User talk:Tickle me/armenian quote
div data collections - essays
Fadix' material
Edourd Calic in the book “Two confidential interviews with Hitler in 1931” provides an interview of Adolf Hitler published by the Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten in 1931, where Hitler makes a similar statement regarding Armenia[n]("Erinnern Sie sich doch an die Austrottung Armeniens.")
"...Are we really to remain as a nation of have-nots for ever? Why should not the sources of raw materials be equitably distributed? We save the capacity to rouse and lead the masses against this situation. In the long term ought Germany to be ground down economically? Everywhere there is discontent. Everywhere people are awaiting a new world order. We intend to introduce a great resettlement policy; we do not wish to go on treading each other's toes in Germany. In 1923 little Greece could re-settle a million men. Think of the biblical deportations and the massacres of the Middle Ages and remember the eradication of the Armenians. One eventually reaches the conclusion that masses of men are mere biological plasticine. We will not allow ourselves to be turned into *beep* as the French tried to do after 1918. The nordic blood available in England, northern France and North America will eventually go with us to reorganize the world. The discontent in their own home countries and in their colonies will leave them no choice."
This style of Hitler that was similar to his speech is recognized by Ludwig Krieger. As it has been published in “Yale Journal of International Law”, Vol. 23, No.2, 1998, p.540
“The transcript checks with the original...Having been a shorthand writer at Hitler's briefing conferences in his headquarters during the Second World War, I recognize Hitler's style and reactions throughout the record. Breiting's papers as a whole confirm the sequences of events. Both from the factual and political point of view; the checking of these papers has been of extreme interest to me.”
Adolf Hitler known style to refer to success and models, was further confirmed when he was interviewed by the editor of the Turkish newspaper Milleyet in July 1933 as Norman H. Baynes report in the book: “The Speeches of Adolf Hitler. April 1922-August 1939”, Vol. 1(Oxford, 1942) p. 868
In the interview he refer to the success the Ataturkist Turkish states foundation was,(that was a consequences of the destruction of the Ottoman Armenian population) the movement in modern Turkey was according to him a “shining star.”
Hitler's sympathy with the founder of the Turkish republic was confirmed earlier, during his November 1923 Putsch in Munich, as Joachim C. Fest affirm in his book “Hitler”(pp. 156-57) according to Hitler the founder of the Turkish republic Mustafa Kamel Ataturk was a true statesman, and whom has acted “boldly” and “forcefully.” Paul du Veou, in his book “Le desastre d'Alexandrette 1934-1938” (Paris 1938) pp. 2, 136-139, confirm that Hitler was influenced by modern Turkey, by referencing to the Turkish design to annex Alexendrette, to annex in its turn Austria.
Ernst Jackh, a German author, wrote in his book The Rising Crescent (New York, 1944), pp. 64-5
"The Ottoman dynasty began at a time when the hordes of Genghis Khan—the Pan-Asiatic Mongol—was sweeping westward and carrying the swastika in Asia Minor. It ended when the modern Genghis Khan—the Pan-European Hitler—was laying plans for the drive of his swastika-bearing armies toward the ends of the earth."
As noted by Leo Alexander in "War Crimes and Their Motivation. The Social Psychological Structure of the SS and the Criminalization of Society," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, XXXIX (September-October 1948) p.300
"[Hitler] had discovered in a book about Genghis Khan ... as early as his Landsberg Prison days"
Wanda von Baeyer, a German psychologist, has even gone as far as to stat Hitler himself had introduced the SS practice of Blutkitt, Genghis Khan's tradition of cementing solidarity among his hordes through the perpetration of merciless mass murder.
If one compare one will come up the interpretation that not only it was a Hitlerian rhetoric and style, but as well it is suspicious to think that such a quote could have been forged for various reasons such as the fact that a near identical ending of a Hitlerian speech when exposing the exact same ideal was made 8 years prior to the one that is questioned here... and that the interview was retraced by Edourd Calic in his famous work, leading many to believe that Canaris story seems to at least hold.
Another note regarding Hitlers quote, those that claim that the “who remember the extermination of the Armenians.” Is not found in the original version are probably mixing three possible repeated Hitlerian speeches, or at least two of them. One has to read Nuremberg exposition of those versions to suspect that there was at the very least two different Hitlerian speeches given the same day, and possibly in the second copy, the “who remember the extermination of the Armenians” is not present. The file USA-29 and USA-30 seems to be different records of the same speech.
The exhibition files during the Nuremberg concerning Hitlers speech were those that follow:
- USA-28(the famous L-3 that contain the Armenian quote)
- USA-29
- USA-30
The variation of the USA-29 and USA-30, were probably a question of expected human error, while USA-28 was different, not only with the ending where we found out “who remember the extermination of the Armenians.” But as well, the rest of the text. It becomes more clear when one read on USA-30 identification: “Second Speech by the Fuhrer on August 22, 1939.” The USA-29 and USA-30 were possibly copies of the same speech, making of the USA-28 and USA-29 the first speech.
One could conclude, that the versions where the sentence regarding the Armenians were not included were not the same speech, the other variants where the rest of the text was identical, the Armenian part was removed to imitate the second speech from individuals that had no clue of the reason why the Armenian quote was there… but those evidences indicate that it was there…
One could conclude, that the versions where the sentence regarding the Armenians were not included were not the same speech, the other variants where the rest of the text was identical, the Armenian part was removed to imitate the second speech from individuals that had no clue of the reason why the Armenian quote was there… but those evidences indicate that it was there… More ground to this was given, when Professor Gerhard L. Weinberg from the University of North Carolina wrote in his book: “The Foreign Policy of Hitler’s Germany: Starting World War II, 1937-39 reports that this first speech in question(AKA L-3(USA-28)) was obtained by the British Ambassador to Berlin, Neville Henderson, on August 25 and that there is a ribbon copy in his own papers which could be found in the Public Record Office at Kew. In Vol. VII (1954) of the official series Documents of the British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939.
The source of this problem appears to be that the quote allegedly comes from a speech made by Hitler, not from any written or published text. Its authenticity or otherwise thus depends on the recollections of eye-witnesses, the validity of which may be doubted, and has been doubted, by later commentators, but the majority of those commentators doubting the existence of the quote refers to work by Turkish diplomats like Gurun, or Turkeys political scientists working at the foreign ministry like Ataov.
And as Professor Gerhard L. Weinberg wrote. Nuremberg needed more informations about the rejected L-3, the actual version they have used has been criticized by experts later(see the two detailed articles appearing in the scholarly quarterly Issued by the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich in 1968 and 1971 written by Winfried Baumgart). It was actually Hermann Bohn version that was the abbreviated version, and one of the two replaced documents used in the Nuremberg in that form. What this means? It actually means that Hitlers reference to the Armenians was possibly not a “forgery” and one of the two speeches of Hitler. Fadix 16:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Gerhard L. Weinberg letter to The NYT, June 1985
Hitler Remark on Armenians Reported in '39
To the Editor:
Robert John, in his letter of June 8, maintains that the reference to Hitler's comment "Who today remembers the Armenian extermination?" is a dubious one. The only dubious matter may be his research.
In detailed and careful articles that appeared in the scholarly quarterly Issued by the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich in 1968 and 1971, Winfried Baumgart has demonstrated that the account by Adm. Hermann Böhm, on which your correspondent relies, is an abbreviated and inaccurate one — perhaps not so surprising in that Böhm was a great admirer of Hitler as opposed to Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the author of the more detailed account.
The reference to the Armenians occurs in a document handed secretly to the British Government on Aug. 25, 1939; It was published by the British Government In the official series "Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-39," volume VII, 1954; the ribbon copy of the actual document as handed to the British Ambassador in Berlin in 1939 may be seen in Ambassador Neville Henderson's papers in the Public Record Office at Kew.
Since the record shows that the British Government received the document containing the reference to the Armenians on Aug. 29, 1939, your correspondent's suggestion that those who issued It did so with a deliberate intent to deceive the world In 1945 reflects on his rather than their motives.
Anyone seriously interested In the issues surrounding Hitler's speech of Aug. 22, 1939, In which he mentioned the "Vernichtung der Armenier," the destruction of the Armenians, can find the evidence summarized, with detailed references to the sources In my book "The Foreign Policy of Hitler's Germany: Starting World War II, 1937-39," pages 610-612.
GERHARD L. WEINBERG William Rand Kenan Jr. Prof. of History University of North Carolina Chapel HIll, June 12, 1985
Hoch_auf_einem_Baum's material
In seinem Aufsatz „Die Rezeption des Völkermordes an den Armeniern in Deutschland 1915 bis 1945“ untersucht [Dominik J.] Schaller des Weiteren die historischen Vorläufer der Shoah, angefangen mit dem Mord an den Herero, der in Deutschland „keineswegs geleugnet“ wurde, aber als „notwendig“ galt, „um Lebensraum für die Deutschen zu gewinnen“, so die damalige Begründung (S. 519). Auch lobte der NS-Rassenideologe Alfred Rosenberg 1926 ausdrücklich den fünf Jahre zuvor in Berlin ermordeten jungtürkischen Innenminister Talaat, einen der Initiatoren des Völkermords an den Armeniern. Rosenberg nannte ihn einen treuen Verbündeten Deutschlands, während die Armenier – wie die Juden – ein Volk seien, das den Mittelmächten während des Krieges in den Rücken gefallen sei. Schallers Studie über die Beurteilung „des Armeniers“ in der deutschen Anthropologie und die Haltung der Nationalsozialisten zum Völkermord zeigt, dass die Nationalsozialisten ganz genau wussten, was in der Türkei passiert war. Für sie handelte es sich um eine normale Umsiedlungspolitik in biologischem Sinne. Dementsprechend hatte sich auch Hitler in einem Interview mit den Leipziger Neuesten Nachrichten 1931 geäußert: „Überall wird eine neue Weltordnung erwartet. Wir wollen eine große Siedlungspolitik führen. […] Denken Sie an die Verschleppung in der Bibel, an das Abschlachten im Mittelalter […] oder erinnern Sie sich doch an die Ausrottung Armeniens. Man kommt zu der Überzeugung, dass die Menschenmassen nichts anders als ein biologischer Teig sind“ (S. 542)
Wunschdenken. Es gibt eine seriöse Quelle dafür. Das Zitat wird zwar in anderen Aufzeichnungen der Rede nicht wiedergegeben; da diese aber alle stark verkürzen (vier Stunden auf zwei Seiten) und sich auch in anderen Passagen im Wortlaut voneinander stark unterscheiden, ist es durchaus wahrscheinlich, dass das Zitat tatsächlich so fiel und nur von den anderen nicht für wichtig genug gehalten wurde. grüße, Hoch auf einem Baum 23:54, 15. Aug 2005 (CEST)
Also schlicht eine Beschreibung der Quellenlage, keinerlei Hinweise auf eine Fälschung (eine solche hätte entweder durch einen Pulitzerpreisträger oder durch einen Beteiligten des 20. Juli 1944 geschen müssen). Gusts Buch ist von 1993. In diesem Interview von 2005 äußert er, auf das Hitler-Zitat angesprochen, keine Zweifel mehr an dessen Authentizität. grüße, Hoch auf einem Baum 18:50, 14. Aug 2005
Entgegen dem Eindruck, den Danyalov oben zu erwecken versucht, bezeichnet Wolfgang Gust in seinem Buch das Hitler-Zitat keineswegs als Fälschung. Eine (soweit ich sehen kann, exakte) Online-Kopie des von Danyalov zitierten Kapitels findet sich hier. Die betreffende Passage lautet:
Von der vierstündigen Ansprache Hitlers gibt es fünf Aufzeichnungen, doch nur in einer kommen die Armenier vor. Sie stammt von dem amerikanischen Journalisten und Pulitzerpreisträger Louis Paul Lochner, der kurz vor dem Krieg in Berlin das Büro der Associated Press leitete. Lochner hatte das Schriftstück am 25. Oktober der britischen Botschaft in Berlin übergeben. Sein Informant war, nach eigenem Bekunden, der Jugendführer Hermann Maß, der ihm das Dokument auf Veranlassung des gerade als Heeres-Generalstabschef zurückgetretenen Generaloberst Ludwig Beck zukommen ließ. Aber auch Beck war nicht der Autor der Niederschrift, sondern hatte sie von einem ungenannten Offizier. Aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach war dieser ungenannte Offizier Abwehrchef Wilhelm Canaris. Alle Lochner-Informanten gehörten zur Hitler-Opposition und wurden nach dem Attentat am 20. Juli 1944 umgebracht. So konnte keiner nach dem Kriegsende Zeugnis ablegen. In der später publizierten Mitschrift des Admirals Canaris aber kommt die Anspielung auf das Schicksal der Armenier nicht vor.
