Customer Reviews

Answer to History

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

As a young Iranian living in the United States, I became involved in anti-shah activities common among the Iranian youth
inspired by leftist ideologies in the 1970's. But the hindsight is always 20/20. Reading this book has given me a different perspective of the man and his ideas, his philosophies and his wishes for a nation who supported him whole-heartedly after second World War and who turned against him in 1979. Now I understand that his aspirations for modernization and curbing the yokes of religious fanaticism levelled against our people by the Mullahs during the past several centuries were the right cure for the ills of our society. I regret my contributions to the creation of the current turmoil in my beloved homeland, by my actions against a man and a government that loved his country and could not be called anything but a patriot.

This book was dictated by the Shah when he was already dying of cancer. It is, therefore, not surprising that it comes across as choppy, uneven and, at times, even confusing. But , once one learns how to set its defects aside, theShah's book provides many keys to his complex mind.
Here is a man with a vision for " a great civilisation" in a country that has justly been hailed as the birthplace of some of the world's greatest cultures. Whether one shares that vision or not is a different matter. In 1978-79 sufficient numbers of Iranians, though not a majority,rejected that vision and, instead, opted for an " Islamic" model promoted by the mullahs.
The Shah's vision is now past history.There is no way that present-day Iran can become one of the world's five major powers as the Shah had dreamed.
The Shah's " Answer to History" is best appreciated if read in conjunction with some of the biographies evoted to him in recent years. I recommend three of them: William Shawcross's " The Shah's Last Ride" which is the best in covering the fallen monarchs last few months of life in exile, Amir Taheri's critical but sympathetic " The Unknown Life of the Shah", and Marvin Zonis's " Majestic Failure" whcih reads like a Western indictment of the late monarch but , unintentionally perhaps, also reveals his gratness.
James Malone, Canberra, Australia

This book changed my perception of the Shah, who was demonized in the "Western" world. I understood what it was he was trying to do for his country has admire him for those efforts. I used to believe that the Shah was evil but that view has changed. I wish the best to the Iranian nation. One of my best reads ever!

A good first book for those trying to learn more about the revolution and the Shah's policies. I highly recommend this book!

I read this book several times. It's one of the most valuable and precious sources for all of the Iranians to know shah and his thoughts in his own word. I recommend this book for anyone who's trying to find the truth about the Islamic Revolution of Iran.

It's now 2009 now and after 30 years Iranians still have no clue what they did. A little heart felt wisdom would have really helped them so much. After reading this book and speaking with many Iranians today, I think they should become educated regarding the definition of words. Dictator would be the first word I would encourage every person to learn the meaning of.

Dictators don't make their decisions based on the advice of the consensus of their team like the shah did, they aren't primarily focused on increasing the freedom of those they serve like the shah did (according to Aristotle they serve their own good only), so they would not be paying for the living expenses and university education of over 100,000 Iranians that studied in the US and Europe. Dictators are not people who center their entire lives on helping people have the possibility to enhance their lives for example by growing the Iranian economy to 5 times that of Turkeys in 1979 (unlike today where it is only 40% the size of Turkeys after 3 trillion dollars in Oil Revenue).

Dictators build 100,000 square feet palaces for themselves. Saddam built over 20 in just 30 years and the shah didn't even build one. I guess between building mines, steel mills, hospitals, public courts and schools he realized the people he love needed freedom more than he needed a palace.

Instead of debating amongst each other, when Iranians realize what a dictator is and is not, their comments will make more sense and not be based on ignorance but based on wisdom.

Maybe they would then figure out why the media invented the label of dictator for the shah as well as others like a megalomaniac, a villain, a crook. The west used ignorant, uneducated, naive masses to humiliate the shah because they were against the freedom he had brought to Iran. The West purposely betrayed the Shah and his country.

His democratic friends worshiped money more than democracy or humanities spiritual journey as you can see from the results of betraying the shah. To think the USA wouldn't even supply the shah with tear gas or plastic bullets or any equipment to peacefully stop demonstrations on the one hand and then used their own media and other tools of soft power to topple the shah by inflaming Iranians about crimes that never existed. Shame on America. Shame on Carter. What disgraceful values America upholds. After what they have also done to Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq recently is it any wonder Americans are so disrespected globally today.

