Talk:Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran

Incomplete

The TransIranian railway was not necessarily complete when Anglo-Soviet forces invaded. Some road haulage was necessary to complete the link.

• That is covered in the Persian Corridor article and isn't related to the invasion itself, so I think it's okay that that fact isn't mentioned. --Loopy 20:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Azerbaijan Province

The Aftermath section mentions a pro-Soviet regime in Azerbaijan Province. Modern Iran has both an East Azerbaijan and a West Azerbaijan. Were these historically one province, or were puppet governments established in both?

--Wechselstrom 15:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It was installed in East Azerbaijan, and only partially in Western Azerbaijan. Part of Western Azerbaijan was under the Kurdish Mahabad rule.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

merged

I merged the contents of Operation Countenance here as the two articles were duplicative. I thought about making that article cover solely the military operations of the invasion, with this one addressing the background (u r a chode) and aftermath and such, but didn't think there was enough material to warrant splitting the articles yet. If the section on military operations expands it could be spun back out into a subarticle of this one, with {{main}} links as needed. I mostly left the incoming links alone in case someone decides to do this. —Charles P._(Mirv) 16:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Persia

Wasnt this country called Persia at this time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.94.164 (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Although it was still often called Persia by westerners, officially the country's name had been Iran since 1935. See Iran. Dabbler (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

To correct User:Dabbler here, the country has been called Iran long before 1935. Western texts do erroneously refer to it as Persia which is the name of a province in Iran now pronounced as Fars. Iran officially requested that Western countries use the proper term Iran in lieu of Persia, in the mid 1930's.Janus945 (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Improvements

I have completed the B class checklist for the military history project and believe that this article needs more in line citations before it can be rated as a B class article. As the mil hist project doesn't use C class, this article is therefore a Start class. Having said this, I feel that the article is very close to B class. If further in line citations can be added (it is preferred that there are at least one per paragraph, if not more), then I think the article could be a B. Once this has been done, you may like to seek re-assessment. This can be done by placing the article's name on the WP:MHA page. Hope this helps. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

sections

Deleted last paragraph starting: The United States became involved in Iranian politics,... as it had nothing to do with the subject of the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Map?

Could we have a map (or an external link to a map?) of the demarcation between the Russian and British zones please? I take it there wasn't joint occupation of the territory? best, 194.80.106.135 (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Iran demands WWII reparations from Allied powers

This Israeli site: [Haaretz] has article about the fact that Iran demands WWII reparations from Allied powers, because of this operation.Agre22 (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

File:British troops at Kermanshah 1941.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:British troops at Kermanshah 1941.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV abandoned

While I acknowlwedge the need for balance and previously the article may have been seen as supporting the UK/USSR viewpoint, it now reads like an Iranian propaganda article. "Iranian Pearl Harbour" in one of the references for example. I will be reviewing references and making adjustments. Dabbler (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that is the case, although based on your actions so far, you seem to be determined to turn this into a propaganda article for the British Empire. Your actions are clearly in violation of well understood rules in Wikipedia, particularly usage of Source materials rather than your personal opinionsJanus945 (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Surprise" Invasion

It is quite clear from my reference that the British and Soviet governments made it quite clear to the Iranian government through a diplomatic note (on August 17) that force would be used if it did not expel Axis nationals. So while the invasion may have been a tactical surprise, it was hardly unexpected by the Iranians. Before deleting a referenced statement it would be better to actually read it. Dabbler (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Janus945 has been deleting a cited section of this article repeatedly and has accused me of inserting POV content and claims that the reference in the London Gazette is "unverifiable/non existent". He/she has not chosen to discuss their objections to this content and citation here. Dabbler (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I found an error in the syntax of the citation which weas not displaying the Gazette page. I have now fixed this. Dabbler (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dabbler, your information was initially not verifiable. Later you added a citation, but it still does not support your claim, not to mention that whatever you are providing should be underlined as having been recorded by war criminals. You are the one that is POV pushing. Also, I have noticed that each time you are "evolving" your sources and your claims in order to push these claims about a supposed "Note" being given by "someone" in the British government to "someone else" in the Iranian government before the undeclared surprise attack occurred.Janus945 (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already apologised for my error in syntax in referencing the London Gazette Supplement above. However, I am concerned by your explanation that I am the person with a POV when you refer to "war criminals" above. In this instance, a diplomatic note is the normal means of official communication between two sovereign governments and follows the usual process of declaring war in a legal manner.

