Is Hitler's statement true?

[Stormig]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

I agree with ArmenSarg - it is the likes of Lemkin's work that would matter - and remember I had mentioned in one of the threads nasty pici posts on that Turkish denialists will mention Lemkin and how the definition of genocide was concluded in 1948? In any environment where such is spoken, the minute they do that, you cram quotes from Lemkin's work specifically mentioning Armenians and the Jewish Holocaust having ended in 1945 down their throats. That's your next hint.

 

As for Hitler's quote - as far as I am concerned, it is merely inconsequential.

[gurgen]

As far as I'm concerned, it does not matter.

 

As Thoth pointed out, Hitler was in Berlin during the Tehlirian trial and most definitely knew about the Armenian massacres. Following the train of denial that sprang from this he must surely have had drawn his own conclusions. Whether he uttered the phrase in his head or aloud does not matter for me.

[Jewish Friend]

It is my understanding Hitler made the Armenian statements and tailor made Holocaust 2 after the Armenian Genocide. Just my input. I won't debate it. No time. I stated these points when i first joined this site a while back and it is this link along with all my Armo friends that have shaped my old but fruitful life that draws me here . But heh..hitler was kind to his faithful dog..we have pictures of that..you'll get no argument from me there..YidKid

[bellthecat]

While I agree fully with Steve and others about the irrelevance of the quote, I want to make a couple of quick comments. As said earlier, the quote is reported by one reporter, but not corroborated by other reports. It is doubtful that it was fabricated as propaganda, since the victors would not mind using their own propaganda and had no motivation to question its veracity like they did in Nuremberg. The dismissal of that report says much more about how unimportant Armenians were and have been than anything about its veracity. In any case, the quote is irrelevant.

 

As for Steve's constant criticism of Egoyan's inaccurate history. Egoyan went out of his way to avoid making a direct portrayal of history. The "typical" inaccuracies in Ararat are in the fictional Saroyan movie that Egoyan was mocking at a certain level.

If I thought it would be worth the effort, I'd like to gather together all of Egoyans "explanations" and "interpretations" of his film Ararat and show how they have changed over time as each new cascade of justified scorne has been heaped on his film. Ararat must be the only film in history where even the closing credits are mostly fiction.

 

Twilight Bark - can you tell me what parts of Ararat are NOT fiction? I think even the "Hitler statement" is in it somewhere.

[bellthecat]

The thread specifically dealt with Hitler's statement. Unless there is evidence, you are going about this on faith.

Well, actually, what I'd rather this thread be about is an exploration of why so much effort is wasted by Armenian pressure groups in distributing false history like the "Hitler statement" when it simply creates more subjects for genocide denialists to write about and appear credible in.

 

Look at the questions I had asked earlier "What does it matter if Hitler had never once mentioned the Armenian genocide. After all, he never once mentioned the Jewish genocide! Why keep repeating a lie? Why keep using a fake photograph when there are plenty of real ones? Why use a fake account of an attrocity when there are plenty of real eyewitness accounts? "

 

How many more such fake pieces of "evidence" exist? It is time to weed them out and discard them and recognise the malaise (the desire for an easy, headline-filled, idiot-friendly, version of history) that put them there in the first place.

 

Steve

[bellthecat]

Here is the fake photo I talked about. As you can see, the fraud goes back a long way, at least as far back as 1920. (This was an example I saw for sale on ebay).

[bellthecat]

And the front:

[DominO123]

I do not intend to enter in a debate here, since I have many other threads to read and answer. But I would like to give my opinion.

 

I am one of those that believe that Hitlers quote is authentic. There are some reasons for that, and it has to do with texts from Hitler I have read and his style. And here I highly dough Manstein honesty when alluding to Hitlerian rhetoric’s. If we read the entire text, it is a classical Hitlerian rhetoric that practically always end up with an example of success.

 

The Hitler quote can not be a forgery, a forgery is more when a non-existing document is “build.” Not finding the original text does not necessarily means that the text or the quote does not exist. Of course the Hitlerian quote does not prove or disprove the genocide and is weak, this is why many denialists use it, because in this cases they can use a circular logic with such a quote. This goes as this. If the quote is genuine, it does not mean there was genocide, that would mean, that this quote is not an evidence. On the other hand, if the quote does not exist, it is an example of “Armenian forgery.” For this quote to become an evidence it must be a forgery, and if it is not a forgery it isn’t an evidence. Sound like Armats Cretan paradox.

