Take another quiz >
thumb

1970s General Knowledge

Do you have what it takes to answer these questions about the 1970s?
Give Up?
Enter answer here
0 / 20 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored /20 = %.
This beats or equals % of test takers
The average score is
Your high score is
Your best time is remaining
Points
You have earned / 5 points for this quiz
This quiz is not eligible for points
Next Level
/
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
×
Help

Enter answers in the area marked "Enter answer here".

You can enter any answer, at any time - they don't have to be in order

Punctuation and capitalization don't matter on JetPunk.

Question
Answer
What country replaced a shah with an ayatollah?
What Asian city hosted a "thriller" between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier?
What caused a global recession in 1973?
Oil Embargo
What paddle-based game was the first commercially successful video game?
What was the nickname of the anonymous source who leaked the Watergate scandal?
What became the world's tallest building in 1973?
What brutal dictator seized power in Cambodia?
What city fell to the Communists on April 30, 1975?
What city hosted the Summer Olympics in 1972?
What country became democratic after the death of Generalísimo Franco?
Followers of what cult leader committed mass suicide by drinking Flavor-Ade?
What novel was about submissive, zombie-like wives?
The Stepford Wives
What British disco group had the most #1 hits in the decade?
In what country did Augusto Pinochet seize power?
What phrase accompanied a yellow smiley face?
What was New York's most famous nightclub?
Studio 54
What country became independent from Pakistan?
At what Presidential retreat did Israel and Egypt sign a peace accord?
What type of building, popularized by Buckminster Fuller, was briefly popular?
Geodesic Dome
Who wrote "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"?
Answer Stats
Question
Answer
% Correct
Your %
+3
level 70
Mar 5, 2017
World Trade Center (aka Twin Towers) would also be a correct answer, because it/they became the world's tallest buildings for a few months when they were completed earlier in 1973. (You could argue for 1971, because I remember looking across from the top of Empire State Building late that year, as an 11-year old, one of the twin towers already at full height, with the other nearing completion).
+4
level 63
Mar 6, 2017
The Bee Gees are Australian.
+2
level ∞
Mar 6, 2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee_Gees
+1
level 70
Mar 9, 2017
Manx-British-Australian
+2
level 70
Jun 20, 2017
Wherever they're from they're bloody awful
+2
level 62
Jan 2, 2018
Bloody awfully successful for being bloody awful.
+3
level 66
Jan 3, 2018
Talent and success have no correlation one way or the other in the music business.
+2
level 70
Feb 12, 2018
As a 1970's teenager I thought they were the coolest and the best ever. Their continuing popularity and use of their music in modern movies, television, and advertising says that a lot of people still enjoy their talent. I know that some hold the opinion that anything from the disco era was cheesy, awful, and decadent, but we had a great time. In all of the interviews from that period the BeeGees and brother Andy always claimed to be Australian. For the lucky few of us who lived through that time without any permanent scars, "Stayin' Alive" will always be an anthem of our time in the sun.
+1
level 39
Apr 20, 2018
No the Beegees are not Australian. They were born in England and then their family moved to Australia!
+1
level 70
May 1, 2018
Well they were born on the Isle of Man to English parents. So no the members were not Australian, but the band did form in Australia and they had their first commercial success in Australia.
+1
level 69
Mar 6, 2017
Anybody watching the CNN series specials on the 60s, 70s and 80s? They certainly help with these quizzes.
+2
level 67
Mar 8, 2017
I'm not a fan of the Olympic-hosting-cities questions that seem to keep popping up in these quizzes. It's such disposable and fruitless information (in my opinion). The other questions represent much more interesting and/or useful trivia - about war, government, culture, etc.
+1
level 70
Mar 9, 2017
Depends which olympics. Two that appeared in two quizzes I just took are quite important politically, well beyond just sports. I.e. Munich massacre and the cold war boycott of Moscow olympics.
+1
level 61
Mar 9, 2017
And the retaliatory Cold War boycott of the Los Angeles Olympics.
+2
level 65
Jan 2, 2018
The boycott of the Montreal Olympics was more interesting.
+1
level 47
Jan 4, 2018
Don't forget "the best games ever" in Sydney. Those awesome Australians! Is there anything they're not the best at? On a related topic, what's the point of continuing the Olympic Games if the best one EVER has already taken place? What compliments can be given to others- "they were ok" "what a waste of two weeks" "congratulations, not as good as Sydney but you tried hard"
+8
level 67
Dec 20, 2017
Your complaint is that quizzes are based on "trivia". I thought that's what quizzes are for?
