Mardom Mazloom

Dear Divaneh

You have many valid points as always, and I agree. In my mind, No Iranian King (ba-orzeh or bi-orzeh) through out our long glorious and painful history has ever managed his country "sarzamin-e Pahn-avar-e Iran" all by himself, I do not deny the fact that many of Reza Shah's ministers, advisers and even great thinkers, poets and writers were instrumental in his policies, many of which were of Ghajar decent, the achievements and undertakings during his time are credited to Reza Shah, but what counts are his abilities to utilize and manage his surroundings wich in turn lead to a great deal of progress for our country, and this simple fact should not be forgotten. His pictures from his early years as defence minister, prime minister and king compared with his pictures that of 1940 before WW2 invasion. He seemed older then his age ...

I agree, Reza Shah confiscated land from Ghajar princes, from FarmanFarma's and the list is long, there was corruption and injustice, he got rid of people whom he saw as rivals with or without a valid excuse but, in my mind he was not a destructive force as some claim him to be.

Az for the democratic aspirations; TaymourTash himself was a fighter in favour of Mashrooteh, Taghizadeh's, Sardar Assad's and as many others in that line whom ended up serving Reza Shah, or ended up dead or exiled, see what path he and many others chose in later life with regards to Mashrooteh,  among our writers and semi politicians we had famous Ali Dashti,  even he was in favour of Reza Shah both pre and post Reza "Shah", he even dedicated poems "sorodeh dar madh-e" Reza Shah, he was the first to critisize Reza Shah days after the ww2 invasion of Iran while Reza Shah was on his way to exile. case in point, we were not ready for democracy then.

Just a note: I do not wish for the same autocratic/al rule of Reza Shahi or that of his son's era for my country after Iranians have gotten rid of Islamic regime.

Respectfully

-F 

Divaneh jan,

It’s true that Mashrooteh took place at the end of Mozzafaredin Shah’s reign, but evidence shows that Mozzafaredin Shah accepted the constitution more by necessity than a real political vision – at the end of his rule, he had huge debts to different European monarchs and his treasury was empty from money. His multiple visits to England and a desire to have England’s sort of constitutional monarchy for Iran in order to get ride of all financial burden can be thought as highly tantalizing.

Moreover, the end of the Qajar dynasty was chaotic showing that there weren’t any real guidelines in internal and foreign affairs. As an example, it’s under Mozzafaredin Shah’s son, Mohammad Ali Shah that the newly opened Iranian parliament had been shot by Russian cannons.

At that time, Iran needed a strong man to get out from the sinkhole it was. And Reza Shah was simply that man!

It’s true that Reza Khan could have done a lot more but that is easier to say near a century after than at Reza khan’s time. Kashfeh Hijab also, couldn’t have been done by simple civilians - even though small social networks had begun to promote Women’s rights at that time - as Hijab was something deeply rooted in Iranian traditions and without a real political motivations it was impossible to dissociate women from scarves -as Mrs. Etessmai said it ingeniously:

کس چو زن، انـــدر سیاهی قرنها منـــزل نکرد
کس چو زن، در معبــد سالوس قــربانی نبود

A clear view of the past

Dear Jamshid, Ali P and Fatollah, I do not disagree with any of you that Reza Shah was a hard working king and a charismatic leader who was full of good intentions for this country. That however should not blur or distort our view of what happened and what forces were involved.

I did that comparison on purpose to show that a simple ( and fat if that is relevant ) man such as Mozzaferedin Shah had benefited from a clearer vision of the future as compared to the autocratic, dynasty forming Reza Shah.

Reza Shah did many services to this country but not single handedly. Likes of Teimourtash and Daavar along with many other great men and women of that era were instrumental in bringing him to power and push for the modernization of the country. Unfortunately many including Teimourtash were later killed in his jails whilst Daavar is known to had committed suicide. Reza Shah also used his position to confiscate land from Quajars and other land owners to increase his own wealth. This practice was followed during the reign of his son and exists in the today's Iran.

With respect to Hejab, it is wrong to credit Reza Shah as the initiator of such movement. The Iranian Women Movement that was one of the smaller aligned movements of the Iranian constitutional revolution (Mashrooteh) had its roots in the Quajar era and women such as Bibi Khanum Astarabadi who wrote about women and the inequalities that they suffered. Prior to Reza Shah there were many periodicals published by women for women with the aim of elevating the position of Iranian women. Some directly challenged the issue of Hejab. Interestingly Reza Shah dissolved the last women association in 1933.

