Pictory

Merci

Merci merci merci pour cette vidéo ! Un vrai plaisir de l'avoir decouvert !
Merci d'avoir illustre aussi clairement et habillement ce qu'était le Sha d'Iran.
Beaucoup ne l'ont pas aimé, mais forcés a reconnaitre sont action pour son pays. ..
L'Iran a besoin d'être mieux connu par la communauté internationale et votre video est un bon support pour cela. casino en ligne

Shah interview

Interviewer is Mike Wallace; it is on youtube.

ENFIN! Je commencais a "abandonner tout espoir" !!

J'ai verifie de temps en temps "ICI"(pour etre honete, plutot tous les jours, pendant toute une semaine!), mais sans de succes...! Puis, j'me suis dit; si elle visite ce site a tous les jours,,,, alors...? Peut-etre qu'elle ne reviendra plus jamais sur cette section de "pictory", le Shah d'Iran,,,,ou qu'elle ne veut tout simplement pas me repondre!! Ah! excusez- moi, avant tout, je vous dis merci d'avoir au moin repondu a mon commentaire. Vous etes tres gentille.Et merci pour prendre le temps de m'expliquer pourquoi vous avez un intérêt pour l'Iran et sa culture. Merci aussi pour LE titre (!), "bin" oui, "québécois de souche"!! J'ai tout simplement oublie le bon Francais (de comprendre!). Plutot, Je n'sais meme plus parler l'Francais. Ah, que j'ai la langue "rouille". Franchement c'est difficile apres 15 ans (presque),,, de parler l'Francais (ou encore pire pour l'ecrire!). La langue avec la quelle j'ai grandi, de primaire jusqu'a la fin de mes etude secondaire, puis au college (St-Laurent)... Puis aujourd'hui, il faut que je pense une heure avant de dire un mot (ou de l'comprendre)! Malheuresement, a part d'un accent Quebecois (on me le dit souvent), j'ai pratiquement tout oublie... En plus, je suis entoure des anglophones et contraire a votre situation, j'ai personne (a part la tv!) a m'aider a me raffraichir la memoire. Tans pis pour moi. En tout cas, chere Mme Quebeqi, je suis tres enchante de vous "connaitre". Man ham, Omid vaaram ke harcheh zoodtar faraanseh'am bargardeh va dobaareh ravoon-o dorost HARF BEZANAM :)

Madame Quebeqi

Bonjour Madame Québéqi,

Je suis vraiment émerveillé de votre intérêt à l'Iran, car l'Iran n'est pas très bien connu à travers le Québec (ou, au moins en Outaouais, où je vis). Cela étant dit, je constate un intérêt grandissant de la part des québécois de mieux connaitre l'Iran, face aux intrigues que nous entendons sur le pays de nos jours dans les médias internationaux. Par ailleurs, l'histoire qu'a suscitée votre intérêt à l'Iran est également intéressante. Je vous félicite pour votre ouverture ainsi que votre curiosité culturelle et j'aimerais que vous sachiez que ça nous fait plaisir de savoir que vous êtes intéressée de nous connaitre.

Cordialement,
Vahid

De Souche!

Hé oui cher monsieur le Pape, je suis une vraie québécoise, car mon père était québécois pur laine quoique ma mère est originaire du Nouveau-Brunswick. Quant mon intérêt pour l'Iran et sa culture, cela remonte à mon enfance. Mon père avait une soeur qui a épousé un écossais qui a travaillé à l'aluminerie d'Arak à la fin des années 60 début 70. À cette époque, peu de québécois allaient en Iran et cela a suscité mon intérêt pour le pays et les aventures de ma tante y sont pour quelque chose. C'est ensuite devenu une obsession pour moi que plus tard j'ai poursuivi des études de 2ème et de 3ème cycle (non terminées) à l'Université McGill, me spécialisant bien sûr dans l'histoire de l'Iran du XXème siècle, particulièrement l'époque Pahlavi.