 

Now coming to the point, the reason I do believe that the quote is genuine is based on some references made by Hitler in the past, in one of which, during an interview he ended up with an almost identical quote, which goes as "Erinnern Sie sich doch an die Austrottung Armeniens."(from the Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, see Calic, Unmasked n.8-, 81) The variation on the “Who remember” and the “remember” in German are nearly identical as a German friend of mine confirmed me. When asking “who” which in the German intonation was a Hitlarian authoritarian style of speech. When Hitler is asking “whom” it was not because his troops were afraid to exterminate a people, and in order to convince them, said that those that killed the Armenians were never charged or so. If we understand it that way, we may reject the entire quote alluding to the Armenians because it won’t be a Hitlerian style. What is an Hitlerian style is about success… people remember about success, kill butcher do whatever you want, people will forget your crimes, and if you were able to build a new system and succeed at doing it, people will support you, no matter what dispositions you take. In the past, I gave some references regarding Hitlers allusion to Ataturk and how he took him as a model, as a state figure which even if he had a bloody hand succeeded. I even referred to an interview of Hitler in a Turkish newspaper and how Hitler referred to Ataturk as an example.

 

“Remember the Armenians” in this form has been said first in 1931, and it was said at the end of Hitlers statement, and if we read and compare both speeches, we realise that the idea behind the reference regarding the Armenians is identical.

 

If really forgery there was (which I really dough), the forger knew about Hitlers interview of 1931, which is unlikely. How I see this is that, the other versions which does not include the Armenian part, were taken off, because this reference to the Armenians sound to be not in its place, irrelevant, for those that didn’t understand Hitler.

 

 

 

 

--------------------

 

Since Lemkin was referred, I will just add here a little introduction regarding Lemkin and the Armenians.

 

Lemkin’s first studies concerning war “crimes against humanity” was referred to by H. Yahreas’ work, The World’s Most Horrible Crime, Colliers, vol. 127, 3 March 1951. The author retraces Lemkin’s interest concerning war crimes and extermination. In fact, the author reports that the first recorded conversation that Lemkin had about the subject was at Lvov University in 1920, when he engaged in a discussion concerning the extermination of the Armenians with his Russian Law professor. Rabbi Steven L. Jacobs, Temple B’nai Shalom, Huntsville, Alabama, and Martin Methodist College, Tennessee, who has researched Raphael Lemkin’s papers, has classed some of those concerning the Armenians and compiled them by the name "Lemkin and the Armenian Genocide." Lemkin also referred to the Armenian case, in his work “Le Crime de Génocide” as an example of extermination. Quoting here from its English version: “history has provided us with other examples of the destruction of entire nations, and ethnic and religious groups. There are, for example,… and more recently, the massacre of the Armenians.” (By Raphael Lemkin, American Scholar, Volume 15, no. 2 [April 1946]).

 

Lemkin started his works concerning “Crimes against Humanity” (we should remind the reader, that the term “crime against humanity” was first officially used to describe what happened to the Armenians) with the Armenian case. This same case, as mentioned previously, was also one of the main reasons why he decided to become a lawyer. He also gave as reference the Armenian case in his work “Genocide” whose aim was to describe what a genocide is. Lemkin was the inventor of the word, and he decided what event to call genocide. And he has chosen to call the Armenian case, genocide. No one could claim what a genocide is or not more so than the inventor, the inventor having decided to refer to the Armenian case like the Holocaust as a part of his distinct definition of the word genocide. Lemkin’s conception of the word predates the Holocaust, with the Armenian case, and then after the end of World War II, he finalized his work and published it in a series of essays. He also wrote papers, official and unofficial. In them, he referred to the Armenian case as an integral part of his definition, an “undissociable” element of the word that he himself invented.

 

The German word often used for the word genocide, "Völkermord" has been used to describe what happened to the Armenians, even before the introduction of the more official word, “genocide.” An example of the usage of the word "Völkermord" could be found in the work of S. Zurlinden, "Der Weltkrieg, Vol. II (Zürich: Art. Institut Orell Füssli, 1918), p.649.

 

This German word had not the legal aspect that the word genocide does. Lemkin at that time was pressed to release his studies and the legal aspect of such crimes, in order to have legal bases for the prosecution of people responsible of such crimes. For Lemkin the criminals responsible for the Armenian genocide were released, and for him the reason was because there were laws binding countries concerning killers and criminals, but there were no laws for criminals that in the name of a state and from its laws commit genocide, as he wrote, “Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?” And it is exactly why, in 1944, Lemkin was preparing the legal aspect, and knew that once the war was over these NAZI criminals would be released in the same way that the criminals responsible for the Armenian genocide were released if there were no new laws that could permit judgement of the criminals.