While I agree that my source gives the British POV, it is an official government publication. I left in the source that suggests that the invasion was a surprise so that Wikipedia readers could compare both sources and see which seemed more credible to them. By deleting one side, you are not improving NPOV but concealing the historocal evidence. I give the pertinent quotes from the London Gazette below.

The policy to be adopted in view of the unsatisfactory attitude of the Iranian Government to the representations made regarding the expulsion of Axis nationals from Iran had been under consideration by His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government during the early weeks of July and on 22nd July Lt. General Quinan was instructed to be prepared to occupy Abadan and Naft-i-Shah and at a later date the oilfields in South West Iran. On 24th July intimation was received that His Majesty's Government had approved of the proposals for the application of Anglo-Soviet diplomatic pressure backed by a show of force on the Iranian Government in order to secure the expulsion of Axis nationals from their country; should diplomatic pressure fail force

was to be used.

On 29th July intimation was received from His Majesty's Government that a joint Anglo-Soviet note to Iran was to be presented on 12th August. Lieut. General Quinan was informed of this and was instructed to complete the preliminary concentration of ihis troops by that date.

The presentation of the Anglo-Soviet note was postponed more than once and it was not until 17th August that it was finally delivered to the Iranian Government. On 21st August information was received from His Majesty's Government that the reply to the memorandum had been unsatisfactory and that an advance by joint Anglo-Soviet forces into Iran would probably commence on 22nd August. The necessary warning orders were issued and 9th Armoured Brigade was ordered to move to Khaniqin on 22nd August. Due to representations by the Russian Government a further postponement was necessary and the final date for the advance was fixed for 25th August. 34. As the concentration of troops had been completed by 12th August, these many postponements decreased any chance of achieving surprise and it was apparent that the Iranian Government fully expected an early British advance into Khuzistan and that reinforcements, including light and medium tanks, were being sent to Ahwaz.

My bolding in the last paragraph. Dabbler (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Once again User:Janus945 has changed the referenced passage above to reflect his POV while deleting my referenced contribution. He has made no attempt to discuss why he thinks that the sourced statements above do not represent at least a valid interpretation of the events. His attitude makes it very difficult for me to "assume good faith" and I wonder why he is so insistent on pushing his edits without discussion. Dabbler (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Other sources suggest the Iranians knew of the invasion plans: The Soviet Union and Iran: Soviet policy in Iran from the beginnings of the Pahlavi Dynasty until the Soviet invasion in 1941 by Miron Rezun states that invasion plans were leaked to the Shah by the Egyptian ambassador Zulfigar-Pasha, and Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces by Steven Ward describes Iranian preparations for the invasion. However, it's not clear to me that the memoranda of July 19th and August 17th contained any direct threat of military action, everything I've read suggests that any threats were implicit not explicit until the final note on August 25th, the same day as the invasion. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

None of your allegations are verifiable. Again we have established that this is your personal opinionJanus945 (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Iranians may not have been surprised by British duplicity (Just remember Allied treachery in Norway and other supposedly neutral countries in Europe), but it still was an aggressive war waged by USSR and GB against an otherwise peaceful country. 41.150.165.97 (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

POV section?