Pour ce qui est de l'étude du persan, j'ai malheureusement presque tout oublié de mes connaissances de la langue mais quelques bons amis iraniens m'aident à me rafraichir la mémoire. Omid varam ke dar ayandeh behtar farsi arf mi-shavam :)...

Mme. Quebeqi

Etes-vous totalement Quebecoise? Je veux dire que vous n'avez aucune trace Iranien dans votre sang? Je suis juste curieux! Car, c'est un tout petit peu bizzarre d'avoir une Quebecoise sur un site Iranien! ...et qu'elle soit interesse a notre culture passionnement, comme vous l'dite car vous visitez ce site a tous les jours! wow! C'est tous simplement etonnant! En tous cas, nous aussi on est tres content d'avoir un ou plusieurs Quebecois(e)s ici.

P.S.: Le m'sieur vahid Isabeigi, just par son nom on peut deviner qu'il est un Iranien ou d'origine Perse. Mais vous...!

Des québécois sur iranian.com

Je suis très contente d'apprendre qu'il y a des québécois fascinés par l'histoire et la culture iranienne qui visitent ce site. Mis à part mes compatriotes d'origine iranienne qui sont préoccupés par ce qui se passe dans le pays de leurs ancêtres, rares sont les québécois de "souche", dont je fais partie du lot, qui s'y intéressent passionnément. Pour ma part, je visite ce site à tous les jours et j'y découvre des choses qu'on ne retrouve pas dans les livres et que les universités et les média évitent soigneusement afin de ne pas faire fâcher les khomeinistes et leurs amis. En effet, malheureusement, encore aujourd'hui, le québécois moyen n'a droit qu'à une partie de l'information au sujet de l'Iran et de ses courageux citoyens. Si ce n'était de l'internet et des nombreux sites iraniens qu'on y retrouve, dont bien sûr, Iranian.com fait partie, les québécois, tout comme les autres nations du monde, auraient accès qu'à une vision de l'Iran prédigérée et auto-censurée. Motashakeram Iranian.com! Shoma kheili khoubi hastid!

Pour ce qui est de ce vidéo sur le Shah, en allant directement sur Youtube les problèmes de son y sont moins important, j'y suis allé il y a quelques semaines et la qualité du son me semblait normale.

M. Kadivar, j'adore vos chroniques et je crois que je suis une de vos meilleures fans. Poursuivez votre bon travail et continuez à faire "le malcommode"; cela donne le piquant qui rend ce site si savoureux. :)

J'aimerais l'entendre nettement...

Monsieur Kadivar,

Est-ce qu'il vous serait possible de nous fournir la même vidéo avec un son plus audible? Franchement, peu importe les efforts que j'ai faits pour entendre le contenu, il me semble que j'ai de la misère à entendre ce qu'ils disent là-dedans. J'ai même eu recours à mes hauts-parleurs, mais cela aussi a été en vain. Même si je ne suis nullement fasciné par le chah, il y a des récits que je voulais écouter.

Cordialement,
Vahid Isabeigi,
Québec, Canada

Rep: John Carpenter

After the supid revolution, A L L evil peasants who took power had a thirst to live in Shemiran and they A L L did and still do TODAY... Some are still living in Sa'd abad Palace, like the famous Iranian monkey Antarinejad who rushed there from Golbarg st. (old name b4 rev.) to Shemiran.

Anyway your ugly hindu khomeini did the same and he settle down at Hosseineyeh-e Jamaran cuz it's located in one of Alborz's valley in Shimiran.There, he was safe from the public who wanted to kill him and put an end to his evil revolution & plans. The said "mosque", was in my neiborhood, only 5 min from our... Anyway, it has nothing to do with Mehr st.(a lot of street, blv., properties were named Mehr... before the rev. cuz of the Araymehr's kindness..., but the stupid regime changed all of those names with "shahid" names that they killed themselves! Only Mehrabad airport name is still the same today as it was before the rev., cuz...,,,, I'll let you guess more so you can come up with more nonsense)

So, that fact that the name of Mehrabad airport stayed the same has nothing to do with khomeini's face being full of "mehr", but maybe you're right about his face being full of "noor" cuz while he was in exile, the French shoved a neon tube lamp up his ass in order to get his face "nooraani"! You know better how hard France worked to get him in power.

