 84% of Iranians are pro monarchist specially Pahlavi dynasty? why this much different from that Jack said from the truth? because each & everything that he said one by one is the same that Islamic republic propaganda say in fact it was so shocking to me hear such thing I can assure you if he go to Iran & explain even one part of his video to the people he would be attack as an agent of the regime. in fact his videos usually are wrong specially about Asia please don't react to them Iranians are in a revolution & they do not need promotion of videos such as Jack's about Iran.
How are you able to see what your viewers are watching? How does one gain access to that simply bc they make videos and what right does RUclips have to you give that information? Why do i ask? Bc if RUclips sells information like that what other information are they selling and what else can they see on your phone?
Well I'm not from Iran, but the title "King of Kings" was used by Cyrus the Great (a guy who deserves at least as much recognition as Alexander or Genghis Khan) and I think the addition "of Iran and Non-Iran" also. The whole title was certainly used by the Sassanian Emperors. It's basically an endonym and exonym (two terms I, as a non-native English-speaker, learned from Paradox games) thing. E.g. here in Austria we call our capital Wien, in English it's called Vienna, in French Vienne, in Greek Vieni, or the Netherlands are usually called Holland in German, although Holland is only one of the Seven Provinces or the UK is often referred to as England, much to the annoyance (or relief given the circumstances) of the Scots. A few other examples I can think of are: the Crusaders were, despite their individual origins, called Franks by the Muslims and Latins by the Byzantines. The list could go on for a very long time. But the most prominent examples are: the USSR which was, most of the time, called Russia and the USA which are often called America.
PS.: I know that the US are nowadays often referred to in the singular, but that makes no grammatical sense, take the USSR for example here we have the "UNION of the Soviet Republics", but we have the "United STATES of America" so in the first case the defining noun is "Union", a singular, whereas in the second case it's a plural "States".
hi. I'm from Iran. this is what I know about persia/iran name. greeks used to call us persians and refer to Cyrus the great's empire(achaemenid) , persian empire. but that was because it was their name. pars was the name of a tribe. they were kinda local lords in southern parts. cyrus was from that tribe, rose against median empire and founded "achaemenids" empire which was his great grand father's name. after alexaneder, series of other persian empires/dynasties came and went for about 2000 years. In 1925 Reza Pahlavi ended Qajar dynasty and founded Pahlavi dynasty and in 1935 for modernizing reasons asked other countries and diplomats to call his country "Iran". the word "Iran" comes from Aryan race which all goups and tribes, also pars believed they are descended from. around 75% people in iran are considered Iranian. today in iran if you ask people where are they from? they will answer you: I'm Iranian or I'm Persian. it has become more ethnicity thing. also our language is called persian or farsi (parsi).
I had always heard that America overthrew the democratic government of Iran to put in the Shah back in power.... I hadn't realized how autocratic/dictatorial Iran's democracy had become before the Shah was put back though. Doesn't make the USA's role in it all good... but seems not quite so bad replacing a dictator supported by the communists (and using similar tactics to "win" elections). (Of course in the end letting the Islamists take over made it the worst)
The fact is Mossadegh wasn't even a communist. He primarily just wanted to nationalize Iran's oil and he was democratically elected too. Also there is no good in this. The US did this solely for ideological and business reasons. Not because they actually cared about the people of Iran.
--- YEAH . . . that happens when you do not "think it through". When you decide HOW Others should and must live, because you know better, and then do not know whence came your enemies and things explode.
Hey chris. A good video / channel to check out would be "is germany OP? by possible history. They take a look at germany as if it's a playable nation in hoi4 or eu4 and give it an overview of its stats and weaknesses etc. Pretty cool
The victors write the history, so it takes one hundred years or more to make the decision of who were the good guys and the bad guys and even then, it depends a lot on the results. There are no perfect forms of government except to say that; "he who governs least governs best" unless the government favors you.
@@johnnotrealname8168 I believe historyking is saying that the Great Game was the 19th century version of the Cold War. Rather, the Cold War was the 20th century version of the Great Game. Not a bad way to think about it, actually.
@@drs-xj3pb Except the British did fight the Russians directly. It was not a Cold War. Also the idiocy only flowed one way. The British thought the Russians were actually trying to get to India and the Gulf. It was that same logic that led to the Carter Doctrine.
I had a question for you. I’m a history major with SNHU. I want to work for a museum once I graduate. Would you recommend the Museum of Natural History in NYC or the Smithsonian? I love watching your vids and being able to learn so much more about different historical topics
The Museum of Natural History in NYC is not actually a museum about human history (except for a few outdated exhibits on Asian cultures on the second floor). It is a museum that concerns modern wildlife, prehistoric evolution, and scientific matters (like gems, asteroids, and plate tectonics) so if you are a history major, there is not really much to cover there as a docent. If you are looking for a "human history" museum in NYC, I would recommend the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which has vast collections of human art from around the world -- especially large Greco-Roman and post-Renaissance art, the New York Historical Society -- which focuses more on American history, and the Tenement Museum -- which focuses on the development of the Lower East Side in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Second, the Smithsonian is 10-15 different museums, so depending on what kid of history you specialize in, I would point you to the National Museum of American History (general USA), the African-American Museum (African-American), the Museum of the American Indian (Indigenous Americans), etc.
I have a recommendation can you look into Adam Clayton Powell jr. Who said he was black but actually had no verifiable African-American ancestors did have some Native American ones though I would be quite curious why him and his family would want to pass themselves off as black especially in a time of extreme discrimination I hope you answer this stay either yay or nay I enjoy your content have a good day
A piece of history that I wished would have been taught in school. Very good content. Have you considered reacting to the fat electrician? Saw the video Mr. Terry did and it was very good.
shows how disgusting the west was and how well the propaganda worked. both sides had many issues and did many horrible things. but the red scare among other things made the east/communism look horrible. also ironic ike brought up the military industrial complex while pretty much having a hand in creating it by getting into irans business.
