If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wikipedia)   This week in WWII history, Great Britain and the USSR invade neutral Iran in order to seize their oil fields. I mean, to stop Islamofascism   (en.wikipedia.org) divider line 32
    More: Interesting, Soviet, Iran, British Invasion, Aryan Nations, foreign intervention, territorial integrity, diplomatic notes, Nazi propaganda  
•       •       •

3636 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2013 at 9:47 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



32 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-26 09:49:12 AM
No, back then, it was to seize the oil fields.
 
2013-08-26 09:51:02 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-08-26 09:59:02 AM
Then why don't we own all those oil fields now? I'd have less of a problem with invading middle eastern countries if we really did just seize control of all their oil.
 
2013-08-26 10:10:10 AM

dittybopper: No, back then, it was to seize the oil fields.


Partially, setting up a safe route to get supplies to the Soviet Union was also pretty important.

doubled99: Then why don't we own all those oil fields now? I'd have less of a problem with invading middle eastern countries if we really did just seize control of all their oil.


There was this little revolution that resulted in Americans being held hostage in their embassy for a little while. And this whole thing (along with later actions such the coup in 1953 to maintain control of the oil) was a big part in why these people didn't like Americans and Brits.
 
2013-08-26 10:13:09 AM

doubled99: Then why don't we own all those oil fields now? I'd have less of a problem with invading middle eastern countries if we really did just seize control of all their oil.


The Iranians had absolutely no appreciation for democracy, and went and elected the wrong guy to head the government.  He started giving us static, so we had to depose him and re-install the Shah.  The Shah did what he was told.  Until those damn Iranians went and got all uppity again.  Then we had no choice but to sic Saddam on them.  Saddam had a good run through the 80's, and between them Iran and Iraq managed to kill off an entire generation of young men.  But it was too good to last.  So we told Saddam to go ahead and invade Kuwait if he felt like it, and the rest, as they say, is history.
 
2013-08-26 10:21:22 AM
Isn't it ironic that Hitler accidentally became the liberator of brown people everywhere by farking up the British and French so much that they had to get rid of their colonies?
 
2013-08-26 10:38:22 AM

dywed88: dittybopper: No, back then, it was to seize the oil fields.

Partially, setting up a safe route to get supplies to the Soviet Union was also pretty important.


Yeah, but that was a relatively minor route.  The USSR had safe passage in the North Pacific because they weren't at war with the Japanese, so their freighters were mostly unmolested carrying freight from the Pacific Northwest and California to Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk.  Something like 50% of the goods imported to the Soviet Union went by that route.

Plus, there was a decent, though somewhat riskier, run through the North Atlantic to Murmansk.  You had the threat of u-boats, but other than the debacle that was convoy PQ-17, it wasn't that bad, especially during the summer months as the long days of sunshine guaranteed that the u-boats couldn't stay on the surface very long, and back then submarines were very limited in their underwater speed and endurance.

In the final analysis, something 93% of the goods shipped through the Arctic Convoys arrived safely.

The Persian corridor was actually the longest route, and that's why it only accounted for about a quarter of the goods shipped into the USSR.
 
2013-08-26 10:39:05 AM
As I was growing up many years ago, I was told in school that the only way America got the Soviets out of Iran after WW2 was the president threatened to use the a-bomb on them...then they packed up and left...otherwise I guess they would still be there.  It would be nice if the Iranians would acknowledge that we did help them at that point but I guess that good will got trampled under the pissed-offedness from the coup in 1953 that the Brits conned us into fomenting.
 
2013-08-26 10:49:25 AM

phojo1946: As I was growing up many years ago, I was told in school that the only way America got the Soviets out of Iran after WW2 was the president threatened to use the a-bomb on them...then they packed up and left...otherwise I guess they would still be there.  It would be nice if the Iranians would acknowledge that we did help them at that point but I guess that good will got trampled under the pissed-offedness from the coup in 1953 that the Brits conned us into fomenting.


Don't blame the British.  That op had Ivy League CIA written all over it.
 
2013-08-26 10:51:36 AM
Of course all this blew completely over the heads of the "they hates us for our freedomssssss" crowd, who also never bothered to pay attention in history class.
 
2013-08-26 11:01:41 AM
If you look at the history of what Western Countries did to the middle east you really have to not wonder any longer why they hate us and our proxy (Israel) so much.

The Spice (oil) must flow!
 
2013-08-26 11:12:06 AM
So in reading the wiki what I'm getting is the Shah made the completely correct and reasonable decision but did so without considering the realities of his nation's situation.

When you have two of the great powers of the world sitting on your borders with armies ready to invade and they ask you to do something, you don't flip them the bird. Especially over the farking Nazis couldn't have helped you even if you wanted them to. You take a bite of that shiat sandwich, thank them for making it, then bide your time.
 
2013-08-26 11:12:17 AM

phojo1946: As I was growing up many years ago, I was told in school that the only way America got the Soviets out of Iran after WW2 was the president threatened to use the a-bomb on them...then they packed up and left...otherwise I guess they would still be there.  It would be nice if the Iranians would acknowledge that we did help them at that point but I guess that good will got trampled under the pissed-offedness from the coup in 1953 that the Brits conned us into fomenting.


