Recent comments in /f/history
dr_set t1_j1mpxso wrote
A large majority of the Iranian society wanted to remove the Shah, but the educated middle classes from the urban centers wanted democracy while the lower classes, specially from the small villages outside the big cities, wanted Khomeini. For a time both camps competed for power, but the religious faction was far more brutal and ended crushing the other side.
> Marjanes parents say they didn't vote for the Islamic republic
She was from a very educated family from the middle class, so its very logical that she or anybody around her didn't voted for the Islamic republic. They were in the opposing camp.
If you want to know more, take a look at this documentary that explains the fighting for power that took place between the two factions of Iranian society that joined to overthrow the Shah.
omaiordaaldeia t1_j1mplxr wrote
Reply to comment by Plebs-_-Placebo in Saint Anthony of Padua revealed in stunning facial approximation by boozy81
I had no idea about it, but apparently that's what the web says.
fiendishrabbit t1_j1mphiq wrote
Reply to comment by ReecoElryk in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
It's a bit more complicated, and Khomeini was more the "last man standing" after the Shah had used support from the US and British foreign intelligence services to de-organize and effectively weaken the democratic/liberal rebels (which were city based).
The religiously motivated rebels, who had the majority of their support in the countryside, were not as vulnerable to such tactics and ended up being the strongest rebel group. As such Khomeini gradually managed to sweep up more and more rebel groups under his banner.
kaestiel t1_j1mp8bu wrote
Probably whatever the US State Department told them to want. Lol
NonAwesomeDude t1_j1mnjxh wrote
Here's a great YouTube video on the topic: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1cby_OiLxSs
l397flake t1_j1mn4el wrote
Being a westerner but from an area of many military coups, I can understand about repression no matter where it comes from. I don’t really know what goes on in Iran, I hear and see many awful things. It’s up to the people to figure it out and act, no matter which way it goes, it will be bloody, that’s the price. I have worked with a few Iranians in guess what , engineering, construction, business in the US. They are very nice people.
121131121 t1_j1mlftr wrote
Someone needs to train an AI with all the data of the skulls with confirmed pictures lying around. Then run that model on the skulls where pictures are missing/too old. Potential magic
AmericanJelly t1_j1ml2p6 wrote
Reply to Did Oliver Cromwell Ban Christmas? by Brattonismybae
So the first "war on Christmas" was really the result of religious zealotry? Ironic.
jrhooo t1_j1ml00l wrote
Reply to comment by bradnelson in Simple/Short/Silly History Questions Saturday! by AutoModerator
If you read the BOOK Generation Kill, they have good sort of example of this. (The TV Show is good but incomplete. It doesn’t explain whats happening as well)
But basically, on the initial invasion of Iraq, 2003, it LOOKS LIKE a Marine Corps Force Recon unit is being used as a traditional maneuver element, and (per the perspective of the book) being put in some needlessly risky positions, like obvious ambush routes.
Later the book sort of explains that the main force was on a “speed run”.
The Iraqi army was large, but notoriously disorganized and bad at command and control, SO the Allied war plan was speed. Overwhelm the Iraqi army and move too quickly for them to organize and coordinate defensive lines. Thus taking most of the country without a fight, and minimizing casualties all around.
Problem: slowing doen was not an option. Getting bogged down = giving the Iraqis a chance to regroup and dig in, snd them having to slug it out more often.
(In the words of Gen Mattis himself, in the prebrief, moving slow was a good way to land in an unpleasant convo with him. See: the Colonel he fired on the spot for getting stuck at a bridge)
So, SPEED
They were worried the Iraqis had a bunch of delaying ambushes set up that would bog down the main force
The Recon units were (according to the book) actually decoys, meant to trick the Iraqis into springing their ambushes early, so that your main force could just bypass them.
Hell of a tough task for the recon guys, BUT the whole idea dis that your toughest, best trained guys are the ones able to
A - lay down enough orce snd firepower for them to bluff an opponent into thinking they are a full sized unit
B - go around finding and baiting ambush positions, and actually survive doing it.
mrgoyette t1_j1mj231 wrote
Paul Simon?
jrhooo t1_j1mj22p wrote
Reply to comment by mobilgroma in Simple/Short/Silly History Questions Saturday! by AutoModerator
Important to note: at least in less movile eras, the vanguard could presictably be expected to encounter the enemy FIRST.
Even on a single fixed battlefield, thus their unit position in a battle formation, front of the group, right end of the group.
This was considered a very prestigious position for that reason.
In a fixed battle, the vanguard position would logically go to the “best” of your line units to strike the first blows.
But who that best unit would be could change. It could be decided by the leader of battle for that battle. There are plenty of examples of Viking or Celtic clans agreeing to fight together, but bitterly arguing over whose troops would have “the honor” of leading the formation. (To the point that there were even fights over the right to lead the following days actual fight)
On the other hand, some leaders might make a specific unit their vanguard unit, and continually maintain that unit as a vanguard.