The depiction of Ike as a pawn of the British is extremely dubious and I'd call it oversimplified, but that would imply it is to some degree correct, which it is not - at all.
Yeah, post WW2, the British were in no position to dictate anything to the US even if they wanted to. That said, I have no doubt Churchill would have played up the communist part to spark the interest of Ike, but Ike was no dummy and would not have fallen for that if he didn't see something to be gained for the US.
@@CaptainFritz28 It is completely inaccurate, I wrote a comment on the video too. Dwight David Eisenhower was the only guy to have doubts about the communism claim. Furthermore, the Americans had interests there too.
Hi Man I Love your content but i’ve got a slight issue. I notice you sometimes wear the football shirt of West Bromwich Albion and as an Aston Villa fan i’m not keen on the representation of a key enemy could you wear an Aston Villa shirt once possibly thanks.
Considering that between 1945 and 1950 the Soviets had used democratic elections as a Trojan horse to install communist puppets in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia it was understandable for the US to worry that Mosedeqs coalition with the Iranian communists may have led Iran down a similar road. What’s more not only was Iran a major supplier of oil it also straddled the straight of Hormuz a major oil supply route. If Iran did go communist the west would have been in big trouble. Not trying to justify it, just making a point.
The main reason why they helped overthrow Mossadegh was because he was going to nationalize Iran's oil industry. It wasn't for mainly for ideological reasons, it was for US business interests. Also there's nothing to understand. Just because the USSR did bad things too doesn't mean we justify/give excuses to the US, who did much worse things during the Cold War.
--- SURE. LIKE WHEN . . . Judas Trump lost the election in 2021, and "something" had to be done for the losers of the election to rescue the U.S. from democracy.
That might break his no modern politics rule LOL. That said, I'd love if more historical channels gave serious commentary about January 6 and just how much damage everything leading up to it, and the event itself, did to American democracy.
@coldwar45 Yes. But the thing is that contextualising recent events might be actually worth while for historians to do, and by dropping mellow statements like "Trump was pretty good, he just went a bit overboard in the end" (paraphrasing) he is actively downplaying the things that happened in order to not offend Trump people/ right wingers.
Yes though I recall the type of person Trump was in 2016 and was not disappointed in my initial evaluation since that time. So, the point is, it wasn't in the end. It was throughout, it just got worse and worse and worse. I am Center Left and Center Libertarian and authoritarian elected officials appear mostly to me a being anti-democratic. @@carpediem5232
This is a simplistic and naive view. The Soviets were spreading communism like wildfire and it was a very real threat to self rule across the globe. To sit by and do nothing would have been both a strategic and a moral failure.
@@mattm7798 both the soviet union and USA were acting with a colonial world view it was solely strategic the "moral" part was just as moral as other things like the white mans burden and other chauvinistic racist ideas.
@@mattm7798 I'm talking about the postcold war neoliberal agenda of spreading "democracy" not the cold war seppouting of anti commie regimes. The coup in Iran here is actually good. I sayed the US shouldn't spread democracy cause of jackrackm title that US betrayed democracy by seppourting it's geo political interests oh no...
The original content creator plays pretty fast and loose with the actual facts. It seems more like he is trying to make a comedic video rather than a factual one. Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh had aligned himself with the fanatical Ayatollah’s, who had assassinated the previous prime minister, and the Soviet backed Tudeh Party. As Mosaddegh’s coalition fractured, he became ever more authoritarian and reliant on the Tudeh party. When Mosaddegh canceled elections and dissolved parliament to make himself dictator, the CIA stepped in to help restore the Shah to power. Mosaddegh was no great lover of Democracy. If Mosaddegh was popular, why would he need to cancel elections? Why would he need to dissolve parliament? The answer: It is a fallacy that he was popular.
--- STILL . . . Does that internal Iranian matter (messy politics) justify invasion and economic occupation of Iran? That invasion impoverished the majority of Iranians. How was that a good thing, given the contemporary hostility between Iran and the King of the World?
@@marianotorrespico2975 I can say unequivocally that Iran was better off under the Shah than it was under the dictator in making Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was backed by the Ayatollahs and the Communists. Mohammad Mosaddegh was doing the exact things that Hitler did in his rise to power. Iran is far worse today under the Ayatollahs and Communism has failed everywhere. Hugo Chavez nationalized the oil industry in Venezuela, and that country has going into an economic death spiral.
@@kingrex1931 --- SURE . . . take yer meds, and give my regards to the corpse of St.-Jesus Reagan. Given your indifference to history, I must ask: isn't there a televised ballgame that will occupy your idle mind?
Personally i dont care what the country is called, the islamic government of iran is insanely oppresive and draconian and is a result of US meddling in other nations affairs
@@johnnotrealname8168 Carter admitted the shah to the US for humanitarian reasons, but I suspect you are biased and not even handed enough to see Carter in that light.
There is an argument, not expressed in this very simplistic presentation of events, that Britain and the US were the good guys and did the right thing in context.
@@aurelianxcbd Given the larger circumstances, yes they did. Also, Iran wasn't a "democracy". Not by any means. I'm a big fan of this channel, just not this particular video. I'm sure the world won't end if one person disagrees with the narrative as presented here.
They weren't. Stop trying to convince yourself otherwise. They did it for ideological and business reasons, not because they actually care about Iranian people. Don't try to justify something that would later turn into a disaster 2 decades later.
They officially changed the name from Persia to Iran in 1936
I am pretty sure Ērān and Iran have long been endonyms of Persia.
@@bootybunkerspelunker yes, Persia was the Greek name for the area. They officially asked the international community to change their name for the country in 1935.
@@bootybunkerspelunkerAbsolutely.
@@gavinrectoroh so sort of like how Turkey changed to Türkiye?
