THOTH

No one has ever used Hitler's statement as proof of the Genocide that I am aware. I'm surprised how you are misunderstaing this as you seem reasonable intelligent. And this is not the point of the quote - or why it is important at all - i mean come now.. BTW - Hitler was in Berlin at the time ot the Tehlerian trial - which was a big sensation. Also many of his leading Generals served time in Turkey during WW! and were witness to the Genocide. Again - not that this makes Hitler's quote any kind of proof...but it establishes that he was in all likelyhood very aware of the Armenain situation - and how the Turks suceeded in moving out an unwanted ethnic group to replace them with themselves - and most im,portantly - that the Turks were never called to task for doing such - and in fact that by Hitler's time the event was all but forgotten.. Does any of this make sense now?

Again i fail to understand your point..are you saying that we should be pro- Nazi? And are you saying that if other people are killed or massaacred we shouldn't care because they are not Armenian?

Well I always vote (and I mean not just in national elections either - but local ones as well) - (well not in primaries - beacuse I am neither a Democrate or a Republican)...and I often do not vote for major party candidates...prefering to write in (often voting for myself...LOL) or pick whoever else might be running....sometimes no matter how kooky...can you see it now - Jesse Ventura for President! LOL Yeah I often vote for candidates based on what I percieve them to be for pure entertainment value alone...boy do i miss AMrion barry and wish he were still mayor of Washinton Dc....

Again gamavor - you tiotaly miss the point - no one is claiming that a quote from Hitler proves anything...never mind...

OK not Spinoza - but directly relevant to thsi concept that morality and such requires God (a very silly concept IMO - and observably false i might add..) This is an excerpt from a book review that appeared in the Washington Post recently... Ethics & Codes of Conduct - Michael Shermer A professional skeptic tries to find evidence for morality in the natural order. Reviewed by Anthony Brandt Sunday, February 1, 2004 ; Page BW05 If God is dead, said Dostoyevsky in The Brothers Karamazov, then everything is permitted. Without religion, in other words, there can be no morality. This has been the position taken by religious conservatives as long as there have been religions, and it is Michael Shermer 's principal target in The Science of Good and Evil. Shermer's new book is the final volume in a trilogy that began with Why People Believe Weird Things and continued with How We Believe, a critical survey of religious belief systems and their rationales. It would not be unreasonable to conclude from Shermer's books and his past that he is obsessed with religion. Indeed, he makes no secret of it: He was, in college, a fundamentalist Christian, taking a degree in psychology and biology from Pepperdine University , a fundamentalist fortress in the hills above Malibu . Then at some point he turned on the beliefs of his youth and became the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine and the director of the Skeptics Society, which he still runs. He calls himself an agnostic now, and an evolutionary psychologist. If he has a god, it is Charles Darwin. In 1999 Shermer co-hosted a 12-part series on the Fox Family Channel called "Exploring the Unknown" and devoted it to debunking everything from the Shroud of Turin to spontaneous human combustion. He has made himself into one of the leading spokespersons in the country for the rational scientific approach toward questions of belief and the unknown. That's quite a switch for a man who cut his intellectual teeth on the Bible. But Shermer does, as a result, know his enemy, and it gives him a decided advantage in writing a book such as this, which aims to demonstrate that we don't need God at all to be moral human beings, that in fact human evolution has built a tendency toward moral behavior into our brains. We are moral by nature. He draws upon the work of anthropologists with so-called primitive peoples to make his case, showing that man in a state of nature does not, as Hobbes claimed, behave as if life were a matter of all against all. Rather, Shermer marshals research showing that altruism, cooperation, mutual aid, attachment and bonding, concern for the community and other moral behaviors appear not only among tribal humans but in great-ape societies and among dolphins, whales and other large-brained mammals as well, none of which, as far as we know, is monotheist. Since the doctrine of natural selection cannot account for this behavior -- there is no selective advantage to a creature in being altruistic, for example, sacrificing itself for the good of the group -- he turns to the controversial concept of group selection, which most strict Darwinists abjure, and quotes Darwin himself in support: "There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection." "Better" tribes, then, tribes with a greater adherence to principles of justice and altruism and courage, would displace "worse" or more "evil" tribes, and therefore morality would evolve, and natural selection could indeed account for the universal appearance among human beings of moral goodness.

gamavor-you completelymiss the point. Inever said he was any authority (funny- the Turks use this same argument). but it is through this very eloquent statement - "who after all remembers the extermination of the Armenians" and because of what followed - that the statement has great power...make any sense now? And don't we strive for recognition of our forgotten Genocide? And don't we sometimes say - so histlry will not repeat etc (not that this is meant literlay - as the events are unique....it is the concept of mans inhumanity to man etc that we are refering to here - and perhaps we can even see other lessons - abuse of State power etc ....and so on)... And I dispute your factors as causation for the Genocide - they are not entirely accurate - at best they are part of the story - and very simplified at that...

well he's been dead for several years now... Oh and here is this better? http://www.stephenjaygould.org/

I find it fnny that it is the chauvanist who are crying the blues and calling for equal time/consideration etc ...and funny that its likely these very same guys are without a vclue how to properly trat alady...come on now...embarrasing I should think...

Exactly. Of course it is no forgery...and of course it was said (and not once - but at least twice....) And the quote is very relevant...again - it is the whole concept of learning from history..and why crimes must be acknowledged and the perpetrators not let off nor the terrible deeds forgotton. I mean why do we wish for recognition of the Genocide? Why do we care? It is exactly for these reasons IMO.

Touching...truly...but is it really taken (at all) to heart?

Great post Ani! (most certtainly...but I'm afraid its going over just about everyone's head here...don't sdispair - I've cerainly gotten used to such of late...)...and yeah who would have thought that a wolf could morph (evolve?) into a mouse...

