Talk:Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech

"Alleged quote"
The passage given is not an "alleged quote", it is an exact quote from the book. It is alleged that Hitler stated it, but the quotation listed is exact. As for the numbers, the typical number quoted is 1.5 million; the actual numbers can be debated in other articles. Jayjg (talk) 00:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * First, I want to object to continuous reverts by user Jayjg. I do not want to engage in edit war, therefore, I suggest us to discuss the issue in the talk page. Meanwhile, I will refrain from further reverts.


 * The dispute emerged when I changed the wording in the text from "The exact wording given is:" to "The alleged quote is:".
 * My major point is that if the historical authenticity of the quote is disputed, i.e. if there are considerable questions on whether there was any such quote at all, then the wording "exact quote" is not quite appropriate. In such case, it would be more expedient to use the wording "the alleged quote".


 * As to the numbers, I also have no desire to engage in fruitless dispute over the number of victims of what you claim to be an "Armenian genocide". I merely put the lower and upper numbers generally used for the number of innocent Armenian victims of the World War I. I am against using the tragic events that took place in the final years of the Ottoman Empire to promote political goals. I want to stress that Turks and Armenians have highly differing views on the number of Turks killed by Armenians and numbere of Armenians killed by Turks. By putting a highly disputed and inflated number at 1,5 million we present a one sided story. On the other hand, wording 0,6-1,5 million is quite objective and leaves the final decision to the reader himself/herself.


 * Regarding the quote, the article itself says in the very first sentence allegedly included. It is quite clear that it is only alleged he said it.  As well, please note the article does not, as you claim, say the exact quote; rather, it says the exact wording, of what has already been made clear is an alleged quote.  Constantly repeating alleged is both stylistically bad and gives the appearance of an agenda.
 * As for "genocide" in quotation marks, I have little patience for denial. Some estimates of the Armenians killed go well over 2 million, but 1.5 million seems like the most quoted number to me.  Would you prefer estimates ranging from .6 million to 2.1 million? Encarta says "During World War I (1914-1918), the government of the Ottoman Empire deported two-thirds or more of its estimated 1 million to 1.8 million Armenian citizens in eastern Anatolia (present-day Asian Turkey). The deportations, mainly to the deserts of present-day Syria, led to the deaths of most of these Armenians by massacre, rape, starvation, and dehydration. (The government of Turkey denies Ottoman government responsibility for the deaths of the Armenians and disputes the labeling of these events as genocide. However, these events have been affirmed as genocide by the European Parliament and more than ten countries—including Vatican City—and also acknowledged in legislative bodies in the United States and Canada as well as by independent genocide scholars.)"  Jayjg (talk)  16:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg here. I've looked at the current wording, and it seems unambiguous; the passage is introduced as being allegedly a genuine quotation, and the article goes on to explain that it's disputed by various people and groups. There seems to be no good reason to repeat the point that it's merely alleged, though it would be nice to have the source of the quotation given in the introductory sentence &mdash; something like: "The exact wording reported by so-and-so [or in such-and-such a place] is...". As it is, the reader is left wondering, until quite near the end of the article, where on Earth the passage is allegedly quoted from (that is, we're told that it's alleged to be from the speech of Hitler's, but not the source of the allegation). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"exact wording" is transparently wrong. If Hitler said this he would have said it in German, so what we have here must be a translation&mdash;and the source of that translation should be given. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 20:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right. Jayjg (talk) 20:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Compromise Solution
I have made the following corrections to the text, incorporating Jayjg’s and Mirv’s earlier editings. I very much hope that this time the text will be acceptable to all of us.


 * Most important edition concerns the vital mentioning of the fact that the Hitler’s alleged quote was NOT accepted by the Nuremberg tribunal as evidence.

Jayjg added new text :
 * According to the Turkish author Kamuran Gurun, in his book The Armenian File – the Myth of Innocence Exposed, and other sources, it was apparently first published on November 24, 1945 in an unsigned article titled The War Route of the Nazi Germany on page 4 of The Times newspaper published in London. The article cited the quotation, and stated that it was declared that the minutes of this meeting was brought forward by the prosecutor on November, 23, 1945, (i.e. the previous day), as evidence at the Nuremburg Trials.

The problem with this sentence is that it states only half of the truth, and thus, leads to misinformation leaving an impression that the quote was actually accepted by the Nuremberg tribunal. In order to complete the picture and prevent misunderstanding/misinformation, I added the following text, omitted by Jayjg when he cited Kamuran Gurun:

'': …However, even though it was stated in the newspaper that the prosecutor had submitted these minutes to the court the previous day, this was not the case. On the contrary, on November 26 and not on November 23 the prosecutor had had declared at the court they possessed three different documents concerning Hitlers decision to start the war one, of which was sent to them by an American journalist. Nevertheless since the concerned document was given to the journalist by another person and since there was no evidence that the document was given to this person by the actual person who took the records, he was of the opinion that this document was distorted and would not hence submit this document to the court as evidence. On the defence attorneys’ stating that the document which was not submitted to the court had been published in a newspaper, the prosecutor had regretfully admitted that this was the case. The conclusion arising out of these talks is that the journalist who sent the minutes to the court had his article published in the Times on November 24 believeing that the minutes would anyway be submitted to the court on November 23 as evidence. However neither the issue was elaborated on November 23 nor the minutes were submitted to the court as evidence.'' Second and third editions are minor, but needed and any objective person wouldn’t object to them:


 * So, second minor change is that I replaced the word “translation” with “variant”. This is important, because, there is no original and single German version of the quote; therefore, we can talk about “variants” and not some quite possibly non-existent “translation”. I think, this can be a compromise, between me and Jayjg, when we disputed over whether to formulate it as “exact wording” (Jayjg) or “alleged quote” (myself).

“The last sentence of the "Armenian quote" is a reference to the Armenian genocide, an episode during World War I in the Ottoman Empire, when according to some estimates (earlier version, “approximately”), 1.5 million ethnic Armenians were killed.” Thus, this variant is more even handed and allows for alternative points of view.
 * Third minor change also reflects my desire to come to a compromise. I continuously objected putting inflated (in my view) number of the Armenian victims at 1.5 million. I previously suggested to indicate the lowest and highest numbers (0,6-1,5 million or even 2,5 million, as Jayjg claimed). Therefore, I gave the following edition to the sentence,

I also have a suggestion, the present variant of the page gives too many variants of the “Armenian quote” (4, precisely). I think, it is too much and makes the text confusing. I suggest Jayjg to remove the last two variants since two more widely used variants are enough (I don’t want to do it myself and leave it to Jayjg’s goodwill).