@@Mgbn78 or how turkey changed Constantinople to Istanbul
Hello, as an Iranian myself I have to explain few things
The name "Iran" actually means "The land of Aryans"( Aryans were migrants and they moved to iran and India and also to Europe in ancient times ) and it was used during the Sassanid era which they called it"Iranshahr"
"Iran"reffers to all ethnic people that live in this nation.( We have so many ethnic groups like Kurds,turk, Baloch and many more )
But Persia is actually a region in iran and by the way the Sassanids and Achaemenid empire came from this region
And the name was officially changed back to iran from persia in 1936
Love your content Chris♥️♥️
Iran is based.
Iran has battled. Greeks, Romans , Mongols, , Turks pretty much every Army in the world 😂
About the name. Persia has never been use by Iranians to refer to their own country. Even in the time of Parthian and Sassanian Empires (contemporary to the Romans) the native name was Eranshar= empire of Iran/Iranians. Persia is a word used by the Greeks and Romans to refer to the whole country, but originally it meant just a region of the country (even today, Fars). It would be like if foreigners called the USA "New England". New England is a part of the USA, but not all states are New England
the next question...where did the name Iraq come from?
So it's like calling the netherlands Holland?
@@mattm7798 As far as I know Is a debated subject. There Is a possibility that It comes from middle Persian "erāq" meaning lowlands.
@@kaiserwilhelmiii8373 For example. It's a quite common thing if you think about It. I am italian, and here in Italy people from USA are sometimes called Yankees, which Is ironic considering that in the USA that Word describes Just people from the north-east.
Nicely explained, marco. Perhaps there's an even better parallel in how so many people confuse the name "England" with Great Britain. Even us Brits do it, from to time!
1:26 Fun fact: the Crimean War led to the U.S. purchasing Alaska because Tsar Alexander II of Russia felt that selling Alaska to the U.S. was a great way to make back the money it lost during that war.
It was also a way to prevent further British expansion into the North Pacific. Considering at that time USA and British relations became strained during the ACW so they thought better the USA than the British control Alaska since the USA didn’t appear to have imperial ambitions in the Pacific.
One of the lead CIA operatives involved in Operation Ajax to bring down Mossadegh was Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., grandson of Theodore Roosevelt. He was awarded a National Security medal for his involvement.
Kermit 🐸?
@@svenrio8521, yes, his name was Kermit. I know, it's weird.
In my view, as a Middle Easterner, the presenter here followed the typical "the West is responsible for everything routine" as opposed to looking at internal issues. While he indicated correctly that Iran had a number of different political cores in the Post-WWII situation: royalists, secularists, Islamists, and communists, but stressed the British influence on these entities while minimizing the powerful intergroup dynamics.
For example, he does not delve on why Kashani (leader of the Islamists) abandoned Mossadegh (leader of the secularists) in the fall/winter of 1952. The abandonment had practically nothing to do with British interference as Kashani was strongly anti-Western but had to do with Mossadegh not agreeing with Kashani that (1) religious scholars should be part of the government apparatus and (2) that religious approval be sought for cabinet appointments. If Mossadegh had appeased Kashani, it is quite likely that Operation Ajax would have never been attempted, let alone be successful. Sure, Iran would not have been as effectively governed as Mossadegh was able to to in early 1953, but his government would have survived. (A good counterexample parallel here that VTH might connect to is how despite Lincoln being an abolitionist, he made common cause with slave states in the Union in order to preserve the Union rather than completely edging them out of power and thereby having no constituency large enough to hold power.)
Another point here is that very little is made of Mossadegh's attempts to concentrate more power in his person (like the 30 Tir Uprising and its aftermath) which related to internal Iranian power issues.
The point is that the US and UK have no right meddling in other countries in how they run. If Mossadegh was acting this way, it doesn't give the US or UK the right to try and overthrow him.
Its not like the US or UK even cared about Iranian people. The reason they did it was ideological and business focused.
@@lemurforlife My comment does not justify the overthrow or claim that it has some moral veneer, but my argument is that, quite often (as was done in the original video), the domestic issues in a Non-Western country are glossed over in order to paint a picture of the West stepping into this idyllic garden and dropping napalm on it. That's not what happened. What happened is that the US ambled into a tinderbox and barely lit a match. If there had been no Operation Ajax, there is a serious possibility that the Islamists would have worked out a deal with the Iranian mafiosos (that the Americans ended up working with in Operation Ajax) that would have overthrown Mossadegh anyway. The Communist Tudeh party was not terribly popular and Mossadegh's increasing reliance on them was alienating a significant part of a relatively religious country -- never mind that Tudeh had supported the incredibly unpopular continuing Soviet Occupation in 1946 over northwest Iran, which was seen as catering to Soviet imperialism over Iran.
We should have conversations about the domestic Iranian situation because, ultimately, that set the stage for the coup being successful. (It's worth noting that the 1953 coup was one of the US's first and was very poorly executed, nearly failing without buy-in from Iranian counterparts who had their own interests -- like Zahedi.)
I disagree I think mossahegh would deal with islamist
@@Coolinteresting876 How would Mossadegh have dealt with the Islamists? His refusal to negotiate with Kashani was one of the major reasons for his increasing political isolation.
As others have pointed out, "Persia" was always something other people called Iran, the natives have called it Iran as far back as the Achaemenid Empire
I said it before in that reaction to Jack's video on Robert the Bruce, but I'll say it again: WE NEED MORE REACTIONS TO THIS GUY!
Hi, I am an Iranian viewer. Big fan. Persia or the land of the Pars people is the greek name that was given to our country by the greeks during the achaemenid dynasty’s long time conflicts with Greece and it sort of stuck around. Then, in 1935 Shah (King) requested all foreign delegates to use the word Iran. Because while Persian are also the majority ethnic group, they are not the only one. Iran means land of children of Arya (aryans) who were central asian nomadic tribes who moved inside the iranian plateau (among other places such as Europe and India) almost all of Iran’s ethnic groups are descendants of these early tribes. Shah wanted to use an all encompassing umbrella term instead of just Persia.
