How come Iran never modernized like Japan in the 19th century?

[Type 052D]

@Era_293 Wow! Great statement you made there! Iran, like China, suffered alot in the 19/20th centur due to western powers. But I do hope the future is bright for your nation.

 

[Ir.Tab.]

This is not about being a Turk doctator or Persian dictator. It's simply about dictatorship.

That was exactly what I said. The Gajar was part of not all the the long sad story. The impact of 1953 coup on the future of Iran was equal to the all disasters Iran has had in the history.

No one is defending Pahlavi era. but we all know if Pahlavi had stayed, Iran would become a modern and a developed country.

This is impossible. A modern and a developed nation never accepts a dictator government. If Pahlavi had stayed, the Shah had to stop the human development indexes to save his dictatorship.

A dictator has only two options:
1- He says goodbye if he decided to develop the country.
2- He stops the development indexes, to rule further. For example by restrictions on media, newspapers, internet.

And a puppet.Qajars tended to keep people illeterate to stay in power and only cared about their Herems and 72 virgins. Pahlavi was a dictator, he wanted to make Iran modern

Shah had thought he will be able to develop the country within his dictatorship. The result of Pahlavi attitude, by presenting a modern secular government as an anti-religious one, is more complicated now!

all the world powers closed their eyes on what his regime was doing to people and supported it by all means.

Maybe not by all means! He was the reason of the sudden rise in the oil prices. That was threatening the west development. West were not so happy with that. In fact, blue eye men alarmed him by all means!

West has the habit of planning. As part of West plan, Iran was replaced by SA.

 

[Solomon2]

I explained it above.Your country was supporting a police state, a dictatorship that served its interests in ME and also to keep Soviets out of ME with help of Turkey and Iran.There was no 'human rights' back then, no one criticized the Shah even for once in the west.That's why people, from Islamists to Communist,from believers to Atheists revolted against him and toppled him...after the revolution, suddenly U.S started to care about humanity,women's right and democracy

The U.S. transition from supporting the Pahlavis unreservedly to criticizing their human rights record was made before the revolution and has been cited by many expatriate Iranians as the reason the Savak switched sides.

The abuse of women under the mullahs' regime was - is - indeed an element that didn't seem to exist under the Shah. As for the Commies and liberals, Khomeini exiled and/or executed them as soon as he could.

People didn't revolt against Shah because he was 'modernizing Iran', but they did it because he was an oppressor.

I agree. It has been the Democratic Party which blamed the modernization efforts supported by its Republican predecssors for the Revolution. After all, the Revolution happened under a Democratic Administration and they were keen to deflect blame.

One interesting fact about attacking U.S embassy in '79 was U.S actions against Iranian people during Shah's time.That's not something you hear everyday in mainstream U.S media.Though I am still against that attack on U.S embassy and think it was a mistake,but there was a chain of events that led to this incident.

Attacking diplomats was a major violation of the laws of nations, regardless of whether the embassy is held to be an enemy or not. Can you recall the last time a nation's embassy had been attacked by its host? No, the Germans didn't do it, nor the Allies, nor the Bolsheviks. I think the Chinese did it in the Boxer Rebellion over a hundred years before and paid dearly for it. Reaching further back I can only recall the violations of Caesar's ambassadors by the Gauls.

If the '53 Coup had not happenned, most probably Iran wouldn't be an Islamic Republic today, but a constitutional monarchy and a democracy and also, a first world modern country.

I tend to agree. The Brits and Americans should have been able to reach a suitable arrangement with the socialist regime. I think the Russians messed up Western intelligence on this matter - Khruschev makes a veiled reference in his memoir about Russia taking advantage of the West not always distinguishing between Communist and nationalist movements. Yet that cannot excuse Khomeini and his followers for their deliberate intent and deeds to destroy Iran's nascent republic in the early stages of the revolution.

people still remember and talk about that coup and how it destroyed their country

Like the Russians used to talk about how the Germans were responsible for their ruin even into the 1980s? Iran's lands and economy were not scorched and devastated under the Shah but under the mullahs.

...what a regular U.S citizen sees in media, is how Iran wants to 'destroy the world'...reminds me of the last scene of Gangs of New York,and how that imporatant people and incidents buried under history. God, I love that movie, it's truly a masterpiece.

I see I miss a few things by not immersing myself in common culture and developing a separate perspective instead. It doesn't sound important except in the sense that it misleads you: if you think U.S. leaders pay attention to uninformed warmongering commentators when deciding Iran policy you then must explain why the mullahs' Iran hasn't yet been attacked by the U.S., not even in retaliation for the embassy takeover.