Also schlicht eine Beschreibung der Quellenlage, keinerlei Hinweise auf eine Fälschung (eine solche hätte entweder durch einen Pulitzerpreisträger oder durch einen Beteiligten des 20. Juli 1944 geschen müssen). Gusts Buch ist von 1993. In diesem Interview von 2005 äußert er, auf das Hitler-Zitat angesprochen, keine Zweifel mehr an dessen Authentizität. grüße, Hoch auf einem Baum 18:50, 14. Aug 2005 (CEST)
Gust, W., Der Völkermord an den Armeniern, Die Tragödie des ältesten Christenvolkes der Welt, München/Wien 1993 Kevork B. Bardakjian: "Hitler and the Armenian Genocide"
Halder: "Kriegstagebuch: tägliche Aufz. des Chefs des Generalstabes des Heeres 1939-1942. - Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1962-1964"
OT: Faloaded on the Naim-Andonians authenticity
I added this on Armenian genocide without thourough inspection, seems interesting. By unknown turkey.com Forum member "Faloaded_at_B".
There is only one work that is the bases of the denialists arguments that has been later translated to English and it is the work of Orel and Yuca "Ermenilerce Talat Pasa'ya Atfedilen Telgraflarin Icyuzu" Ankara, 1983. Dadrian provided many evidences forcing us to conclude that the work by Orel and Yuca is worthless, to do this Dadrian covers the five allegations that these two diplomats brings to reject the Andonians and call them forgeries... After studying the cases, one is forced to conclude that there is strong chances that the Andonians could be authentics. And it is ironically its mistakes that makes us conclude this.
First allegation is the fact that the papers used on the Andonians documents looked like the ones used for calligraphy lessons in French schools... The orginal have not been studied by Orel and Yuca, they came to that conclusion basing themselves on the spacing of the lines standarts in the French system. Ironically this is an evidences that the Andonians could in fact be authentics and not forgeries, because none other then Turkish high officials would know that Talaat during wartime was using ordinary papers because of the paper crises the Ottoman was in during the war, exporting papers from Germany, that was using as well the metric system starting in 1840, therefore the French calligraphy papers were as well used by the Germans... and Talaat specifically used such papers. Ahmed Resit in his work "Gorduklerim-Yaptiklarim", (1890-1922), Istanbul, 1945, p.117 explain that Talaat used such specific papers. The question is, how Andonian could know this fact? It is evident by now, that this said evidence that the two Turkish diplomats have used to reject the Andonians, are evidences that support the Andonians as authentics not as forgeries.
The second argument by the two diplomats are not evidences in itself, because they are used in a way, that they do not reject the authenticity of the Andonians... Orel and Yuca question the fact that Naim has kept these documents, and it was not possible that telegrams were kept for more then 3 years before destroying them. But again, here the two diplomats show us their ignorance of Ottoman document classifications... yes! it was true that in Istanbul for example orders to destroy the documents have been given and later in the entire Ottoman itself, and I will be presenting myself on this thread such orders. But it was not really the case for Allepo for that time, and Aleppo was one of the only places during that period, where the Documents were not classed to be protected, and here again Andonian could not have known this, the German Consul Walter Rossler, that supported the authenticity of those documents recognise that "entirely granted for as far as I knew the Turks [in Aleppo] never catalogued and attached (nie geheftet) their documents." The Daily Telegraph reported: "on the lightening advance of Allenby's forces...time was lacking for so complete an obliteration of the tragic archives while subordinates, who remained behind, sometimes retained possession of compromising documents..." The period that Andonians say having taken these documents makes a lots of sens, as well as the fact that he took them from somehwere that it was specifically one of the only places that documents important such as this could not have been destroyed. And, again and again... how could Andonian knew such a thing that only Ottoman and German officials could have known.
Then, there is the third argument to allegedly prove that the Andonians are forgeries. The two Turkish diplomat alleges by refering to the February 18 and March 25 letters, that the errors made in them could not have been made by a Turk, but again, they are wrong. These are orders letters, handwrittings, they are not publications to be read by a mass, Orel and Yuca measures for example the letter b etc... to show us that it could only have been made by someone that could not master the Ottoman script, but what they do not point out, is that a hand writting to give an order is not a paper to be corrected, or a literary work. Ahmed Mithad the well known Turkish language specialist as well as writer recognised the irregularities of the Turkish language: "The Ottoman language is such a rotten structure that which-ever part is touched, falls down... We have to give up making repairs." The Martial Court itself had to rewrite an entire sentence from an official Ottoman document because "very ineptly used Turkish." A Turkish Interior Minister also denounced as "bad" (bozuk) the Turkish language of a 1912 Young Turk Congress. A Turkish Historian also recognise that Talaat Turkish writing was "bad" Turkish, refering to his telegrams, pointed out in "Izahli Osmanli TarihiKronolojisi", Istanbul. 1961, I.H. Danismend,. The errors he criticises Talaat of making are similar to those that Orel and Yuca refer to to claim that the Andonians were forgeries. This like the other arguments used by the Diplomats are evidences of Andonians authenticity not the contrary. How Andonian would known that Talaah had a bad Turkish? Andonian was a writer mastering Turkish as well, why would he forge something with mistakes if he would want to pass them as authentics?
Now another claim used by Orel and Yuka, Dadrian provide examples of the same kind of mistakes in Ottoman documents recognised as authentic by Turkey, those same examples were even refered in Yves Ternon work about denialism.
To finish, Andonian was a Journalist writer, mastering Armenian as well as Ottoman Turkish, his Ottoman Turkish, living in that time, was certainly better then Orel and his friend pseudo Ottoman Turkish knoweldge... if he would have wanted to forge documents, these little mistakes easy to correct would have not been made... like using different papers for many of the telegrams(this was a known Talat mistake), datation mistakes, someone that would want to forge documents, would not for example forge some documents by having the correct datation and forge others with datation mistakes, in order to have correct datation, one should know Higir Calender, if he would know it, why making mistakes for some datations and not others? When you forge, you try to be the most credible possible, and when you have a knowledge of Ottoman Turkish and as Journalist the Hegir datation, and the capability to use the same kind of paper for all the documents, then why making everything possible in order that you left arguments for the opposition party? Is that make any sens? As well mistakes of the Hegir Calender in various Turkish documents are abound, Dadrian refered to few in his work, from the same logic applied to prove the Andonians as forgeries, Orel should conclude that many documents admitted as authentic by Turkey are in fact forgeries.
Here, I will post the conclusion(only the conclusion for copyright reasons) of the essay from Dadrian titled; "The Naim-Andonian Documents on the World War I Destruction of Ottoman Armenians: The Anatomy of a Genocide. (published in Int. J. Middle East Stud. 15 (1986), pp. 311-360)
pp. 338-343
CONCLUSION
There are two ways by which to inquire into the validity of documents when their authenticity is called into question. One of them involves the negative route of falsification. Problems of doctoring, signature forging, or outright fabrication of an entire piece are examined. One may assess these documents also by comparing stated objectives against attained results: Were the Ottoman Armenians in fact largely exterminated or not?
This study has established that the material under review is flawed with respect to technicalities. These, however, are matters that are rather extrinsic to the test of falsification. The recent efforts of a number of Turkish authors to invalidat the Naim-Andonian material by focusing on these flaws have been examined and found to be equally and similarly deficient. These flaws involve miscounting, misdating, misconversion of dates from old to new style, and careless editing, despite the availability of manifold resources, including staff assistance provided by the Turkish Historical Society—which in the chaos of the armistice were neither available nor affordable by either Nairn or Andonian. Besides being incidental rather than central, such problems are endemic to the cumbersome nature of the material itself.
The argument of falsification has been found to be untenable, since the few instances on which the argument is predicated merely involve irregularities. Irregularity is not coterminous, however, with forgery. Forgery presupposes skill, caution, and above all a measure of sophistication geared to avoiding mistakes. The presence and easy detection of such defects in the material under review mitigate against that charge. Indeed, no forger of any value would have produced material so incomplete and so flawed with glaring imperfections; these could have been easily avoided by anyone disposed to forge. Furthermore, a government apparatus known for its chronically erratic methods of transactions cannot be held exempt from such irregularities. Moreover, one is dealing here with highly secret transactions in the midst of a consuming "Great War," initiated and directed by a political party that relied on diversions and camouflage for the pursuit of its secret designs; irregularity is an integral part of such a mentality.