I have posted a POV section notice on the disputed passage in the hope that Janus945 will explain his objection rather than just deleting the referenced wording that i have used. I have tried to reflect the content of the references without inserting a POV. The words seem to me to reflect the sources. I would like Janus945 to explain exactly why he considers them POV. Dabbler (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi this has been explained to you. You cannot introduce POV material to Wikipedia, especially unsourced material. Janus945 (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Update: In response to Dabbler's reintroduction of unverifiable material about a "british warning" prior to the invasion, I have again reviewed all verifiable sources and the only 'new' revelation here is that the British had some how demanded from the ruling Shah that German nationals working in Iran be expelled by Iran; No mention of an upcoming military intervention/invasion of any kind was given on the dates specified.Janus945 (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Responding to Janus945 continuing violations of WP:NPA, a good deal of the disputed referenced material was added or edited by other people, not just me.

Please explain why you have this opinion that allows you to ignore referenced material from content which has been stable for months. You have made assertions and deleted referenced material but I cannot find any actual reasons why you consider this referenced material to be POV.

You have claimed that it was a surprise, which it may well have been if the Iranian military was as incompetent as you seem to think, but the references clearly state that the British did not believe that it would be a surprise attack and had issued warnings to the Iranian government that if they did not comply an attack would be made. I do not claim that they made a detailed announcement of their plan of attack, so in that sense it was a "surprise", but the British observed Iranian troop movements which indicated that they were planning to beat off an attack.Dabbler (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting admin restoration of name of article to original name "Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran"

This article continues to suffer from major disruptive editing from User:Dabbler and now User:Grant65. Requesting administrator restoration of name to "Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran" which is the correct historical name of this invasion as discussed by media and historical textsJanus945 (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Occupation map

Can we get an occupation map with perhaps the movements during the Allied invasion to get a clearer image of the territorial changes? 83.83.59.46 (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please will you discuss rather than delete

Can I once again ask that Janus945 please give some reasons for his continued personal attacks on me and his persistent accusations of POV and deletion of cited material. The issues have all been raised in the Talk page above and you can read the responses above. Dabbler (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Iranian small arms

The article says that Iran was self-sufficient in small arms, however there was no supporting reference for this claim. Having looked into it a bit, it seems that the Iranian army used an imported Czech rifle (the vz. 24), though the supporting references for this are a bit vague as well. FOARP (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091016033236/http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/ww2Timeline/iran.html to http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/WW2tIMELINE/iran.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004220144/http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Iran/Iran.html to http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Iran/Iran.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091016033236/http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/ww2Timeline/iran.html to http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/iran.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

anti-semitism

Someone has put in a few morsels about how the Iranians of that era were not anti-Semitic, and they rescued, and assisted, and etc. etc. Note that Wikipedia's own article on the history of the Jews in Iran strongly disagrees, and notes many German commercial and political contacts in the 1930s, leading to a rise in anti-semitism. So those phrases are, at best, incomplete, and a worst an attempt at a whitewash, to make it look as though there was no significant German influence in Iran, thus, no need for the invasion. It seems to me, looking at the edit war between Dabbler and another fellow, that the article has been edited so as to make the invasion look less justified than, in its own historical context, it actually was. Theonemacduff (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Iranian gunboat Babr sunk at Khorramshar, Iran, on 25 August 1941.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Iranian gunboat Babr sunk at Khorramshar, Iran, on 25 August 1941.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Colonial bias

Concern, this article looks like an apologia for European colonialism. Everything is written to justify the British control and attacks on a non white nkn Christian people. It comes across as typical casual European racism. There is even one comment on this Talk page which uses alleged Iran anti semitism to justify white Europeans killing Iranian Muslim civilians.this is shockingly racist and is an abuse of the idea of antisemitism. Just one example, but this kind of article is typical of what makes the whole of Wikipedia look like just another piece of white European history as propaganda. Surely Wikipedia can be better than this? Felimy (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Felimy: these are pretty extreme criticisms and while I beleive it possible the article gives some undue speculation favoring the Allies vs Iranian POV that perhaps should be removed. But a random talk page comment aside (as such does not appear in the article itself and is therefore irrelevant), can you please provide more concrete examples of what you're talking about? OgamD218 (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)