Reza Shah was a great man with his own strengths and weaknesses. A product of his own time and the Mashrooteh movement. There were however many other great men and women who had crucial rules in the push for the modernisation of this country. To credit the autocratic ruler who silenced the rest and ended the Iranian short lived democracy, is being ungrateful to all those patriotic souls at the least. Such fantasised views of the past and creation of undeserved champions has the danger of leading us into the repeat of the failed experiments in the future.

to humanbeing: About Abbas Milani

Voila some info about Abbas Milani, and his books where you can read the complete account of what he has written in his article. He is a professor at Stanford:

//www.stanford.edu/~amilani/

And I have already posted the link to his article in my comment.

BTW, I don't watch TV, but I'm curious to know on which channel I could see Tehran's surviving children...It is very interesting to see.

Have nice dreams.:-)

Azarin    

double post

.

Divaneh aziz

as for Mozaffaredin Shah, I believe, there were people like Mostofi around to make that decision to happen.

Jamshid

 think Reza Shah did the right thing and in the right way. It was as a result of kashfe hejaab and many other equalities granted to women during the Pahlavis (some say by force) that a new attitude towards woman and a new attitude in women toward their own selves became entranched in our Iranian socieity.

As a result, even after 30 years of IRI, most of our women today have not accepted "zelat" and can even be considered the frontrunners against the mollahs, the degree of which is uncomparable to muslim women in other countries.

Yes, Kashfe Hejab empowered women to think as individuals and not a property of their men. Without it, the mullahs today would have been able to put Burka on Iranian women like the Taliban. The reason they can't do that is precisely because of what Kashfe Hejab did for women to liberate themselves from their shackles, both of mind and  of body.

azarin

every year one of the dwindling number of surviving 'tehran children' which are still alive are interviewed on tv to tell their story, so i know many versions from that angle. what is the precise reference to the academic account you mention in your comment ('history of...')?

thanks and good nite

Another great accomplishment by Reza Shah!

Abbas Milani says: "...As early signs of the murderous Final Solution became visible in Europe, the Iranian government of the time convinced the Nazi race experts in Germany that Iranian Jews had lived in Iran for over 2,500 years, and were thus fully assimilated citizens of the Iran and must be afforded all the rights of such citizens. The Nazis accepted this argument and the lives of all Iranian Jews living under the Nazi yoke were saved. An account of this episode can be found in the "History of Contemporary Iranian Jews," published by Center for Iranian Jewish Oral History.

Moreover, as I have recounted in my book "Persian Sphinx," Iranian diplomats in Europe and elsewhere offered hundreds of Iranian passports to European Jews, thus saving their lives. And when the Nazi killing machines began their slaughter of innocent Polish Jews, 1,388 Jews, including 871 children were moved to Tehran where they lived in relative safety till they moved to Israel. Again the "History of Contemporary Iranian Jews" has provided an account of what are called "Tehran Children....

So it seems that Reza Shah not only liberated the Iranian women from hejab but he has also saved so many lives through his so-called "collaboration with Nazis". 

amongst Iran's Great Kings

suffice to say, he was amongst Iran's many Great Kings! Easy to speak about democracy and democratic aspirations at his time, and for a country like Iran! And please remember where World democracies were headed in Western Europe and else where during his time!  The era of fascisme! He emerged when there was absolutely no hope for Iran.

That he was an illiterate, is manufactured by his enemies, he had a clear cut agenda. He made a few mistakes, and if you wonder why the last Shah spent a lot of money on military hardware is due to the fact; Reza Shah was a force to be reckon with, his country was not! The last Shah wanted Iran a force to be reckon with.

notice his speech, short and to the point, no bs.

Rohash shad.

Thanks for the post MM

divaneh cho divaneh bebeenad, khoshash aayad... :-)

It is always good to read your comments, divaneh jaan, but:

Have you ever seen a picture of Mozafarredin Shah, where he was not sitting? A simple, fat, lazy, superstitious- and somewhat good man by all accounts- he was, but a visionary??

He did his first, last, and only act of any significance, 10 days before he died: Signing the farmaaneh mashrooteeyat.