 * I've summarized the second half of the Gurun reference, and moved discussion of the contentious issue up higher. Since most estimates are in the 1.5 million range, I've change the text to reflect that.  As for too many quotes, I thought listing the variations and the sources would be helpful, but I welcome other comments. Jayjg (talk)  16:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I would prefer a formulation "according to some (rather than "many") estimates" referring to the number of Armenian victims (in my POV "many" seems to have a connotation of political agenda). Nevertheless, I'm glad we achieved consensus. This is another proof that people with differing views can achieve an agreement when they start to talk.--Tabib 05:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kamuran Gurun a diplomat
I've just restored 24.202.58.17's description of Gurun as a diplomat; he was, so what's the objection to saying that he was? He's not any more, of course, but then he's dead... Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 19:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * While I had no objection to that specific claim/word, you restored a whole lot more stuff that was inserted today, most of it POV, and all of it un-cited. Did you mean to do so? Jayjg (talk)  19:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Either my browser was playing up, or I'm going mad. I'd have sworn that when I first looked there was only the 'diplomat and' (and a rogue &ntilde;) there... I've reverted the rest of what seems to have been my overhasty revert. Sorry.  Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 19:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, it appeared again. I've cut it all out and moved it here. Even if some of proves acceptable, it needs rewriting to turn it into decent English:


 * Edourd Calic in the book [i] Two confidential interviews with Hitler in 1931[i] 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 niggers 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 [i] Yale Journal of International Law[i], 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.”


 * Adolph 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: [i]The Speeches of Adolf Hitler. April 1922-August 1939[i], 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.”


 * Vahakn N. Dadrian, an authority in the subject of the Armenian genocide, write regarding the Armenian reference in Hitlers quote and about this issue:


 * “The explicit reference to the Armenians is made in a paragraph furnishing the context of one of Hitler's notions that the creation of a new world order calls for a resort to mass murder for which he cited the example of Genghis Khan who "sent millions of women and children into death knowingly and cheerfully (frohlichen Herzens). Yet, history sees in him only the great founder of States." This line of thought is introduced to conclude that the extermination of the Armenians served a similar purpose. The Turks destroyed them mercilessly allowing Mustafa Kemal to establish a new Turkish state system and the world not only consigned the annihilation of the Armenians to oblivion but has accepted the new order of the things because "The world believes only in success" (Die Welt glaubt nur an den Erfolg.)”


 * 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 [i]Hitler[i](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 [i]Le desastre d'Alexandrette 1934-1938[i] (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 his 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.


 * Bardakjian provides further evidences and examples in his work covering the issue to demonstrate that the quote in question should be viewed as a continuation of other statements made by Hitler that were similar to the one questioned. Dadrian conclude this issue in his work “The History of the Armenian Genocide” pp. 408-409


 * “The confirmation of the accuracy of the portion on the Armenians in Hitler's speech extends to that on Genghis Khan as well. The context is the same, the words are uttered in the same vein, and Hitler on other occasions acknowledged the legacy of the latter as a source of inspiration for him. The entire debate in terms of the origin, conditions, and authenticity of the document, containing Hitler's speech, and the range of arguments about its merits are examined in the other study undertaken by K. Bardakjian, who concluded that the document is authentic.32 Even though the motives of Hitler in wanting to destroy the Jews were not in every respect identical with those of the Ittihadists wanting to destroy the Armenians, the two victim nations share one common element in Hitler's scheme of things: their extreme undesirability. He emphasized the urgency of "the task of protecting the German blood from contamination, not only of the Jewish but also of the Armenian blood."”

I am the recent user that edited the Armenian quote
My first edition was not POV(most of it were not), it was the conclusion that many had.

My second edition(this as well was reverted back) was just meant to cite few sources, it was meant to be a first version to cite and bring references to my first edition. If some require that people discuss about an issue before editting that's fine for me, but I think that editing and reverting the entire material without explanation was not the right thing to do, some of the evidences I provided were a "must" to be included, like Professor Gerhard L. Weinberg, whom document in his work that the speech 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, "disproving" somehow the claim that the quote appeared years after 1939. Another relevent information was that Hitler gave two speech to that effect the same day and that many thinks that the second speech was the reue version excluding the Armenians, when it was another speech, this is both confirmed in what is writen in the USA-30 Nuremberg file, and many scholars, Dadrian himself cite that there has been two speechs.
 * It's hard for me to tell which parts of the claims here are actually cited somewhere. Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean. If you mean websites, I have little or none to provide you, my infos I take them by reading books, I am not a copypast machine like some. There are two works that cites pratically all of the references I have provided, you can actualy read them yourself and verify. And to add, another work, which is written by Professor Gerhard L. Weinberg in which he document and claim that the reference to the Armenians can be found in a document dating back in August 1939, and refers to archival records. The professor add with support(by reffering to the detainled articles appearing in the scholarly quarterly Issued by the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich in 1968 and 1971 witten by Winfried Baumgart), that it has been demonstrated that Hermann Bohn version was an abbreviated version of Hitlers speech. Meaning that we are left with two speech Hitler gave on that date, as refered in the USA-30 Nurenberg file and that we can not use Bohn version. This entirly "disprove" the article writen by Lowry which the page refer to.


 * I'm sorry, but I find it very hard to understand your comments and edits. Would it be possible for you to briefly quote the authors directly? Jayjg (talk)  20:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I was the person who removed the material this time. I did so for three main reasons, apart from being unsure of the neutrality of the addition:
 * It wasn't incorporated into the article, simply tacked on to the end.
 * As it stands it's simply a list of references and quotations, which isn't appropriate for an encyclopædia article.
 * The English needs to be significantly improved (I'm aware that English isn't your first language, so this isn't a criticism of you, just a statement of fact; you might like to look at Contributing to articles outside your native language). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 20:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed material
I've twice removed an edit made by, which changed:


 * "during which, according to many estimates, approximately 1.5 million ethnic Armenians were killed."

to:
 * "during which, according to many estimates, approximately 1 million ethnic Armenians were relocated. The number of the death tolls during the mass relocation is disputed and it ranges from 200.000 to over a million."

