| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
171851
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The drama of the National Front in Iran in 1951–53 occupies an important place in international history. Although Iran never was a colony, its struggle against the United Kingdom for control of oil had a radical impact on the process of decolonization in the Eastern hemisphere. It was also in Iran where anti-colonial passions intersected with the Cold War and the agenda of three great powers: the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union. Last, but not least, the U.S.-British collaboration and joint overthrow of the Iranian nationalist leader Dr. Muhammed Mosaddeq in August 1953 set a model for Western approaches to radical nationalism in the Third World for at least two decades to follow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
193505
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
During the Cold War, the Soviet people learned from newspapers and propagandists that “Wall Street” was synonymous with the ruling class of the United States. Countless cartoons and headlines touted “the Wall Street shenanigans,” usually meaning war-mongering and anti-Soviet plotting. At universities and party schools, students memorized Vladimir Lenin’s thesis that big business, especially the financial oligarchy of the largest banks, controls government and foreign policy in capitalist countries. Soviet diplomats constantly repeated this mantra at international meetings.1 This article tells a story about how some U.S. big business actors really behaved, which was in contrast to the Soviet propaganda narrative. In 1950–52, at the height of the Korean War, U.S. corporate business leaders, along with the leaders of philanthropic institutions, especially the Quakers, both acted at the behest of the U.S. government and demonstrated agency of their own. Yet in all cases they acted in contradiction of Leninist dogma. Even when seeking to influence U.S. foreign policy, the main motive of U.S. “Wall Street” and corporate business figures was not to exacerbate war tensions or seek war profits, but to prevent their further escalation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|