What if Shah not toppled in 1941?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
Assuming the Shah agreed to expel the German engineers working on Iranian infrastructure on the condition that Allied engineers pick up the work, what if the Shah was then not toppled in the Anglo-Soviet invasion in 1941? Instead there is no invasion at all and Iran continues to develop independently with Reza Shah, but allowing Allied supplies to transit his country and Soviet and British planners to manage the supply efforts while upgrading his infrastructure at their own cost.

What effect would this have on Iranian history? Would Reza live longer than IOTL? Does it change the behavior of his son when he becomes Shah?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
Assuming the Shah agreed to expel the German engineers working on Iranian infrastructure on the condition that Allied engineers pick up the work, what if the Shah was then not toppled in the Anglo-Soviet invasion in 1941? Instead there is no invasion at all and Iran continues to develop independently with Reza Shah, but allowing Allied supplies to transit his country and Soviet and British planners to manage the supply efforts while upgrading his infrastructure at their own cost.

What effect would this have on Iranian history? Would Reza live longer than IOTL? Does it change the behavior of his son when he becomes Shah?

(1) There were rumors that if Reza Shah were to break with the Germans, they might stage a coup against him. (Rashid Ali's coup in Iraq, which was aided by the Germans, no doubt heightened this fear, even though Rashid Ali was soon ousted; incidentally, the "pro-Nazi" Reza Shah had turned down German demands to supply fuel lubricants for Iraqi fighters. http://books.google.com/books?id=dUHhTPdJ6yIC&pg=PT622) So even if the British had trusted Reza Shah more than they did, they would have felt that they had to invade. And of course, the Soviets did not need much persuasion to join in...

(2) Even granted the inevitability of an Anglo-Soviet invasion, might they have allowed him to stay on the throne as a puppet? I believe this is conceivable if the Shah had not been betrayed by the people he sent to negotiate with the British. Reza Shah actually made efforts to placate the British, for example by appointing Mohammad Ali Foroughi Zoka-ol-Molk Prime Minister--Foroughi, an esteemed elder statesman, was assumed by Reza Shah to be close to the British. This backfired, however. When Reza Shah sent Foroughi and Foreign Minister Mohammed Saed to plead with the British to get the BBC to discontinue its broadcasts attacking Reza Shah,

"Instead of pleading Reza Shah's case, his emissaries seemed bent on encouraging the British to get rid of him. Foroughi, who had been forced into early retirement by Reza Shah and had seen his son-in-law sent to the firing squad by Reza Shah, now had the King's fate in his hand. It is hard to know his motive, [I think his motive can be inferred pretty readily from the preceding sentence--DT] but from the outset, he and Saed made it clear to the British Ambassador that 'they had merely been acting as a mouthpiece.' More crucially, Foroughi added that 'the Shah can be persuaded to abdicate.' He also made it clear that Persians like him would not 'take any action' to force the abdication of Reza Shah unless they knew 'it will not be contrary to the wishes' of Britain. The word within the word of Foroughi's response was clear: people want to be rid of Reza Shah but they won't dare to move unless the British government moves. The Ambassador assured Foroughi that 'if they concluded the Shah must go, His Majesty's government would not interfere.' Could Reza Shah have remained on the throne if Foroughi and Saed had simply conveyed in earnest the message they were sent to deliver? Would the British government have acted differently if it had not heard the complaints of two key Iranian politicians? Surely these are the kinds of historical questions that make for good parlor games but are indeed impossible to answer. But one thing does seem certain: without the cooperation and advice of Iranians like Foroughi, the British and the Soviets could never have carried out their plans." Abbas Milani, *The Shah*, p. 82. http://books.google.com/books?id=1KzcyArbWMkC&pg=PA82 (The last sentence may be doubted; the British and Soviets *could* have deposed the Shah forcibly even if no major Iranian politicians were urging them on--the only question is whether they would have felt it was worth it. As late as September 3, Churchill declared that "at the present moment we have not turned against the Shah' but warned that unless he cooperated fully and acted with "alacrity" his "misgovernment of his people will be brought into account." The British Ambassador said that "If [Reza] Shah is willing to cooperate fully with the British and correct some of his more serious shortcomings, I believe he may still be able to save his throne." Milani, p. 81.)

(3) One could say that the consequences of the British and Soviets agreeing to keep Reza Shah on the throne would be negligible, because he would die in 1944 anyway. But his son at least was convinced that Reza Shah had died of a "broken heart" not only because of his losing his throne but because of the way the British treated him afterwards. Apparently, he had been led to believe that after a brief stay in India, he would be allowed to leave for some country in South America. But the British prevented him from disembarking in India, sent him to Mauritius, and censored his mail while they debated his fate for months. Eventually, they decided he could go to South Africa, after ruling out both South America and Canada. Days before his death, a local paper had published a scathing attack on him, leading him to believe that "secret hands" were pursuing him even in Johannesburg. Milani, pp. 108-9. http://books.google.com/books?id=1KzcyArbWMkC&pg=PA108 So it's possible he might have lived longer if he had remained Shah.

Suppose he had lived into the post-Occupation period? One difference I can see is this: in the early years of his reign the new Shah modified many of the anticlerical measures of his father (e.g., relaxing restrictions on religious ceremonies and holidays, removing the ban against women wearing the veil, etc.). The number of mosques and clergy had been drastically reduced under Reza Shah; his son reversed that trend. Maybe Reza Shah himself would have seen a need for reconciliation with the clergy. But Mohammad Reza Pahlavi really may have been more religious than his father, and in any event, he seemed to feel that the clergy were "natural monarchists" and indispensable allies against Communism. He may in that sense have been partially responsible for the clerical power he later sought to undermine.

(4) Even if Reza Shah had died on schedule, one difference might be this: In OTL the spectacle of his father's forced abdication and humiliating exile made an unforgettable impression on the young Shah. This may have been one reason for his extravagant build-up of Iran's military--he wanted to have a military so strong that no foreign power could do to him what the Allies had done to his father. (Maybe the spectacle of his father keeping the throne but taking orders from the Allies would have had the same effect, but that is not certain.)
 
Seems the obvious effect of the Reza Shah remaining in charge would be no Persian Corridor for Lend Lease.

A lot of tonnage went though there. If it couldn't go though there it would have to go elsewhere, where transport limits might stop if from getting though.

Perhaps a noticeable negative effect on the Soviet war effort.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other aid the Shah could give to the Nazis.


Seems unlikely that they could ship oil though Turkey.
 
Seems the obvious effect of the Reza Shah remaining in charge would be no Persian Corridor for Lend Lease.

A lot of tonnage went though there. If it couldn't go though there it would have to go elsewhere, where transport limits might stop if from getting though.

Perhaps a noticeable negative effect on the Soviet war effort.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other aid the Shah could give to the Nazis.


Seems unlikely that they could ship oil though Turkey.

Of course Reza Shah would allow the Persian Corridor--or the British and Soviets would see to it that he would cease to be Shah. So while he might remain Shah, there is no question of his being "in charge" in a real sense.
 

saturnV

Banned
Interesting , I've thought about this before , also what if Sadat isn't murdered andewhat effects does if have on later isreal , palestine. in your scenerio the 7 day war more then likely never takes places and you could make a case that opec never exist , I think the most dynamic change would be the abillity. For men and specially women to continue receiving western style education for a aditional generation possibly eventually forming a social democratic goverment and eventually spreading there views to the saudis and jordan ,
 
Top