Leaving aside the English, which would obviously need to be corrected, who disputes the death toll? Whose estimates are 200,000, whose are over a million, and which and whose estimates fall between? The original text contains some vagueness of the same sort, and similar questions need answering &mdash; but that doesn't justify the addition of more vagueness and unsourced claims. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Mel Etitis, first of all thanks for your remarks about my English, I will work on it. Secondly, if you ask me whose estimates 200.000 are (Answer:The Armenians had given this number to UK in Paris Peace Conference), I ask you the same question; whose estimates are 1.5 million and according to what source, while the official Ottoman archives say that the Armenian population in all over Anatolia(not only in Eastern Anatolia) was 1.5 million in 1915 ? Recently revealed notes of Talat Pasha gives the exact number of the relocated Armenian people in Anatolia which is 924,158. He had also specifically written down how many Armenian citizens were relocated from which cities and if you wish I can send you the material. This tragedy happened 90 years ago, and two sides have their stories. It is very well known that the number of the dead people inflated from several thousands (in 1969, Le Figaro even claimed 20.000 people were killed during relocation.-which was a pretty low figure) to 1.5 million. You are also very well aware that this issue has become highly political. This is internationally disputed and maybe will never be resolved. I strongly wish, all from my heart that some day we witness the revelation of truth, whether it was a state sponsored genocide or not, whether the death toll was 1.5 million or 200.000...But now, if we are trying to contribute to a neutral article, both side's claims should be written in a proper way. --Cans&#305;n 18.57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way dear Mel Etitis, as a native speaker of English, if you specify the errors I made, I appreciate your help and I can improve myself. What is the level of vagueness which makes you decide "more vagueness" about my entries. I also appreciate if you share your comments on "vague" contents of the main article, so that we may improve the article accordingly.--Cans&#305;n 22.22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposed version
The Armenian quote is a paragraph allegedly included in a speech by Adolf Hitler to Wehrmacht commanders on August 22, 1939, a few days before the German invasion of Poland. The authenticity of the quote has been disputed. The key area of contention regarding the "Armenian quote" is a reference to the Armenian genocide, an episode during World War I in the Ottoman Empire, during which, according to many estimates, approximately 1.5 million ethnic Armenians were killed. The authenticity of the quote has become hotly contested between Turkish and Armenian political activists. Since the quote is now inscribed on one of the walls of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., its authenticity has become an issue in debate over the politics of Holocaust commemoration.

The sentence defined the war with Poland as a genocide of Poles. One version is as follows:
 * "I have issued the command – and I'll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad – that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my Totenkopf (Death's Head) Units in readiness – for the present only in the East – with orders to them to send to death, mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish race and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Another version is given as follows:
 * "Our strength is in our quickness and our brutality. Ghengis Khan had millions of women killed by his own will and with a gay heart. History sees in him only a great State-builder. What the weak European civilization thinks about me does not matter. I have given the order, and will have everyone shot who utters one word of criticism...
 * Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my Death's Head units, with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language. Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?"

According to the Turkish diplomat and author Kamuran Gurun, in his book The Armenian File – the Myth of Innocence Exposed, and other sources, it was apparently first published on November 24, 1945 in an unsigned article titled The War Route of the Nazi Germany on page 4 of The Times newspaper published in London. The article cited the quotation, and stated that it was declared that the minutes of this meeting was brought forward by the prosecutor on November 23, 1945, (i.e. the previous day), as evidence at the Nuremburg Trials. Gurun states that the document in question was sent to the prosecutor by an American journalist, but never actually submitted to the court over concerns it might be distorted. In his view, the article was sent to the Times by the journalist under the assumption that the document would be submitted to the court, though it never was.

Other versions are given and attributed as follows:
 * "Our strength consists of our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter - with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. It's matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization will say about me.
 * I have issued the command I'll have anybody who utter one word of criticism executed by a firing squad- that our war  aim does not consist in reaching  certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy.
 * Accordingly, I have placed my death head formations in readiness - for the present only in the East - with orders to them do send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space [lebensraum] which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" (Louis P. Lochner, What About Germany?, New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1942, p.2)


 * "Our strength is in our quickness and our brutality. Ghenghis Khan had millions of women and children killed by his own will and with a gay heart. History sees only in him a great state builder. What weak Western European civilization thinks about me does not matter.
 * I have given the order, and will have everyone shot who utters one word of criticism that the aim of the war is not to attain certain lines, but consist in the physical destruction of the opponent. Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my "Death's Head units" with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language. Only in such  a way will we win the vital space that we need. Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?" (Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, Volume VII, p. 753)

A Turkish commentary says:


 * This so-called Hitler statement is accepted as a "historical fact" and has been quoted by numerous politicians who support the Armenian cause, in parliamentary debates in North America. It also appears routinely in Armenian propaganda publications.


 * "The Armenians want to play on the sentiments of the Jewish Holocaust and purport that Adolf Hitler made this quotation in a speech regarding his planned annihilation of the European Jews... The problem with this linkage is that there is no proof that Hitler ever made such a statement. It is claimed that he referred to the Armenians in the manner cited above, while delivering a secret talk to members of his General Staff, a week prior to his attack on Poland. However, there is no reference to the Armenians in the original texts of the two Hitler speeches delivered on August 22, 1939, published as the official texts in the reliable Nuremberg documents." (Armenian Forgeries and Falsifications)

Contradicting this argument is the Armenian-American Zoryan Institute, which has promoted a refutation of the Turkish claims, Dr Kevork B. Bardakjian's Hitler and the Armenian Genocide. The Institute says:


 * "Through meticulous research, Dr Bardakjian has traced the likely source of the document and the circumstances of is publication. The author has compared the three extant versions of the document and explored the reasons why the prosecution at the Nuremberg Tribunal did not enter this particular version as evidence, thus giving rise to the renewed doubts.


 * "The scope of the research includes a little known antecedent as well as other evidence which indicates that Hitler was aware of the Armenian genocide and used this knowledge to his advantage before and during the Second World War. The appendices contain copies of the relevant documents, allowing the reader to make his/her judgment on the authenticity of this intriguing piece of historical evidence." (Hitler and the Armenian Genocide)

Bardakjian also retraces a very similar references to the Armenians in 1931(Eight year earlier), by Hitler during an interview the fuhrer gave to Richard Breiting, the editor of the German daily, Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, the organ of the conservative-nationalist Germans. Hitler is reported saying: “...remember the extermination of the Armenians.”(erinnern Sie sich doch an die Austrottung Armeniens). This itext was discovered by Edouard Galic, and published in his book Ohne Maske(1968). Balakjian also retraces many references made by Hitler, concerning the Armenians, as well as the NAZI, by trying to demonstrate that the Armenian quote of 1939, is not an isolated cases, which could be dismissed, but rather a continuation of Hitlers continual references to the Armenians, as example.

Both Turkish and Armenian commentators have an partisan interest in this debate. Commentaries on the authenticity of the "Armenian quote" by impartial observers are harder to find. While he criticize the American government for not officially recognizing the Armenian genocide, Michael Chapman, editorial director of the Cato Institute, a conservative American research centre, writes:


 * "That particular quote could not be found in any record of the speech he gave in preparation of Germany's invasion of Poland, where the alleged Armenian reference was targeted against the Poles, and not the Jews. Scholars have studied the authenticity of this quote, and it is most likely the Fuehrer never uttered these words." (cited at this website)

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)

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. In the absence of any means of either confirming or refuting the authenticity of the quote, and in light of the intense partisan passions surrounding both the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, it is unlikely that this issue can ever be satisfactorily resolved.