Then look at the pictures of Reza Shah. Tall, sharp, charismatic, always on the run, always in military uniform.

Look at their pictures next to each other . You'll see their respective visions for Iran, reflected in their images.

Yours,

Ali P.

جناب شراب قرمز،

از لطف شما سپاسگزارم. آمین به گفتهٔ جنابعالی. به امید روزی که با بر خواستن ملت ستم دیده و قیام مردمی، بساط ظلم و تحمیل و چماق در ایران عزیزمان یک بار برای همیشه برچیده شود.

و در آن روز، جشن عروسی ایران خواهد بود و بغض طولانی حسرت در گلوگاه‌ها ترکیده و اشکهای شادی در چشمان مردمان روانه. به امید رسیدن آن روز.

با ارادت خاص،

جمشید

از تمامیه دوستان;

شازده عزیز، دیوانه مکرم، کمراد محترم، داریوش ارجمند، جمشید بزرگوار، شراب سرخ گرامی، کوروش فخیم، مک کوی شریف، مهربان گرانمایه، امرایکس۱ قدیر، علی معزز، آذرین ثمین و مازیار گرانپایه که قدم رنجه فرمودید سپاس گذارم. امیدوارم که همگی تعطیلات آخر هفته بسیار خوبی را داشته باشید.

شراب سرخ گرامی،

من مخلص شما هستم. ازعدالت خواهی و انسانیت جنابعالی بسیار بهره بردم ومتشکرم که این بلاگ را از این صفات منور فرمودید .

Divaneh

"... are underestimating the Iranian people and the scientific advances that has changed the whole world."

I think you are also underestimating the challenges, dangers and obstacles that any government would face in those days. You are also underestimating the implementation of democarcy in a country that does not meet any of its prerequisites. Lastly, you are underestimating the strength of the forces that were working against Iran's progress.

If you were taken back in time and put in charge, even with the advantage of hindsight, you could not have been able to implement a true democracy, maintain security and modernize Iran, all at the same time.

If you claim otherwise, then tell us how. It is a quesiton I keep asking, but not getting any answer for: How?

Mardom Mazloom Aziz

حرف شما بر حق است و در حق..هیچ منطق، جواب روا نباشد.

خدا شما را برای ما و عزیزانتان حفظ کند.

Dear DK

I agree, but Mohamad Ali Shah and his Russian backers were defeated by the supporters of Mashrooteh.

بدون شرح

divaneh Jaan I agree except that was not his son's view

Persian King Mohamad Ali Shah Qajar attacking the Governer of Tehran after assasination attempt on the king in Tehran. Le Petit Journal French weekly, 15 March 1908.

//iranian.com/Pictory/2003/January/17.html

Bebin TV : Constitutional Revolution in History for Dummies section:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfb7dqvDNFs

Have a Nice Weekend Everyone,

DK

جالب فرمودید و نقض منتهی بنده

Mozaffaredin Shah was more of a visionary than Reza Shah

There is no doubt that Reza Shah loved Iran but his autocratic rule signed the end of Iran's fledging democracy. All those who think he was a savour of the nation and without him we were still suffering from lice, are underestimating the Iranian people and the scientific advances that has changed the whole world. Many have reminded us of how he helped women out of Hejab. Whilst most Iranians are grateful for that service, it is absurd to assume that a democratic government would not seek to achieve the same results perhaps through different means. Territorial integrity could also be protected by the same armies under the control of an elected Prime Minster for which he was a strong candidate.

Despite the stories about the simplicity of the Mozaffaredin Shah, he was more of a visionary and saw the writing on the wall. He realised that the time for the rule of one man over a nation was over and that the monarchy could only survive in a symbolic rule beside a governing democracy, just in the same way that it did exist in some European countries in his time. I wish Reza Shah had realised this too.   

Red wine germai,

I firstly beg your pardon to not being able to respond you in Farsi. I have some limitations of doing so now.

About the subject of matter, we almost agree that the choice of being unveiled or not has to be given to women themselves. Who is any person to force people do something or not? The use of force to put scarves on women’s head is as reprehensible as its use to take scarves from their head.

My point wasn’t that. What I meant was that Iranians were forced to accept a foreign Arab culture mainly because the dominant half of the Iranian society was covered by chador. And, in that particular moment, Reza shah TOOK that cover away and he was right on that as he started a new era (of modernity) for us.

