With a PoD in the 20th century, especially from the late 1930s onward, how could we end up with a more formidable Marxist or ethnoseparatist movements om Iran.
You get the big point score for having communist state (in all or part of Iran) or a successful breakaway ethnic group, but definitely still get points even if the commies/separatists lose but had gotten strong enough to launch a very prolonged (at least 5 years) and very serious (engaging almost full national attention and energies of the govt) insurgency.
In reality the three most successful trends in Iran have been Pahlavism, National Frontism and Khomeinism.
Is there a way in which the Soviet occupation of part of Iran (north and northeast), or prior communist activity, could have led to a movement as formidable at Kim Il-Sung's, Mao's, or at least the Greek communist guerrillas?
In OTL the Soviets did attempt to exercise influence through the communist Tudeh party and did set up separatist regimes in northwest Iran in Kurdish and Azeri areas (I've never seen anything about them pushing a political agenda in northeastern occupied areas of Iran).
Yet the results of the efforts of the Soviets and their allies were really quite
pathetic, especially in comparison with what Soviets or leftists achieved in East-Central Europe, Korea, and China, and the headaches they caused in Greece.
It's not like the Shah was an impressive opponent. He was an accidental ruler imposed by the Allies when his father was booted, in 1953 he needed alot of western encouragement to stiffen his spine, and in 1978-79 he lacked alot of the will to repress that other dictators relied on.
But in 1946, he was able to slice through the Kurdish and Azeri separatist republics like cotton candy.
What would it have taken to stiffen his opponents then to the point that they would not collapse so easily, or could have survived as a North Korea -like state?
You get the big point score for having communist state (in all or part of Iran) or a successful breakaway ethnic group, but definitely still get points even if the commies/separatists lose but had gotten strong enough to launch a very prolonged (at least 5 years) and very serious (engaging almost full national attention and energies of the govt) insurgency.
In reality the three most successful trends in Iran have been Pahlavism, National Frontism and Khomeinism.
Is there a way in which the Soviet occupation of part of Iran (north and northeast), or prior communist activity, could have led to a movement as formidable at Kim Il-Sung's, Mao's, or at least the Greek communist guerrillas?
In OTL the Soviets did attempt to exercise influence through the communist Tudeh party and did set up separatist regimes in northwest Iran in Kurdish and Azeri areas (I've never seen anything about them pushing a political agenda in northeastern occupied areas of Iran).
Yet the results of the efforts of the Soviets and their allies were really quite
pathetic, especially in comparison with what Soviets or leftists achieved in East-Central Europe, Korea, and China, and the headaches they caused in Greece.
It's not like the Shah was an impressive opponent. He was an accidental ruler imposed by the Allies when his father was booted, in 1953 he needed alot of western encouragement to stiffen his spine, and in 1978-79 he lacked alot of the will to repress that other dictators relied on.
But in 1946, he was able to slice through the Kurdish and Azeri separatist republics like cotton candy.
What would it have taken to stiffen his opponents then to the point that they would not collapse so easily, or could have survived as a North Korea -like state?