External link
Heath W. Lowry, Institute of Turkish Studies From www.teachgenocide.org
 * The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians
 * A Summary of Hitler's References to the Armenians

Why do you scum keep pretending lowry is some neutral source when in fact he works for a turkish university? --71.239.88.172 (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources in the German Foreign Office's Archive
German version of the third paragraph of the motivational speech held at Hitler's Obersalzberg home to members of his General Staff and others, H. Göring among them - the speech was held secret:

"Unsere Stärke ist unsere Schnelligkeit und unsere Brutalität. Dschingis Chan hat Millionen Frauen und Kinder in den Tod gejagt, bewußt und fröhlichen Herzens. Die Geschichte sieht in ihm nur den großen Staatengründer. Was die schwache westeuropäische Zivilisation über mich behauptet, ist gleichgültig. Ich habe den Befehl gegeben – und ich lasse jeden füsilieren, der auch nur ein Wort der Kritik äußert – daß das Kriegsziel nicht im Erreichen von bestimmten Linien, sondern in der physischen Vernichtung des Gegners besteht. So habe ich, einstweilen nur im Osten, meine Totenkopfverbände bereitgestellt mit dem Befehl, unbarmherzig und mitleidslos Mann, Weib und Kind polnischer Abstammung und Sprache in den Tod zu schicken. Nur so gewinnen wir den Lebensraum, den wir brauchen. Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?"

My translation - based on the fragments already cited:

"Our strength is in our quickness and our brutality. Ghengis Khan had millions of women and children killed by his own will and with a gay heart. History sees in him only the great State-builder. What the weak European civilization thinks about me does not matter. I have given the order - and will have everyone shot who utters one word of criticism - that the aim of {translator:this} war doesn't consist in reaching certain {translator:geographical} lines, but in the enemies' physical elimination. Thus, for the time being only in the east, I put ready my Death's Head units, with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language. Only thus will we gain the living space that we need. Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?"

The above is verbatim according to a takedown in writing to be found in the German Foreign Office's archive. A in PDF fomat was emailed to me by Dr. Peter Grupp on 08.09.05. It's my best guess that any polite inquiry will be answered.

The complete speech is available online in German language at fes.de, the cultural foundation of the German Social Democratic Party (governing party as of 08/08/05). The date given is 08/23/1939. I will track this down.

Source data: Akten zur Deutschen Auswärtigen Politik 1918-1945

(en: Files on the German foreign policy 1918-1945 - official site of the German Foreign Office)

Serie D: 1937 - 1941

Band VII: 9. August bis 3. September 1939: Die letzten Wochen vor Kriegsausbruch

(en: August 9th to September 3rd 1939: The last weeks before the outbreak of war)

Signature(en): SEL B 2388

Pages: 171-172

I  Dr. Grupp's scan to wikimedia.org.

German Foreign Office: Auswärtiges Amt

11013 Berlin

Germany

Phone: +49(0)30-5000-2159 (Secretariat of the Political Archive)

Fax: +49(0)30-5000-3948

[mailto:Poststelle@auswaertiges-amt.de]

Printed by appointment of the German Foreign Office and to be ordered here:

Verlag Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Theaterstr.13

37073 Göttingen

Germany

Price EUR 18,90 (as of 08/08/05)

To do: These files are refered to in the German Foreign Office's :

"British Documents, series 3, volume VII, Nr. 314, attachment"

"British Documents, series 3, volume VII, Nr. 399"

Track down the files above at the British National Archives and make them available online; as the access via email/mail is not free, this will take time. UK help is welcome, as personal access is free. Possibly they are to be found at the Library of Congress as well.

To my judgement the quote's authenticity is a constant target of disinformation campaigns. The article needs a thorough rewrite. --Marek Moehling 23:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes&mdash;they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. Jayjg (talk)  23:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

No source in the German Foreign Office's Archive
More precision is needed here. The document in question is not to be found at the German Foreign Office's archive (Politisches Archiv). Neither were the "Akten zur Deutschen Auswärtigen Politik" edited by the German Foreign Office. Finally, the presentation on the Friedrich Ebert foundation website referred to above is incomplete. 84.188.255.162 16:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense
Turkish editors on Wikipedia are successfully rewriting history to their own point of view, while the Armenian editors here go ahead and let them. This quote is DEFININTELY NOT alleged, you can put that on the Turkish version of Wikipedia as so many of your institutions of learning and higher learning have already done so.

This quote is a fact, it is supported by almost all countries of the world - with the exception of the Turks and Azeris. ANd there are obvious reasons why they deny the Genocide, as they have denied and rewritten history ever since their countries establishments. This is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.195.167 (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What is nonsense is that this non-quote by Hitler has been burned into our collective memories. Frankly, as a Turk I had thought Hitler actually made such a statement too. Then we find out there is no such statement. Why is there a whole topic dedicated to this untruth here otherwise? Then again, the truth has been so throughly and so systematically brutalized by the so-called genocide mythologists that one should not be surprised to which extreme extremists will go anymore.--Murat (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to think this isn't real? You're a turk, that's why. It's so predictable how everyone trying to cover up this historical fact is a turk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.88.172 (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is definitely no nonsense at all
[] BeeJay 80.136.60.123 (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

you may, please, look on this scholarly piece on the issue [] Malteser.Falke (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Defending Hitler
Most of the comments on this matter claiming that Hitler did not say it are ridiculous because it makes no difference whether he said it or not. The truth or untruth of the allegation is dependent on what, if anything actually happened. It is disturbing to see those who say the "genocide" did not occur claiming that Hitler did not make this quote, because they are defending him not Turkey. It's not as if Hitler had a reputation for telling the truth which needs to be defended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.9.52.174 (talk • contribs) 12:38, July 16, 2008 (UTC) – Please sign your posts!