PS: Dear John, ANY flight outside a country for any reason it's not considered as a"domestic flight" but rather int'l.

Happy to know that you are totally Persian. But why you love the arabs and their regime so much??

MehrAbad name wasn't changed because...

there is a rumor in Iran that the name MehrAbad was not changed after the revolution because Ayat'Allah Ruh'Allah Moosavi Khomeini either lived on Mehr street or because his face was full of "noor" or "mehr". It has nothing to do with the Pahlavi era. The Pahlavi era was abolished on Feb 11,1979.

The MehrAbad-Saudi Arabia flight doesn't count as an international flight. over 99% of Iranians have to make a trip there once in a life time if monetarily possible.

As for me, Saudi is not my motherland. I am 100% persian born in the U.S.A.

John carpenter

Mehrabad is not for domestic use only. It still has few Int'l flights.

Like to your mother-land (Saudi Arabia).

PS: The name of Tehran's airport, Mehrabad, is one of the few official properties left from the Shah's era without a name change. For some reason, the mullahs were not able to change it.

Bejoon azizam

How you refer to dead people says it all. Khomeini passed away ..., next time you visit Iran, don't forget to visit his grave and pay homage to your hero of 1357, while at it don't forget your own dead relatives!

Mehdi

Shah's quote was not exactly what you wrote. I think he said something like "You blue eyed blondes should learn to work instead of making others work for you!"

I would love to see a reference to this.

Ali1: Mehrabad is no longer an international airport...domestic

Mehrabad is for domestic flights only.

the french should keep the mouth shut....

these are the same people that glorified khomeini and gave him a unlimited access so he could spew his illiterate poison all over the media- and they were the ones that transported him from paris to tehran
and they let hoveyda die at the hands of these butchers- so hearing this "documentary" makes me sick- because it is made by the same people that basically `had a huge hand in ruining iran!
once we're back home, we should make sure not to deal with these two-faced blood suckers!
ps. these guys, just like the chinese, russians, brits don't give a hoot about the mullahs' brutal oppression of the iranian people- they just want their piece of the iranian pie and our wealth of natural resources
JUST IMAGINE WHAT IRAN WOULD BE LIKE NOW HAD THE MULLAHS BEEN WIPED OUT! I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT BE HERE- I DREAM OF THE DAY WHEN I CAN GET OF THE PLANE AND KISS THE GROUND AT MEHRABAD AIRPORT!!!
JAVID IRAN

Reply: Botshekan

I certainly agree with the fact that Mr. Zahedi can not be objective nor Mr. Sahebjam, though I do not know of Sahebjams family background and that is beside the point, Sahebjams understanding of figures are totally ludicrous!

Couple of days a go there was an article on Iranian.com, about how Iran and Spain shared some similarities during 1970s. I would like to add that before 1973 a spanish woman had to bring the written permission of her husband/father in order to open a bank account ...

So why not put things into perspective, when we as Iranians discuss Iran and her achievements before and after the mess, which by the way is our own making.

cheers Fatollah

A Few answers to all and BotShekan in particular ...

Thank you all for your comments positive or negative.

I do not have the monopoly of historical truth nor do you. But like all historical documents and documentaries, what counts is the information, debate or understanding that they can generate on an era. Up to everyone to draw their own conclusions.

History is not an exact science but I am sure you all would agree  despite your different views that historical research does evolve with time and will continuosly offer new food for thought and debate.

Unless you still believe that history should be approached with tainted and rosey glasses as your childhood Kindergarten years then you are certainly going to be dissappointed and frustrated all your life that a definitive book on the history of mankind will never EVER be published in your lifetime or beyond until well the end of human life on earth. But even then if Man will be able to inhabit other planets which does not seem impossible, Mankind will continue to record its history amongst the living species.