To describe that in modern military terms, you could have 1st infantry, 2nd infantry, 3rd infantry, and you COULD select the best one of them at any given time to be your vanguard,
OR
You could say,
“We have an Army Ranger regiment. They’re going to take vanguard, because that’s what they’re for. We specifically select, train, and equip them that unit to be our vanguard unit. Thats why the get extra pay and special uniform markings and the prestige of being on the first-string-all-star team”
[deleted] t1_j1mgwvf wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
[removed]
Thibaudborny t1_j1mgq8o wrote
Reply to comment by Larielia in Simple/Short/Silly History Questions Saturday! by AutoModerator
As far as introductory works go on Greek mythology, but not in the academic sense, I'd say give Stephen Fry's works a go: Heroes and Mythos.
trollanonymous t1_j1mgmle wrote
A lot of the stuff that Khomeini promised never ended up coming to fruition. It’s actually somewhat ironic as a lot of the tape recordings of his original speeches are now banned from being distributed since a lot of the stuff he promised he didn’t deliver.
The public wanted the Shah out, and while the Shah himself loved the country, his inner circle was corrupt and the focus was so much on modernizing that only major urban centers like Tehran and Shiraz were getting the focus, many rural areas were in such bad shape they weren’t even able to get everyday necessary supplies. Of course the corrupt circle was skimming off the top at the same time.
So you got a bunch of pissed off people from rural parts of the country, they are religious and you got Khomeini promising a bunch of government subsidies and well things start to turn sour. In addition, the Shah ended up getting his military upset at him in scenarios where he was using his military for stuff that upset his troops. For example, an Iranian helicopter pilot (who later died in the Iran-Iraq war and is a martyr considering the missions he volunteered for) interviewed later saying how he was trained to be a military helicopter pilot but during the 2500 year celebration of the Persian empire that the Shah organized at Persepolis, they had the pilot ferrying rice and cooking supplies back and forth from Tehran to Shiraz. Who knows if it’s true or not but again, people were upset, Shah was throwing lavish parties and households were hungry, Khomeini was promising free stuff in abundance, and here we are.
jrhooo t1_j1mgk7o wrote
Reply to comment by mobilgroma in Simple/Short/Silly History Questions Saturday! by AutoModerator
Depends on time and task.
To steal from wikipedia here, an example of a Middle ages vanguard (literally “advance guard”) would have been the ubits tasked with first up duties. So..
Scouts
Engineers (to clear obstructions from the road)
And even some messengers/diplomats (to reach towns first and basically say “ok, the rest of the army is coming up, do you guys want to just surrender now? Or do we have to bother setting up the whole siege thing? Come on. Save us all a headache and just surrender eh? We’ll give you a nice deal)
[deleted] t1_j1mg2uw wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j1mfwuf wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
[removed]
JoulSauron t1_j1mevse wrote
Just yesterday I visited his birthplace in Lisbon LOL
[deleted] t1_j1melpx wrote
Reply to comment by Hattix in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j1mef7v wrote
[removed]
vandunks t1_j1mdzz2 wrote
Reply to comment by jon_stout in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
Not the other commenter but basically they want the previous ruler gone and replaced with someone else. Sometimes it turns out that the someone else is pretty shit. You don't want them, but you don't want the previous guy either. So you're stuck with someone you don't want, but you don't have the energy, willpower or economic stability to get rid of them too, at least for another couple of decades or until some nice foreign agency wants to install someone new, who you also probably won't like.
In democracy, this happens every four to six years with the revolution condensed into a couple of years of adverts, rallies, and the media telling you who you should or shouldn't like. Then you make your choice with the end goal that hopefully you got the least worst choice, and hopefully that guy you did have who you didn't like is gone. Or if the guy you didn't want gets in, you can complain for four years until you can try again. Meanwhile, you don't have any real power and which guy you choose is meaningless as they're all the same anyway.
fdsgandamerda t1_j1mdv5y wrote
Reply to comment by Seienchin88 in Saint Anthony of Padua revealed in stunning facial approximation by boozy81
He was portuguese though, but yeah still underwhelming
Guachito t1_j1mds6f wrote
Reply to comment by jon_stout in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
They weren’t fighting for democracy or any specific ideology, they just wanted a change of government because the Shah was did not have their best interest in mind and wasn’t doing a great job.
jtmarshiii t1_j1mdkr2 wrote
Now that’s a pedo face if I ever saw one!
MsRadioactive t1_j1mr0y3 wrote
Reply to What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
My relatives from Iran left before the revolution and moved to Chicago but the general consensus from what I’ve heard was that Shah Pahlavi was wasteful, “stole” from the people, he lived in opulence with gold bathroom fixtures, Persian silk rugs, expensive pets while his people lived in poverty. He was seen as ruthless. Ayatollah Khomeini lived modestly and represented traditional Islamic values that many feared were being lost under Pahlavi’s regime.