 * What Hitler said or did not say is by itself of great historical interest. One must not equate entertaining the suspicion that the present version may (in the words of William Shirer) "have been embellished a little" with defence of Hitler; the existing records of this speech used as evidence during the Nuremberg trials, not containing a reference to Armenians, are already damning enough. In this specific case, the (alleged) fact that Hitler spoke this specific phrase is used by at least some people as evidence of the genocidal character of the Armenian casualties. One can, in any case, accept that these deaths amounted to genocide, and at the same time very well doubt specific evidence brought forward as proof, such as the Armenian quote and the Andonian telegrams. --Lambiam 15:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wov!! Armenians must be really desperate if they are suggesting a delusional homicidal maniac like Hitler as a reliable historical source!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.10.15 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

On November 26, 1945, fifth day of Nuremberg Trial Proceedings, US Nuremberg prosecutor Sidney Alderman has resulted as the proof original texts of both Hitler's speeches in Obersalzberg, on August 22, 1939 and commented the text, on which based this article as false. Here is original texts of both speeches:

First Speech
"I have called you together to give you a picture of the political situation, in order that you may have insight into the individual element on which I base my decision to act, and in order to strengthen your confidence. After this, we will discuss military details. It was clear to me that a conflict with Poland had to come sooner or later. I had already made this decision in the spring. But I thought I would first turn against the West in a few years, and only afterwards against the East. But the sequence cannot be fixed. One cannot close one's eyes even before a threatening situation. I wanted to establish an acceptable relationship with Poland, in order to fight first against the West, but this plan, which was agreeable to me, could not be executed, since the essential points have changed. It became clear to me that Poland would attack us, in case of a conflict with the West. Poland wants access to the sea. The further development became obvious after the occupation of the Memel region, and it became clear to me that under the circumstances a conflict with Poland could arise at an inopportune moment.

I enumerate as reasons for this reflection, first of all, two personal constitutions my own personality, and that of Mussolini. Essentially, it depends on me, my existence, because of my political ability. Furthermore, the fact that probably no one will ever again have the confidence of the whole German people as I do. There will probably never again be a man in the future with more authority than I have. My existence is, therefore, a factor of great value. But I can be eliminated at any time by a criminal or an idiot.

The second personal factor is Il Duce. His existence is also decisive. If something happens to him, Italy's loyalty to the Alliance will no longer be certain. The basic attitude of the Italian Court is against the Duce. Above all, the Court sees in the expansion of the empire a burden. The Duce is the man with the strongest nerves in Italy.

The third factor favorable for us is Franco. We can ask only benevolent neutrality from Spain, but this depends on Franco's personality. He guarantees a certain uniformity and steadiness of the present system in Spain. We must take into account the fact that Spain does not as yet have a Fascist Party of our internal unity. On the other side, a negative picture, as far as decisive personalities are concerned: There is no outstanding personality in England or France. For us it is easy to make decisions. We have nothing to lose-we can only gain. Our economic situation is such, because of our restrictions, that we cannot hold out more than a few years. Goering can confirm this. We have no other choice; we must act. Our opponents risk much and can gain only a little. England's stake in a war is unimaginably great. Our enemies have men who are below average. No personalities, no masters, no men of action. Besides the personal factor, the political situation is favorable for us; in the Mediterranean rivalry between Italy, France, and England; in the Orient tension, which leads to the alarming of the Mohammedan world. The English empire did not emerge from the last war strengthened. From a maritime point of view, nothing was achieved; conflict between England and Ireland, the South African Union became more independent, concessions had to be made to India, England is in great danger, unhealthy industries. A British statesman can look into the future only with concern. France's position has also deteriorated, particularly in the Mediterranean.

Further favorable factors for us are these: Since Albania, there is an equilibrium of power in the Balkans. Yugoslavia carries the germ of collapse because of her internal situation. Rumania did not grow stronger. She is liable to attack and vulnerable. She is threatened by Hungary and Bulgaria. Since Kemal's death Turkey has been ruled by small minds, unsteady weak men.

All these fortunate circumstances will no longer prevail in 2 or 3 years. No one knows how long I shall live. Therefore conflict better now. The creation of Greater Germany was a great achievement politically, but militarily it was questionable, since it was achieved through a bluff of the political leaders. It is necessary to test the military, if at all possible, not by general settlement, but by solving individual tasks.

The relation to Poland has become unbearable. My Polish policy hitherto was in contrast to the ideas of the people. My propositions to Poland, the Danzig corridor, were disturbed by England's intervention. Poland changed her tune towards us. The initiative cannot be avowed to pass to the others. This moment is more favorable than in 2 to 3 years. An attempt on my life or Mussolini's would change the situation to our disadvantage. One cannot eternally stand opposite one another with cocked rifle. A suggested compromise would have demanded that we change our convictions and make agreeable gestures. They talked to us again in the language of Versailles. There was danger of losing prestige. Now the probability is still great that the West will not interfere. We must accept the risk with reckless resolution. A politician must accept a risk as much as a military leader. We are facing the alternative to strike or be destroyed with certainty sooner or later.

Now it is also a great risk. Iron nerves, iron resolution....

We need not be afraid of a blockade. The East will supply us with grain, cattle, coal, lead, and zinc. It is a big aim, which demands great efforts. I am only afraid that at the last minute some 'Schweinehund' will make a proposal for mediation."

Second Speech
"It may also turn out differently regarding England and France. One cannot predict it with certainty. I figure on a trade barrier, not on blockade, and with severance of relations. Most iron determination on our side. Retreat before nothing. Everybody shall have to make a point of it, that we were determined from the beginning to fight the Western Powers. A struggle for life or death. Germany has won every war as long as she was united. Iron, unflinching attitude of all superiors, greatest confidence, faith in victory, overcoming of the past by getting used to the heaviest strain. A long period of peace would not do us any good. Therefore it is necessary to expect everything. Manly bearing. It is not machines that fight each other, but men. We have the better quality of men. Mental factors are decisive. The opposite camp has weaker people. In 1918 the Nation fell down because the mental pre-requisites were not sufficient. Frederick the Great secured final success only through his mental power.

Destruction of Poland in the foreground. The aim is the elimination of living forces, not the arrival at a certain line. Even if war should break out in the West, the destruction of Poland shall be the primary objective. Quick decision because of the season. I shall give a propagandistic cause for starting the war, never mind whether it be plausible or not. The victor shall not be asked, later on, whether we told the truth or not. In starting and making a war, not the Right is what matters, but Victory. Have no pity. Brutal attitude. Eighty million people shall get what is their right. Their existence has to be secured. The strongest has the right. Greatest severity.

Quick decision necessary. Unshakeable faith in the German soldier. A crisis may happen only if the nerves of the leaders give way. First aim: Advance to the Vistula and Narew. Our technical superiority will break the nerves of the Poles. Every newly created Polish force shall again be broken at once. Constant war of attrition.

