Iran Coup of 56 becomes National News

Enigmajones

No one would care. Its the 1950's and its the Middle East. Sure some people will care, but the vast majority will chalk it up to the fight against Communism.
 

Killer300

1. 1960 technically.
2. Really? Things like Watergate and the McCarthy hearings would say that the anti-Communist excuse can only take you so far before people say, "ENOUGH!"
 

Enigmajones

Killer300 said:
1. 1960 technically.
2. Really? Things like Watergate and the McCarthy hearings would say that the anti-Communist excuse can only take you so far before people say, "ENOUGH!"
Click to expand...

Well technically yes. But 1960, still isn't that big a difference. Its not like say, 1965 or 1966. Plus Watergate happened after Vietnam and McCarthy only failed when he tried to say that the US Army was Communist. That was going to far.
 

Killer300

There was also the major contribution of Journalists like Edward R. Murrow to the conviction. Press had a huge element to this too.
 

Enigmajones

Killer300 said:
There was also the major contribution of Journalists like Edward R. Murrow to the conviction. Press had a huge element to this too.
Click to expand...

No they did. But the thing that really brought down McCarthy was the fact that he accused the army of being Communist. But that was really the last straw.
 

Killer300

Yes, but my point with this is that US citizens won't always accept anti-Communism as an excuse. Here, they won't, considering the brutality of the Shah.
 

ArmchairPhilosopher

Banned
Killer300 said:
Basically, in 1960, a reporter finds out the US helped place the Shah in Iran, along with uncovering all the brutalities of said figure.

What would the national reaction be? The US overthrew a democratically elected official.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

Edit: 1953, sorry.
Click to expand...
America was not particularly liberal or progressive then, I doubt many would have cared. This was before the Civil Rights Era hit its stride.
 

Killer300

Yes, but we weren't completely the other way either, judging by McCarthy.

Also, this probably would pick up more impact with the Civil Rights movement. More importantly, this would bring up so many disturbing questions for the US public to deal with.
 

Enigmajones

Killer300 said:
Yes, but my point with this is that US citizens won't always accept anti-Communism as an excuse. Here, they won't, considering the brutality of the Shah.
Click to expand...

Im just saying that in 1960 it will be news for, what a week tops, and then go away. This is America in 1960. Communism is an excuse. Its a cultural thing. At the time the US Communist Party was considered by the government to be Soviet funded and Soviet spies, which it turned out was actually kind of true. The point being, 1960 is not the 60's. For all intents and purposes its the late 50's. Most people at the time couldn't even find Iran on the map, let alone have the ability to connect with its people on a empathetic level.
 

Hyperbolus

I'm curious how much it would raise the notoriety of the CIA and so complicate Bay of Pigs, which was pending in a couple years. Most of ("Cuba: struggle for liberation" Hugh Thomas) Kennedy's cabinet supported it OTL so I suspect it'll still at least be seriously mooted.
 

Killer300

This also raises questions of what would happen later. With the Iranian Revolution, people are going to view it as something the USA brought onto itself if it becomes an Islamist extremist state.
 

HeavyWeaponsGuy

Banned
McCarthy is not a valid comparison to this, this is foreign policy, way different sphere, America's worst effects by far are going to be the damage to its international reputation from basically the entire world finding out that the Shah's rise to power came about because he hopped in bed with the CIA.

Hell this will hurt the Shah more than the United States, the latter of which was the one who did all of this in the first place. Shah either plays it off or ignores it... the Iranian Revolution or something like it will have an easier time of it come instability season.
 

HeavyWeaponsGuy

Banned
Killer300 said:
This also raises questions of what would happen later. With the Iranian Revolution, people are going to view it as something the USA brought onto itself if it becomes an Islamist extremist state.
Click to expand...

That is not a divergence from the modern view of the Iranian Revolution in the West... actually that is the view of the Iranian Revolution in the West.

To be fair the fundamentalist Islam thing only became part of the Revolution until later, early on it looked a lot more like a western-leaning pro-democracy movement.
 

Hyperbolus

Assuming this revelation demolishes the Shah's reputation earlier, perhaps he wouldn't bother with the White Revolution or similar reform attempts. He would become more authoritarian earlier; anything to retain his grip on power.
 

HeavyWeaponsGuy

Banned
Hyperbolus said:
Assuming this revelation demolishes the Shah's reputation earlier, perhaps he wouldn't bother with the White Revolution or similar reform attempts. He would become more authoritarian earlier; anything to retain his grip on power.
Click to expand...

Or a combination of both, a carrot and stick approach, much bigger stick this time around though.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
You know that this wasn't a secret, right? Iranians knew that the West had helped get rid of Mossadegh and reinstall the Shah; that's one of the reasons Iranians hated him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top