 

It must be understood once again one of the main reasons of why the word genocide was invented. It was primarily invented in order to have a legal basis to condemn people accused of such crimes, in order that they do not escape justice like they had done in the case of the Malta prisoners, and also to name such crime that until then there was no word to describe. For Lemkin the Armenian case was the archetype, the case that was used as jurisprudence, in order to come up with legal bases to condemn NAZI criminals, and be sure that the same mistake that happened in the post-World War I period were not to happen in the post-World War II period or ever again.

 

This is exactly why there is no possible debate concerning whatever or not what happened to the Armenians was a genocide or not, for people that allege it wasn’t a genocide not only have no knowledge of or reject the why of the usage of this word, but they also have no knowledge of or reject the fact that the Armenian case is a Jurisprudence and a distinct and indivisible element of the existence of the word, an integral part of the word, months before the introduction of this word in 1948, on the date of May 28, 1948, on which date the United Nations war crimes commission released a report concerning the mass slaughter of the Armenians in World War I, followed by, the same year, on the date of December 9, 1948, the publication of the Genocide Convention by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. Obviously, the United Nations report released on May 28 was part of their study that permitted them to release, months later, what would become their official definition of the word genocide. Later in 1973, a reference in one of the United States papers concerning the Armenian genocide resulted on the part of Turkey to pressure the United Nations to withdraw the case of the Armenian genocide from the list. Due to the intensification of these pressures, the case of the Armenian genocide was redrawn in 1978, until another extensive study was to be conducted, due to Turkey’s accusations of partiality. After eight years of extensive research was undertaken, one of the specialists that conducted this meticulous research, Benjamin Withaker, released the conclusion, which was, that the Armenian case was undeniably a case of genocide. The result was intense pressures from Turkey, forcing the United Nations to ignore the conclusion of the specialists and stop the passage of this recognition, but despite Turkish pressures, the Subcomission of Human Rights, led by the expert Carey, adopted the resolution by passing it to a vote, from which only one member was against, the only vote against the resolution being from the representatives of the Soviet Union.

 

Like I said in this essay of mine, one of the reason Lemkin became a lawyer was the Armenian cases. Here in explain it himself.

 

"In 1915 the Germans occupied the city of W. and the entire area. I used this time to read more history, to study and to watch whether national, religious, or racial groups are being destroyed. The truth came out only after the war. In Turkey, more than 1,200,000 Armenians were put to death for no other reason than they were Christians ... After the end of the war, some 150 Turkish war criminals were arrested and interned by the British Government on the island of Malta. The Armenians sent a delegation to the peace conference in Versailles. They were demanding justice. Then one day, the delegation read in the newspapers that all Turkish war criminals were released. I was shocked. A nation was killed and the guilty persons were set free. Why is a man punished when he kills another man? Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?

 

I identified myself more and more with the sufferings of the victims, whose numbers grew, as I continued my study of history. I understood that the function of memory is not only to register past events, but to stimulate human conscience. Soon contemporary examples of genocide followed, such as the slaughter of the Armenians in 1915. It became clear to me that the diversity of nations, religious groups and races is essential to civilization because every one of those groups has a mission to fulfill and a contribution to make in terms of culture.... I decided to become a lawyer and work for the outlawing of Genocide and for its prevention through the cooperation of nations.

 

A bold plan was formulated in my mind. This consisted [of] obtaining the ratification by Turkey [of the proposed UN Convention on Genocide Ed.] among the first twenty founding nations. This would be an atonement for [the] genocide of the Armenians. But how could this be achieved? ... The Turks are proud of their republican form of government and of progressive concepts, which helped them in replacing the rule of the Ottoman Empire. The genocide convention must be put within the framework of social and international progress. I knew however that in this conversation both sides will have to avoid speaking about one thing, although it would be constantly in their minds: the Armenians."

 

[source: With permission of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Division, the New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: I am not answering a lot these days, it may be viewed as I am bored and do not wish to participate anymore, the first may be true in part, but not the second, I will start back again participating as regularly as before(if possible) as soon as I can. So, right now, there may be many topics in which I owe answers...

Edited February 11, 2004 by Fadix

[THOTH]

I am one of those that believe that Hitlers quote is authentic. There are some reasons for that, and it has to do with texts from Hitler I have read and his style. And here I highly dough Manstein honesty when alluding to Hitlerian rhetoric’s. If we read the entire text, it is a classical Hitlerian rhetoric that practically always end up with an example of success.

 

The Hitler quote can not be a forgery, a forgery is more when a non-existing document is “build.” Not finding the original text does not necessarily means that the text or the quote does not exist.

 

...