New German frontier according to healthy principle. Possibly a protectorate as a buffer. Military operations shall not be influenced by these reflections. Complete destruction of Poland is the military aim. To be fast is the main thing. Pursuit until complete elimination. Conviction that the German Wehrmacht is up to the requirements. The start shall be ordered, probably by Saturday morning."--Wertuose (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The source that you are citing does not support the statement that the quote is fabricated. Five different users have reverted your edit:, , , , . Please see also No original research.
 * The "new source" added today does not meet the requirements of Reliable sources. See Journal of Historical Review and Mark Weber/Institute for Historical Review.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Refutation?
The article now says: "Contradicting this argument is the Armenian-American Zoryan Institute for Contemporary Armenian Research and Documentation, which has produced a refutation of the Turkish claims ..." My English dictionary writes that "refute" means "to prove to be false or erroneous". Has the Zoryan Institute proved the Turkish claims to be false or erroneous? The "Turkish claims" are simply that "there is no proof that Hitler ever made such a statement". If the Zoryan Institute has proved that this is false then there is a proof that Hitler made such a statement. Where is that proof? The special report of the Zoryan Institute only shows that it is possible that Hitler made such a statement. This is not a refutation. Hevesli (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

L 3: The Very Document: "Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?"
Only two scholarly guys had until now ever seen the L 3 document (the Canaris-Lochner version, in German). The first, Dr Gerhard L. Weinberg, detected a copy at PRO Key/Surrey, within the seventies. The second, Dr Richard Albrecht, in 1987, found the original at NA Washington (D.C.). Two decades later Richard Albrecht published his book (in German): ''"Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?" Adolf Hitlers Geheimrede am 22. August 1939.'' Aachen: Shaker, 2007, 104 p. -> http://www.shaker.de/shop/978-3-8322-6695-0. In this book a copy of the original 3-pages-document is at first published (pp. 90-92). Moreover, the author, in 2008, published two relevant scholarly essays within two relevant scholarly journals, in German/y: ''"Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?" Adolf Hitlers Geheimrede am 22. August 1939: Das historische L-3-Dokument, in: Zeitschrift für Genozidforschung, 9 (2008) 1, pp. 93-131; "Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?”- Kommentierte Wiederveröffentlichung der Erstpublikation von Adolf Hitlers Geheimrede am 22. August 1939, in: Zeitschrift für Weltgeschichte, 9 (2008) 2, pp. 115-132. The author also published an English summary: "Cutting the Gordian Knot - Research report on so-called ´Armenian Quote´" (Hitlers second secret speech, August 22, 1939) -> http://www.h-net.org/announce/show.cgi?ID=160809. Finally, an enlarged version of the the author´s congressional paper (2007) on "Murder(ing) People. Genocidal Policy Within 20th Century – Description, Analysis, and Prevention: Armenocide, Serbocide, Holocaust As Basic Genocidal Events During the World Wars"'' (2009) is not only available in the German National Library but is online, too -> http://ricalb.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/murdering-people - Sincerely, 80.136.91.174 (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. The German text has been known for quite some time; it was published in the Akten zur deutschen auswärtigen Politik 1918-1945, Serie D (1937-1945), Bd. VII, which originally appeared in 1956. Does the physical original document reveal something about its authenticity beyond what can or cannot be concluded from the text thereof? --Lambiam 23:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Polish quote!
Um, why is this article even titled as it is? If Hitler's statement (assuming for a moment that he made the statement) is of any interest, surely it is interesting because he here declares a pending genocide of the Polish people. The reference to Armenia is a throwaway line at the end, intended to suggest that, just as we don't worry about the people Genghis Khan killed, so in a thousand years no one will worry about the Poles we are about to kill. We've forgotten about GK's massacres, we've forgotten about the massacre of Armenians, so will the Polish massacre be forgotten.

In short, the "Armenian quote" says absolutely nothing about the massacre of Armenians--only that Hitler for one believed that such a massacre had taken place, as if he were a leading scholar on Turko-Armenian relations, and therefore his understanding can illuminate the subject. How absurd. What is remarkable about this quotation is what it says about his intentions toward the Polish people. Oldpilot (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, that's the underlying theme found in Hitler's message. But the quote has by now garnered special significance because deniers of the Armenian Genocide have devoted quite a lot of their time trying to discredit it. On the authenticity of the quote itself, the latest authority to touch upon the topic, Margaret Lavinia Anderson, professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley, in no unclear terms says that "we have no reason to doubt the remark is genuine" ("Who Still Talked about the Extermination of the Armenians: German Talk and German Silences" in A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire, ed. R. Suny (Oxford, 2010), p. 199), and I think it's about time that we effect that reality in this article, instead of giving greater credence to the argument of the denialists than they are due. I think once that's completed we could then finally prepare a section and explain what message Hitler was trying to convey to his generals and its significance in the greater context of the massacres and genocides of the 20th century. If no one objects within 4-5 days, I'll carry it through with the edits.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Please Bagramyan. International Court martials at Malta trials  did not find any  evidence about armenian genocide .And The ottoman prisoners were found not guilty due to a lack of evidence. are you also calling international court martial denialists? please be more constructive my friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.151.93 (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Malta International Court Martials (I guess you meant the Turkish courts-martial of 1919–20 was responsible for bringing the organizers of the genocide to court, not to prove it, as that would be an anachronism. The court reached a verdict which sentenced the organizers of the massacres, Talat, Enver, Cemal and others to death, whilst the word genocide was coined later by the Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1943 to refer to the Armenians, who drafted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. --92slim (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