Beyond this philisophical observation, I should say that Botshekan for once does have a point ( even if I do not share his argument) and that is that the views presented by Ardeshir Zahedi and Fereydoun Sahebjam or of any other witness ( Nahavandi, the French jewel makers etc ) are debateable. I would add that is also the case for nearly anyone's view on any given period of history and in any historical documentary.

What he seems to fail to understand is that to judge a documentary or historical presentation its not enough to refute it based only on his own frustration or personal resentment of the people interviewed. Do you think it is possible to understand the Islamic Republic today without ever interviewing or hearing the arguments of those in power or even its supporters ? You seem to have made up your mind definitvely on even the circumstances that led to the Revolution as if you were yourself in the circles of Power and present at all occasions. Well maybe you were and are even a former member of the Darbar turned bitter but then why hide behind a pseudonym ? If you have a particular insight on that era and have proof to sustain your arguments why not share it with others on this site than try and bad mouth me when you don't like my posts ? Who is stopping you. If you think one documentary or film or book will change the course of history you are wrong. It is this type of unjustified emotional reaction that discourages debate. I don't claim you should not have that type of reaction, I am just saying that you are not contributing to any form of dialogue or understanding of what you think was wrong with that era except expressing your anger and loath towards people who you have never met, nor know anything about except what you may have read about them. Does that give you the right to claim that what they say or offer as an argument is of no interest ? Why bother writing books on history then ? Why bother recording any testimony on grounds that they are biaised because of what those people are or were ?

Even if someone was a criminal like lets say Adolf Hitler and that one had the oppurtunity to interview people who knew him or worked with him in order to understand the psychology of the man and the era should a historian refrain from doing that ? Your reaction reminds me of the three monkey's : Don't Listen, Don't Look, Don't Talk for it may be dangerous ...

Well most people are not ignorant Monkey's or need to be told what to think or what conclusion they should make in seeing a documentary, a film or reading a book.

There is a major difference between historical revisionism ( a speciality of the Islamic Republic Leadership) and a historical comparitive study or research that aims at understanding a given period and confronting what we already know as a fact with what we discover over time be it in documents, interviews of major political actors or witness' of a given era.

Let's take three major era's regarding French History on which much has been written and keeps on being written today:

1) The French Revolution

2) The Napoleonic Era

3) French Occupied France

French and non French Historians debate passionately on these major era's and will continue to do so in the future. One may ask what are the issues of debate on these era's ? Is it on the fact that they actually took place or on the reason's that made them occur ?

After all which serious historian would claim that the French Revolution was a minor incident or that it never happened ? The same with the other two era's. That would be a revisionist theory that alas has been and probably always be defended by a minor few who will always try to pollute our knowledge on a given era  like the KKK, the Neo Nazi's or Totalitarian regimes like that of Iran today that question the reality of the Holocaust.  

But to offer arguments as is the case in this excellent documentary on the reasons that led to the fall of the monarchy in Iran through the lens of some of those who were part of the regime and who wish to also sincerely and objectively share their own vision of what happened and explain their own failures or success' does not seel to me as an attempt to revise history but try and record it. All the more that the documentary is made by an outsider who can always confront what he records with what has been recorded since and draw his own conclusions and interpretations without being hostage to the testimonies that he is confronted too.

Similarily I cannot concieve a similar documentary on the ISlamic Revolution of Iran be it in favor or against it without interviewing key figures of the revolution itself. What the documentarian does or not do in the interpretation he wants to convey of the interview is ultimately up to him.

As far as this documentary is concerned I would say that it is neither for or against the Shah of Iran or the Royal Institution he represented. It does try however to be in "empathy" which consists of putting you in the shoes of the people it is interested in and that is the key players of that era, be it the Shah or his ministers in order to understand their motivations and their behaviour at the time and their conclusions today. I think that is after akk what a serious attempt in a historical study is all about.