The recent publicity accorded to a set of Talat documents illustrates this point of diversion and camouflage. Talat is portrayed in them as a caring, responsible Interior Minister whose sole aim is claimed to be "the protection," "the safety," and "the relocation" of the deportees. On its face value this countervailing evidence not only is convincing but in a sense belies the evidence supplied by Nairn. The later evidence is punctured, however, by the following facts:
1. When Talat showed three of these documents to the Interim German Ambassador Ernst Hohenlohe-Langenburg, and indirectly to Austrian Ambassador Johann Margrave Pallavicini, he triggered a series of reactions among the Ambassadors and provincial consuls of Germany and Austria. These reactions, detailed in notes 37 and 38, depict Talat as "a double-dealer," prone to repeated deceptions.102
2. British High Commissioner Nevile Henderson, as explained earlier, expressed serious doubt about the purpose of these documents and the intent of Talat.103
3. In the testimony of German, American, and Ottoman officials are embodied statements revealing a pattern of command and a control system through which benign directives are seen as being secretly countermanded. These revelations are furnished particularly by General Hans Seeckt (the German Chief of the Ottoman General Staff), German Ambassador Paul Wolff-Metternich, U.S. Aleppo Consul Jackson, the German Consul of Adana, Biige, a Turkish district commissioner, and a deputy.104
A vivid example of this double-dealing through a two-track system of communication is contained in the memoirs of Falih Rifki Atay, who served as Talat's personal secretary. Here, Talat is described as having conveniently accommodated a favor-seeker by obliging him with a letter of recommendation addressed to a provincial governor (district commissioner). According to Atay's account, soon after the departure of the elated beneficiary, Talat summoned Atay to his office and directed him to inform the governor in question via a cipher telegram that Talat's letter was to be disregarded. Atay explains this double-dealing by referring to Talat's penchant for "lies" and "deception" (yalan, aldatici) as part of his "Oriental ethics."105
When shifting the discussion to the other route of analysis—namely, the route of confirmation—the essence of the material under review becomes highlighted as primary source. Indeed, the confirmation is amply afforded by the findings of the Turkish Military Tribunal through a comprehensive indictment and a series of verdicts. These findings were based on authenticated official documents, sworn testimony, and depositions provided by a plethora of high-ranking officials, civilian and military, who independently verified the direct complicity of the men prominently figuring in the Naim-Andonian documents. These officials include three army commanders, several deputy commanders, and seven governors. Furthermore, the evidence, gathered before and during the trials, was itemized and placed in more than 200 files, with specific labels, numbers, and proofs of certification attached. The proceedings were published in Takvimi Vakayi, the official gazette of the Ottoman government, the special supplements of which served during the proceedings as a judicial journal.106
The material is rendered even more substantial when one moves from confirmation to corroboration by still another independent source—the official and mostly secret reports of German and Austrian diplomats, Ottoman Turkey's fervent allies, and of American representatives at Istanbul and Aleppo up to April 1917, when the U.S. entered the war. These wartime accounts foreshadow most of the postwar findings of the Courts-Martial. Critical in this respect are the testimonies of Lieutenant-Colonel Stange, of U.S. Aleppo Consul Jackson, and above all of German Aleppo Consul Rossler, who was able to read the French translation of the Andonian volume. Rossler's consular district being the locus in quo of the documents, and of the principal officials described in them, his judgment that the documents appear to be "genuine" (echt) rather than false assumes even greater significance.
It may be concluded with a high degree of certainty that the two letters and the 50 decoded, ciphers that constitute the Naim-Andonian material are true documents. This certitude is unmistakably manifest in the case of those 13 documents whose original Ottoman texts are reproduced through plates, as noted in Table 2.
Having reached this conclusion, it is necessary to evaluate briefly the thrust of these documents. The paramount question to be answered in this regard is: What was the nature of the destruction of Ottoman Armenians? From the body of the data presented in this study, three criteria emerge:
1. Premeditation. As ideological guideposts for the scheme and enactment of that destruction, keynoted in the remaining 50 documents, the two letters (Nos. 1 and 2) are critical in this respect. In them is outlined a blueprint of a radical solution to a lingering Turko-Armenian conflict. It is equally significant that these letters contain no reference to the wartime conduct of the Armenian population or any segment of it. They focus instead on "the humiliations and bitterness of the past"—in other words, to a history of anti-Armenian enmity predating that war. Talat ventilated that sense of enmity by branding the Armenians as "a curse for centuries" (No. 52). These facts suggest, if they do not literally indicate, the rationale for premeditation107 in the light of which the argument that the anti-Armenian measures were nothing but a wartime aberration is considerably obviated. By the same token, charges of Armenian insurgency and acts of sabotage may be assigned the kind of perspective within which their validity may be probed and evaluated. The essence of any legal definition of premeditation is deliberation upon a contemplated act—a decision to commit a crime. The key Indictment underscored this aspect of the destruction by quoting Nazim as having said that the measures initiated against the Armenians were "determined following extensive and full deliberations." Moreover, in the Bayburt verdict the Court underscored that "the crimes were premeditated and determined upon at Ittihad's central headquarters"; in this and in the Yozgad verdict the Court invoked Article 170 of the Ottoman Penal Code, which prescribes death for premeditated murder. The concept of premeditation is defined in Article 169 in terms of the Arabic word tacammuden, derived from the rootword camd, which means "intent based on prior deliberation." As indicated in note 39, American Ambassador Morgenthau had kept a regular diary. The August 3, 1915, entry touches on this problem of premeditation. In it, Talat is quoted as saying, "The Union and Progress Committee had carefully considered the matter in all its details and that the policy which was being pursued was that which they had officially adopted . . . the result of prolonged and careful deliberation" (p. 333). For his part Lieutenant-Colonel Stange, in his "secret" report to the German Military Mission in Turkey, confirmed the presence of "a long before entertained plan of a thorough reduction, if not extermination, of the Armenian population." He furthermore indicated that military needs were a secondary consideration but were used as "a welcome pretext [in order to exploit] the favorable opportunity" afforded by the war. He singled out the brigands, which he called "scum" (Gesindel), as the tools of the extermination.108
2. Intent. Although implicit in premeditation, intent, not to be confused with motive, is a state of mind, a mental attitude that as a rule is proved by consequences resulting from it. At present, that proof is furnished by the answer to the question "Was the destruction of the Armenians enacted with a design and with determination?" Among the ciphers listed in this study, five from Talat (Nos. 4, 5, 8, 25, and 45), and two from Nuri (Nos. 29 and 35) clearly exhibit such a design and a resolve.109 This state of mind and the resulting consequences are summarized by General Vehib, the Third Army Commander, as follows: "The massacre and destruction \katl ve imhasi\ of the Armenians . . . were the result of Ittihad's Central Committee decision [neticei mukarrerat]." A copy of the original deposition is in the Jerusalem Armenian Patriarchate Archive (series 17, file H, Nos. 171-182. See also note 47, p. 350.) The Military Tribunal took pains to emphasize the overwhelming weight of evidence demonstrating that the deportations, purporting to be a wartime measure of relocation, were a cloak for the intended extermination of the deportees. In a rare attempt at interceding on behalf of the Armenians, American Secretary of State Lansing denounced the "studied intention on the part of the Ottoman Government to annihilate a Christian race. The true facts, if publicly known, would shock the whole civilized world." He was referring to "reports for many months past from official and other reliable sources" depicting "the cruelties, massacres, and starvation" inflicted upon "the Armenian population of Turkey."' ° That intent was enforced by stringent sanctions against officials opposed to, or even hesitant in, the implementation of the various orders.
3. Organization and Supervision. Neither premeditation nor an allied resolve are sufficient for the gargantuan task of destroying a people. The necessary twin condition is division of labor. Foremost in this respect was the role of Talat's Interior Ministry and its three subsidiaries—the Directorates of Public Security, of the Istanbul Police, and of the Deportation Service. That Ministry additionally controlled the provincial gendarmerie in charge of collecting, grouping, and escorting the deportee convoys. For the task of actual extermination through massacre, Ittihad's leaders had created a separate Special Organization in which were enrolled tens of thousands of convicts released from the prisons and organized for that purpose. The key Indictment cites the Special Organization a dozen times, describing the enrollees as "criminals and outlaws" who were used for the massacre and destruction of the convoys subjected to deportation; "this fact was established through a constellation of evidence involving written testimony, proofs, and documents" (TV, 3540, p. 6). Lieutenant-Colonel Stange and German Consuls Scheubner von Richter, Bergfeld, and Rossler, as well as Aleppo American Consul Jackson, specifically referred to these killer units in their reports. The supervision was entrusted to carefully selected party functionaries called Responsible Secretaries and/or Delegates (katibi mesul, murahhas). Having supreme authority over provincial governors, these men resolutely pursued the aims of destruction. It is for this reason that the Military Tribunal instituted a special series of trials aimed especially at this category of Ittihadists. In pronouncing its verdict, the Court singled out the latter's role in "the organization and engagement [tertib ve ihzar\ of gangs of brigands carrying out the massacre and destruction of the Armenians" (TV, 3772, p. 2). It is most significant that §akir's two letters (Nos. 1 and 2) were addressed to Ittihad's Responsible Secretary Cemal. Cemal came from Adana to Aleppo to replace Ali Riza, whose compassionate attitude toward the Armenians §akir mockingly disdains in the third paragraph of his second letter.
Finally the question of the extent of destruction, resulting from the nature of the destruction, may be addressed briefly. Despite contemporary efforts to minimize Armenian losses drastically, no less a figure than a Turkish Interior Minister publicly declared on March 13, 1919, when the Courts-Martial were in high gear, that 800,000 Armenians were actually killed in connection with the deportations. This disclosure, buried in the records of the armistice, was somewhat anticipated three months earlier by Mustafa Arif, another post-war Turkish Interior Minister, who had stated, "The statistical computations on this subject are still continuing. When we complete our examinations in terms of exact numbers we shall then announce our findings to the press." Interior Minister Cemal's figure is exclusive of (1) the tens of thousands of Armenian soldiers and officers executed by fellow military, (2) a larger number of victims absorbed in the mainstream of the population through conversions, and (3) those multitudes who succumbed to the ordeals of deportation. Notwithstanding, his disclosure represents a landmark governmental admission made in 1919.111
The relevance of the discussion above warrants a final conclusion on the nature of the destruction. Governmental premeditation, intent, organization, and outcome respecting the scope of casualties are major determinants in any enactment of genocide. It is therefore maintained that the World War I destruction of Ottoman Armenians was a distinct case of genocide, which typologically may be called "optimal" since these determinants configure in it in full measure.112 In this configuration the criteria "nature" and "outcome" of destruction intertwine in producing the final solution to the Armenian Question as intended and sought by the Ittihad hierarchy. Johann Bernstorff, the last German Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire (September 7, 1917-October 27, 1918), attests to this fact by citing a laconic statement made to him in an exchange with no less a figure than the then Grand Vezir Talat whom Metter-nich, another wartime German ambassador to Turkey (November 15, 1915-October 3, 1916), described as "the soul of the Armenian persecutions" (die Seele der Armenierverfolgungeri): "When I kept on pestering him on the Armenian Question, he once said with a smile, 'What on earth do you want? The question is settled, there are no more Armenians.' " The ambassador later explains this assertion of having solved the Armenian Question in terms of the ancestral territories of the victims, namely, "Armenia where the Turks have been systematically trying to exterminate the Christian population." Despite his expressions of esteem for Talat, the ambassador goes on to concede Talat's role in that extermination: "His complicity in the Armenian crime he atoned for by his death."113
pp. 355-359
NOTES
102- Talat's November 18 cipher (No. 11 in Table 2) clearly outlines these procedures of camouflage and deflection intended for the benefit of the American Consuls. He is instructing the deportation officials to be careful about the real intent of the deportations, to avoid attracting attention when carrying out that intent through "the known measures" (tedabiri maliime), and to "create the conviction among foreigners" (kanaatinin tevlidi ifin) that the aim of "deportation" is nothing but "relocation" (tebdili mekdn).