 

Now coming to the point, the reason I do believe that the quote is genuine is based on some references made by Hitler in the past, in one of which, during an interview he ended up with an almost identical quote, which goes as "Erinnern Sie sich doch an die Austrottung Armeniens."(from the Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, see Calic, Unmasked n.8-, 81)

 

...

 

“Remember the Armenians” in this form has been said first in 1931, and it was said at the end of Hitlers statement, and if we read and compare both speeches, we realise that the idea behind the reference regarding the Armenians is identical.

 

If really forgery there was (which I really dough), the forger knew about Hitlers interview of 1931, which is unlikely. How I see this is that, the other versions which does not include the Armenian part, were taken off, because this reference to the Armenians sound to be not in its place, irrelevant, for those that didn’t understand Hitler.

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.

[gamavor]

Thoth, let me ask you this. Since when Hitler is an authority with regard to Armenian Genocide? Don't you see the fallacy beyond it?

 

Armenians were not victims of facshism. Armenians were victims of your beloved turks, that you visit frequently! Armenians were victims of their own stupidity, for letting their fate into the hands of barbaric nomads. Armenians were victim of militant Islam and pan-Turanist ideas.

[THOTH]

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...

[gamavor]

A third party statement hardly could be relevant as an evidence, whiout first hand knowledge or perception. The usage of the above phrase, even if it was real doesn't prove that there was a Genocide. Using such lame (I'm tempted to use stronger words here) proves total helplessness on the part of Armenians.

The more interesting evidences are the diplomatic reports, eye-witness accounts, even turkish authority accounts, rather than someone's words, taken out of the context as justification for his cruel intentions.

As I said, I understand the logic behind such position. USA is a Jewish country and having Jews on our side is much desirable. That is another Armenian stupidity, because all you can get as a response from those ''concerned human rights'' advocates is "Shit happens"! Just look few years back! Kosovo! The whole world knows how evil Miloshevich is and how innocent Albanians are!

Politics is a dirty game my friend.

[THOTH]

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

[den_wolf]

I tend to agree with gamavor. Armenians tend to go off in various directions against Nazism without realising that Nazism wasn't there during The Great War, when the Armenians were (being) massacred. Neither was Hitler (well, he didn't witness it, anyway). If he said what he did, he was probably basing his speech on what was being told to him. He could've just as well said that "Armenians were not massacred" had he been in a position of denial. There were conflicting reports from both sides. The fact that he chose to believe one doesn't mean that it can be used as proof. Proving something goes further than using "circulating rumours." Edited February 11, 2004 by den_wolf

[THOTH]

den_wolf,Feb 11 2004, 03:03 PM] I tend to agree with gamavor. Armenians tend to go off in various directions against Nazism without realising that Nazism wasn't there during The Great War, when the Armenians were (being) massacred.

 

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?

Edited February 11, 2004 by THOTH

[den_wolf]

How did you arrive to that conclusion based on what I said?!??????? Not bringing Nazism into a discussion about the Armenian genocide does not mean that one is pro-Nazism!!! It also does not mean that one is forgetting about the holocaust or any other genocide, and not caring about it. How you got to that conclusion is beyond me.

 

And what is with the majority of Armenians being holocaust nuts? If they were as enthusiastic and radical about the Armenian genocide, we would've had a better chance at getting our own ancestors' genocide recognised. But go on with your obsession with anti-Nazism. It proves nothing. Nazism (or the fact that the holocaust took place, if it's a fact, that is), proves nothing about the Armenian genocide.

Edited February 11, 2004 by den_wolf

[THOTH]

. Neither was Hitler (well, he didn't witness it, anyway). If he said what he did, he was probably basing his speech on what was being told to him. He could've just as well said that "Armenians were not massacred" had he been in a position of denial. There were conflicting reports from both sides. The fact that he chose to believe one doesn't mean that it can be used as proof. Proving something goes further than using "circulating rumours."

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?

[THOTH]

How did you arrive to that conclusion based on what I said?!??????? Not bringing Nazism into a discussion about the Armenian genocide does not mean that one is pro-Nazism!!! It also does not mean that one is forgetting about the holocaust or any other genocide, and not caring about it. How you got to that conclusion is beyond me.

 

And what is with the majority of Armenians being holocaust nuts? If they were as enthusiastic and radical about the Armenian genocide, we would've had a better chance at getting our own ancestors' genocide recognised. But go on with your obsession with anti-Nazism. It proves nothing. Nazism (or the fact that the holocaust took place, if it's a fact, that is), proves nothing about the Armenian genocide.

Again you miss my point...and of course I'm being sarcastic about being Pro-Naxzi (but there certainly are enough Armenians who are..unfourtunatly)...