I’m not from Iran but I found out that the Iranians always called it Iran Persia is the Roman name and everyone called it Persia until they made everyone call it Iran by rejecting diplomats who called it Persia I think
'The west' calling Iran Persia didn't start with the Romans, but already before that with the Greeks. The rest of what you said is correct, I believe.
There were vanishingly few Jeffersonian democrats in Persia. Mossadegh was a member of the previous dynasty, and was under threat from Islamists and Communists. Nationalization was basically indistinguishable from stealing from foreigners, and Communist doctrine. The British were able to offend anyone they dealt with, and all the royalties from the Anglo-Persian oil company stayed with the central government, so there was no popular support for the industry. Mossadegh was unlikely to remain in power, it was a matter of who staged a coup first.
I love how Eisenhower is like an overexcited dog whenever he hears the word "commies" 😂
The great game that was once between Britain and Russia has carried on with the USA gradually taking Britain’s place in the 20th century.
This is extremely fairly done by the creator (despite the clickbait title that would lead you to believe otherwise) and I have to commend him for that, although I must say it is not exactly accurate in portraying Eisenhower as blindly following Churchill’s lead on this, he considered the facts and did not just take the word of his hawkish advisors or of Churchill.
Eisenhower made the decision for American participation on his own, based on his interpretation of American interests in the steadily-worsening diplomatic and military crisis in Iran.
Now going to watch part 2 of your reaction!
Countries will always do what's in their self interest...even if a country helps another country, it's always with strings attached. Charity is for individuals as far as a country's concerned, but in all fairness, that's because the gov't duty is to the people of that country before any other coutry.
In rare ocasions.... Countries don't do "charity" itself with another one, but follow an abstract concept of "closeness" with another country, doing exactly what it's NOT in their best interest... (Looking at you, Chincha Islands War between Peru/Ecuador/Bolivia/Chile against Spain... and Chile getting with the main port destroyed prize ¬¬')
This was for business interests of the US, not for the people. Since Mossadegh wanted to nationalize their oil, the US and UK did not want that so they helped overthrow him.
Always happy to support Chris!
Keep up the great work Chris. Glad can finally get back to catching up on content . Been very busy recently.
Hey Chris, been binging your stuff again recently, love your perspective on things like WW1 and the American Civil war. I also loved hearing you talk about the Gallic Wars in the reaction to Kings and Generals’ video, and was wondering if you have any plans to watch their videos on the Roman Civil War. Even more fascinating stuff there I’d love to hear you talk about.
I think they’ve got two compilation videos for the civil war, Caesar against Pompey, and How Caesar Won the Roman Civil War. Look forward to seeing those videos if you ever do them.
Actually Mosaddegh didn’t flee the country, he went in hiding for one day and then he turned himself in. A military court found him and his cabinet guilty and he was sentenced to exile for life and his Secretary of State, dr. Fatemi was executed.
In Mossadegh’s son memoir it is said that Shah eventually allowed his children to take Mosaddegh with them to France but their father refused to leave the country.
as a history enthusiast i have always been interested in england and uk history and how they literally shaped the todays world but as an iranian citizen i look the country and feel awful about its lost potential to be an advanced country like south korea or japan. and i can't say what the uk did in instances like this wasn't a factor in iran's current misery
British and let’s be real US involvement, or rather, meddling is a huge factor in the lost potential of Iran.
Also just wanna mention the Qajars. The dynasty that ruled Iran for the 19th century until their overthrow in 1925, are widely considered one of if not the worst dynasty in Iranian history
Yes the great powers of Britain and Russia played a big part but the Qajar Shahs made 0 attempts to modernize or reform for essentially the entire century despite the constant attempts by high ranking scholars and clergy.
Like this one wasn’t impossible, Japan, Ethiopia and even Thailand has managed to modernize and keep the European powers at arms length, but the Qajars again did literally nothing.
And the clergys reputation as the only class not corrupted by the decadence and negligence of the Shahs would come in handy for them in 1979 when everyone was deciding what kind of government they wanted.
Even the Sikh empire (situated in punjab) modernized their military and prevented full control of india by the British for a time
The British gentleman in the scene with the poison, stab, hang and shot buttons (slight error it should be shoot) is a divisive figure from UK politics at the time Ramsay MacDonald. He was the first Labour Prime Minister in 24 and from 29 to 31. He also led a national government from 31 to 35 dominated by tories.
We often take away the wrong lesson from these stories; which is that Eisenhower should've just vetoed the plans when given to them sighting the litany of issues from conflict of interests to planners lacking expertise. These unhinged schemes should've never been greenlit.
Love your content man!
Jack does amazing work doesnt he?
Absolutely
@@VloggingThroughHistory yep
Nice! More Jack Rackham!
Note how Most Asia and Africa states Don't have a Problem with GERMANY yet lots of anti French-British-Chines-American -etc. but most are ok with the Former Central Powers!!! Central Asia has a Anti Russian feeling more that Africa dose. All related to the Colonial era
Amazing work as always, I saw Mr. Terry reacted to a video you might find interesting which is "The most gangster politician ever" granted the language is not exactly family friendly but the guy it is about can fairly be compared to Andrew Jackson, Harriet Tubman, and Theodore Roosevelt in terms of just how badass he was
JACK RACKHAM I AM BEYOND HYPED! I think youd really enjoy his teddy roosevelt video it focuses more on his life in general rather than focusing on his presidency
Not to mention the dictatorships established in South American countries that also had encouragement from the USA, to erase any possibility of having a communist government. The 1964 military coup in Brazil overthrew President João Goulart, who was suspected of being a communist. There were 20 years of censorship, torture and exile for anyone who was seen as opposing the military government. I know that Argentina and Chile also had dictatorships established with support from the USA.