103- See note 40. It is ironic that as British Ambassador to the Third Reich, the same Henderson on August 25, 1939, relayed to London without comment a summary version of Hitler's notorious speech of August 22, in which Hitler purportedly is exhorting his generals not to be concerned about the adverse consequences of his plans of extermination against Poland. In that speech, there is a reference to the Armenian massacres, and to Hitler's allowing that that episode of destruction had been consigned to oblivion ("Wer redet noch von der Vernichtung der ArmenierT') For a detailed examination of the reasons warranting the truth-value of this statement, and the circumstances of Henderson conveying the speech to London, see Winfried Baumgart, "Zur Ansprache Hitlers vor den Fiihrern der Wehrmacht am 22. August 1939. Eine quellenkritische Untersuchung," Vierteljahreshefte fur Zeitgeschichte, 16, 2 (1968), pp. 121-22, 138-39. For a similar reference by Hitler to "the extermination" ("Ausrottung") of the Armenians, see Edouard Calic, Ohne Maske (Frankfurt, 1968), p. 101. For the primary source of Henderson's communication to London see the Henderson file in FO 800/270, No. 39/85, folios 288-91. A monograph, just published, examines in detail the circumstances surrounding Hitler's August 22, 1939, reference to the Armenians to verify its authenticity: K. B. Bardakjian, Hitler and the Armenian Genocide, Zoryan Institute Special Report Number 3 (Cambridge, Mass., 1985), pp. 3-24.
104- Writing in the wake of the Turkish Armistice, while Seeckt was proceeding home with his German complement of officers via Odessa on the Black Sea, Seeckt explains the gap between official Turkish postures and unofficially held secret positions. In his essay on "The Causes of the Turkish Collapse" (Die Grunde des Zusammenbruchs der Tiirkei, dated November 4, 1918) Seeckt injects "the unhappy Armenian Question" when discussing Turkish rabid nationalism and methods of Turkish command and control. "Openly conveyed orders upholding official Turkish policy were followed b> secret instructions [geheime Weisungeri], or by intimations [Andeutungeri} that their execution was being discounted [aufihre Ausfuhrung nicht gerechnet wurde]" (Bundesarchiv/ Militararchiv-Freiburg im Breisgau, N247/202c, NachlaB Seeckt. The full text of the essay is reproduced in Jehuda L Wallach, Anatomie einer Militärhilfe. Die preußisch-deutschen Militärmissionen in der Türkei, 1835-1919 [Düsseldorf, 1976], pp. 258-71, remark on Armenians, p. 260). Ambassador Metternich complained to German Chief of Staff Falkenhayn that War Minister Enver's order to suspend the deportation of Baghdad Railway Armenian work details was "countermanded" [Gegenbefehl]. The message was relayed through Foreign Minister Gottlieb von Jagow on July 2, 1916 (Großes Hauptquartier 194, Türkei 41/1 cipher No. 763, folio 141). U.S. Consul Jackson on August 19, 1915, informed Ambassador Morgenthau that the anti-Armenian measures amount to "a gigantic plundering scheme as well as a final blow to extinguish the race, notwithstanding the existence of a Commission appointed by the Government to safeguard the interests of the Armenians." He then went on to state that, "On the 17th instant an order arrived from the Minister of the Interior to permit the Armenian Protestants to remain where they were, but on the 18 another order came that all Armenians without distinction should be deported" (Record Group 59, 807.4016/148, enclosure in Ambassador Morgenthau's August 30, 1915 report). German Constil Büge, reacting vehemently to Talat's assurances, informs Interim Ambassador Hohenlohe that Talat's order "was subsequently rescinded [nachher diese Verfügung aufgehoben]" (Türkei 183, vol. 38, A27578, September 14, 1915, report). Mehmed Ali, former District Commissioner of Üsküdar, testified at the fifteenth sitting of the Yozgad Court Martial series (March 27, 1919) that secret orders followed official orders of deportation, to the effect that the latter were to be disregarded, and that the deportees were to be exterminated. At the fourth sitting of the same trial series (February 11, 1919) Yozgad Deputy Þakir testified to "secret" orders decreeing the extermination of the Armenians, orders about which he personally had complained to Talat in Istanbul, only to be accused of "incompetence." (These last two items were culled from local dailies covering the trials, in particular Jhamang, March 29; Renaissance February 12; and Le Courier de Turquie, February 14, 1919 issues.)
105- Falih Rýfký Atay, Zeytindaðý, pp. 24-25. Relating his experiences in Aleppo, Mustafa Nedim (see n. 79) wrote that Enver's and Talat's orders to the governors "were routinely countermanded through coded messages... I know this too well," pp. 102-3.
106- Beside the transcripts of the Courts Martial, there was another official publication that summarized the hearings of the Fifth Committee of the Ottoman Chamber of Deputies (Meclisi Mebusan Beþinci Þube Tahkikat Komisyonu). From November 5 to December 11, 1918, the Committee conducted 14 hearings, interrogating 15 ministers, including two þeyhülislams. In the course of its inquiries, the Committee secured a number of top-secret documents that eventually were transmitted to the Courts Martial. The Grand Vezir Said Halim three times in a single sentence conceded the fact of "the Armenian massacres," without adding the twin term "deportation." Referring to Talat's concealments and cover-ups, Said Halim also admitted to the practice of translating orders for "deportation" into orders for "killing." Furthermore, alluding to the Special Organization, he declared that it was "an evil" outfit, and was created without the decision of the government (Meclisi Mebusan Zabýtlarý, Üçüncü Meclis, No. 521 [Istanbul, 1918]; for the abridged version see Harb Kabinelerinin isticvabý [Istanbul, 1933], pp. 285, 287, 290, 293-94, 308).
107- The issue of premeditation needs to be understood in the broader context of the history of the Ittihad party, which from its very inception secretly pursued Turkism while pretending to multiethnic Ottomanism. After alluding to the pivotal role of Nazým and Þakir in the pursuit of this ideology, Aksin discerns a connection between the violent nationalism that evolved and gripped Ittihad, and the Armenian deportations (Sina Aksin, 700 Soruda Jön Türkler ve ittihat ve Terakki [istanbul, 1980], pp. 54, 159). Speaking of the Special Organization, Stoddard likewise asserted that "it rested on the concepts of Pan-Islam and Pan-Turkism, although, like the governmental authorities responsible for it, the organization's agents paid lip service to the traditional concept of Ottomanism" (Stoddard, Ottoman Government, pp. 54-55). In the pre-1908 negotiations between Ittihad and the Dashnak party, the issue of decentralization and local administrative autonomy, bitterly opposed by Ittihad, emerged and remained a discordant note, casting an abiding shadow over the relationship of the two parties. Neither their cooperation in the overthrow of Hamid nor their mutual assistance in the securing and defense of the Constitutional regime could overcome the ensuing tensions that separated the two parties. Aggravated by Ittihad's inability and/or unwillingness to carry out the promised reforms in the eastern provinces, the impasse seemed to defy remedy. The conflict that developed was abetted in no small measure by Nazým and Þakir's bad faith, if not outright deceptive gimmickry. Three letters produced by two Turkish historians demonstrate the secret intentions of these two pioneers of Ittihad. On September 22, 1906—i.e., a year before the 1907 joint Young Turk-Dashnak Congress of Paris—Nazým and Þakir, in a letter to "our Azerbaidjani brothers in the Caucasus," together advised the addressees to join hands with the Armenians in opposing the Russian government, "your greatest enemy." They then injected this counterpoint: "The Armenians can later be brought on to the right course in as much as the Muslims are in the majority." In a January 3, 1908, letter Þakir told his cohorts in Çanakkale that one reason for Ittihad's cooperation with the Armenians was to profit (istifade etmek) from their resources. In yet another letter (December 8, 1907), Þakir informed the Saloniki branch of Ittihad that the agreements reached with the Armenians were meant "to benefit us [temini menafi]. Once we are in power it will then be easy to teach a lesson to those seeking administrative autonomy" (Bayur, Türk inkýlâbý Tarihi, vol. 2, part 4 [Ankara, 1952], pp. 87, 126, 129-30). Similar letters are contained in Ahmed Bedevi Kuran, inkýlâp Tarihimiz ve Ittihad ve Terakki (istanbul, 1948), pp. 209-29. In one of these letters dated June 11, 1907, Þakir is accusing the Armenian revolutionaries of wanting to establish an Armenian state to be carved out of the territory of the Ottoman Empire, pp. 228-29. Commenting on the December 8, 1907 letter, Bayur interprets it to mean that as far as Ittihad was concerned the agreements with the Armenians were worthless. Amazed at the foolishness of committing such thoughts to writing, he allows that Ittihad must have been sanguine about the letters' remaining secret. In an editorial written during the Armistice, the noted opposition paper Alemdar berated the Armenians for having supported Ittihad. "The Dashnaks and Ittihad were one political party. Vartkes [the Dashnak leader] and Talat drank from one cup. But the bandit clique later executed him and the Armenians ... a terrible punishment for their mistake" (translated in Jhamanag, April 27, 1919). The destruction of the Armenians appears to be presaged in the last (Dec. 8, 1907) of these three letters, which constitute rarely available primary sources. Touching on the ingredient of premeditation, Bayur concedes that, exasperated with the tribulations of discord with the Armenians, Ittihad would eventually solve the problem by force of arms, i.e., using the Army [iþi ordu ile görmek] (Bayur, Türk inkýlâbý Tarihi, vol. 2, part 4, p. 13).
108- A leader of the Special Organization, ostensibly one of Þakir's lieutenants, published his memoirs in installments in the Turkish daily Vakit over a period of some six months; in them he reveals details on the workings of that outfit that are not published anywhere else. His accounts include verbatim reproductions of some of Þakir's secret telegrams to Talat and even a reference to a December 5, 1914, personal letter to Þakir's wife. Two revelations deserve foremost attention: (1) Before setting out for Istanbul in February 1915 Þakir convened in Erzurum a meeting of his top aides in which it was decided to make the Special Organization East an autonomous body for the purpose of devising strategy and tactics, and for having ultimate control over the çetes to be employed in the East (installment No. 88); and (2) he was subsequently able to persuade his cohorts in Istanbul that the Special Organization had to shift its operations from the external to the internal front, involving the Armenians (installment No. 83). A September 3, 1914 cipher exposes Þakir as ordering the ambush and destruction of the Dashnak delegates who were returning to their cities from their Eighth quadrennial Congress in Erzurum (installments 12 and 13). The evidence the author believes to be adducing for demonstrating Armenian sabotage against the Turkish war effort is patently false, however. "Combat Instructions" [Mardagan Hurahankner] spread over several installments of the series, as an example of such evidence, were actually printed at the turn of the century, and were used against the regime of Hamid, to overthrow which the Ittihad and Dashnak parties had joined hands. It is also revealed that General Vehib intended to imprison and prosecute Þakir (installment 69) (A. Bil, "Umumi Harpte Teþkilatý Mahsusa," Vakit, November 2, 1933-February 7, 1934; the rest, dealing with operations in the Balkans, appears in the subsequent issues of that paper). The Armenian daily in Paris, Haratch, whose installments are used here as a source, published these memoirs day by day in Armenian, starting with November 19, 1933, and ending with the April 7, 1934, issue, V. Ishkhanian being the translator. It is likely that "A. Bil" is a pseudonym, and considering the autobiographical hints supplied in installments 2, 14, 38, 46, and 88, the real author must be Cemal Ferid, nicknamed hamallar kehyasý, who was one of Istanbul's five Responsible Secretaries; he was cited in the indictment read out at the Court Martial in 1919, and was subsequently exiled to Malta as a prima facie suspect in the Armenian massacres. The British Blue Book describes him in that role (Bryce [Toynbee], Treatment, doc. No. 56, p. 233). One final reference may be in order. Although focusing on the Special Organization's role in some of the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire, Stoddard also offered some general comments on the overall mission of that organization. He stated that combating "internal foes" was part of its scheme: It meant "to ride herd on all separatist and nationalist groups." Fear of a future independent Armenia "carved out of Ottoman territory" was an important factor in strategy. The political Directorate of the organization included Nazým, Þakir, Public Security Chief Canbolat, and Midhat Þükrü, Ittihad's Secretary-General. Agreeing that it "was a secret, rather disreputable group," Stoddard believes that the excesses of the organization were intended to be explained away by blaming "groups of brigands" too distant to be susceptible to any control by authorities (Stoddard, Ottoman Government, pp. 5-6, 49-50, 54-56.