In the words of den wolf - were you there? And I disagree that evidence says otherwise. And where am i off topic for you to say such? In fact you frequenty stray off topic in man y a thread - do you really wish for me to point out ever time that you do?

Your loss gevo....of course your mind is made up anyway...i mean who needs scince... Anyway the link is to a very facinating presentation by Steven Jay Gould - a very well known inovator in eveolutionary theory....it is a very serious post/link and not just internet opinion/garbage...oh well stay ignorant for all I care...

Well I certainly have no interest in being poked myself!

Yes Hitler burned it....he was obsessed with preventing any propaganda that might in any way help the Armenian cause!

In 1942 I think not. It wold be like people of today clearly remembering the Berlin airlift or some other event that occured in a previous generation. Sure some remember it - but as for most - particualrly in 1942 - well there were plenty of other thigs on their mind...and don't forget the great depression was the most recent news of all etc...anyway - so you are trying to make a case that this is just all propoganda are you now..well i find this fact alone to be most interesting. And i stll do not at all buy the fact that any mentioning of Armenians - in 1942 would have any real value. Besides - once again - the document (translation) was entered into evidence at Nuremburg- and accepted as factual - this is documented. I fail to see its propoganda value at this time....

OK Extra...the pants are down! LOL j/k

No Steve you don't understand - what value would it be to mention the Armenians? Other then this - what would be considered a minor and incosequential point to most of those taking notes at the time (and likely wjy they didn't include it) - the various (3) versions of the speech are nearly identical. Now are you trying to claim that Lochner made it all up for propaganda? Seems that the vast majority can be clearly seen to be factual...so what is the value added - propaganda wise against Germany - for the added bit concerning Armenians - a people that most Americans and whoever else - have never heard of..I mean why didn't he put somethign about - and next - after Poland and the rest of Europe - i will go after America and take all of their resources for the German people - etc etc....so you see Steve - no one can give any plausable reeason for this particular bit to be a forgery at all - tand the evidence clearly indicates that it is an accurate translation...etc etc

Please do explain thoguh Steve why would anyone be making this up in 1939? I fail to understand any value in such a forgery at that time and considering the circumstances. Aditionally, the Lochner version of the speech was verified as accurate by independent review at the Nuremburg Trials (during discovery) - so what further proof do you want?

I'm sure that it is - but I don't have the book with me, however I am confident of the sources as provided (as is aprently the periodical - Holocaust and Genocide Studies)...I will see if I can rustle it up at some point though.

Well this is certainly less fun then reality - no?

Yeah - something that many should consider...as life passes you by and there is much to be said about being young, carefree, having fun etc...when I look back at my youth about my only regret is that I wasnt (even) wilder then I was!!!!! But thats OK 'Bruin - your still young - you have plenty of time to make up for your earlier shyness and sensitivity, etc.....yeah - be wild! Why not...

Funny Steve...yeah - Turkish books have been written to disprove this statement - Do you really want me to post quotes from them here - quotes that Turks have posted in these arguments? They are laughable. there only pont is that this quote/version was not used at Nuremburg - that is was rejected - but their reaoning is faulty as to why - and in fact they do not dispute that such a quote exists - at least in documents...What is interesting is how they can't explain why such a thing would be forged by Lochner and/or various Germans - in 1939? I mean such a propaganda machine the Armenians must have had eh? I have preented the clear evidence - yet your response is only that a lie repeated often enough etc etc - well you are clearly wrong here - the document (albeit perhaps not the orignal notes in German - but multiple translations produced in 1939! exist...so please now admit yoru error...

I have commented on the Hitler quote and I think the evidence is plenty to establish its veracity (over your statement that you are sure that there is no record of such statement - LOL). I have no comment on the others - its is not I who is basing any argument on any of these other things. The Hitler quote is important if only to remind folks that a crime such as the Genocide of Armenians by the Turks could esicly happen again if the perpetrators are left unpunished and the crimes forgotten or covered up..seems simple enough no? (you do believe that this happened do you not? That there indeed was a Genocide? I mean there is no video footage around that shows death marches and Turkish soldiers bayoneting innocent women etc? And there are no documents as you say - that order such etc etc....?)

And if you don't believe me: From - Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 9, Number 1, Spring 1995, pages 1-22)" "The remark attributed to Hitler is contained in a summary of Hitler's speech to his generals about his plans to wage a ruthless war against Poland on August 22, 1939. Within days, Louis P. Lochner of the Associated Press in Berlin received from an "informant" a copy of the document, which is based on notes taken by Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of Hitler's military intelligence. Lochner immediately brought the account to the attention of the American and British embassies. He subsequently published the document in translation in his book What About Germany? (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1942), pp. 1-4. The important issue is less the authenticity of the remark than what lessons Hitler drew from the Armenian ease, and how these affected his actions in Poland, and subsequently the decisions to annihilate the Jews and Gypsies. Bardakjian provides evidence (pp. 25-35) that Hitler was familiar with the Armenian genocide, believed that the Armenians, like the Jews, were a "degenerate race," and was aware that Turkey had been able to exterminate a people with impunity. The lessons he drew were even more pointed in his 1931 interview with Richard Breiting of the Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten. Here he invoked the destruction of the Armenians within a context of deportation, resettlement, and massacre as a means to providing "living space" for Germany and the Aryan race. "Think of the biblical deportations and the massacres of the Middle Ages . . . and remember the extermination of the Armenians." Hitler added: "One eventually reaches the conclusion that masses of men are mere biological plasticine." Quoted in Bardakjian, p. 28, from Edouard Calie, Unmasked, trans. Richard Barry (London: Chatto & Windus, 1971), p. 81."