The major difference with other disciplines particularly scientific discoveries is that historical understanding is not something that appears spontaneously but with the passage of time. Such a documentary which is uses "empathy" and not "sympathy" to understand a given era, society and or historical figure is never possible at the time of the events. First because it would be indecent to try and draw immediate conclusions at the incidents of the Cinema Rex or Jaleh Square immediately at the time when they happened and claim that: THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED, and Who was behind these incidents. Only Time can allow a more unpassionate observation and recollection and confrontation of all documents and testimonies in order to accurately or at least with the most accuracy try and grasp the truth of what happened and why they happened. It is not enough to claim that an incident is tragic. That is after all the nature of human history at large since the dawn of time. What matters is to try and understand why they happened and how these events have shaped or continue to shape our society today.

In regard to the Islamic Revolution we will always have those who will claim it was a good thing and inevitable others who will say it was a bad thing and could have been avoided. Both arguments are valid if they offer proof and logical arguments.

I simply always believed that knowledge of the Past always helps clarify the present. I also believe that we will never have a satisfying definitive answer to any event because they imply lives of real people and that no human life or death is a minor or insignificant incident in human history be it that of a King, President, Revolutionary or simple citizen. It is up to every individual to prioritize them according to their own sensitivities and experience.

I personally found this documentary quite objective even if I do disagree on some details and interpretations but that will always be the case for any documentary I suppose because it is ultimately a personal view or thesis on a given era or set of events and people involved.

Last but not least, this is a documentary not a propaganda film aghayeh Botshekan. You may not like to see the images of the Shah getting married to Fawzia, Soraya or Farah or the images of the Persepolis or Coronation celebrations or the News Reels of the Time but they are part of History and the History of that era. If you think that History is about satisfying YOUR OWN personal Tastes, well I am sorry I can't help you ...

Best,

DK.

Arabisation...!

Mr. D. Kadivar, merci pour partager. On apprecie toujours les documentaires sur nos monarques, meme si c'est "deja vu". Mais,,, quand meme, merci encore!

Pendant la regne du Shah, nos jours glorieux, l'Iran etais dans une epoque de "conte de fee"!!

En tout cas, la fin du documentaire est vraiment triste. Surtout quand le narrateur explique la contribution des arabs (lib., syr., pal.) dans la revolution et leurs participation dans les rues de Teheran. Quelque chose que j'ai vecu et vue avec mes yeux (palestiniens) quand j'etais tres jeunes... Le gendarmerie (shahrbaani) les arreter par dizaines juste devant notre maison avec l'aide de mes...,,, mais malheuresement...

Les "taazi", ces maudits chiens, ces putains de trou de cul, ont enfin reussi a tue notre culture Perse a cause d'une haine et jalousie inexplicable qu'ils ont vers nous depuis des centaines (milliers) d'annee.

Les cochons libanais, les syriens pourris et les mechants loups palestiniens qui ont chialer dans les rues de Teheran contre le pauvre Shah pour provoque une revolution "islamique(!)" tres bien planifier par les taazi (les clerges et l'Indien khomeini) et supporter par l'ouest, les super puissants.

...et malheuresement nous avons "glisser" (furtivement!) comme des cons!!!

(-exuser-moi pour la vulgarite!)

Si seulement, Le bon Shah n'etais pas "doux", ne vivait pas dans la crainte de Dieu et surtout s'Il faisais la meme chose que les Israeliens ont fait aux taazi (et qui continue a faire), l'Iran n'etais pas "VIran" aujourd'hui.

-vive la reine,,, et la monarchie constitutionnelle (Perse).

Fatollah Khan!

Thank you for your comment sir but my point was that while Zahedi glamorized the Shah senselessly, Sahebjam, demonized him just the same way. These guys are both prejudiced in their assessments and their views are colored by their personal likes and dislikes of the man. Zahedi, being the Shah's son-in-law could not come across objectively and Sahebjam, being a disaffected son of a wealthy family (and subservient of the Pahlavi kings) cannot be relied upon for objective views.