109- In No. 5 there is the exhortation to have no scruples in the application of destructive means; in Nos. 8 and 45 is contained the assurance that cruelties and atrocious behavior will not be subject to prosecution; in No. 25 is a categorical order to have the infants collectively exterminated "without arousing suspicion, and through the exercise of circumspection [tarifli olarak}, using the reassuring excuse that they are being taken to a place where they can be fed by deportation officials"; and in No. 35 it is declared, "The only way you can assist in the attainment of the goal we are pursuing is the severity and swiftness with which the deportees are to be dispatched. . . . The current weekly lists showing the number of the dead are not satisfactory." Because of their extraordinary importance the texts of the remaining two ciphers are being offered below in their entirety. No. 29. "Following an investigation, it has been established that only 10% of the Armenians, subjected to general deportation, is reaching its destination, with the rest succumbing to such natural causes as hunger and sickness incurred on the roads during the trek. You are directed to apply severe measures towards these survivors in order to effect a similar result." No. 4. "All rights of the Armenians to live and work in the territories of Turkey have been completely cancelled. Assuming full responsibility, the government has ordered to end even the lives of babes in the cradle. The results of this order have already been attained in a few provinces. Nevertheless, for reasons unknown to us, exceptions are being made for certain people who are being sent on to Aleppo instead of being deported straight to their places of destination. The government is thus coming face to face with an additional difficulty. Disregarding their excuses, remove them, be they women or children, or whatever they may be, even those who are incapable of moving. Prevent their being protected by the people who, out of ignorance, treat material interests as a higher priority than patriotic feelings, and are unable to appreciate the grand policy pursued by the government in this regard. Given the fact that the operations of indirect extermination—severity, speed, travel difficulties, misery—, that have been carried out in other places, can be implemented there directly, work heartily. General orders have been issued from the War Ministry to all Army Commanders to the effect that the military post commanders [nokta komandom} are not to interfere in the affairs of deportation. Inform the officials to be appointed for this end that they must work for the realization of our goal, without being afraid of responsibility. Please send weekly cipher reports on the results of your operations." This pivotal order gave the Governor of Aleppo, Mustafa Abdülhalik, license in the treatment of the surviving deportees. Finally, reference may be made to an American-trained sociologist who served as a journalist during the war, was exiled to Malta by the British as a dangerous nationalist editor, and had there intimate exchanges with top Ittihadist leaders. Referring to "the policy of general extermination," he described the Ittihadist rationale as follows: "A dense Armenian population in the Eastern Provinces has proved to be a danger to the very existence of Turkey. . . . [T]he instruments to remove this danger. . . shall be universally despised and condemned. Only in a very distant future" would this sacrifice for the national cause be appreciated (Ahmed Emin [Yalman], Turkey in the World War [New Haven, 1930], p. 220). For a similar comment by Falih Rýfký Atay with special reference to Þakir see note 76.
110- U.S. National Archives, Record Group 867.4016/299. Lansing articulated this position of the United States government in a November 1, 1916, cipher to Josef C. Grew, American Charge in Berlin, instructing him to seek the support of the German Foreign Affairs Minister in interceding on behalf of the Armenians, with their ally, Imperial Turkey. On November 4, 1916, Grew complied, repeating word for word Lansing's decrial of the Turkish Government's measures of extermination to Jagow, the German Foreign Affairs Minister (Türkei 183, vol. 45, A30011).
111- The statement was published in the March 13, 1919, issue of the French daily Le Moniteur Oriental, and the March 15, 1919, issue of Alemdar. Incensed that the Minister had dared to make such a revelation "to a non-Muslim journalist. . . about the number of Armenians killed," some editors inveighed against him, with Siileyman Nazif declaring, "This act is not worthy of a Muslim minister" (Hadisat, March 17, 1919). Others, however, praised him for clarifying an important point through his "authoritative" disclosure (Ikdam, Vakit, March 15, 1919). Under the heading "The Courage to Redress a Mistake" (Hatadan donmek cesareti), Vakit wrote, "Cemal is anxious to cleanse the bloody past." To mollify his critics, on March 16 Cemal hedged, stating that he was misunderstood: The actual figure was a total of 900,000, which included the dead and the survivors (Alemdar, March 18, 1919). The editors of the Moniteur three days later retorted that they were sticking to the 800,000 figure for the accuracy of which they vouched, and that there was no misunderstanding at all. Memleket and the semiofficial Alemdar supported this reaffirmation by Moniteur, the latter adding that in releasing his original figure "the Minister had relied upon statistics compiled by appropriate authorities" (quoted in Jhogovourtee Tzain, March 19, 1919). Cemal's effort to soft-pedal the shock caused by his disclosure proved futile. Yielding to pressures including the Sultan's displeasure, he resigned on April 7, 1919 (Alemdar, Vakit, Le Courier de Turquie, April 8, 1919; Morning Post [London], April 14, 1919; Ali Fuad Tiirkgeldi, Goriip Ifittiklerim, 2nd ed. [Ankara, 1951], p. 197). Cemal had a long-standing career in Ottoman civil service. He was Sub-Governor at Yaffa, Governor of Izmit, Governor of Harput (where he was replaced by Sabit due to his resistance to Talat's anti-Armenian policy), and at the time of his appointment as Interior Minister he was Governor of Konya. Contemporary Turkish authors continue to berate him for what they consider to be his treachery. Celal Bayar, president of the Turkish republic 1950-1960, denounced Cemal's act as "the ugliest and most unnecessary disclosure" (Ben de Yazdim, vol. 7, [Istanbul, 1969], p. 2,114). The noted historian Bayur decried the former Minister for supplying "to our enemies proof and weapons [kanit ve silah\" (Yusuf Hikmet Bayur, Ataturk. Hayati ve Eseri [Ankara, 1963], p. 268). Not only do these vehement reactions attest to the significance of the disclosure made, but more importantly, they accent the substance of that disclosure, which the authors do not challenge and about which nothing is said. Referring to "the official reports of the Turkish Government," to which government he had access as head of the American Military Mission, Major General James Harbord declared that 1.1 million Armenians were deported, concluding that the count of "the dead from this wholesale attempt at the race ... is about 800,000," and that the episode represents "the most colossal crime of all the ages" (James G. Harbord, "Report of the American Military Mission to Armenia," International Conciliation, 151 [June 1920], pp. 280-81). As recently as December 1979, "a representative of the Turkish Republic" at Paris was reported to have admitted that "we Turks have massacred 1 million Armenians" (from an article by Can Pulak in the December 30, 1979, issue of Giinaydm, quoted in the Boston Armenian daily Baikar, January 16, 1980). The admission was made to the widow of Yilmaz Qopan, an official of the Turkish Embassy at Paris who was assassinated by an Armenian on December 22, 1979.
112- Vahakn N. Dadrian, "A Typology of Genocide," International Review of Modern Sociology, 5, 2 (Autumn 1975), pp. 201-12.
113- Memoirs of Count Bernstorff, trans, from the German by Eric Sutton (New York, 1936), pp. 176, 180, 374. For another reference to solving the Armenian question see the discussion on Nazim, pp. 328-29 above. The Metternich description of Talat is in Turkei 183, vol. 40, A36184, December 7, 1915, report. It should be noted that in a rare, confessional mood Talat during the war had revealed his premonition of a violent death in an interview with the Turkish feminist writer Halide Edib by saying, "I am ready to die for what I have done, and I know that I shall die for it" (Memoirs of Halide Edib, p. 387). For a similar utterance of guilt see n. 20. Talat was indeed assassinated on March 15, 1921, in Berlin where he was living incognito and under the fictitious name Mehmed Sai. Tehlirian, the Armenian student charged with the murder, was on June 3, 1921, acquitted by a Berlin-Moabit District Court jury, which, following a one-hour deliberation, found Tehlirian not guilty on grounds of temporary insanity as provided by Article 51 of the German Penal Code. For details of the trial see note 29. Finally, it is most significant that, while serving as German Ambassador to the United States (1908-1917), Bernstorff categorically denied the massacres when they had already run their course, describing them as "the alleged atrocities" and "pure invention" (September 28, 1915, issues of The Washington Post and The New York Times).
Exposé de Docteur Yves Ternon
http://www.imprescriptible.fr/ternon/qualite-preuve.htm#_ednref12
Exposé du Docteur Yves Ternon prononcé lors du colloque organisé par le Comité de Défense de la Cause Arménienne
La qualité de la preuve - A propos des documents Andonian et de la petite phrase d'Hitler
Pour être retenu comme preuve un document doit être à la fois recevable et correctement interprété. Les télégrammes de Talaat et les autres documents recueillis par Aram Andonian, bien qu'authentiques ne sont pas recevables et cette communication explique pourquoi. Quand à la phrase "Qui se souvient encore du massacre des Arméniens ?", si elle a bien été prononcée par Hitler ce fut dans un contexte précis et elle a une autre signification que celle qu'on a voulu lui donner de lien direct entre les deux génocides.
Lorsqu'au terme d'un procès, un tribunal prononce un verdict de culpabilité, il ne peut le faire qu'en s'appuyant sur une preuve tirée des circonstances qui lui ont été exposées. Cette preuve doit démontrer une chaîne bien connectée et ininterrompue de faits de nature à exclure toute hypothèse autre que la culpabilité de l'accusé. La certitude des juges repose sur le fait que la preuve suffit pour satisfaire, au-delà d'un doute raisonnable, l'intelligence et la conscience des membres du tribunal. Pour qu'aucun doute ne subsiste sur la qualité de la preuve, il ne suffit pas que son authenticité ait été établie, il faut aussi qu'elle ait été interprétée. S'il s'agit d'un document écrit, les circonstances dans lesquelles il a été rédigé et recueilli, l'identité et la fonction du rédacteur, ce qu'il a voulu dire ou ne pas dire, ce qu'il a voulu cacher de crainte que ce document ne tombe en des mains étrangères – en cas de transcription, la possibilité d'erreur commise par l'intermédiaire –, et bien d'autres éléments doivent être pris en considération avant d'établir non seulement son authenticité, mais aussi sa recevabilité. La qualité de la preuve dépend non seulement des précautions dont l'historien doit s'entourer pour affirmer l'authenticité d'un document et décider s'il est ou non recevable, mais aussi de l'interprétation qu'il donne du contenu de ce document en se fondant sur une analyse du texte et du contexte.