This is one of the main reasons I love Jack Rackhams stuff, he discusses the lesser known events in history. Great video Chris!
Hey Chris, are you familiar with the channel History Calling? I actually found it through reading the comments on an old video of yours. She does a lot of content about the Tudors, I think you'd enjoy it.
Perfect, I have 17:32 left on my lunch break
I just saw you where at my old school Letchworth central school in new york if you where ever out this way again a cool place to stop in is the council grounds at Letchworth State Park. Keep up the great work!!
While the country has at various points through its long, long history been called either Iran or Persia, the least confusing way to refer its inhabitants is "Iranians" since the Persians are just one ethnic group (about 60% of the population) out of many that call that country home.
Most of the ethnic groups are Iranian and speak Aryan (same linguistic root as Iran) languages. Examples include Kurds, Balochis, Tats, Talysh, and Mazandaranis and Gilakis (closely related).
And just so this doesn't seem like erasure: Between a fifth and a fourth of the population has Turkic origins. Most of those are Azeris, but there endemic Turkic peoples to Iran, for example, the Qashqai (the namesake of the popular Toyota model).
There is actually a small narrative game about this, named "the cat and the coup", which i urge you to take a look at
Its interesting how much access to oil played a role in American policy. The reason why the Navajo tribe even has a tribal government in the first place was because the US kind of made it for us in early 1900s. One of the amendments that was made to our treaty in the 1800s specified that the Americans couldn't just extract any natural resources they had to have permission first. This was the 1860s of course and since we didn't have gold or silver the US was willing to make that concession. Then the 20th century comes, and suddenly crude oil is the new gold. Oil was discovered on Navajo so to give themselves permission to drill it the DOI formed a whole tribal council for us out of thin air to approve leases for drilling. We still follow that style of government to this day.
While access to petroleum was important for US policy as concerns the Navajo and became a mainstay of US policy by the 1970s, the US was not actually interested in Iranian petroleum in 1953. The British were the ones interested in Iranian petroleum because of the D'Arcy Concession of 1901 and the lack of petroleum in British territory. The US intervened in Operation Ajax because (as the presenter points out in an oversimplified way) the British argument that Mossadegh was being supported by the Tudeh Party (Communists) was sufficient for the Americans to fear (with Domino Theory) that not only would Iran go communist but so would much of the Middle East. Operation Ajax was done (from a US perspective) to limit communism, not acquire petroleum.
@@oremfrienIt was for both to limit communism and Iran's oil. Neither are good justifications to illegaly overthrow a democratically elected leader of another country though.
@@lemurforlife I completely agree that toppling a government is unwarranted, but we should be clear about motivations. The US was not interested in Iranian petroleum in 1953, but the UK was. Each of those two countries did it for different reasons and the comment I was responding to argued that petroleum was a key driver in US policy, alluding to the video's reference to Operation Ajax and my argument is that petroleum was NOT a driver for the US in Operation Ajax.
@@oremfrien I know the US wasn't. But British control of their oil was key to the British Empire having influence in the Middle East and by extension the US also wanted a share of that influence. It was primarily ideological but also to help an ally's business interests that could potentially help their own business interests.
Still got empires, they're just called "spheres of influence" nowadays
I love Jack's channel. Great humor mixed into the historical content.
Hey Chris, I'm from Iran and one of your very early subscribers. Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah are pretty popular now between younger generations. They may have made some mistakes, but they led Iran to a prosperous future, and during the 70s, Iran was the diamond of the Middle East. Unfortunately, Americans were not very happy with the powers that Iran had and its advancements and didn't help Shah during 1978-79 revolution. Now, the younger generation and even the elders who did the revolution regret what they have done.
How strong is the monarchist sentiments in Iran these days?
The thing I find the most puzzling is that when analyzing events from upwards of 50 years ago or more most people are perfectly reasonable in conceding that politics and economics play a significant role in what are little more than Machiavellian games between great powers; games in which smaller countries invariably suffer what they must as they are sandwiched between competing interests. But turn attention to more recent events that share glaringly similar patterns and many seem to believe things like this don't happen anymore, and that any insinuation of such activities are little more than conspiracy theories. Especially true of Western intelligence agencies like the CIA and MI6, principally responsible for the Iranian coup in the past and numerous other coups and assassinations during the Cold War, are treated like benign bodies that do totally harmless "spying" stuff here and there.
I would actually argue (and have done) as a Middle Easterner that the argument that weaker countries are somehow dominantly or exclusively operating at the whim of greater powers is wrong both now and in the past and we are more inclined to believe it about the past not because it is more accurate, but because we don't experience it personally. Most of the history we experience from the past comes in the form of narrative and not from individual moments of interaction.
The presenter here indicated correctly that Iran had a number of different political cores in the Post-WWII situation: royalists, secularists, Islamists, and communists, but stressed the British influence on these entities while minimizing the powerful intergroup dynamics. For example, he does not delve on why Kashani (leader of the Islamists) abandoned Mossadegh (leader of the secularists) in the fall/winter of 1952. The abandonment had practically nothing to do with British interference as Kashani was strongly anti-Western but had to do with Mossadegh not agreeing with Kashani that (1) religious scholars should be part of the government apparatus and (2) that religious approval be sought for cabinet appointments. If Mossadegh had appeased Kashani, it is quite likely that Operation Ajax would have never been attempted, let alone be successful. Sure, Iran would not have been as effectively governed as Mossadegh was able to to in early 1953, but his government would have survived. (A good counterexample parallel here is how despite Lincoln being an abolitionist, he made common cause with slave states in the Union in order to preserve the Union rather than completely edging them out of power.)