+1
level 64
Jan 2, 2018
I'd argue that Munich is different - but I wish that the terrorist attack had been the focus. 1936 Berlin/Jesse Owens, Munich 1972 terrorist attack, Moscow 1980 - boycott by US, Los Angeles 1984 - boycott by USSR, Atlanta 1996 - Centennial Olympic park bombing. Someone could do a quiz just on world events related to the Olympics.
+2
level 60
Jan 2, 2018
Football related questions are worse. I often see questions like "Who won the World Cup in 1968?".
+1
level 60
Jan 2, 2018
However the olympic cities is also geography and history and "fun" memory game trying to remember them all, there aren't so many afterall.
+7
level 45
Jan 2, 2018
You've never seen that question in your life. The World Cup was not held in 1968.
+4
level 67
Jan 2, 2018
Give him/her a break. Said questions "LIKE".
+2
level 56
Jan 2, 2018
I know very little about football/soccer, but the World Cup questions I recall seeing all regard significant World Cup events. For example, I know that Uruguay both hosted and won the first World Cup (1930, I think). England hosted and won in 1966 (which is its only win, notable because the country is absolutely obsessed with football and always seems to underperform in the Cup). Argentina won in 1986 with Maradona after the infamous "hand of God" play against England...that's about all I know. I recall the winners of the last five tournaments or so, but only because the event itself is such a huge deal all over the world and I was by then old enough to remember it when it happened. I don't recall seeing any questions asking for a winner in a random year in which the tournament didn't particularly stick out.
+1
level 47
Jan 4, 2018
I think there'd be more people in the world that think football is more important than politics, so who can say which questions should take priority? But there should be a lot more about Australia- the main topic on everyone's mind. What an awesome country!
+2
level 67
Jan 2, 2018
Apparent definition of "bad" questions = ones I don't know the answer to.
+1
level 57
Jan 2, 2018
Hopefully the Ayatollah will be replaced with a Shah again.
+3
level 59
Jan 2, 2018
Hopefully not. The Shah was a western puppet. I'd rather see the potential future leader being more like Mossadeq, democratically elected and standing for the rights of the people, not BP and foreign exploiters.
+2
level 47
Jan 3, 2018
If the US and UK had just let BP take it's lumps, the world would probably be a very different place.
+1
level 73
Jan 4, 2018
Mossadegh is turned into a saint by this fantasy story the West believes about democracy in Iran but he was nothing of the sort. Neither was democracy in Iran, for that matter. The country has never had a democratically elected leader. The prime minister of Iran under the Shah was not the leader of the country any more than president Rouhani leads the country today. Iran under the Shah actually was more democratic than it is these days. The Shahs supported democratic reforms in the country. However, the true power in the Imperial Republic of Iran was the monarch, just as the true power in the Islamic Republic of Iran is the ayatollah.
+2
level 65
Jan 3, 2018
Do you also wish an unelected corrupt king to rule in your country? Would you also want it with the banning of political parties and persecution of the opposition?
+1
level 73
Jan 4, 2018
Would probably be better than a theocracy. Especially if the corrupt king in question was one that supported education and rights for women, positive relations with the Western world, democratic reforms in his own country, and liberal secular values as the Shah did. He was corrupt. He did enrich himself at the expense of the Iranian people. Few monarchs haven't. But the forces that overthrew him were not clamoring to usher in a democratic liberal utopia like confused people think. They were, Mossadegh and his political party that tried to usurp power in the 50s included, a mix of staunch nationalists/protectionists/isolationists/jingoists a la Trump, anti-Semitic bigots, misogynists, and religious nuts. Maybe a handful of student protesters in Tehran hated the Shah for suppressing full democracy in the country or his treatment of political prisoners, but the mob that gave the revolution its power? They hated the Shah for very different, less noble reasons.
+1
level 66
Jan 3, 2018
@Salz, if you're wondering what they're all talking about, look up Operation Ajax. It was a coup during the Eisenhower administration in which the CIA overthrew a democratic government in Iran to prop up the shah as a US puppet
+1
level 73
Jan 4, 2018
Misleading oversimplification. Operation Ajax was 1953. The Shah had ruled Iran since 1941. His family had been in power since the 1920s. The monarchy in Iran had been in place in some form for 2500 years. The CIA had no hand in this. (they were not around in 550 BC) Iran under the Shah was a progressive and liberal country that had recently introduced many reforms such a secularization and liberalization of female education, among other things (e.g. in 1922 women made up 16% of enrolled students. By 1977 before the Islamic revolution they were 40%.). The country also has happy to have friendly and positive trade relations with the outside world and Western countries including the US, UK, and Israel. British Petroleum had come to the relatively impoverished and undeveloped country in 1908. They legally acquired exploration and drilling rights from the legitimate non-puppet government of Iran. They then spent millions of pounds building up the oil infrastructure of Iran from scratch.