This is a subjective study to do, but in my view the modern Iranian society owes much to Iranian women who begun to FREELY believe in their potential (so to Reza khan for this matter). With educated mothers, we Iranians began to be smarter in some sense.

Even now, when we see IRI lover women on IC who think for more freedom of rights for Iranian women, it’s thanks to Reza Khan.

Kourosh Aryamanesh

هدف از غیر گویی نیست..اما...به هر حال که قاجار خودش آمد و خودش رفت،پهلوی را خارجیها آوردند و خارجیها آن را بیرون کردند... بد منجلابی اینان درست کردند که آن لجنزار پیشش گلزار پدیدار شد.

موفق باشید.

مردم مظلوم

بسيار سپاس از نوشتۀ شما.  خدمت يک دهاتی بيسواد به ايران به مراتب بيشتر از کارهای منفی اش بود. بدون قصد هيچگونه بی احترامی به اعتقادات شخصی افراد بايد اذعان کرد که اگر مسئلۀ قلدری را مد نظر قرار بدهيم ، رواج دين مبين بر اثر مذاکرات سرميز غذا رخ نداد و فقط از راه جنگ و جدال صورت گرفت و حالا هم مريدان بسياری دارد . اگر خدمات اين مرد نبود ما بايست حالا برای معاجۀ فشار خون به دلاک محله رجوع ميکرديم که پشتمان را تيغ بيندازد. بيرون کشيدن ايران از لجن زار قاجار کار ساده ای نبود. حتما داستان پروميتيوس را ميدانيد که آتش را از زئوس خدای خدايان گرفت و به انسان داد و بخاطر اينکار زشت او را به سنگ بستند تا لاشخورها جگر او را بدرند و هر روز جگر او دوباره پديدار ميگشت که ما آنرا عذاب ابدی ميدانيم . روحش شاد

جمشید جان

جمشید جان،اولا سپاسگزارم که شما وقت گذاشتید و جوابیه صدور کردید در پی‌ عرایض ما.شما میدانید که ما به شما ارادت خاص داشته و داریم و همیشه از معلومات شما نهایت استفاده را میبریم.

جالب فرمودید و نقض منتهی بنده فقط این نکته را مجددا یاد آوری کنم که ما با اصل زور موافق نیستیم،حال این زور از طرف رضا میر پنج باشد و یا شاه شهید و یا آن شیوخ بی‌ وجدان ! لعنت بر هر کسی‌ که با زور و جور خواهد حکومت کند.

همیشه سبز و همیشه مثل خورشید بدرخشید.

شراب قرمز

Besides who would have made an Ideal Preezeedent? Pishevari ?

Below is Just for food for thought and not expecting a response particularly to my assessments ... But feel free to add, contradict or oppose my arguments if you wish. Just don't expect an immediate answer cause I have other things to do right now. Best DK  

We tend to forget that Iran's Unity depended on a Strong Central government:

Old Lady Remembers WW2 Russian invasion of Iran

pictory: Soviet Propaganda Film - Iran, Tabriz 1945-46 

Even Mossadegh was more or less aware of this reality but prefered to overlook it at times because of his resentment of Reza Shah the self made man who had toppled his Qajar ancestors. Even if Mossadegh did take part in the Constitutional revolution he expressed his hostility early on towards Reza Shah by even voting for a Republic rather than seeing Reza Khan become Shah.

Iran being a Tribal country at the time like Afghanistan today, central government was constantly challenged by various tribes from the Bakhtaris to the Baloutch or Kurds. You cannot run a country if the warlords are not disarmed and are not pointing their Guns in your nose in the name of dialogue .

Another Point I would like to make is Regarding our outlook of 1953 ...

We tend to look at 1953 from a 1979 angle and much of the books written on the subject hence want to put some coherence in an uncoherent religious upheavel through that distorted spectrum. We forget that 26 years seperate the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the events of 1953 where as hardly 12 years seperate it from the Shah's acsession to the Peacock Throne upon his father's forced abdication.

As such the Shah throughout the War and seven years of peace that followed prior to the crisis of the Oil nationalization had no other alternative but to operate within a limited political framework without provoking the Wrath of the Western Allies and particularly the British who had merely tolerated his reign. 