I agree that without American funding and direction, Muhammad Reza Shah would not have been restored in 1953, but Mossadegh would not have survived long either because his brand of secularism (which was non-communist and anti-religious) did not represent a large-enough section of the Iranian populace at the time. Too often, we don't accord enough agency to a country's internal actions.
5:10 Man who shall not be named was named
The sequel recently came out, on the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
Pretty sure Persia was always an exonym
How dare you talk about Woodrow Wilson in a positive manner!
Jack already has a second part out
When are you going to do napoleon’s marshals?
I highly recommend his three parter on the french revolution, its truly wonderful.
You gotta check out part 2.
The elevator music: The RickRoll😂😂😂😂😂
and thanks to this, the Iran Revolution and Iran Hostage Crisis happens. Along with everything else messed up in that part of the Middle East. Thanks, Eisenhower.
Love your videos
The name of Iran among the people of this land has always been Iran. This is evident in minted coins, contracts, poems and travelogues. However, in Latin and European sources, Iran was known by its Biblical and Torah name, Persia. But the thought I think that the name of this country was officially changed from Persia to Iran in the world since the 1930s
Thank you so much for doing this. The second part is even better, brother! Cannot wait for your breakdown video. As an Armenian that was raised in Iran, now in the States, it's fascinating learning perspectives that I had not thought about originally.
this video of Jack is terribly disastrous why? you asked for it and you have to read (I am answering as a Persian archaeologist with specialty in 19th century). first of all, the world Iran used in Avesta that written 1000BC most probably but as official name of the country declared in 228AD by Artaxshir founder of Sassanid empire Iran in 1936 in league of nations declared it is Iran not Persia like Turkey that recently said it is Turkiye in fact. so the video itself: Russia did make Mohammad Ali shah the emperor as he did show in 3:22 he was the emperor & did a coup against Parliament because of assassination and very close coup against him (by Soltan Masud Mirza Qajar) both supported by the parliament and NO this was parliamentary men themselves who chose Ahmad shah as the new monarch not UK and Russia and it was a social democracy regime unlike 3:57 so everything he said until now was wrong. how Reza shah did coup by the help of UK while London supported Firuz Mirza Qajar with so many trucks of weapons in fact Lord Curzon ordered to the British embassy in Tehran to stop the coup. in fact we very well know he did it by the order of Ahmad shah himself that is why Gendarme too involved but the Idea was from Seyyed Zia Tabatabai who was super close to Ottoman empire & later Ataturk (in fact in 1925 Ataturk proposed to invade Iran & make Ahmad shah the monarch again) so that too was nonsense. let's see Mosaddeq: he was not a Marxist & did not like Islamists either with supported both of them so sure if he did remain in power he very well could face a coup by Commies, do you know what is bloody Saturday? when Mosaddeq sent Commies (all with scythe and hammer emblem) to the parliament and excecated 12 member of it then he declared a referendum (that still is illegal to do such thing by head of the government) & the declared 99.9% just like any other dictator, man think about what you read or hear it is super apparent that he was a dictator you know one of his future programs was to bring back fiefdom as he said in the parliament. by the constitution it was the responsibility of the Shah since 1905 that if head of the government do such things have to use force to remove it & it was exactly what he did. ask young Iranians 70% would tell you they hate Mosaddeq did you know in March 2023 a scholarly chart came out that did show 84% of Iranians are pro monarchist specially Pahlavi dynasty? why this much different from that Jack said from the truth? because each & everything that he said one by one is the same that Islamic republic propaganda say in fact it was so shocking to me hear such thing I can assure you if he go to Iran & explain even one part of his video to the people he would be attack as an agent of the regime. in fact his videos usually are wrong specially about Asia please don't react to them Iranians are in a revolution & they do not need promotion of videos such as Jack's about Iran.
Actually Iran was the original name for Persia. Persia was what the Ancient Greeks call Iran and the name stuck.
The book All the Shah’s Men is about this, it’s good
3:33 Truer words were seldom spoken.
Why did Churchill lose to Atlee?
How are you able to see what your viewers are watching? How does one gain access to that simply bc they make videos and what right does RUclips have to you give that information? Why do i ask? Bc if RUclips sells information like that what other information are they selling and what else can they see on your phone?
Not on an individual basis. But I can see the most common channels and videos that are watched by my viewers as a whole
without this, women may be less targeted by the government and their laws today.
Well I'm not from Iran, but the title "King of Kings" was used by Cyrus the Great (a guy who deserves at least as much recognition as Alexander or Genghis Khan) and I think the addition "of Iran and Non-Iran" also. The whole title was certainly used by the Sassanian Emperors. It's basically an endonym and exonym (two terms I, as a non-native English-speaker, learned from Paradox games) thing.
E.g. here in Austria we call our capital Wien, in English it's called Vienna, in French Vienne, in Greek Vieni, or the Netherlands are usually called Holland in German, although Holland is only one of the Seven Provinces or the UK is often referred to as England, much to the annoyance (or relief given the circumstances) of the Scots. A few other examples I can think of are: the Crusaders were, despite their individual origins, called Franks by the Muslims and Latins by the Byzantines.
The list could go on for a very long time. But the most prominent examples are: the USSR which was, most of the time, called Russia and the USA which are often called America.
PS.: I know that the US are nowadays often referred to in the singular, but that makes no grammatical sense, take the USSR for example here we have the "UNION of the Soviet Republics", but we have the "United STATES of America" so in the first case the defining noun is "Union", a singular, whereas in the second case it's a plural "States".