L-3
I think I am adding the phrase and its references about L-3 document being examined but rejeceted in the Nurnberg War Trials due to its source being uncertain. I asked Ali55te to discuss the issue here in the talk page before, so this is the correct place to speak about it if needed. Filanca (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"Unreliable source" - Indeed!
Hi, what here´s marked thrice as "unreliable source" etc. is basically rubbish talk: indeed, Dr Albrecht, a legitimate scholar of comparative genocidal research, in 2007/8 published a book which contained the very document itself for the first time (even as facsimilé 3 pp.) - the original German version of the "Armenian quote" (the Lochner or L-3 text). - It´s indeed a matter of great obscurity to declare, decades for decades since 1945/6, a document as "Armenian" fiction, forgery etc. without having ever seen it ... 217.232.35.163 (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, he published a facsimile of the Lochner text. But what exactly does that prove? Other than the fact that a German-language original of the "Genghis Khan" version existed on August 25th, 1939, which is not the point nor in serious dispute?
 * The source is completely unreliable, and with nigh-certainty a deliberate falsification by means of addition; this is so for the following reasons:
 * - We do not have any information on which of the attending officers allegedly provided the information in this version, i.e. who the actual author is. We do know this for the other versions. That alone disqualifies this source from providing any evidence that is not corroborated by the other versions; since any correct information that is in this version could (and probably does) stem from one of the other existing versions. Analysis of the text suggests Canaris' version as the source of the information.
 * - This version starts off in the short, stenographed style but then moves on (mostly) to longer, complete (and extremely colorful) sentences, while remaining rather short and containing only a fraction of the information given in the other versions. This structure makes it extremely unlikely that it is authentic; the alleged author would have needed to either write down or recall from memory completely formed sentences as spoken by Hitler, but only very sporadically.
 * - The content simply is not believable. The speech, as presented in this version, is remarkably crude and vulgar; this cannot really be countered by asserting that Hitler did sometimes speak that way in his "table talks", since there is a big difference between those and an official speech to high commanders. It is furthermore quite remarkable how Hitler allegedly severely insulted every possible German ally in his speech. Finally, the version switches from directly quoting Hitler to an observation by the alleged witness at the end: That Göring (of all people), to thank Hitler, would jump(!) on a table and start dancing! The sheer physical improbability of such an act by a man of Göring's build aside, it seems very, very unlikely that non of the other sources, nor their authors (several of whom survived the war) would not have remembered, or never have mentioned such a grotesque scene.
 * NOTE (Because of prior experience): This does not mean that the content of the speech which led to it being presented as evidence is "not true". Hitler's intention to invade Poland; his determination to provoke the war with a false flag operation; his goal of completely destroying Poland as a country; and his demand the war be waged with brutality (or "Härte) are well documented by the other versions.
 * All of this is "original research" or as I would term it "basic rational historiographical thinking". Make of that what you will.Wulfhelm (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * P.S.: I should mention that I have no stake, nor much of an interest, in the speech's impact on questions of the Armenian genocide.Wulfhelm (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Minutes
I've read both versions (L3 and and 1014-PS) of the speech in question, and being German, I can tell you that both versions seem heavily abridged (i. e., many times only catchwords from the speech are given, no full sentences), which means that both sources must have noted it down without stenographing the whole speech verbatim. In other words, the fact that 1014-PS doesn't include the quote is no definite proof for that Hitler didn't say it, as it's heavily abridged as well. It seems that while the broad scheme of both versions is identical, each source only paid attention at varying degree to aspects that they thought note-worthy, so neither source is a truly verbatim account. The fact that the broad scheme of both versions is identical is noteworthy because it was a.) a secret speech delivered to Wehrmacht officers, and b.) L3 was given to Lochner the same day it was held, 7 years before 1014-PS would see the light of day, which means that the person ("Masz"?) writing down L3 is highly likely to have been present at the event.

Beyond that, L3 is characterized by a high number of profanities and obscenities ("Schwachkopf von König", "die armseligen Würmer Didier und Chamberlain", "die Türkei wird [...] von Kretins und Halbidioten regiert", "Carol von Rumänien ist [...] ein korrupter Knecht seine Sexualtriebe", "müde und vollgefressene skandinavische Völker", "Fernost und Arabien [...] lackierte Halbaffen, die die Knute spüren wollen", "Chamberlain oder irgend so ein anderer Saukerl", "Und wenn ich ihm [Chamberlain] persönlich vor den Augen aller Photographen in den Bauch treten muß", "scheißegal") that are absent from 1014-PS. Note that while Albert Speer after the war confirmed the overall authenticity of the daily minutes published as Hitler's Table Talk, he also said that as they were noting them down, Picker, Heim, and Bormann went to great efforts of cleansing the minutes of profanities and obscenities that were typical for Hitler's private conversation. Would that be enough to establish some sort of credibility to L3 that renders him a true foulmouth in a secret speech? --79.193.49.240 (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move
I propose we move this article to The Obersalzberg Speech. This is a document (or a supposed document, depending on who you believe) of historical and scholarly interest, but the idea of defining it as Armenian quote reduces its significance to 12 words out of almost a thousand. In any event, most of the article is analysis about the origins, authenticity and overall content of the speech, while the part that specifically refers to Armenia can fit neatly into its own section. We would obviously leave a redirect behind to an anchor in a section that would correspond roughly to the Contesting interpretations one. A bit of re-organization would be needed obviously, which I would perform. Does anyone object to this? § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * However, its continuing interest to the general public (as opposed to a small number of specialized professional historians) is the mention of Armenia. AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, the Armenian-specific information will remain unchanged in the article. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Move completed. I plan to work on expanding the sections that reference the origin and general (non-Armenian-specific) content of the speech in the coming days. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A short statement on “The Armenian Quote”
Having read the book of Dr R Albrecht on Hitler´s second secret speech at Obersalzberg, August 22th, 1939, as well as the two scholarly articles the author published in 2008 (all mentioned above), I take the liberty - if I may - and argue: These three published pieces are the most relevant on the subject at all. The only reseacher who saw the L-3-Lochner-document before Albrecht was Gerhard K. Weinberg who detected a copy at PRO (Kew, Surrey, UK), comparable to Albrecht who found another one in a special archive of the former GDR. In his research report (published as vol. III of his “Genozidpolitik im 20. Jahrhundert” titled “Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?” Adolf Hitlers Geheimrede am 22. August 1939, Shaker Publ., 2007, 104 p.) Richard Albrecht in his chp. 3, pp. 21-27, not only discusses thoroughly that five versions, starting with the first German version in “Deutsche Blätter” from Santiago de Chile vol. 2, 1944, No. 3, pp. 37-39, but published a Xerox-copy the Lochner-document (3 pp.) which he himself found in NA at Washington (DC), WWII-collection, RG 237 (cf. “Wer redet heute noch…”, pp. 90-92). It is beyond any doubt that Albrecht published the original Lochner-version (as partly written down by Wilhelm Canaris). Maybe that above mentioned Zeitgeschichtler Winfried Baumgart, Norman Naimark, Christopher Browning, Alan Whiticker, Margaret L. Anderson et.al. are regarded as nameable figures all of them having one commonality: none could have ever seen the original Lochner-document which Albrecht published in his book 2007. – At this opportunity I may, please, before closing add that the headline of the new entry is, strictu sensu, poorly: Hitler spoke twice. “Hitlers second secret speech before his High Commanders at Obersalzberg, August 22, 1939” might be as correct as detailed. 217.232.18.174 (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion entirely miss a point
If that quote is or no in original speech by Hitler is worthless. Real fact is if the document is a fake, the person behind this forgery did know a terrible Armenian holocaust has happened. And him was thinking the people did know about it. So even if false, the document serves as a proof from muslim turkish genocide, motivated by religious hatred, against armenians, period!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.79.137.60 (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@IP 190-79 etc. Terrible rubbish talk, Sir, and a common streotype, too, when again and again declaring a document als "forgery" without ever have seen it. Moreover, since the German scholar, at first in 2008, published a Xerox-copy of the L-3-document that´s indeed not only a hard-core matter of some obscurity but also a very cloudy issue, that "science" you´re applying ... [(talk) 16:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC) 217.232.47.245 (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The source
The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal does not give a mention of the reason for not including the L-3 document because it contained the Armenian quote. It merely states that the document's source was not to be used, without further specification. Excerpt included:

"We have three of these documents, related and constituting a single group. The first one, I do not intend to offer as evidence. The other two, I shall offer. The reason for that decision is this: The first of the three documents came into our possession through the medium of an American newspaperman, and purported to be original minutes of this meeting at Obersalzberg, transmitted to this American newspaperman by some other person; and we had no proof of the actual delivery to the intermediary by the person who took the notes. That document, therefore, merely served to keep our prosecution on the alert, to see if it could find something better. Fortunately, we did get the other two documents, which indicate that Hitler on that day made two speeches, perhaps one in the morning, one in the afternoon, as indicated by the original minutes, which we captured. By comparison of those two documents with the first document, we conclude that the first document was a slightly garbled merger of the two speeches."

