Really fascinating to read this next to the Wikipedia page on Iran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

Very different account of Reza Shah:

  To his supporters, his reign brought "law and order, discipline, central authority, and modern amenities – schools, trains, buses, radios, cinemas, and telephones." However, his reign has been characterized as a corrupt police state which provided only surface level modernization.

Versus this:

  1941: Britain and the USSR jointly invaded and occupied Iran, forcing Reza Shah to abdicate and exiling him to South Africa. His 22-year-old son Mohammad Reza was installed as Shah — widely seen from day one as a Western-installed ruler.

A big difference in the wikipedia is the associated references. I love a sensationalized story and the github account seems more interesting to me, and perhaps the wikipedia is better sourced and has accounts from all perspectives.

But, I wonder which one the Iranians adopt as "true" because that seems very important, as opposed to the history held by war-phillic Americans.