Frequently demonized in the west nowadays, this book is the autobiography of the last Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who was deposed in 1979 and replaced by an Islamist dictatorship that remains in power to this day. He describes his own life and struggles during his reign in Iran from 1941-1979, and he puts forth his own defense against the common accusations against him from western scholars, historians and the Islamist regime. The charges against him which he addresses includes corruption, repression by his security organizaton (S.A.V.A.K.), and working with the US to topple his own democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953. Interestingly, he admits that he made several grave mistakes that didn't help his image or his government, such as abolishing multiple political parties in favor of one legal political party. It's a rare politician indeed who admits his mistakes. Those who remain opposed to him will obviously not be convinced, but for those who want to hear his side of the story and entertain the possibility that he may not have been the monster that he is portrayed to be by western scholars and professors, this is a decent book.

The Shah of Iran is one of the least understood of the leaders of the 20th century. He made three fatal errors. He ordered his troops to rip the veils off women in order to force modernity upon the radical Muslims of Iran. He dealt with Israel with brought him the hatred of the Mullahs. Lastly he tried to emphasize a pre-Islamic past, a Persia where the capital was Persepolis. This went against the Islamic nature of erasing anything historical that comes before Islam. Thus the Shah drew the ire of the radical Muslims of Iran and he was ousted from power.

This book details his ideas and his efforts. He speaks openly about his anti-communism(the only thing he shared with the Mullahs) and about his military build up, trying to make Iran a world power. He speaks about his ideas of combining moderate Islam with a secular government. He speaks about the influence that Ataturk and Nasser had on him. He speaks about how he gave woment he right to vote and did not have a polygamous marriage.

This is an interesting book. Obviously it tells the Shahs story from his point of view, but his point of view is something we are to often deprived of in the West. In our time the Shah has been vilified as a ruthless leader who used American money to suppress his people. The reality, as he articulates, is that the radical Muslims created a far worse dictatorship where secret trials, execution and worse religious persecution were rampant. Iran might not have been perfect under the Shah but at least women could go to school, at least women could shake the hand of an `unrelated man' and at least dancing and beauty parlors were'nt illegal. An important book in light of the current opposition to Irans Muslim dictatorship.

This book was about the King of Iran that how American and England brought the 1979 Revolution in Iran. Plus,the King predict how the price of oil wuld go up, as well as, nuclear program of Iran in hands of mullah would cause problems for world safety.

Most appropriately titled, this is the best testament to one of the most mis-understood yet significant world leaders of the last century.

Reading this, one may ponder what many don't: IS democracy the best solution for all countries and regions? Iranian history and cultural pride are founded on having largest and longest lasting Empire (540-330 BC) and multiple resurgence. Even today's greatest super-power, the USA, is still under influence of the British monarchy (though well hidden). He has been the only leader post-WWII to reach such an apex, to come close to breaking from British emperial hold. His account illustrates the hippocricy and double-standard the West uses through the U.N. in western interest, and how it ultimately lead to his own personal and Iran's national demise

Under the Shah, Iran had a parlaimentary system much like Britain and the book explains many of the struggles the Shah had in making Iran's government and society self-governing with a quiet monarchy. Mossadegh loving Iranians may rethink their opinions (perhaps even wonder if he should have executed him for treason) but better understand the Shah's consideration in trying to have Iran self-govern. He gives accounts of his land-reforms intended to preserve Iran's forests, curb profiteering and land-speculation, and redistribute wealth and property from the upper-class. The book also documents the principles of his White Revolution.

His detailed account of Iran's military arsenal demonstrate his thinking (and the reality) that it stabilized the middle-east, as evidenced by Soviet invasions on Afghanistan and Iraqi attack upon Iran after the revolution, and Desert Storm, and American efforts to stabilize (or control) middle-eastern countries since. More so today, one can see his then valid concern about fundamentalists and terrorists as evidenced by World Trade Center attacks, Spain's train bombings, and massive Hezbullah growth.

Except for his then valid concern about Soviet domination, what is quite fascinating is that many of his points still read as being current 25 years later. One may wonder the under-handed activity and powers of this political enemies when reflecting on appreciation and admiration-filled descriptions of President Nixon (politically assassinated via impeachment) and Egypt's Anwar Saadat (assassinated by Islamic fundamentalist 2 years later).


Considering the political deceits, underhanded politics by Western media and governments, and psuedo-intellectual criticisms from his own subjects, the respect, rights for women, and economic prosperity his leadership brought to Iran, he truly deserves the title of Shahanshah... until the next benevolent "dictator" brings vision and order to the "land of the Aryans", history's greatest kings, and the cradle of civilization.

May he rest in peace with Kourosh (Cyrus), Dariush, Reza Shah, and other God-loving Persian kings of the past and future.