Yeah, living under brutal secret police tends to make people cranky.
 
2013-08-26 11:14:15 AM
images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-08-26 11:14:28 AM
Neutral subby? Wow, they really did stop teaching history in HS. It wasnt to seize the undeveloped oil fields dumbass but to open supply lines to the soviets after axsis invasion and Iran leaders were sympathetic to the nazis and was a base for their agents.
 
2013-08-26 11:33:46 AM

Frank N Stein: Isn't it ironic that Hitler accidentally became the liberator of brown people everywhere by farking up the British and French so much that they had to get rid of their colonies?


The colonial era was dieing.

But the Potsdam Conference is where it was agreed that no one (US/UK/USSR) would keep any captured land/colonies.
 
2013-08-26 11:34:47 AM

Joe Blowme: Neutral subby? Wow, they really did stop teaching history in HS. It wasnt to seize the undeveloped oil fields dumbass but to open supply lines to the soviets after axsis invasion and Iran leaders were sympathetic to the nazis and was a base for their agents.


Wanna guess how i know you didnt read the linked Wikipedia article.  Take a look and yes supply route was listed but Oil was the primary reason.

/here is your price dumbass
 
2013-08-26 11:35:46 AM

Joe Blowme: Neutral subby? Wow, they really did stop teaching history in HS. It wasnt to seize the undeveloped oil fields dumbass but to open supply lines to the soviets after axsis invasion and Iran leaders were sympathetic to the nazis and was a base for their agents.


So were Vichy France. You didn't see us putting in a dictator in France after WWII.
 
2013-08-26 11:41:05 AM

Joe Blowme: Neutral subby? Wow, they really did stop teaching history in HS. It wasnt to seize the undeveloped oil fields dumbass but to open supply lines to the soviets after axsis invasion and Iran leaders were sympathetic to the nazis and was a base for their agents.


Oil was a huge motivation for the British. Not siezing undeveloped fields, but the operating extraction and refining operations of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company that was a major supplier of British petroleum. The exact same as in 1953.

It just so happened that the two motivations aligned with invading the same neutral country.
 
2013-08-26 11:55:37 AM

zippyZRX: Joe Blowme: Neutral subby? Wow, they really did stop teaching history in HS. It wasnt to seize the undeveloped oil fields dumbass but to open supply lines to the soviets after axsis invasion and Iran leaders were sympathetic to the nazis and was a base for their agents.

Wanna guess how i know you didnt read the linked Wikipedia article.  Take a look and yes supply route was listed but Oil was the primary reason.

/here is your price dumbass


Good thing wiki is never incorrect &/or misleading.  But aside from that, what else was going on in 1941, because of course the Brits were only interested  in their next grab of another country and its assets.  Empire building had to be their sole priority at that point in time, and they were so dumb not to be able to see how their actions 70 years ago might impact events now.  No doubt Farkers in 2083 will look back and marvel at our wisdom and foresight in every area.
 
2013-08-26 11:58:37 AM
You would think more people would have noticed that we deposed the leader of Libya right after he threatened to kick western oil firms out of his nation and nationalize all those lovely oil wells they so thoughtfully built.

even before armed conflict drove the U.S. companies out of Libya this year, their relations with Gaddafi had soured. The Libyan leader demanded tough contract terms. He sought big bonus payments up front. Moreover, upset that he was not getting more U.S. government respect and recognition for his earlier concessions, he pressured the oil companies to influence U.S. policies.

In late February 2008, Mulva was "summoned to Sirte for a half-hour 'browbeating'" from Gaddafi, according to a U.S. State Department cable made available by WikiLeaks. Gaddafi "threatened to dramatically reduce Libya's oil production and/or expel ... U.S. oil and gas companies," the cable said.

"Those who dominate Libya's political and economic leadership are pursuing increasingly nationalistic policies in the energy sector that could jeopardize efficient exploitation of Libya's extensive oil and gas reserves," the cable concluded.

The U.S.-educated Libyan oil minister Shokri Ghanem - who recently left Libya and defected from the Gaddafi regime - in 2008 warned an Exxon Mobil executive that Libya might "significantly curtail" its oil production to "penalize the U.S.," according to a State Department cable.

Gaddafi said: "Oil companies are controlled by foreigners who have made millions from them. Now, Libyans must take their place to profit from this money."


So Gadaffi threatened to tear up their contracts, and kick the western oil companies out of his nation. Soon afterwards, we were bombing the fark out of him to assist the "rebels"

Guess why we liked those "rebels" so much?

Yet when representatives of the rebel coalition in Benghazi spoke to the U.S.-Libya Business Council in Washington four weeks ago, representatives from ConocoPhillips and other oil firms attended, according to Richard Mintz, a public relations expert at the Harbour Group, which represents the Benghazi coalition. In another meeting in Washington, Ali Tarhouni, the lead economic policymaker in Benghazi, said oil contracts would be honored, Mintz said.