Le génocide arménien est aujourd'hui une vérité établie. Les preuves sont là pour qu'aucun doute raisonnable ne puisse demeurer dans l'esprit du juge ou de l'historien sur la nature et les circonstances du meurtre de masse perpétré sur les Arméniens de l'Empire ottoman en 1915 et 1916. Il s'agit bien d'un génocide1. Je voudrais seulement par cette communication appuyer cette exigence de qualité des preuves versées en en retranchant l'ensemble de ce que l'on convient d'appeler les documents Andonian2.
Les documents Andonian
Les historiens du génocide arménien ne présentent plus ces documents comme des preuves du génocide, mais il est important de dire pourquoi ils ne sont pas recevables alors qu'ils sont probablement authentiques. Dans l'intervalle entre la production de la preuve de l'intention criminelle de l'Ittihad, preuve établie de 1915 à 1920, et les recherches contemporaines confortant cette preuve par un dépouillement plus systématique d'archives, les documents Andonian ont, pour les communautés arméniennes, été présentés comme des preuves suffisantes.
Dans le cérémonial du 24 avril, on lisait quelques uns de ces télégrammes, ceux de Talaat en particulier, comme si le meurtrier venait lui-même signer ces aveux. Alors que les revendications pour la reconnaissance du génocide prenaient plus de force, on continuait à brandir ces télégrammes comme une preuve irréfutable et suffisante du génocide. C'était prêter le flanc à une entreprise négationniste qui se structurait dans les universités turques et dans leurs annexes étrangères. Ces spécialistes du faux, à la recherche d'une faille dans le granit de l'évidence, se ruèrent sur les documents Andonian. Lorsque Orel et Yuca publièrent une plaquette dans laquelle ils prétendaient démontrer la falsification, Vahakn Dadrian répliqua par une analyse poussée de ces pièces : tout en récusant les conclusions des historiens turcs, il relevait de nombreuses erreurs, portant plus sur la forme que sur le fond, faites par Andonian lors de la transcription de ces télégrammes en 1920 et 1921 dans les trois versions arménienne, française et anglaise du recueil qu'il leur consacre3.
Rappelons les circonstances dans lesquelles ces pièces ont été recueillies. Le journaliste arménien Aram Andonian est un des rares rescapés de la rafle du 24 avril. Après avoir survécu miraculeusement à la déportation, il se retrouve à Alep en 1918 alors que la chute de la ville est imminente. Il y revoit un fonctionnaire de la Régie des Tabacs qu'il avait rencontré en 1916 à Meskéné, Naïm bey. Celui-ci offrait alors à des Arméniens, en échange de fortes sommes, la possibilité de s'échapper. Naïm bey propose à Andonian de lui vendre des documents subtilisés à la Sous-Direction des déportés, fermée depuis mars 1917. Il s'agit de deux lettres adressées par le comité central de l'Ittihad au "secrétaire responsable" d'Adana. Djemal bey, et de 50 télégrammes, la plupart échangés entre l'administration des déportés et le ministre de l'Intérieur, Talaat. Une majorité des télégrammes provient de Talaat ; ils ont été envoyés chiffrés à Alep et le destinataire les a décodés ; certains portent une ou plusieurs apostilles ; d'autres ont été rédigés par des fonctionnaires subalternes ; plusieurs ne sont ni datés, ni signés. L'Union Nationale Arménienne, en relation avec l'Union Générale Arménienne de Bienfaisance (UGAB) dont le président, Boghos Nubar Pacha, est à la tête de l'une des deux délégations arméniennes à la future Conférence de la Paix - charge Andonian de mener les négociations avec Naïm bey. Si ces documents sont authentiques, ils constituent en effet une preuve irréfutable de l'intention criminelle de l'Ittihad, puisque la destruction des Arméniens y apparaît programmée dans les moindres détails avec, parfois, ces périphrases ou mots déguisés, qui deviendront le lot du langage génocidaire. Après avoir été jugés fiables par une commission présidée par le catholicos de Cilicie, Sahak, les documents sont achetés. Andonian emporte ces pièces à conviction à Londres où les responsables de l'UGAB lui demandent de les présenter dans un livre4.
Bien que ces documents aient été soustraits à la justice turque, en août 1920, Boghos Nubar Pacha prie Andonian d'adresser au patriarcat de Constantinople une majeure partie des originaux des télégrammes, afin qu'ils puissent être utilisés au cours du procès que préparent les autorités anglaises contre le sous-directeur de l'Administration des déportés, Abdulahad Nouri, qu'elles détiennent.
Mais ce procès n'a pas lieu et les documents disparaissent. Andonian ne dispose plus que de cinq originaux de ces télégrammes qu'il remet, avec dix-sept copies, aux avocats défendant Tehlirian, qui, arrêté sur les lieux du meurtre après l'assassinat de Talaat, doit être jugé par le tribunal de première instance de Berlin-Moabit. La défense s'assure la collaboration du pasteur Lepsius lequel prie l'ancien consul allemand d'Alep, Rossler, de rédiger un rapport sur les documents publiés dans le livre d'Andonian. Tout en relevant de nombreuses erreurs et en soulignant le comportement anti-allemand d'Andonian, Rossler estime que "le contenu du livre laisse dans son ensemble une impression d'authenticité" et il sollicite l'avis du consul Hoffmann et de la soeur Béatrice Rohner qui confirment.
Le procès se déroule les 2 et 3 juin 1921. Les avocats demandent d'introduire comme preuves les cinq télégrammes originaux et remettent à la cour des reproductions photographiques de ces pièces et des dix-sept autres. Un des avocats de Tehlirian propose de faire venir Andonian à la barre. Le procureur refuse que l'on vérifie l'authenticité de ces pièces, arguant que les jurés n'ont pas à se prononcer sur la responsabilité de Talaat. Quand Tehlirian demande l'audition d'Andonian, le président précise que les jurés le croient quand il se dit persuadé que Talaat est le responsable des massacres. L'audition des témoins est alors annulée5. Ces télégrammes n'ont donc pas été expertisés par des experts jurés et, depuis, ils sont introuvables. Andonian deviendra conservateur de la fondation Noubar à Paris. Les télégrammes n'ont jamais figuré dans le fichier de cette bibliothèque. En 1965, Krieger affirme y avoir trouvé trois cahiers de mémoires remis à Andonian par Naïm bey. Quelques années après, quand Dadrian veut les consulter, ils n'y sont plus. Raymond Kévorkian, l'actuel conservateur de cette bibliothèque ne détient, outre les dossiers Andonian sur les camps syriens dont il parle dans sa communication, que deux reproductions de lettres rédigées en arabe portant sur l'exécution des députés arméniens Zohrab et Vartkès6.
Les documents Andonian présentaient à l'évidence des erreurs et des contradictions que n'ont pas manqué de relever Orel et Yuca. Un recoupement des télégrammes avec les documents de la commission Mazhar, les archives diplomatiques et les récits d'autres déportés – provenant donc de trois niveaux différents d'information: perpétrateurs, témoins et survivants – permet cependant d'affirmer que les pièces remises par Naïm bey à Andonian correspondent aux autres sources disponibles et authentifiées7. Il est impossible que quiconque, Naïm bey, Andonian ou quelqu'autre, ait forgé ces pièces. Peut on cependant convaincre un tribunal en lui présentant comme pièce à conviction la reproduction dans un livre de télégrammes chiffrés – sans le chiffre –, ou décodés – sans l'identité du décodeur –, sans signature pour la plupart, avec des apostilles pour certains – mais sans possibilité d'identifier l'écriture de leur auteur –, alors que l'on sait que certaines dates y figurant sont erronées et qu'on ignore ce que sont devenues des pièces d'une telle importance ? Bien que la plupart des historiens partagent la conviction que ces télégrammes ont bien été échangés pour régler les modalités du génocide arménien, il est préférable de clore le débat sur leur authenticité en s'abstenant de les présenter comme preuve de l'intention criminelle de l'Ittihad, d'autant qu'ils ne sont pas nécessaires à l'administration de cette preuve.
La «petite phrase d'Hitler»
La « petite phrase » d'Hitler – « Mais qui se souvient encore du massacre des Arméniens ? » – est communément citée pour démontrer le lien entre le génocide arménien et le génocide juif et conclure que l'impunité dont a bénéficié le premier a facilité la perpétration du second. Cette interprétation appelle quelques commentaires.
Il est établi aujourd'hui, après le livre de Kévork Bardakjian8 qui reprenait l'enquête menée en 1968 par l'historien allemand Winfried Baumgart9, que le texte où figure cette phrase est authentique. Elle est tirée d'une allocution faite par Hitler aux commandants en chef de l'armée allemande le 22 août 1939 quelques jours avant l'invasion de la Pologne. Cette allocution figure en deux parties dans les documents du Tribunal militaire international de Nuremberg (PS798 et PS-1014) découverts dans les archives du Haut-commandement allemand, mais l'on n'y trouve aucune allusion au massacre des Arméniens10. Elle apparaît par contre dans un troisième document, très proche des deux autres, qui n'a pas été retenu à Nuremberg, non parce qu'il prêtait au doute mais parce que l'identité de son auteur n'était pas établie. Ce document avait en effet été remis une semaine avant l'attaque allemande au journaliste américain, Louis Lochner, qui dirigeait depuis 1928 le bureau de l'Associated Press, par un informateur allemand en relation avec des groupes antinazis. Lochner s'était rendu à l'ambassade américaine pour y déposer cette pièce à conviction, mais le chargé d'affaires avait refusé de détenir une preuve aussi explosive. Lochner avait alors conservé ce document non sans en avoir transmis une traduction à l'ambassade britannique. Sir Ogilvie Forbes l'avait aussitôt fait parvenir au Foreign Office où elle est enregistrée dès septembre 1939. Il existe deux autres versions du discours d'Hitler figurant dans le livre de notes du général Halder et dans le journal de guerre de Greiner et elles sont proches des documents retenus à Nuremberg11.
La double enquête conduite à chaque extrémité de la chaîne par Baumgart puis Bardakjian permet de reconstituer le parcours des trois premiers documents. Hitler fait le 22 août 1939 un discours fleuve de plusieurs heures, coupé par une interruption pour déjeuner. Il est interdit de prendre des notes. L'amiral Canaris, chef de l'Abwehr passe outre et parvient, discrètement à noter les points essentiels de cette allocution. Avec l'aide de son chef d'État-major, Hans Hoster, il en fait établir deux versions résumées différentes : l'une, en deux parties, insiste sur le plan, les moyens, l'analyse des réactions des nations étrangères et la propagande - ce sont les deux documents retenus à Nuremberg ; l'autre version, regroupant les deux discours et ne mentionnant pas l'interruption, est destinée à faire connaître à l'étranger la brutalité des méthodes qui vont être employées. Elle est remise au colonel Ludwig Beck, en relation secrète avec Louis Lochner, par l'intermédiaire d'un civil, Hermann Maas. On comprend donc que la référence au massacre des Arméniens figure dans cette dernière version et non dans les deux autres.
