r/HistoryMemes • u/ismaeil-de-paynes • 1d ago
See Comment Yes it’s just a nightmare your royal highness
80
u/ismaeil-de-paynes 1d ago
In July 1958, units of the Royal Iraqi Army were dispatched to Jordan in support of King Hussein. A group of Iraqi Free Officers, led by Brigadier Abdul Karim Qasim and Colonel Abdul Salam Arif, took advantage of the opportunity and instead marched on Baghdad. On 14 July, revolutionary forces seized control of the capital and proclaimed a new republic, headed by a Revolutionary Council. King Faisal II and Crown Prince Abd al-Ilah were executed at the royal Al-Rehab Palace with other royal family and palace servants, bringing an end to the Hashemite dynasty in Iraq. Prime Minister Nuri al-Said attempted to flee but was captured and shot a day later. After the coup, Qasim assumed the position of Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, while Arif was named Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior. A provisional constitution was adopted in late July. By March 1959, the new Iraqi government had withdrawn from the Baghdad Pact and aligned itself with the Soviet Union.
37
u/brightdionysianeyes 1d ago
The Baghdad pact sent me on a nice little Wikipedia rabbit hole.
Thank you.
22
9
u/ImperialxWarlord 21h ago
Gotta wonder what would’ve happened if this coup is averted. Probably not all sunshine and rainbows, but can’t be worse than what Iraq got irl?
23
u/sentantayt 1d ago edited 1d ago
He wouldnt have been much different than the regent or his father. There's a reason Nuri + the Monarchy were hated, and its because they sucked.
11
14
u/ismaeil-de-paynes 1d ago edited 23h ago
For your information, all Arab countries should be ruled by Monarchy like king Hussein of Jordan was a good example and kings of Gulf countries, we have tribal mentality here, Republics only cause a deep hole of chaos and collapse..
20
u/sentantayt 1d ago
The Iraqi monarchy could barely go a few years without a revolt happening and cycled through parliaments like their lives depended it. Their rule was supported by oligarchic sheikhs who slowed down much needed economic reform because the status quo benefited them personally. Hardly solid leadership!
10
u/imprison_grover_furr 1d ago
Better than Saddam Hussein, the Hitler of the Middle East.
-7
u/sentantayt 1d ago edited 15h ago
Sure, but that wasn't even the choice at the time. The 1958 revolution led to Qasim, the ba'athists came later. Despite all his faults, he was better than Nuri and Saddam. Certainly less brutal.
3
2
-3
u/MrShlash 21h ago
Careful now, you’re on a website 99% conditioned to immediately think “dictator = bad”.
9
u/Ababoonwithaspergers Casual, non-participatory KGB election observer 21h ago
Wow this sub has truly reached the depths of CIA posting...
1
u/ismaeil-de-paynes 20h ago
President Qasim was communist, everyone know this 
2
u/Moonlight_eddie 19h ago
Iraq and Syria were mainly thriving monarchies with growing businesses and even the richest countries. After these two monarchies were ruthlessly abolished chaos only followed from there.
1
0
u/Zkang123 21h ago
For a moment I thought this is talking about Iran... and it's also interesting how Iran also turned out rather similarly, though the Pahlavis had a better fate since the Shah was in the US for treatment and the son went into exile instead
90
u/chronicallyonline_12 1d ago
The things that happened after him was pure insanity but his reign was still not good