 

[Type 052D]

@Solomon2 I think the revolution of 79 was an good thing. It gave Iranians are more secular stance on issues that were considered taboo. It is an form of enlightenment under the disguise of an theocracy. A strange phonimium for an near-eastern nation. The Turks were given secularism by an plate (Ataturk) while the Iranians will work hard to gain it. I hope China too will become an democracy, and the preservation of Han Culture should be an priority (i.e. back to traditional script instead of simplified, Confucius as the state ideology etc)

 

[TurAr]

@Solomon2 I think the revolution of 79 was an good thing. It gave Iranians are more secular stance on issues that were considered taboo. It is an form of enlightenment under the disguise of an theocracy. A strange phonimium for an near-eastern nation. The Turks were given secularism by an plate (Ataturk) while the Iranians will work hard to gain it. I hope China too will become an democracy, and the preservation of Han Culture should be an priority (i.e. back to traditional script instead of simplified, Confucius as the state ideology etc)

Yeah, Atatürk said "from now on, we are secular" and voila!

 

[jandk]

Japanese are an exceptional race. Extremely disciplined, nationalistic and militaristic. I don't think there is any other people on the planet who are as nationalistic as the Japanese. And I am talking about true nationalism, not just jingoism which everyone seems to be attracted to.
In fact the above can be extended to east asians in general, however, even among the east asians, Japanese stand out.

 

[Type 052D]

Japanese are an exceptional race. Extremely disciplined, nationalistic and militaristic. I don't think there is any other people on the planet who are as nationalistic as the Japanese. And I am talking about true nationalism, not just jingoism which everyone seems to be attracted to.
In fact the above can be extended to east asians in general, however, even among the east asians, Japanese stand out.

Iranians are also nationalistic, they just need guidance. And what do you know about East Asian ? Ever heard of Confucius?

Yeah, Atatürk said "from now on, we are secular" and voila!

If Ataturk never existed, what are the chance of Turkey being secular? Erdogon is the representative of most Turks and you know it!

 

[TurAr]

If Ataturk never existed, what are the chance of Turkey being secular?

The Turks were given secularism by an plate (Ataturk) while the Iranians will work hard to gain it.

What i'm saying is, secularization of Turkey wasn't that easy as you put it.

Erdogon is the representative of most Turks and you know it!

Nope, i don't. People are voting him mostly because of economical reasons rather than ideological ones, and the reason behind his "success" is because of the weak opposition in Turkey and his master skills on playing with people's emotions and beliefs.

 

[Aegis DDG]

Why did't Iran modernize like us Japanese? They were sovereign nation who had the ability to decide it's own fate.

 

[Sam1980]

@TurAr Don't you think Erdogan has done a lot more for Turkey than what you're giving him credit for?
After all, you said it yourself, that reason for his success is the weak opposition, don't you think maybe he is doing the right thing?
You're living in Turkey and I'm not, so of course what I think is my current perception of Turkey, but in reality its the opinion of the people who live there that matters. I studied in Turkey for 2.5 years, but I'm no expert in Turkey internal affairs that is why I would like to know your opinion.

 

[AViet]

I believe that is wrong information about the so-called Tiger economies of East Asia that they only industrialised after WWII. In reality, Taiwan, Korea and Manchuria should be called "highly industrialized colonies" by around 1920 - 1930. They actually were very industrialized then (may be behind only some Western European countries like Germany, France and UK, but far ahead of most others). But due to Japanese occupation, they had no voices in international stage. After WWII, they were mostly destroyed, but like Japan and Germany, they just "regained" their positions with the help from US and favorable geo-political conditions, and not had to start industrialization from ground zero.

One can argue that was thank to Japanese occupation and investment, but I think it was largely thank to their highly industrious and relatively well-educated people.

Hong Kong and Singapore were never under-developed. They might have lower income per capita than European at early 20th century, but they were quite "developed" in trade then.

 

[TurAr]

@TurAr Don't you think Erdogan has done a lot more for Turkey than what you're giving him credit for?
After all, you said it yourself, that reason for his success is the weak opposition, don't you think maybe he is doing the right thing?
You're living in Turkey and I'm not, so of course what I think is my current perception of Turkey, but in reality its the opinion of the people who live there that matters. I studied in Turkey for 2.5 years, but I'm no expert in Turkey internal affairs that is why I would like to know your opinion.

I'm not sure if i undestand your question but if you are asking if the opposition is weak because there is not much thing to oppose in AKP's actions; that is not true.

The main reasons why the opposition is unsuccesful, in my opinion, are: The lack of leadership in Turkey's main opposition parties, CHP and MHP, particularly CHP under the leadership of Kemal Kılıçtaroğlu. He might be a good, honest politician but he is definetely not a leader. Most importantly, he lacks the necessary charisma while Erdogan is one of the most charismatic leader Turkey ever had.

Another reason is, one of the most important insturment of the opposition, media, is under heavy pressure by the Turkish government. Social media, however has been the most efficient ground of the Turkish opposition. When you meet with Turks in social media, you might think "no one likes AKP but they are the top party in Turkey, how come?" As i said, the reasons are: weak opposisiton, their relative success on economy and Erdogan's master skills on manipulation.

 

[Silverblaze]

Every country that thinks in terms of a nation state has made progress.

Iran could have been a mid sized super power may be even better than Germany of today. Power struggle, internal instability and imperial conspiracies were the main reasons.

Iranians need to become a nation state once again and encourage everyone irrespective of faith and need to be more diplomatic with everyone.

If Iran attains more stability and democracy, Iran's gdp could be twice as large as turkey due to is oil.