DominO123 Posted November 5, 2007 Report Share Posted November 5, 2007 No, my friend. Where is it? Let me check if I already posted it here, I must have it somewhere, it is a list from shops in major cities in Anatolia and the proportion which were Turkish, Armenian or Greek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted November 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 Domino One of the favorite ploy revisionist like to point out that Talat famous telegraph is a fake by Adoyan and you said in your post that they are not. Turks say the one in Yerevan museum is a fake.I know you said its real.Any insight? I am rather surprised that these basic questions have not come up often in Armenian circles. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted November 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 By the way I am having good success with Turks so far at Turkish forum. One totally converted and 2 are almost there.Today one of them was discussing apology to Armenians. I think sometimes we need to approach them not "You stupid Turk barberian" that tone goes nowhere but more gentle reachable approach.To Armenians it seems too passive but trust me its not.In the long run you win the argument.The more we alienate them by vulgarity ,shouting them more we push them away. Just my 2c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 Domino One of the favorite ploy revisionist like to point out that Talat famous telegraph is a fake by Adoyan and you said in your post that they are not. Turks say the one in Yerevan museum is a fake.I know you said its real.Any insight? I am rather surprised that these basic questions have not come up often in Armenian circles. Thanks I gave my opinion in the forum, but I think Dadrian paper is a better read. I have posted it here in full: http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=12...mp;hl=andonians Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted November 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 I gave my opinion in the forum, but I think Dadrian paper is a better read. I have posted it here in full: http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=12...mp;hl=andonians If you think as an Armenian I am any clearer or convinced of Andonian work is far from truth.They are far too many gaping holes.Serious errors of dates,signatures not matching etc. If as an Armenian I am not Sold imagine how Turks think.Its funny the part about using caligrapy paper to send telegraph because war shortage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 If you think as an Armenian I am any clearer or convinced of Andonian work is far from truth.They are far too many gaping holes.Serious errors of dates,signatures not matching etc. If as an Armenian I am not Sold imagine how Turks think.Its funny the part about using caligrapy paper to send telegraph because war shortage... Armat, did you read all of it? Dadrian goal was not to prove authenticity, his goal was to show that the arguments used by Orel and Yuka to dismiss them are not valid. He does not affirm he provide exemples that those who made those mistakes had already made those mistakes. I believe they are authentic because of the errors and mistakes. Exemple, evidence provided that Talaat made Ottoman Turkish mistakes, references provided that he was known to make mistakes, Shakir date mistakes, he provide exemples of him making date mistakes, Telegrams paper, he provide exemples of different papers... Suppose that you forge a set of telegrams, why would you use different set of paper type? Why would you make datation mistakes for some and not others, grammar mistakes for some and not others? Wasn't Andonian in France when he published them? Didn't he have as much paper he wanted, the time to correct grammars, correct datation etc.? Some more elements, is the individuals who were in the telegrams, Abdgulhalik, Shakir in particular were affected in specific tasks at the elimination which were still not well known and brought to light only during the martial court procedings. It is plausible Andonian was following the martial court, but those documents being tainted with so much mistakes is I think the stringest argument of authentiticy not to say that it took decades for the Turkish government to address them. Andonian was a writer, publicist who mastered Ottoman Turkish better than some modern scholar like Yuka and Orel, had he wanted to fabricate, he would have bothered fixing those mistakes. Talaat on the other hand has a history of badly written Ottoman Turkish. The only way Orel and Yuka could dismiss them, is to find Andonian Ottoman Turkish writtings and find those grammar mistakes in them. Dadrian showed all those mistakes are also found in accepted authentic documents, and by the same persons who are said to be the authors. Did Orel and Yuka demonstrated that Andonian was found to make those mistakes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted November 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 Domino You think a Muslim can make this kind of mistake? In both documents, a besmele (in the name of Allah) sign appears on the top. This was customary in those days. But the first "document" misses the long letter of "sin" and the dot for the "b" ought to be on the right, not in the middle. Both signs are bigger than usual, and the sign depicting "Allah" is falsely written. It is of course not unusual for an Armenian, who is Christian, to write out such a clumsy besmele, not having written it before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted November 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 Domino Don't you think its kind of weird that Andonian found all these extremely important telegraphs documents from one Turkish official and somehow there were there? Did Naim Bey, the hero of the "documents", exist? Search of the Prime Minister's Archives in Istanbul, among the Yrade-i Seniye (order) files and the Official Gazette gives no evidence of the appointment of a man by that name to the Rehabilitation Office in Aleppo. However, one can locate in the same archives some of the names that Andonian mentions. It is quite possible that Naim Bey never lived. If he has, he must have been a very minor official, for Andonian also states that he was "entirely unimportant". But how can such an unimportant person have access to such significant and top secret material? What I think really happened Armenians really wanted to put these criminals to court and kill them and did what they did however even British did not find those documents worthy to bring charges against the Turks at Malta hence they were quietly released. If they were real British should of used them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 Domino You think a Muslim can make this kind of mistake? In both documents, a besmele (in the name of Allah) sign appears on the top. This was customary in those days. But the first "document" misses the long letter of "sin" and the dot for the "b" ought to be on the right, not in the middle. Both signs are bigger than usual, and the sign depicting "Allah" is falsely written. It is of course not unusual for an Armenian, who is Christian, to write out such a clumsy besmele, not having written it before. Armat, is it usual for a forger to make mistakes for some and not others? I mean the same thing being correct in other cases and not for some? What about dates? Mistakes in some and not the rest? Who in his right mind forge without rereading himself? Did you see how Andonian classified them? He didn't even placed them chronologically. This guy was in France, after the war with all the ressources and will be playing by using different papers, different mistakes (again I stress out that the same persons said to be the authors were all traced as making similar mistakes in other records considered as authentic). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted November 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 Domino Don't get upset at me (not that you are) but admit it there are way too many gaping holes to nilify them.Why the British not used them in court?Why all the source attributed to minor official?And they happened to be all available?or how about this Some of the "documents" could not be signed by Mustafa Abdülhalik as the Governor of Aleppo, simply because he was not the Governor then. The Governor was Bekir Sami Bey, the former starting duty on September 27, 1331 (or October 10, 1915). Not knowing this, Andonian apparently had Mustafa Abdülhalik "signing" many "documents" previous to his taking up duties in Aleppo. There are genuine documents, for instance the one dated September 22, 1331, in the Turkish archives signed by Bekir Sami as the Governor of Aleppo. Mustafa Abdülhalik could not have signed a fake document, dated September 3, 1331, as the Governor of the same city, 19 days prior to that date (that is, September 22, 1331) I can't even understand to justify this mistake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 Domino Don't get upset at me (not that you are) but admit it there are way too many gaping holes to nilify them.Why the British not used them in court?Why all the source attributed to minor official?And they happened to be all available?or how about this Some of the "documents" could not be signed by Mustafa Abdülhalik as the Governor of Aleppo, simply because he was not the Governor then. The Governor was Bekir Sami Bey, the former starting duty on September 27, 1331 (or October 10, 1915). Not knowing this, Andonian apparently had Mustafa Abdülhalik "signing" many "documents" previous to his taking up duties in Aleppo. There are genuine documents, for instance the one dated September 22, 1331, in the Turkish archives signed by Bekir Sami as the Governor of Aleppo. Mustafa Abdülhalik could not have signed a fake document, dated September 3, 1331, as the Governor of the same city, 19 days prior to that date (that is, September 22, 1331) I can't even understand to justify this mistake Armat, all those are covered in Dadrian paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 This for exemple: Perhaps the most problematic piece in the Naim-Andonian cipher telegrams is Talat's September 3, 1915 (No. 3), the facsimile of which is reproduced in all three versions. It contains some notes from Mustafa Abdülhalik, to whom it is directed. As records show, the latter took up his post in Aleppo as governor in the last week of September (old style) and presumably couldn't have transacted official business at that post some three weeks earlier. Should this presumption hold, the cipher becomes highly suspect. But closer scrutiny reveals that his signature appended to his note doesn't specify the month at all but rather the day on which the note was entered. Instead of the year and the month, the customary symbol minh is written, literally meaning "from it," and roughly translating "same." Thus, when entering his instruction, Abdülhalik never wrote the word for September but just "5," simply indicating the day of the month. He also covers the claim on the way Allah is written. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted November 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 Domino I am not sold.I am very sorry even reading Dadrian I get more of the feelings his trying to hard like even the 1st paragraph The material was assembled in the turmoil and chaos of the armistice, with extreme secrecy and without the benefit of legal advice. It received a shabby treatment in its English translation, its editing, printing, and custodial safe-keeping. The resulting damage is considerable but not irreparable, as described below.[5] Moreover, misleading statements were made regarding Naim and his position in the Ottoman administration.It was the same penchant for propaganda that prompted Andonian to rush the documents to London with a view to influencing public opinion and Allied diplomats who were to elaborate the terms of peace with defeated Turkey. A valuable opportunity was thus lost for submitting the documents to Ottoman authorities for possible authentication. So I am to believe smart people like Armenians didn't see the critical need to authenticate the material? The Ministries of Justice, Interior and Defense were in the process of setting up a Military Tribunal to try the authors of the wartime massacres, and were in search of pertinent documents. I may change my mind later but as of today I am very skeptical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 Domino I am not sold.I am very sorry even reading Dadrian I get more of the feelings his trying to hard like even the 1st paragraph The material was assembled in the turmoil and chaos of the armistice, with extreme secrecy and without the benefit of legal advice. It received a shabby treatment in its English translation, its editing, printing, and custodial safe-keeping. The resulting damage is considerable but not irreparable, as described below.[5] So I am to believe smart people like Armenians didn't see the critical need to authenticate the material? The Ministries of Justice, Interior and Defense were in the process of setting up a Military Tribunal to try the authors of the wartime massacres, and were in search of pertinent documents. I may change my mind later but as of today I am very skeptical. Armat, are you talking about the Malta prisoners? Check this out: http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=95...=malta+tribunal pay attention to the dates and compare it with the Andonians..., those files were berelly refered during Tehlirian trial. And no Armenians did not think to authentificate those documents. You are thinking from the standards of today when we have to confront strong denialism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted November 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 Armat, are you talking about the Malta prisoners? Check this out: http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=95...=malta+tribunal pay attention to the dates and compare it with the Andonians..., those files were berelly refered during Tehlirian trial. And no Armenians did not think to authentificate those documents. You are thinking from the standards of today when we have to confront strong denialism. I have lot to learn obviously.Thanks for the Malta tribunal Its important to see how revisionists twist and disort facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.