+1
level 73
Jan 4, 2018
Untold amounts of British resources (money, capital, expertise, technology, know-how, manpower, equipment, men lost to disease climate accidents and bandits) were poured into Iran to develop its oil industry and create profit for both Iran (16%), which did nothing but exist, and the company which had put up 100% of the resources needed to create this profit. In 1925 Iran demanded more money. In return for doing nothing of any value, their share of the profit was upped to 25% and they were granted other various concessions. But that wasn't enough and they continued to threaten to cancel the deals they had previously made. In 1933, with approval and oversight from the Hague, another new deal was struck giving Iran even more (again for doing nothing). Again this didn't seem to be enough.
During WW2 Iran, which was seen as friendly to the Nazis and Axis powers, was occupied by the British and Soviets. They pressured the Shah to abdicate in favor of his son, who was more Western friendl
+1
level 73
Jan 4, 2018
Notice up to this point the USA hasn't been mentioned because they had nothing at all to do with any of this. When did they become involved? When their *extremely* generous deal with the Saudis became known to the Iranians. Americans went to and explored for oil in Saudi Arabia same as British companies had in Iran. Americans spent millions of dollars, lives, resources, allocating their technology and experience and expertise to develop the Saudi oil infrastructure and greatly enrich the country. And after doing so their thanks? The Saudis threatened to steal everything that the Americans built and had invested. I used to teach corporate history of Saudi Aramco in the country, this is according to their own in-house text books so don't think I'm being biased. The Saudis consider themselves to be very clever thieves here. To stop this from happening the US government stepped in, gave the Saudis 50% of all Aramco profits, and tax subsidies to the oil companies to cover their losses.
+1
level 73
Jan 4, 2018
Iran caught wind of this and, as usual, without doing or offering anything, became greedy and wanted more money. AIOC (British Petroleum) didn't want to give up even *more* of their profits, *again*, after deals had been negotiated and renegotiated over and over. Nationalist forces in Iran were gaining power and popularity. Reasonable prime minister Razmara was assassinated by an Islamist group. Ultra nationalist PM Mosaddegh was elected. Negotiations between the Nationalists in Iran and the British were not fruitful. A power struggle in Iran ensued, with Western powers obviously backing the Western-friendly Shah against the Nationalist PM who wished to steal their assets.
At this point, the US finally became nominally involved. The USA was fighting the Korean War at the time and the Cold War and needed British support in both. They were worried about Iran being taken over by Communists and wished the Shah to remain in power (he had been since '41 remember).
+1
level 73
Jan 4, 2018
To this end the CIA staged a riot in Tehran that gave the Shah an excuse to remove Mosaddegh. That's it. One American intelligence agency staged an event of civil unrest to give a reigning monarch an political excuse to exercise his constitutional authority and remove a PM he had already been dueling with, but was reluctant to remove because he was popular. But to hear others tell the story you would believe that the 2500 year old Iranian monarchy was invented by the USA, that the PM of Iran held absolute power instead of governing at the pleasure of the Shah, and that democracy had been flourishing in Iran. What the USA did was about equivalent to Russian interference in the American presidential election of 2016. They did not invade and set up a puppet government.

My own version is also very simplified (and still probably overlong).. it wasn't exactly BP in '08 for example but APOC, etc, but not as bad as your version.
+1
level 73
Jan 4, 2018
TL;DR: there was an internal power struggle in Iran. Millenia-old Western-friendly monarchy vs. year-old ultra nationalist Western-hostile prime minister who wanted to steal millions/billions in foreign (British) infrastructure and resources, among other things. The US backed the monarch in this internal power struggle, lending him nominal aid in the 1950s.
+1
level 44
Jan 4, 2018
Can Ho Chi Minh be accepted ?
More Quizzes in this Series
Similar Quizzes by Tag
×
Congrats!
You have reached a new level
To save this level, you'll have to
create an account
×
Congrats!
You have earned a new badge
To save this badge, you'll have to
create an account