Cette référence n'est pas la seule. En 1968, l'historien allemand Édouard Calic révèle le contenu d'une interview d'Hitler faite en 1931 par le rédacteur en chef du Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, Richard Breitling12. Hitler, qui n'est alors qu'un chef de parti, expose à Breitling ses plans de transformation de l'Europe. Il insiste sur le besoin d'espace vital de l'Allemagne, une obsession déjà formulée dans Mein Kampf : il veut appliquer à la Pologne les mêmes méthodes que celles employées contre les Arméniens. La formulation est plus précise que dans le document Lochner. Hitler parle d'une politique de transfert de population: «En 1923, la petite Grèce a pu réinstaller un million de personnes. Pensez aux déportations bibliques et aux massacres du Moyen Age et souvenez-vous de t'extermination des Arméniens»13. Le mot allemand est ici « Ausrottung », qui signifie aussi « déracinement, extirpation », alors que dans le document Lochner, le mot est « Vernichtung », « anéantissement ».
On sait également qu'Hitler était nécessairement au courant des massacres arméniens. Toute l'Allemagne était informée depuis 1916. En outre, Hitler était à Berlin en juin 1921 lors du procès de Tehlirian. Enfin, il disposait de la meilleure source d'information en la personne de son plus proche collaborateur, Max-Erwin von Scheubner-Richter. Cet ancien vice-consul d'Erzeroum, qui avait également participé aux actions subversives conduites par la branche militaire de l'Organisation spéciale, avait été l'un des plus ardents défenseurs allemands des Arméniens. La conclusion qu'avait tirée Hitler de cette information fut exprimée dans plusieurs allusions faites aux Arméniens. Il les jugeait victimes de leur manque de courage et d'esprit guerrier et menaçait les Allemands, s'ils ne se montraient pas capables de se défendre, de mener comme eux une existence misérable14. Il ne percevait donc pas les Arméniens comme il percevait les Juifs, une race antagoniste de la race aryenne.
Dans son discours du 22 août, Hitler veut préparer ses généraux à une action brutale et décisive contre la Pologne, une agression qui n'a pas pour but de tracer une frontière mais d'éliminer ses habitants pour y transplanter des Allemands de souche. C'est le même propos que ce terrible simplificateur tenait à Hermann Rauchning en 1932 : « Ainsi s'impose à nous le devoir de dépeupler, comme nous avons celui de cultiver méthodiquement l'accroissement de la population allemande. Il faudra instituer une technique du dépeuplement. Vous allez me demander ce que signifie "dépeuplement", et si j'ai J'intention de supprimer des nations entières ? Eh bien! Oui, c'est à peu près cela... »15. Hitler veut donc procéder à une véritable translation biologique, dans la droite ligne de son idéologie raciale.
Hitler avait retenu des événements de 1915 que le déracinement d'un peuple et sa déportation sans espoir de retour laissait aux Turcs le terrain libre pour une occupation des terres. Cette "désolation", pour reprendre le mot d'Hannah Arendt, s'inscrivait dans une tradition de migrations et de déplacements de population. L'impunité dont les Jeunes Turcs avait bénéficié entrait certes en ligne de compte dans son analyse de l'événement, mais seulement pour lui permettre d'élaborer une tactique afin de ménager les réactions des nations devant le dépeuplement qu'il projetait d'effectuer. Le lien avec le génocide juif est donc indirect.
En 1939, en dépit des menaces qu'il avait formulées dans son discours de janvier où il parlait de détruire les Juifs si la guerre éclate, Hitler n'avait pas encore décidé du sort qu'il leur réserverait. Il restait encore plutôt partisan d'une expulsion générale des Juifs et d'une aryanisation de leurs biens. En septembre, lorsqu'il lance ses troupes sur la Pologne, c'est des Polonais, de la façon de les traiter et des réactions que ces méthodes peuvent susciter, qu'il parle lorsqu'il fait allusion aux Arméniens. La pratique du dépeuplement est à la fois de mobile politique et racial, comme l'a été le génocide arménien, et non exclusivement racial, comme le sera le génocide juif. Enfin, après l'invasion de la Russie le 22 juin 1941, alors que la guerre est devenue totale, on voit mal ce qui aurait retenu Hitler d'entreprendre la destruction des Juifs d'Europe, certainement pas l'impunité dont bénéficièrent les responsables des "massacres" arméniens.
- Ancien interne des Hôpitaux de Paris. Chirurgien. Conduit depuis 1965 des recherches historiques sur le génocide juif et le génocide arménien. Docteur en histoire, Université Paris IV Sorbonne.habilité à diriger des recherches en histoire à l'université Paul-Valéry, Montpellier. A publié trois ouvrages, en collaboration, sur le nazisme: Histoire de la médecine 88, 1969; Le Massacre des aliénés, 1971 ; Les Médecins allemands et le national-socialisme, 1973. De nombreux ouvrages sur les Arméniens dont: Les Arméniens, histoire d'un génocide, (Seuil, 1977 et 1996), La Cause Arménienne (Seuil, 1983), Enquête sur la négation d'un génocide (Parenthèses, 1989) ; et un livre de réflexion sur les génocides du XXème siècle: L'Etat criminel (Seuil,1995).
- La recension de ces preuves est faite au cours de ce colloque par d'autres intervenants.
Pour une bibliographie détaillée, cf. Y. Ternon, Les Arméniens. Histoire d'un génocide, Paris, Le Seuil, Points Histoire, 1996.
- Par documents Andonian, j'entends les pièces présentées dans le livre d'Aram Andonian, Documents officiels concernant les massacres arméniens, Paris, Imprimerie Tourabian, 1920 [éd. anglaise: The Memoirs of Naïm bey, Londres, Hodder and Stoughton, 1920 ; éd. arménienne: Boston, 1921 ]. Ces considérations sur les documents Andonian ne concernent pas le fonds Andonian de la bibliothèque Nubar, "Matériaux pour l'histoire du génocide arménien", dont Raymond Kévorkian reproduit une partie dans sa revue «L'extermination des déportés arméniens ottomans dans les camps de concentration de Syrie-Mésopotamie (1915-1916)», Revue d'histoire arménienne contemporaine, 1998. L'authenticité des témoignages assemblés par Aram Andonian n'est pas discutable. Les réflexions sur les "documents Andonian" portent d'ailleurs sur leur recevabilité et non sur leur authenticité.
- Sinasi Orel et Süreyya Yuca, Affaires arméniennes, Les "télégrammes" de Talaat Pacha. Fait historique ou fiction ? , Société turque d'histoire, Triangle, 1983. V. N. Dadrian, "The NaimAndonian Documents on the World War I Destruction of Ottoman Armenians : the Anatomy of a Genocide", International Journal of Middle East Studies (Cambridge), vol. 18, n°3, août 1986, p. 311-360.
- Cf. Y. Ternon, Enquête sur la négation d'un génocide, Marseille, Parenthèses, 1989 (chapitre Il. La collecte des documents Andonian, pp. 25-33.
- Justiciers du génocide arménien. Le procès de Tehlirian, Paris, A. Krikorian, éd. Diasporas,1981, pp. 213-235. Cet ouvrage reproduit notamment en français: Der Prozess Talaat Pascha. Stenographischer Bericht. Berlin, Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft für Politik und Geschichte, GmbH, 1921.
- Y. Ternon, Enquête sur la négation d'un génocide, op. cit., 199-204.
- Ibid, pp. 117-124.
- K. B. Bardakjian, Hitler and the Armenian Genocide, Cambridge MA, The Zorian Institute, 1985.
- W. Baumgart, "Zur Ansprache Hitlers vor den Führern der Wehrmacht am 22. August 1939", in Viertelsjahrshefte für Zeitsgeschichte, 16 (1968), pp. 127-128,139.
- Procès des grands criminels de guerre devant le Tribunal militaire international. Nuremberg.14 novembre 1945- 1er octobre 1946, Nuremberg, 1947. Tome XXVI. PS-798, p. 338-344. PS1014 (Deuxième allocution de Hitler), pp. 523-524.
- Texte anglais de Halder dans K. Bardakjian, op. cit., pp. 59-62 (NOKW 3140, document présenté au procès contre von Leeb et alii, Case 12 des procès devant les tribunaux américains).
- E. Calic, Unmasked, Londres, Chatto & Windus, 1971, p. 11.
- Ibid, pp. 80-81. L'original allemand dit: "oder errinern Sie sich doch an die Ausrottung Armeniens".
- V. Dadrian, Histoire du génocide arménien, Paris, Albin Michel, 1996, pp. 628-629.
- H. Rauschning, Hitler m'a dit, Paris Coopération, 1939, p. 159.
msgs
Here is a relevant part I have intended to add.
But Prof. Gerhard L. Weinberg, alleges that the speech containing the Armenian quote, was obtained by the British Ambassador to Berlin, Neville Henderson, on August 25 and that there is a ribbon copy in his papers which could be found in the Public Record Office at Kew. In Vol. VII (1954) of the official series Documents of the British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939.
Prof. Gerhard L. Weinberg also maintains that the most complete account of the speech, that was taken down by Adm. Hermann Böhn, that excluded the Armenian quote, was an abbreviated and inaccurate version, and that for this reason can not be relied upon to reject Adm. Canaris version, which according to him, should have been used instead. To support his argument, Weinberg refer to the articles that appeared in the scholarly quarterly Issued by the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich in 1968 and 1971, in which, according to him, Winfried Baumgart has demonstrated that the account by Adm. Hermann Böhm, is an abbreviated and inaccurate one, and since Hermann Böhm was asked to compare the other two versions of the Obersalzberg speech(those excluding the “Armenian quote”), the professor consider that the version containing the Armenian quote is probably an accurate one of one of the two speeches given by Hitler that day. Weinberg also claims that Böhms love for Hitler made of him a character that one could not rely upon, and for this reason, other followers of Hitler, like Adm. Canaris, should have been taken into consideration instead. (See his book: The Foreign policy of Hitler’s Germany: Starting World War II, 1937-1939 (Chicago/London, 1980), pp. 610-612 and “Letters to the Editors,” New York Times (June 8, 1985) p. 16) -- Fadix
- This should be backed up by the Kew doc, else edit wars may ensue. --Tickle me 15:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
My proposed single step approach is wrong, no trouble so far doing it the regular way; may be we should start with the problem concerning differing translations. (done)
@fadix - "As far as the quote goes, its authenticity is disputed, but not as much as revisionists claim.": I think so too, besides it's not a primary topic; anyway I'm stubborn, and as a rule, I like to kick revisionist's butts. (excuse me)
The user page contains the old article, new versions as they're added and comments on how to proceed: old version|new version|comments.
