Re: 1932 Iran & Russia
- From: lsenders@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 03:18:15 GMT
Emma Pease wrote:
The jest was that an major news analysist would be alluding to anything
I'm not jesting and I doubt you trust everything you hear on a
national broadcast. Newscasters are human and will make mistakes.
written by DeHaan.
considering he didn't claim to be present why would he have been? But
he must have a source and I'm wondering what it is. Possibilities
All of which is speculative.
1951. I don't have one of those fancy phones that you can call back
Both sources were not of a forum where specific reference was called
for. Even on a PBS history special, let alone a news forum, does not
list its reference material specifically. So you people are all being
way over zealous about this. Perhaps it would be of more interest as
to know why everyone is getting so defensive over this!
A PBS history special will however provide sources if asked. It will
list the specialists consulted somewhere and one can look up the books
they wrote which will contain references. The sign of a scholarly
work is that it can be checked.
into history to ask for a reference. As for the newsbroadcast, as I
I don't know which one it was. I'm a male. I flip channels for a
Who were the panel guests?
Charlie Brown says it best, "Good grief!"
?????? Secret? Historical procedure? If everything was so subject
This is standard historical procedure, check the sources, try to go
back to the original if possible (this might not be possible in the
case of a 1000CE treaty between Russia and Persia but for a 1932
public treaty we should be able to get the full text [and if it were
secret how on earth did DeHaan know about it]).
to reference verification on this NG, it would be easier just to read a
book. I really don't remember, as its been nearly 20 yrs., but as I
remember it, I was one of the first to actually strive at listing
works with quote authorization, in this NG. Do I do it all the time.
It isn't called for and time can sometimes be a limiting factor. But
such things are paramount and ethically right, then I do indeed put
forth the effort to sight the reference and if more than a paragraph or
two, get legal authorization for reprint. But what everyone is doing
on this thread is both laughable and hypocritical.
Ah, one year before I bought my first Mac and got on through a main
I've been on usenet since 1983, in most groups asking to provide
evidence for claims is common and I don't think it is uncommon in this
frame port. No, I think you are being selective in your memory. I
ever remember a reference being so knit pickingly debated.
I don't know. You historians can do the leg work. I found two
The treaty in question (or at least the only one anyone can find that
fits the dates and partners) as someone else pointed out seems to be
The Russian-Persian Convention of Establishment, Commerce, and
Navigation (ECN Agreement), signed on October 27, 1931 and took effect
on June 22, 1932
and confirmed on 25 March 1940 (when the USSR and Iran signed another
Treaty of establishment, Commerce and Navigation, 176 L.N.T.S. 300,
Though another source lists it as 1935 though that might be an
appendix to the above treaty.
I'm looking for the third which I recently got wind of (thank you
Jeff). Both stated
1935 and neither mentioned naval stratagems let alone Caspian.
It was quite called for given the history of those who have objected on
I must admit claiming anti-semitism when there is no evidence of it in
this discussion seems uncalled for.
grounds before. "We" must allegorize away all things Israel for the
has superceded and replaced it. Ezekiels prophecies must have all been
from the prophet as they were from Abraham, David and the whole nation.
that is what they want to continue to believe. So my bring it to fore,
was not uncalled for. Israel is in the land as Ezekial and others
foretold. It is
unbelieving Israel who has been regathered this time and exactly such
place their hope in a treaty with the Antichrist, only to have him
break it in
the middle of the "week" and scatter them once again. But at the
Christ, believing Israel will inherit the promises literally and
the Messianci Kingdom is established for 1000 years. But these
can't have that because they don't believe in Chiliasm nor will they be
to anything other than the "church" having to do with Christ's return.
- 1932 Iran & Russia
- From: lsenders
- 1932 Iran & Russia
- Prev by Date: Re: Gregory Nazianzen, who presided over the beloved Nicene Creed, was a Universalist
- Next by Date: Pray for the World: 22 March 2006
- Previous by thread: Re: 1932 Iran & Russia
- Next by thread: Re: 1932 Iran & Russia