"Now you can figure out who's going to win, and the name is not Gaddafi," Saleri said. "Certain things about the mosaic are taking shape. The Western companies are positioning themselves."


This bullshiat should seem very familiar by now, if anyone ever paid attention.
 
2013-08-26 12:04:32 PM
The problem is the West got cold feet after WWII. The West would still own the Middle east if we had sacked up and killed as many Arabs/Persians as neccessary to keep them under control. No "winning of hearts and minds" crap. Just kill until they behave. Worked very nicely for the British in Iraq in the 20's.

If we had done this, the Middle east today would be peaceful, advanced and democratic. No Islamic savagery. No Wahabism. No Burka bullshiat. All because we pussied out.
 
2013-08-26 12:11:08 PM
To be fair it was Aryan country
 
2013-08-26 12:14:59 PM

zippyZRX: Joe Blowme: Neutral subby? Wow, they really did stop teaching history in HS. It wasnt to seize the undeveloped oil fields dumbass but to open supply lines to the soviets after axsis invasion and Iran leaders were sympathetic to the nazis and was a base for their agents.

Wanna guess how i know you didnt read the linked Wikipedia article.  Take a look and yes supply route was listed but Oil was the primary reason.

/here is your price dumbass


zippyZRX: Joe Blowme: Neutral subby? Wow, they really did stop teaching history in HS. It wasnt to seize the undeveloped oil fields dumbass but to open supply lines to the soviets after axsis invasion and Iran leaders were sympathetic to the nazis and was a base for their agents.

Wanna guess how i know you didnt read the linked Wikipedia article.  Take a look and yes supply route was listed but Oil was the primary reason.

/here is your price dumbass


LOL, wiki,... the site even High Schoolers cant use as citation in homework. One oil field did not make or break it, just an added bonus that they owned anyway, till sha took it and they took it back. Guess who had control over Iraq's developed oil fields then as well? So it was more about suply lines to the reds than the single oil field.

/here is your price asshat
 
2013-08-26 12:27:15 PM

mcreadyblue: Joe Blowme: Neutral subby? Wow, they really did stop teaching history in HS. It wasnt to seize the undeveloped oil fields dumbass but to open supply lines to the soviets after axsis invasion and Iran leaders were sympathetic to the nazis and was a base for their agents.

So were Vichy France. You didn't see us putting in a dictator in France after WWII.


That's because all they had was shiatty-tasting bubble water.  Like the nation that invented Coca Cola would want that crap.
 
2013-08-26 12:30:50 PM

doubled99: Then why don't we own all those oil fields now? I'd have less of a problem with invading middle eastern countries if we really did just seize control of all their oil.


But them we couldn't keep up our delusional hypocrisy.
 
2013-08-26 01:12:15 PM
thethoughtexperiment.files.wordpress.com

Well, let's see. First the earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil.
And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes. I couldn't believe it.
 
2013-08-26 01:55:50 PM
Those oil fields are worth a bonus 2 I.P.C.s each to the Axis. If the Brits can seize them with troops from India, it makes keeping the Italians down a _lot_ easier.
 
2013-08-26 04:46:09 PM

phojo1946: As I was growing up many years ago, I was told in school that the only way America got the Soviets out of Iran after WW2 was the president threatened to use the a-bomb on them...then they packed up and left...otherwise I guess they would still be there.  It would be nice if the Iranians would acknowledge that we did help them at that point but I guess that good will got trampled under the pissed-offedness from the coup in 1953 that the Brits conned us into fomenting.


I know! The nerve! Why, I'm sure that if some power came and did all of that to us, we'd still be writing thoughtful letters of appreciation for all the relative good they did for us!
 
2013-08-26 11:28:38 PM

BullBearMS: Guess why we liked those "rebels" so much?

Yet when representatives of the rebel coalition in Benghazi spoke to the U.S.-Libya Business Council in Washington four weeks ago, representatives from ConocoPhillips and other oil firms attended, according to Richard Mintz, a public relations expert at the Harbour Group, which represents the Benghazi coalition. In another meeting in Washington, Ali Tarhouni, the lead economic policymaker in Benghazi, said oil contracts would be honored, Mintz said.

"Now you can figure out who's going to win, and the name is not Gaddafi," Saleri said. "Certain things about the mosaic are taking shape. The Western companies are positioning themselves."

This bullshiat should seem very familiar by now, if anyone ever paid attention.


So... what you're saying is.... Elon Musk shall deliver peace to the middle east by destroying the oil trade?

img853.imageshack.us

Saving the world.  What a farking guy.
 
2013-08-27 12:47:40 AM
phojo1946
I was told in school

Find another source.
 
2013-08-27 07:01:21 AM

Joe Blowme: Neutral subby? Wow, they really did stop teaching history in HS. It wasnt to seize the undeveloped oil fields dumbass but to open supply lines to the soviets after axsis invasion and Iran leaders were sympathetic to the nazis and was a base for their agents.


CITATION NEEDED.

Gotta love people who dis Wiki, but provide nothing of their own...
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report