I deleted the forged Cato Institute quote today. --Tickle me 13:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- I started Germar_Rudolf as a stub, adding some links and information, I'll do the rest of the translation there. I took the liberty and copied some of Fadix' and Hoch_auf_einem_Baum's material here. I mailed to prof. Weinberg and to nationalarchives.gov.uk to get scans. --Tickle me 08:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
To do
- explain that i.e. General Halder and the other 4 militaries doing takedowns werde shortening the 4h speech to about 2h.
- substantiate the alleged 4h duration
- The PDF indicates that two speeches were held. How so: was it a long speech with a pause inbetween?
- Besides, it must be examined, if they were shortening the speech according to regulations concerning "war diary" usage. Halder's version was published as part of his war diary.
- find authoritative source for these regulations
- superborg.de: Verzeichnis der Merkblätter - Anhang 2 zu H.Dv. 1a - Nr. 1 - 80/1
- Merkblatt 32/1
- "Bestimmungen für die Führung von Kriegstagebüchern und Tätigkeitsberichten", 1940
- -
- dluft2000: Verzeichnis Luftwaffen-Dienstvorschriften (D.(Luft)) Nr. 2000 - 4399
- D.(Luft) 2705
- Bestimmungen über die Führung und Behandlung der Kriegstagebücher und Kriegsakten, 1940
- -
- bundesarchiv.de - Abteilung Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv Zentrale: koblenz@barch.bund.de
- Frau Märke: Zentrale Dienststellen der Wehrmacht
- Frau Frischmuth: Kommandobehörden und Verbände des Feldheeres
- Findmittel: persönlich in Freiburg oder durch spez. Firmen. Liste im Benutzersaal des Bundesarchivs zu erfragen (tel: 0761/47817-911)
- else, why the shortenings? Did they extract only what was of military, operational or instructional use because of other reasons?
- According to Dominik J. Schaller's essay "Die Rezeption des Völkermordes an den Armeniern in Deutschland 1915 bis 1945" the German newspaper "Leipziger Neuesten Nachrichten" interviewed Hitler in 1931, extract: "...oder erinnern Sie sich doch an die Ausrottung Armeniens..." (en: "or do you remember the extermination of the Armenians"). A linked scan of Richard Breiting's shorthand notes from an universitarian site would be fine. I mailed Dominik J. Schaller on this behalf. Some issues of the "Leipziger Neuesten Nachrichten" are available offline here.
- find Ambassador Neville Henderson's document in the Public Record Office at Kew, cited by Prof. Gerhard L. Weinberg. I mailed him on this behalf. Answer of 08.25.05:
"...There are two copies of the document. One has been published from the regular Foreign Office files as No. 314 in Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939, Third Series, Volume VII. Another copy of the IDENTICAL text is in the Henderson Papers (FO 800/270, ff. 281-91). This second text is in fact the original typed copy that was given to the British by Lochner. Since the full text has been published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1954, ..."
A scan of the Henderson Papers is a must, to my advice. It's available online from taylorandfrancis.metapress.com for $23.-, pricey... A reference I found here is [The National Archives, Kew (TNA),] "FO 800/270, No. 39/85, folios 288-91". Another reference: Documents on British foreign policy 1919-1939, 3rd series, VII. London: HMSO, 1954: 257-60. (Original text as sent to the Foreign Office, 25 August 1939.)
- In one of the earliest surviving written documents containing statements and speeches by Hitler covering the period up to 1924, the future Nazi leader makes an allusion to the Armenians as victims of their lack of courage for combativeness.
The "solution of the Jewish question," he added, requires, therefore, "a bloody clash." Otherwise, Hitler noted, "the German people will end up becoming just like the Armenians" (…das deutsche Volk wird ein Volk wie die Armenier…).
Eberhard Jäckel and Axel Kuhn eds., Hitler. Sämtliche Aufzeichnungen 1905-1924 (Stuttgart, 1980), 775. The respective document is identified as one emanating from the German Federal Archives (Bundesarchiv) R48 I, Reichs Chancellor’s Office (Reichskanzlei), dossier no. 2681, pp.85 ff. [Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 23, No.2, 1998, p.537]
Find a scan of R48 I
- When in July 1933 Hitler was interviewed by the editor of the Turkish newspaper “Milliyet” he said that the movement in modern Turkey had been for him a "shining star." Turkey had based itself upon the primitive native peasantry of Anatolia, and similarly one of Germany’s greatest tasks was the building up (Aufbau) of the German peasant class.
Reported in the Frankfurter Zeitung, July 22, 1933; Quoted in The Speeches of Adolf Hitler. April 1922— August 1939. vol. 1. Norman H. Baynes. trans. and ed. (Oxford University Press, 1942), p.868. [The rise of the Turkish middle class was a direct consequence of the Armenian Genocide and the expropriation of the properties, goods, and monies belonging to Armenians throughout Anatolia.]
div data
Robert John
tallarmeniantale.com cites Robert John as scientific witness against the quote's authenticity, rebutting Gerhard L. Weinberg.
Google cached self description: "R. John M.D. a human ecologist and diplomatic historian." - ichee.org, ichee@aol.com.
He publishes on "Freedom Fighters against Holocaust Industry", with 128 entries via Google and 278 mentions of Ernst Zündel as of 08.25.05.
Gerhard L. Weinberg , Department of History (Emeritus), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, gweinber@email.unc.edu
Dominik J. Schaller: rickscafe@bluemail.ch
http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/tagungsberichte/id=724
Edouard Calic, Hitler interview of 1931
- Édouard Calic, "Unmasked", London, Chatto & Windus, 1971, p. 11.
- Édouard Calic: "Two confidential interviews with Hitler in 1931"
Prof. Dr. phil. Marie-Janine Calic (daughter of Édouard Calic?)
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Abteilung für Geschichte Osteuropas und Südosteuropas
Historicum
Schellingstr. 12, Raum 431
80799 München
Telefon (dienstlich): (089) 2180-5482
E-Mail: mj.calic@lrz.uni-muenchen.de
Between 14.9.-5.10.1979 Melitta Wiedemann published in the German weekly "Die Zeit" doubt's about Édouard Calic scientific integrity. Germar Rudolf's website cites this.
Einen "politischen und wissenschaftlichen Skandal" nennt die Hamburger Wochenzeitung »Die Zeit« die Wiederaufrollung der Reichstagsbrandaffäre von 1933. Ihr umfangreiches Dossier über die Hintergründe der totalen Verwirrung der deutschen und internationalen Öffentlichkeit bei Beurteilung des historischen Vorganges vom 27.2.1933 veröffentlichte sie in vier Folgen (14.9.-5.10.1979) unter dem Titel: »Kabalen um den Reichstagsbrand - Geschichte aus der Dunkelkammer eine unvermeidliche Enthüllung.« Als Vorspann schreibt »Die Zeit«: »Der Reichstagsbrand von 1933, ursprünglich ein Symbol der Nazi-Diktatur, ist zum Gegenstand haßerfüllter Kontroversen unter den Historikern geworden. Angeheizt wird der Streit seit zehn Jahren von dem mysteriösen Generalsekretär eines ›Luxemburger Komitees‹. Sein Name: Edouard Calic.
According to leftist publishing house "[http://www.ahriman.com/buecher/hofer.htm Ahriman Verlag]" these German language newspapers apparently don't doubt Calic's integrity: "Wiener Zeitung", "Süddeutsche Zeitung", "Rheinischer Merkur" and "Neue Zürcher Zeitung"
Breiting, Richard, 1882-1937. Uniform title: Ohne Maske. English.; Title: Secret Conversations with Hitler;The Two Newly - Discovered 1931 Interviews. Edited by Edouard Calic. With a foreword by Golo Mann. Translated from the German by Richard Barry. [1st American ed.] New York, John Day Co. [1971] Description: 191 p. 21 cm. Notes: Translation of Ohne Maske. "Transcript of Richard Breiting's shorthand notes": p. 17-93. Bibliography: p. 180-186. Calic, Edourd; Unmasked [n.8], 81; in the German original., 101. Here is an excerpt from Ludwig Krieger’s Memorandum regarding the interview [Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 23, No.2, 1998, p.540]: "The transcript checks with the original…Having been a shorthand writer at Hitler’s briefing conferences in his headquarters during the Second World War, I recognize Hitler’s style and reactions throughout the record. Breiting’s papers as a whole confirm the sequence of events. Both from the factual and political points of view; the checking of these papers has been of extreme interest to me. Breiting’s shorthand record is assuredly of great historical value since, as far as I know, no shorthand notes of private discussions with Hitler in the pre-1933 period exist."
div
Dr. Hans-Lukas Kieser, Privatdozent für Geschichte der Neuzeit an der Universität Zürich
hans-lukas.kieser@unibas.ch
Tel: 044 63 43649
hist.unizh.ch/telephon.html
turkishembassy.org propaganda
- nationalarchives.gov.uk
- nationalarchives.gov.uk?CATID=586472 1939, German affairs, including correspondence with Sir Neville Henderson
- nationalarchives.gov.uk?CATID=4201766, 1939 Sept 9, 7 Turkey - Discussion on prospective Anglo-Turkish treaty, 8 Report of Sir Neville Henderson
- nationalarchives.gov.uk?CATID=100073
1946, Von Papen asked for series of his reports from Vienna in connection with his defence at Nuremberg trial which contained a report of a conversation with Sir Neville Henderson in June 1937
polemic but informative essay on the Obersalzberg quote
- holocaust-history.org and yale.edu International Military Tribunal session transcripts
Your discovery about Robert John "link" with Germar Rudolf is a hell of a discovery :)
If it is the same Robert John,(which appear to be him, since he wrote about Iraq and other controversial subject, which is in line with what there is in the site, signed Robert John) then I understand why he question the Armenian quote. You must know that the guy is half Armenian, and while he does not deny the Armenian genocide, he deny Hitlers speech. If he is a revisionist of the Holocaust, it might explain why he has undertaken such a task as to reject the quote in question, because it concerns Hitler, and if one does not believe Hiltler has planned an extermination, a quote showing he did, would automatically be rejected.
So here, what those that reject it have, is Lowry, who rejected the Armenian quote, but then, he has been exposed for working for the Turkish government, and one of his tasks was to do just that. His exposition has covered an entire article of 22 pages in the Holocaust and Genocide Studies the work can be accessed here: http://users.ids.net/~gregan/ethics.html
And then, we have Richard John, who appears to have some connection with Holocaust revisionists.
The rest of those that rejected the quote, are Turkish diplomats like Gurun etc. In short, everyone that seem to have clearly rejected the quote seems to have obvious reason to reject it.
Also, my words that you have copied above, contains certain mistakes, I have discovered afterward, all tell you more about it later. Fadix 15:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- If you know users.ids.net/~gregan you might know this a s well: lewis.html on Bernard Lewis' inaccuracies. "certain mistakes": Feel free to edit. I added this on Armenian genocide without thourough inspection, seems interesting. --Tickle me 17:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Contact me, I have created another email account and updated my Wikipedia informations. So it should work. Regards Fadix 20:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
another link
Dear Tickle me, perhaps this scholarly research report on the Nueremberg L-3-document (Locher version) might be of strong interest for you: ´Cutting the Gordian Knot – The so-called „Armenian Quote“´ [[3]], afaIk the book appeared at end of Dec., the last year, in German/y, best Malteser.Falke (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)