The Shah was the man

Lots of people hate him, but i think he was just a guy trying to make progress in a messed up country like Iran

fabrique a E.u

the problem lies under the akhond's turban ,that if you 've to take it off it wouuld say; MADE IN U.S.A

peace on earth

Javid Shah !!

Shahanshah !

It is from within the lie that is the Islamic Republic that we can start to stare out towards the truth.

Kaar ke Tamaamee nadaareh: Work in Progress

Imperial Advise: Tolerating Disorder

If
You
Are
About
To get out of your mind in anger
By seeing some traits of disorder
In your marbled all shiny immaculate palace
Then let me take you
To Darfur refugee camp
So you just begin to appreciate
The existing order you have been already enjoying in glitter
For as far as order goes
It is a steady job in progress
With no end in sight and way far

Now let me imagine the perfect utopia
With the eye of my mind
While closing both of my eyes

A.H. Danesh Copyright ©2008 A.H. Danesh

Mehdi Jaan

If I'm correct,it was Mike Wallace's interview with Shah:

//uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DKYlvyZwHHU&feature=related

//uk.youtube.com/watch?v=66-jkx36BPc

Best wishes

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

I LOVE HIM ! He was too good for us.

I guess this government is just what we deserve.
"GALAYEH HARCHI LAYEH"

Javid Shah !

Dk: There is another interview I am looking for

In it Shah says something like "... blue-eyed people must know that we will not be selling crude oil to them anymore..." or something to that effect. Do you have that one? It is in English - Shah is speaking in English. I don't remember who the interviewer is or where it took place.

Grandpa's Favorite

Is Mr. Kadivar ever going to reliaze that Shah died almost 30 yrs ago, Khomeini passed away 20 yrs ago & Farah is now almost 80 yrs old & looks very "gravey??"
As Mr. Kadivar & his alike are getting closer to their departure from this world they are still amusing themselves with the oldies!!
Grandpas/Granmas are all the same. They watch old tapes/movies over & over again even though they do not understand a word of its foreign language!! So long!!

sources of reference

What did F. Sahebjam say?!? Sahebjam mentioned the cruelty of Savak during General Nasiris reign, the corruption during Shahs era- how he payed off US Senators, politicians, Journalists, businessmen and so on, how he put $1000,000,000 of oil moeny into his pockets (that is each year of course)! And how he spent $2000,000,000 for the 2500 years festivities! So, dear Mr. Botsehakan what is wrong with the source of reference?

Glamorizing! Pro-Shah or Anti-Shah, you be the judge!

Personally, I think you could buy a medium size European city for that amount of money spent for the celebrations in 1971!

> retourner sa veste

To answer your question Safa Ali, it's actually pro and anti at the same time. very french in fact.

French were among the most strongest Revolution supporters back in 79. At the same time,during Giscard's era (former french president during the 70s, az oon pedar sokhteh a bood believe me) France and Iran were culturally and economically very close. As a reminder, France was one of the very 1st country to sell nuclear technology to the Shah back in 71, the rest is History...

There's a french expression to describe someone who betrays anyone as often as possible, ''retourner sa veste'' wich litteraly means to put his jacket upside up.
And God knows how good they are at this game.

In 81, France made the choice to back up Irak during the war. They feared an unstoppable expension of the Shia inspired revoltion to the rest of the region. Even tho Iran owned (and still to this day) 10% of one the main nuclear developping company in Europe called Eurodif (just google Eurodif+Iran who'll have all the details).

M. Kadivar, cela m'etonne de vous que de mettre en ligne ce genre de documentaire. A croire que votre monarchisme vous aveugle par moment. Ceci dit, je l'ai deja vu, partageant moi meme certains de vos positionements imperiaux.

Ce qui me gene toutefois dans votre approche est ce cote vassal (vous me pardonnerez ma franchise) que vous laissez transparaitre au sujet de sa Majeste. Seriez-vous plus royaliste que le Roy ? Tres certainement.

Bonne continuation a vous, a bientot peut etre au Trocadero

; )

is this documentary pro or anti shah?

i wish i could understand french, is this pro or anti shah?