Related Blog:

PIERS MORGAN LIVE: General Wesley Clark Admits US undermined Shah of Iran's Military 

I hink the way these men were executed should be a source of eternal shame for our nation. But dont you think that shah himself and his lack of leadership at those crucial times were at least party responsible for these man's execution?  Remember, US has been trying to undermine the islamist regime also for some time, and have had quite a tough time achieving their objectives.

No I don't think the Shah had any responsibility in these brave men's execution. As Monarch and Commander in Chief the Shah was not supposed to use his army against his own People like let's say the President of a Republic like Assad in Syria or Gaddafi in Libya. 

An Army's job is to fight the enemy abroad so as to defend the nation not fight the Monarch's very own subjects. When the nation including it's most educated were not even making logical comments or claims for reform and democratic transition but instead were making impossible demands and claiming to see Khomeiny on the Moon, what could the shah or it's successive governments do ? ...

Today the children of that revolution display far more political maturity than any of the founders of the current Republic or Hostage Takers of 1979 ...

So to answer your Question, No the Monarch of Iranzamin had no responsibility in the slaughter of his troops by a nation turned ungrateful for all this great Dynasty tried to acheive and accomplished for the betterment of our lives and well being. 

Just so that the thumbs down on the last comment does not get unfairly attributed to Hamal,  it was me.

Thanks mehrban for the clarification. I am not realy into thumbing business here and consequently dont become heartbroken if I am thumbed down as some people twice my age seem to do! I am sure our friend DK feels the same way :)

DK, from all I read, it appears that shah was an absolute monarch. This means he had the absolute ultimate authority on every matter. Shah could have used his security forces (not the army)  right at the begining to crush this revolt which as you yourself suggest was a foreign inspired one anyway. Had he done that, there would have been no need for him to deploy his army on the streets , which he actualy did, very badly , very late and ineffectively.

To be disliked by Mehraban is an honor ... 

Hooowl!

;0)

Question: "DK, from all I read, it appears that shah was an absolute monarch."

Answer: Yes Very Much like Assad is the Absolute President of Syria and Gaddafi was the absolute President of Libya, And General Sissi the Absolute President of Egypt  ...

But then maybe that is precisely the difference between an Anointed Monarch who is not ready to keep his throne at the expense of his people's blood and a President of a Republic ready to slaughter his population whilst claiming to represent the "masses" ...

Assad: Peoples' support saves me from Shah's fate | JPost