@@MS-io6kl Legally, it is "the United States is..." whether it makes grammatical sense or not, it is to be referred that way officially.
hi. I'm from Iran. this is what I know about persia/iran name.
greeks used to call us persians and refer to Cyrus the great's empire(achaemenid) , persian empire. but that was because it was their name. pars was the name of a tribe. they were kinda local lords in southern parts. cyrus was from that tribe, rose against median empire and founded "achaemenids" empire which was his great grand father's name. after alexaneder, series of other persian empires/dynasties came and went for about 2000 years. In 1925 Reza Pahlavi ended Qajar dynasty and founded Pahlavi dynasty and in 1935 for modernizing reasons asked other countries and diplomats to call his country "Iran". the word "Iran" comes from Aryan race which all goups and tribes, also pars believed they are descended from. around 75% people in iran are considered Iranian. today in iran if you ask people where are they from? they will answer you: I'm Iranian or I'm Persian. it has become more ethnicity thing. also our language is called persian or farsi (parsi).
I had always heard that America overthrew the democratic government of Iran to put in the Shah back in power.... I hadn't realized how autocratic/dictatorial Iran's democracy had become before the Shah was put back though. Doesn't make the USA's role in it all good... but seems not quite so bad replacing a dictator supported by the communists (and using similar tactics to "win" elections). (Of course in the end letting the Islamists take over made it the worst)
The fact is Mossadegh wasn't even a communist. He primarily just wanted to nationalize Iran's oil and he was democratically elected too. Also there is no good in this. The US did this solely for ideological and business reasons. Not because they actually cared about the people of Iran.
--- YEAH . . . that happens when you do not "think it through". When you decide HOW Others should and must live, because you know better, and then do not know whence came your enemies and things explode.
7:42 “Businessman McMoneyface” is when I stopped watching the original video.
Chris, it would be interesting if you did more post Ww2 content
Hey chris. A good video / channel to check out would be "is germany OP? by possible history. They take a look at germany as if it's a playable nation in hoi4 or eu4 and give it an overview of its stats and weaknesses etc. Pretty cool
The victors write the history, so it takes one hundred years or more to make the decision of who were the good guys and the bad guys and even then, it depends a lot on the results. There are no perfect forms of government except to say that; "he who governs least governs best" unless the government favors you.
So mozzy was an authoritarian dictator. Imagine my shock.
The great game was more of a Cold War thing with them supporting different princedoms and groups
Do you mean 19th Century? The Great Game was not a Cold War thing, although echoes did reach Afghanistan in 1979.
@@johnnotrealname8168 I believe historyking is saying that the Great Game was the 19th century version of the Cold War. Rather, the Cold War was the 20th century version of the Great Game. Not a bad way to think about it, actually.
@@drs-xj3pb Except the British did fight the Russians directly. It was not a Cold War. Also the idiocy only flowed one way. The British thought the Russians were actually trying to get to India and the Gulf. It was that same logic that led to the Carter Doctrine.
No we gave up on democracy
Nov 2020
History Matters did a video explaining why Persia became Iran.
I had a question for you. I’m a history major with SNHU. I want to work for a museum once I graduate. Would you recommend the Museum of Natural History in NYC or the Smithsonian? I love watching your vids and being able to learn so much more about different historical topics
The Museum of Natural History in NYC is not actually a museum about human history (except for a few outdated exhibits on Asian cultures on the second floor). It is a museum that concerns modern wildlife, prehistoric evolution, and scientific matters (like gems, asteroids, and plate tectonics) so if you are a history major, there is not really much to cover there as a docent. If you are looking for a "human history" museum in NYC, I would recommend the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which has vast collections of human art from around the world -- especially large Greco-Roman and post-Renaissance art, the New York Historical Society -- which focuses more on American history, and the Tenement Museum -- which focuses on the development of the Lower East Side in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Second, the Smithsonian is 10-15 different museums, so depending on what kid of history you specialize in, I would point you to the National Museum of American History (general USA), the African-American Museum (African-American), the Museum of the American Indian (Indigenous Americans), etc.
Iran doesn't allow free access to the internet. Lol
--- BECAUSE . . . religious leaders "know best" about the wrongness of Modernity in the West and the East.
I have a recommendation can you look into Adam Clayton Powell jr. Who said he was black but actually had no verifiable African-American ancestors did have some Native American ones though I would be quite curious why him and his family would want to pass themselves off as black especially in a time of extreme discrimination I hope you answer this stay either yay or nay I enjoy your content have a good day
Day 2 of asking for a video of the War of Spanish Succession
A piece of history that I wished would have been taught in school. Very good content. Have you considered reacting to the fat electrician? Saw the video Mr. Terry did and it was very good.
The CIA uses the same tactics today 😂😂
You need to react to more Jack
From Sassanid empire became iranshahr
"The oil must flow ...'" funny how they reverence the Dune Saga there. And in a way quite fitting.
Yr hair looks cool. Kinda like Jim Neighbors.
Thanks. That’s the look I get when I’ve been wearing a hat and I have to get it soaking wet to be able to comb it into some sense of order.
You should watch 10 historical misconceptions 1 and 2 by whatifalthist
shows how disgusting the west was and how well the propaganda worked. both sides had many issues and did many horrible things. but the red scare among other things made the east/communism look horrible. also ironic ike brought up the military industrial complex while pretty much having a hand in creating it by getting into irans business.
This was not the finest moment for the USA.
Arguably it was. It was perfectly legal and the Shah was rather progressive.
Have you ever done a video about the so-called "Bananna Republics" and Smedley Butler?
The depiction of Ike as a pawn of the British is extremely dubious and I'd call it oversimplified, but that would imply it is to some degree correct, which it is not - at all.
Yeah, post WW2, the British were in no position to dictate anything to the US even if they wanted to. That said, I have no doubt Churchill would have played up the communist part to spark the interest of Ike, but Ike was no dummy and would not have fallen for that if he didn't see something to be gained for the US.
I was going to say - the depiction of Eisenhower here seems to be not so true to history.
@@CaptainFritz28 It is completely inaccurate, I wrote a comment on the video too. Dwight David Eisenhower was the only guy to have doubts about the communism claim. Furthermore, the Americans had interests there too.