Shah at Tehran conference

1944 film: Iran during WW II

pictory: "Poles Flee To Persia", WWII News Reel (1943)

The British had even accepted to see Iranian Military join the Victory Parade in tribute to Iran's efforts in helping the allies:

Iran in London WW II parade

Iran in London WW II parade (2)

So to see someone like Mossadegh ( a former Qajar Prince and minister who had already stood against his father) come and create havoc and chaos in the country after the stability earned after years of hardship during and after WWII must have worried the Shah that he may meet a similar fate as his father if he let mossadegh continue to speak louder and stronger than the nation's real capacities at the time which was anything but a superpower ... 

BBC Persian coverage on the CIA Coup (Counter Coup?) of 1953 with historian Mashallah Adjoudani and former Imperial Iran's Ambassador to the UK Parviz Radji:

NOTE: Parviz Radji (who has been a harsh critic of the Shah's last years of reign in his 1983 autobiography In the Service of the Peacock Throne, particularly for abandoning Hoveyda to his sad fate) say's the Shah had NOTHING to do with the Coup. See : Ex Ambassador Parviz Radji interview by Cyrus KADIVAR)

Roohash shad mard bozorg

Boy do we miss having great guys like Reza Shah and Attaturk today. Men with guts, honor, vision, modernity, lack of fear and true nationalists.  In less than one hundred years we went from leaders like them to likes of Khameni, antarinejad, moussavi, karoubi, larijani and so on. what a tragedy indeed...............

Mehrban Jaan I Beg to differ ...

I think you are seeing and judging Reza Shah's reign through the distorted view of contemporary democratic ideals ( which however respectable and necessary in respect to universal standards and values we both share, should not blur the hisotrical realities of the time) of our times rather than looking objectively at the Challenges which he and his regime ( and successive governments) faced in a terribly backward nation at the time ( very much comparable to Afghanistan today) in it's march towards mondernity.

You speak as if Iran was a Constitutional Monarchy merely because it had a Constitution. That was not the case either under the last Qajar Rulers No more than under the First Pahlavi King.

It was however applied to the letter during the first 12 years of Reza Shah's successor and Son Mohamed Reza Pahlavi prior to the so called Coup of 1953 which personally I do not consider it to be a Coup but a Counter Coup from a purely Constitutional Point of View. Which does not mean that it was a GOOD Thing that the Shah  Overthrew Mossadegh but that it was LEGAL !

I hope you see the difference in the above statement where I am merely trying to be the devils advocate in an attempt to understand rather than merely judge the historical events that shaped our history in the past 50 to 100 years.

Democracy is first and foremost a mindset. For it to be truly applied it needs to be understood by the people at large ( which was not at all the case in Iran in the 1930's) as much as the mechanisms of politics and political life of a nation in a perfectly democratic society.

Some nations aquired democracy and particularly in it's parliamentary form either through revolutions or reforming their existing systems of government into a democratic system.

The Transition was not always easy to achieve in any European country all the more that at the very time of Reza Shah's reign the very democratic nations like Germany and Italy were democratically electing totalitarian politicians to take power quite democratically.

What the French call Poujadist or Boulangism mentality is what charecterized European Politics and particularly French Politics since the time of Napoleon Bonapart's Reign and Napoleon III's Coup which continued to endure up to the Vichy Government.

It was not until De Gaulle's 5th Republic drafted in 1953 that France has aquired a stable Political Constitution which prevails to this day.

The Power Struggle between Strong willed men ready to take power and assume it was always the corner stone of political change throughout the 19th and early 20th century.

Reza Shah's Iran and Ataturk's Turkey were not exceptions to the rule ...

Reza Shah's generation believed that any type of progress including democracy was not possible without modernity.

To claim they were wrong in retrospect is an easy shot because the majority of the people at the time had no experience of democracy in Iran except theoratically.

Reza Shah very much like King Louis XIV of France or Napoleon Bonapart is respected to this day not for humanistic virtues like Brotherly love but for turning Iran into a modern State.

Louis XIV is famous for saying "L'Etat C'est Moi" and continues to be admired for this despite his eccentricities such as having built the most expensive Chateau in the World ( Versailles) to glorify his reign. Why ? Not because he was a democrat but because he put his country on the map !

The same is true for Reza Shah.

