Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Royalistdefender

Registered:
Posts: 849
Reply with quote  #1 
I just watched this Yahoo "Who Knew" clip about exiled royal families that live in the US. It's interesting clip! http://whoknew.news.yahoo.com/who-knew/normal-royals-27379418.html
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,830
Reply with quote  #2 
Interesting, though any report that describes the Shah of Iran as a "brutal dictator" has no credibility in my book.
KYMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 4,853
Reply with quote  #3 
The Shah of Iran was a brutal dictator (are you really trying to deny he was?), however it is undeniable that Iran was not ready for liberal democracy in the 1970s, as such he should have stayed in power. Also, Theodore, half the time the Shah seemed not to realize he wasn't ruling a secular, liberal, or even very modern country. I even know the exact mistakes the Shah made which made the Iranian Revolution possible and ultimately victorious. Would you mind sending me back in time so I may advise the Shah how to save Imperial Iran? It could have been done. 
__________________
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,830
Reply with quote  #4 
Yes, so "brutal" he repeatedly refused to have his most dangerous enemies (like Khomeini) executed or even imprisoned, so "brutal" he refused to take harsh steps to crush the revolution when he still had a chance in 1978.  If the Shah can be criticized for anything it was indecision and weakness.

Even "Soulblighter," like you a left-leaning monarchist, agreed with me when I said "the Shah was too nice" when we discussed this in San Antonio in 2010.

Try not to be patronizing.
JonathanCid

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 170
Reply with quote  #5 
Yet another left-leaning monarchist here. For the record, I also do not believe HIM was a "brutal dictator."
__________________
"There is only one Jesus Christ and all the rest is a dispute over trifles." - HM Queen Elizabeth I
KYMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 4,853
Reply with quote  #6 
The Shah didn't refuse to have Khomeini executed, the law forbade him from doing such an act. Khomeini held the status of a marja, and was thus untouchable by Iranian law. 
And in 1978, deadly clashes were a regular feature of the early revolution, how much harsher do you really think he could have been? Killing protesters (who were I believe themselves often violent) seems quite harsh to me, and was also counterproductive, as what gave the protest movement against the Shah longevity was the Shi'ite cycle of mourning, with protests erupting literally during every funeral, at, I believe, the third, seventh, and fortieth day after a death. 
His chance to crush the revolution unfortunately petered out over the summer of 1978, with two especially stupid mistakes by the Shah contributing to its ultimate victory. The revolution was petering out by the early summer of 1978, precisely because deadly clashes were becoming more and more infrequent, and it, I think, was quite possible that the protests would ultimately have lost momentum and petered out completely had just a few thing turned out differently. Would that such had.

__________________
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,345
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
The Shah didn't refuse to have Khomeini executed, the law forbade him from doing such an act. Khomeini held the status of a marja, and was thus untouchable by Iranian law. 


Brutal dictators take no notice of the law, so this right here contradicts your argument KYM.

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,830
Reply with quote  #8 
Yes, exactly.  Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein--those were "brutal dictators."  The Shah didn't come close.  The only 20th-century "monarch" who can even be mentioned in the same category was Bokassa.  If the Shah was a "brutal dictator," the words have no meaning.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #9 
We should also consider the vicious people who were trying to replace him.   Could you get too tough with such people?

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
KYMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 4,853
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponocrates
We should also consider the vicious people who were trying to replace him.   Could you get too tough with such people?

Those who were trying to replace him were indeed worse, but by the time fall 1978 rolled around momentum was on the side of the protesters, and the Shah fell. Had it not been for a few utterly stupid decisions taken that summer, the Iranian monarchy probably would have survived.

__________________
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #11 
Rulers don't always make perfect decisions - history is littered with examples.  It's easy to judge them after the fact.   Yet this doesn't excuse the people who overthrew the regime.  The liberals, for example, who played a part in the revolution now are stuck with with what they have.   Things can get worse.  

Likewise, I fear for Egypt and Libya, as well.   

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
KYMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 4,853
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponocrates
Rulers don't always make perfect decisions - history is littered with examples.  It's easy to judge them after the fact.   Yet this doesn't excuse the people who overthrew the regime.  The liberals, for example, who played a part in the revolution now are stuck with with what they have.   Things can get worse.  

Likewise, I fear for Egypt and Libya, as well.   

Egypt is within the zone of transition to liberal democracy, and may yet make it. Iran was almost certainly not in the late 1970s, so there is a major difference. 

Libya one has reasons to worry about, as it is subject to the resource curse, but I think a monarchical restoration would provide a much needed anchor for the post-Gaddafi political system, and there seems to be a much greater chance of that there than in any other Arab republic so far. There would be popular support for a restoration, I believe. And I find it hard to imagine things getting much worse than the loony Qaddafi, and his disturbing fetish for Condoleeza Rice along with his Viagra addiction.

__________________
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #13 
I keep saying that no two countries are the same and in Libya a particular set of circumstances are particularly favourable to monarchism- specifically the fact the uprising began in the traditional Senussi stronghold of Benghazi, where anti-Gaddafi sentiments were widespread but suppressed and the HIV outbreak in hospitals there (proving that free education and healthcare can only work if what's provided is actual quality) for which foreign doctors and nurses were scapegoated to detract from the regime's failures.

In Iran, opposition unity is difficult to achieve because of its sheer diversity. Monarchists and non-monarchist groups who opposed the Shah are still at odds, but at least are talking now when they didn't 20 years ago (see here and here). For practical reasons, the Green Movement seeking to effect change "within the system" can be supported against the clerico-fascist tyrants. I wonder if the end of the Cold War and the 1988 mass executions (mostly directed against leftist prisoners) had anything to do with it. There is even a Sunni Islamist group against the regime.

It's fair to say that Qajar loyalists and ethnic minority groups may not all be favourable to the Pahlavis, for reasons dating to the 1920s. Until then, the Arab and other frontier regions had their own semi-independent rulers, dispossessed as the Pahlavi state sought centralisation.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.