Hi Man I Love your content but i’ve got a slight issue. I notice you sometimes wear the football shirt of West Bromwich Albion and as an Aston Villa fan i’m not keen on the representation of a key enemy could you wear an Aston Villa shirt once possibly thanks.
Well if it helps, my grandma's cousin played for Villa back in the day. Sammy Whittaker. Played forward for them.
That’s very cool thank you.@@VloggingThroughHistory
Considering that between 1945 and 1950 the Soviets had used democratic elections as a Trojan horse to install communist puppets in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia it was understandable for the US to worry that Mosedeqs coalition with the Iranian communists may have led Iran down a similar road. What’s more not only was Iran a major supplier of oil it also straddled the straight of Hormuz a major oil supply route. If Iran did go communist the west would have been in big trouble. Not trying to justify it, just making a point.
The main reason why they helped overthrow Mossadegh was because he was going to nationalize Iran's oil industry. It wasn't for mainly for ideological reasons, it was for US business interests.
Also there's nothing to understand. Just because the USSR did bad things too doesn't mean we justify/give excuses to the US, who did much worse things during the Cold War.
@@lemurforlife --- WELCOME . . . to the gringo interpretation of "self-determination" for Others.
--- SURE. LIKE WHEN . . . Judas Trump lost the election in 2021, and "something" had to be done for the losers of the election to rescue the U.S. from democracy.
The claim that we ever cared about democracy outside our borders is a little bit rediculous.
😢
👍🏻
One could make a similar video for the day the Republican Party gave up on Democracy (hint-more recent than 1906).
That might break his no modern politics rule LOL.
That said, I'd love if more historical channels gave serious commentary about January 6 and just how much damage everything leading up to it, and the event itself, did to American democracy.
@coldwar45 Yes. But the thing is that contextualising recent events might be actually worth while for historians to do, and by dropping mellow statements like "Trump was pretty good, he just went a bit overboard in the end" (paraphrasing) he is actively downplaying the things that happened in order to not offend Trump people/ right wingers.
Oh how democrats say elections are stolen when they lose (see 2000, 2004 and 2016 and Stacey abrams) or how they want to keep people off the ballot.
Hmmm, yes, it is the GOP who is going the way of socialism....oh wait...
Yes though I recall the type of person Trump was in 2016 and was not disappointed in my initial evaluation since that time. So, the point is, it wasn't in the end. It was throughout, it just got worse and worse and worse. I am Center Left and Center Libertarian and authoritarian elected officials appear mostly to me a being anti-democratic. @@carpediem5232
damn pillar men...
The US shouldn't have played the game of spreading democracy in the first place.
This is a simplistic and naive view. The Soviets were spreading communism like wildfire and it was a very real threat to self rule across the globe. To sit by and do nothing would have been both a strategic and a moral failure.
Idiot not getting the Cold War. Even Patrick Joseph Buchanan agreed with cold war policy.
@@mattm7798 both the soviet union and USA were acting with a colonial world view it was solely strategic the "moral" part was just as moral as other things like the white mans burden and other chauvinistic racist ideas.
@@mattm7798
I'm talking about the postcold war neoliberal agenda of spreading "democracy" not the cold war seppouting of anti commie regimes. The coup in Iran here is actually good. I sayed the US shouldn't spread democracy cause of jackrackm title that US betrayed democracy by seppourting it's geo political interests oh no...
The original content creator plays pretty fast and loose with the actual facts. It seems more like he is trying to make a comedic video rather than a factual one.
Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh had aligned himself with the fanatical Ayatollah’s, who had assassinated the previous prime minister, and the Soviet backed Tudeh Party. As Mosaddegh’s coalition fractured, he became ever more authoritarian and reliant on the Tudeh party. When Mosaddegh canceled elections and dissolved parliament to make himself dictator, the CIA stepped in to help restore the Shah to power. Mosaddegh was no great lover of Democracy. If Mosaddegh was popular, why would he need to cancel elections? Why would he need to dissolve parliament? The answer: It is a fallacy that he was popular.
--- STILL . . . Does that internal Iranian matter (messy politics) justify invasion and economic occupation of Iran? That invasion impoverished the majority of Iranians. How was that a good thing, given the contemporary hostility between Iran and the King of the World?
@@marianotorrespico2975 I can say unequivocally that Iran was better off under the Shah than it was under the dictator in making Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was backed by the Ayatollahs and the Communists. Mohammad Mosaddegh was doing the exact things that Hitler did in his rise to power. Iran is far worse today under the Ayatollahs and Communism has failed everywhere. Hugo Chavez nationalized the oil industry in Venezuela, and that country has going into an economic death spiral.
@@kingrex1931 --- SURE . . . take yer meds, and give my regards to the corpse of St.-Jesus Reagan. Given your indifference to history, I must ask: isn't there a televised ballgame that will occupy your idle mind?
Personally i dont care what the country is called, the islamic government of iran is insanely oppresive and draconian and is a result of US meddling in other nations affairs
That is mostly James Earl Carter Jr.
@@johnnotrealname8168 Carter admitted the shah to the US for humanitarian reasons, but I suspect you are biased and not even handed enough to see Carter in that light.
@karenryder6317 I support him doing that but that he needed to flee to the U.S. is my problem. What is your problem?
There is an argument, not expressed in this very simplistic presentation of events, that Britain and the US were the good guys and did the right thing in context.
Nah they didn't.
@@aurelianxcbd Given the larger circumstances, yes they did. Also, Iran wasn't a "democracy". Not by any means.
I'm a big fan of this channel, just not this particular video.
I'm sure the world won't end if one person disagrees with the narrative as presented here.
At one point in time your account was 20 minutes old as well.@Magnustopheles
They weren't. Stop trying to convince yourself otherwise. They did it for ideological and business reasons, not because they actually care about Iranian people.
Don't try to justify something that would later turn into a disaster 2 decades later.