You cannot transform a country into a pure democracy overnight unless there is a mobilization triggered by larger than life events like Revolutions or national upheavals where ideas flourish and civil participation is at the fullest. Yet even in Revolutions we learn that the hopes and illusions they create are often disappointed because of extremists who usually end up taking power thanks to cynical calculations and political opportunism.

We know today that there are other ways of achieving democracy today and in a much more progressive and bloodless way such as for the Velvet Revolutions in Eastern Europe that were to bring down the most powerful and totalitarian regime which even possessed the nuclear power such as the Soviet Union and it's satellite countries.

But that mentality was inexistent not only in Iran but in nearly all European countries of the time between the two world wars.

The 1930's in particular saw the rise of Totalitarian States both Right Wing like in Italy and Germany or Left Wing like in Stalinist Russia.

After all the word Socialism also exists in National Socialism ...

So to accuse Reza Shah of being corrupt by power is in my opinion a very biaised judgement which we make from our High Horse mindset convinced that democracy is the best of systems ( which it is in fact but was not seen as such at the time - nor entirely implanted in the minds of a vastly poor and uneducated people at large ) that do not take into account the social and political realities of the time particularly in Iran.

We speak about Reza Shah today in the same way some american moralists speak about the challenges of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan: "Go give them democracy and all will be solved"

When in fact democracy in such conditions equates giving power to warlords or separatists at best.

Mossadegh himself did not display an entirely perfect record as a democrat by dissolving the Parliament which was anti Constitutional. Only the King could do that as head of State.

That the Constitution was imperfectly drafted or partially drafted based on the aspirations of the Constitutional Revolutionaries is one thing but to claim that Mossadegh was a Democrat only because he opposed the Shah or was a Nationalist is where many attacks on the Pahlavi Kings falls short.

Reza Shah was a Strong willed man for sure. A Democrat Certainly Not but he was the right man for his time and the only person who could bring Iran into the 20th century.

As a matter of fact he failed to remain in power not because of his compatriots who may have wished to overthrow him but because of foreign powers and the Allies in their fight against Nazi Germany. I personally think that He was not toppled because the British or Russians felt he may join the Axis of Evil of the time ( Germany-Italy- Japan) but because again of Oil. Also because Iran was on the Allies route to help the Russians fight Germany on the Eastern Front after the Nazis Attacked The Soviet Union ( Breaking the Hitler Stalin Non Aggression Pact under the supervision of their respective emmissaries Molotov - Ribbentrop).

If it were not for Oil and Iran's Strategic Interests the allies probably would not have even set foot in Iran as they did not set foot in Portugal or Spain or Switzerland all of which also had close diplomatic relations with Hitler and Mussolini yet all three countries avoided getting involved in the Second World War.

That is why I think it is simplistic to always look at history through the distorted lens of our times.

Before judging and era and the people who shaped it one needs to understand it.

And that does not mean that Reza Shah's reign or type of government is beyond criticism in terms of democratic or humanitarian values or our contemporary understanding of how political life should be run in an Ideally democratic society.

My humble opinion,

DK    

FYI/ Reza Shah's Veil Ban Defended in French Burqa Ban Debate

CE SOIR OU JAMAIS: Reza Shah's Veil Ban Defended in French Burqa Ban Debate

Power Corrupts

This is an exerpt of a blog by Arash Monzavi Kia titled "British Persian or German?".

[Unfortunately, Reza Shah was fundamentally an illiterate bully who soon became intoxicated with power! As the power corrupts, Reza became more and more callous, suspicious and brutal in the treatment of, first the opposition, and then even his own allies and friends. The opposing members of parliament (e.g. Modarres, and Mosaddeg) were banished and exiled. All the political parties were pushed out, and the Majles elections became a process of backroom nominations followed by routine vote rigging by the army and police chiefs. The government intellectuals (like Teymourtash) were initially complacent in that sordid departure from the principles of constitutional monarchy, until they too became victims of the dictator’s unrelenting greed and paranoia. One by one, the same team of luminaries who had elevated Reza Khan from a Cossack to the war minister, the prime minister and finally the Shah; became targets of the secret police investigations; ended up in jail on trumped up charges; and were poisoned or tortured to death by Reza Shah’s notorious gang of henchmen.]  

//iranian.com/main/2009/jan/british-persian-or-german

Ps. If we do not tell the truth about the past, we can not expect others to tell the truth about the present.