 

And you have no knowledge of what work i may have done (or am doing ewtc0 on behalf of Genocide recognition - so please refreain from commenting on what you know nothing about.

 

And yes - I feel - that as a victim of Genocide - that we should be very sympathetic to others who have suffered the same and be sensitive to any who attempt to deny such anywhere. And yes I find thst such is worth studying and understanding. I find it unfourtunate that you fail to grasp why...oh well...

[den_wolf]

And you have no knowledge of what work i may have done (or am doing ewtc0 on behalf of Genocide recognition - so please refreain from commenting on what you know nothing about.

I did not refer to you specifically, but in general. Stop taking my comments at face value and take everything as if it is a direct attack on you.

 

Nazism (or the fact that the holocaust took place, if it's a fact, that is), proves nothing about the Armenian genocide.

I must add to that: Believing that genocide A has taken place does not imply that one must believe that genocide B has also taken place. Because it is a function of Event. That is, Event(G, A) is not necessarily equal to Event(G?, B ). If B is considered a genocide and compared to Event(G, A), it does not follow that we have Event(G, B ), it follows that we have Event(G?, B ). Looking at it from another angle, if p is the Armenian genocide, and q is the holocaust, and if we assume that p is true, then we have a situation of: true => q , which is, by the Left identity of => , =* q. (note that it does not equal to 'true', but q, which means that it all comes back to personal belief and assumption).

Edited February 11, 2004 by den_wolf

[THOTH]

den - do you have a calculation that tells you when to take out the trash?

[den_wolf]

den - do you have a calculation that tells you when to take out the trash?

Let p be "the trash-bin should be emptied because it is full", and let q be "I take out the trash."

 

p is true, so by the Left identity of =>,

 

true => q =* q. which tells me that i am taking out the trash.

 

[Jewish Friend]

I'm skipping over but i think what Toth is getting at is, by no one caring about the Armenian Genocide, and hitler probably, in my opnion definitely, noting the lack of concern..another Genocide ocurred to the Jews. It is part of a genicide link. Now, with some excusing Hitler, especially on the internet, and if no one rufutes, then one day that era will be rewritten and forgotten and another group, maybe Hindus, whoever will be treated the same with no concern. We are all part of a big picture. However, it is true Hitler had nothing to do with Armenia that I know of during the Genocide. But his EVALUATION of that situation lead tothe same..capiche? YidKid

 

I'm not talking about you folks apologizing for Hitler..you all be cool!

Edited February 11, 2004 by Jewish Friend

[THOTH]

I'm skipping over but i think what Toth is getting at is, by no one caring about the Armenian Genocide, and hitler probably, in my opnion definitely, noting the lack of concern..another Genocide ocurred to the Jews. It is part of a genicide link. Now, with some excusing Hitler, especially on the internet, and if no one rufutes, then one day that era will be rewritten and forgotten and another group, maybe Hindus, whoever will be treated the same with no concern. We are all part of a big picture. However, it is true Hitler had nothing to do with Armenia that I know of during the Genocide. But his EVALUATION of that situation lead toe samw..capiche? YidKid

Yes in a sense - though perhaps overstarted a bit...but yes - if the Turks had been heavily & severly punished - such as by Sevres treaty...at least something befitting both their aggression in the war and their utter failure to take care of the welfare of their own people (our forebearers0...understatement..then maybe..just maybe - Hitler and his cromies would have thought twice about the excesses. Though like people who murder - it is often a rash act - and no one (or few) intend to get caught...still the point is that such a thing forgotten is easier to repeat...and the poin that Hitler was making - and had made before in earlier interviews - was that it was possible to displacew a people from their native lands (in the case of the quote he was actually refering to the Poles) - and do so with utter brutality...and with the passage of (not even very much) time - the deed would not even be remembered....this is the consitency of the quote from Hitler's perspective. And no one has ever claimed this to be any sort of proof of the genocide itself. It was gamavor who initially misconstrued the talk of proof in the thread from proof of the existance of the statement to it being some kind of proof of the Genocide itself (i can't see how anyone could make this leap - so i am mystified)...anyway...cheers!

[THOTH]

Let p be "the trash-bin should be emptied because it is full", and let q be "I take out the trash."

 

p is true, so by the Left identity of =>,

 

true => q =* q. which tells me that i am taking out the trash.

 

I am so happy for you that you have your logical statements to comfot you and get you through the day...LOL

[den_wolf]

Jewish Friend, that is a slippery slope fallacy.

 

Moreover, it could be argued that genocide recognition is not a hindrance at all to future genocide attempts. Rwanda is a proof to that. And I could give a lot of other examples.