Talk:Operation Ajax
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] more information
what was the result of the operation ? were other middle east countries involved ?
this article leave a lot unanswered (also there should be wikipedia links to other articles about other US ops in Iran ?)
[edit] Mossadeq's Unconstitutional Actions
The article is a bit one-sided. It sounds like the British and Americans decided independently to oust Mossadeq. The article makes no mention of what an integral part the Shah himself played. Neither does it mention the reasons why Mossadeq had to be ousted by the CIA and MI6. Mossadeq, since being elected by the Majles (Iranian parliament) and approved by the Shah, had committed many crimes against the Iranian constitution. These include attempting to assume the role of commander-in-chief of the military, assuming "emergency powers" through referendum instead of through the parliament, dissolving parliament unconstitutionally, and others. In August 1953, the Shah sent General Fazlollah Zahedi to inform Mossadeq that he was dismissed from the office of prime minister. As head of state, it was the Shah's constitutional right to dismiss prime ministers at his pleasure. Mossadeq refused to leave office and placed General Zahedi under arrest. The CIA/MI6 operation to mobilise pro-Shah elements and restore the Shah to power could be seen as a counter-coup.
Maybe somebody could add some of this information. Or maybe I will when I get some free time.
209.195.155.198 18:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Operation Ajax
The final two paragraphs of the Operation Ajax section could stand some rewriting and factual review. I am certainly not an expert on this, but the sentence beginning with "The 1979 overthrow of the Shah was a CIA operation..." seems ludicrous since the US government, including the CIA, was cought by surprise by the coup. This is evidenced by the hostage crisis; a knowledgable State Department would have pulled out of the embassy before it was captured. If you are an expert on this subject, please contribute. --Talinus 16:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Elected?
Why does the introduction refer to Mossadegh as elected? He was chosen by the Shah and approved by the vote of parliament. Same holds for all other prime ministers of the Pahlavi era. The term elected creates the impression that he was actually directly chosen by people's votes, which was not the case. Therefore, it should be removed. As his way of becoming prime minister was exactly the same as all other prime ministers, no special description is necessary anyhow. Shervink 15:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)shervink
71.68.11.205 20:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Approved by the vote of parliament you say? By...the...vote...
- Well, if you like, you can call this an indirect election. In usual use, however, elected means voted for in an election. The people never voted for Mossadegh. But in that way, all other prime ministers, including General Zahedi, were elected. The point is that the system remained the same throughout. If you think Mossadegh was democratically elected, then Iran was a democracy till 1979. Shervink 11:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)shervink
-
- Doolee just made a number of changes to the first two paragraphs. Many of them are highly questionable. I've changed a few. Others should review the first few paragraphs for accuracy. (Note, also, Dooloo gave some references that were formatted incorrectly, and thus didn't show up.) --Cultural Freedom talk 14:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV phrasing needed in intro paragraphs
Doolee, please don't make your changes again without discussing, and justifying them, here. You did not understand my comments. The goal per se had nothing to do with totalitarianism (etc.). The first part of the sentence governs those adjectives, and results in a false claim. Non-native English speakers are welcome here, but please be careful. Look at it this way, the following statement would clearly be wrong: "Operation Ajax was a covert operation to remove a democratic government and replace it with a totalitarian dynasty." That was not the goal of the operation at all! When one names the government, and, respectively, dynasty, the statement doesn't become significally less incorrect. --Cultural Freedom talk 14:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Of course the goal had nothing to do with totalitarism. But the only means to achieve the goal was to establish a dictatorship, since the majority of voters opposed that oil profits ended up in foreign countries, and therefore voted Mossadegh. What is controversial here? I looked at the archieve and this is what editors Quadell and GD think too, and more importantly, all sources. Why you removed it?--Doolee 15:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- 1) If it's about the means, then it shouldn't be described in a sentence talking about the goals. (No offense, but I think you don't quite understand English well enough to grasp how the sentence reads.) 2) Either way (and this is not relevant here), it is certainly not the only means possible to achieve the ultimate goal of the UK: a) get compensation for the nationalized company, or (preferably...) b) get the company "un-nationalized". Many other options were possible: negotiations, waiting for the next election, etc.! --Cultural Freedom talk 15:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Weird Sentences?
I just found the Paragraph "In 1917, the war allowed it to take the British arm of the German Europäische Union, which used the trade name British Petroleum. After the war ended, the company, in which the British Government now had a 51% interest, moved to secure outlets in Europe and elsewhere. However, its main concern was still Persia, following the Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919 the company continued to trade profitably in that country." I was wondering what that is supposed to mean. The 'Europäische Union' is the German word for European Union and I don't know why the war allowed such things. This whole paragraph doesn't make much sense, so I removed it. Feel free to clarify and reintroduce it though. --Ebralph 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Appropriate Picture
I changed the picture. The previous one was from another demonstration preceeding the Operation TPAjax. The one added is the front cover of a Tehran weekly, dated two days after the coup. aliparsa 04:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] (even though he was an avowed anti-communist)
Well there is what people say, and there is what they do. Better historians typically favor deeds over words. Uncompensated siezure of private property is the foundational action of Communists, and has been since the Russian Revolution. The editors / authors are very generous to ignore the evidence in front of them. As the old saw goes: "Who are you going to believe, me, or your own lying eyes".
- "Uncompensated siezure of private property"? There's something else that falls under that description: taxes. 71.203.209.0 08:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] pronounsiation
how do you prounounce Ajax? an ogg would be nice there... Towsonu2003 21:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