Note the "and we had no proof of the actual delivery to the intermediary by the person who took the notes", therefore meaning they could not use Wilhelm Canaris as a testifier. Please state further facts reasonably and in a NPOV manner. --92slim (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Nuremberg prosecutor gave a very precise reason for not admitting the document. When presenting a document in evidence, a lawyer needs to be able to establish where it comes from. It is a simple application of the rules of evidence that any lawyer will understand immediately.  He says it very clearly in plain English and there is no room for your personal interpretation. Your words "for undisclosed reasons", for which you give no citation, are in flat contradiction of both the citation given (Reisman) and also in flat contradiction to the primary source.  Also, your attempt to poison the well by describing people you disagree with as "lesser known" is not allowed, as well as being false (Christopher Browning is by far the best known historian mentioned in that section of the article). Zerotalk 03:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe. --92slim (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Or maybe you just cannot prove what you say. Therefore, I repeat - find sources to prove otherwise, as your arguments might be completely unreasonable. This is how Wikipedia works, you cannot just delete sources because you like to do so. That says nothing about the article itself.

Refutal: a lawyer needs to be able to establish where it comes from. Which does not mean the document is not real. We are not talking about legal arguments here, but about the validity of the document. --92slim (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That does not refute anything I wrote. I didn't even mention the issue of authenticity. Zerotalk 01:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Obersalzberg speech
Hello. Could you please explain why you reversed my edit? I would be glad if you already consider the reason I gave there: How is one to objectively tell which source is better known than the other? Filanca (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't reverse your edit. I removed the part which didn't conform to the discussion as weighing both sides of the argument. Please discuss this in the talk page. --92slim (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is impossible to compare fame of two sets of historians like Lowry, Baumbart, Browning, Whiticker and Reisman (who defended L-3 was not genuine) with Bardakjian, Albrecht and Anderson (who defended the opposite), in terms of their combined fame. Hence I deleted comments about one of those group of historians are "better known" or "lesser known" than the other.


 * On the other hand, I add that Naimark in fact did not write directly about the Armenian Quote. In that case the opposite is true it is very easy for any editor to add the proper reference. I still keep his remarks which may indirectly support the historical possibility of the Armenian Quote. Filanca (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop pushing NPOV with the last edit. The paragraph has not been included in his quote, and is in this case considered original research. See WP:FORUM. I thank you for the other edits though, they are indeed valuable. --92slim (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The poor state of this article
This article is in a very poor state. Some major problems: (A) The section with the German and two translations should be reduced only to the first translation (the second translation is original research but anyway has no significant difference) with a link to the German text. (B) There is no source for "they rejected its use as evidence for political reasons" and in fact the sources contradict it. (C) If Naimark didn't address the document he should be removed altogether. This type of editing (trying to present evidence for something using sources that don't present it as evidence) is forbidden under WP:SYNTH. (D) The sections about Richard Albrecht read like an advertisement for his books (which is unsurprising given that they are copied from an advertisement for his books), with a large amount repeated in the citations as well. It needs to be briefer and more detached. (E) There is no source for "hotly contested between Turkish and Armenian political activists" and that is not a summary of what follows. Does anyone really think that the facts of the Armenian genocide depend on whether Hitler mentioned it? (F) Of course the text "Some other lesser known sources" is completely unacceptable. Actually both Lowry and Browning are more famous than Albrecht, Anderson or Bardakjian, but we must not say that either. (G) I don't think Alan Whiticker is significant enough for inclusion; there are enough sources written by professional historians. Zerotalk 01:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. --92slim (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"Killed by Turks"
There is "where an estimated one to one-and-a-half million ethnic Armenians were "killed by Turks"." phrase.How aoppropriate for NPOV manner? Do you use the same for Germans here? For example something like "Jews who killed by Germans"? How some "genious" people could blame and generalize the whole nation for something like this? And how the admins allowing it?--5.25.190.105 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Because it's true. Yes, it's used for Germans too. Also, learn how to write in English. --92slim (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Misleading article
It seems to me that this article gives way too much credibility to the L-3 document. A document of unknown origin, rejected even at a victor's trial, of which most historians agree that it's not legitimate. The German wiki has this perfectly in order, making absolutely clear that the document is fake. Yet in here it is barely made clear that it 'might' be false at all! And the name "Armenian Quote" is also misleading; it's not only the part that goes on about Armenians and Poles that is made up: the entire text of L-3 is. And the L-3 document is quite a bit longer than that.86.90.43.5 (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Most historians agree that it's not legitimate" No, they don't. Read the article again. --92slim (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This article has a single historian who claims it is not a false document, which is Anderson. I cannot quite figure out what Albrecht says, since the citation is so incredibly complicated and cluttered. Andreas Hillgruber, a historian with much more prestige in the academic world, says the L-3 document is "obviously false" and according to him, this is also the view of his colleagues. His exact words on the matter were "Die Fälschung steht zweifelsfrei fest.", meaning "the forgery is established beyond doubt", referring to the L3 document. (Source: Quellen und Quellenkritik zur Vorgeschichte des Zweiten Weltkriegs. In: Gottfried Niedhart: Kriegsbeginn 1939, Entfesselung oder Ausbruch des Zweiten Weltkriegs?. Darmstadt 1976, page 384). Again, this article does not make clear at all that the L-3 document is highly unreliable and probably phoney. Instead, its content is portrayed as genuine and the assessments of the likes of Hillgruber are even absent. 86.90.43.5 (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This article has a single historian who claims it is not a false document Have you even read the article? It mentions, among others not mentioned, Kevork B. Bardakjian, Richard Albrecht (saying it's complicated is just selective screening, learn how to read in English as I said), Margaret L. Anderson. These three scholars opinions are contradicting your one, and Heath Lowry is a notorious Genocide denier who can be safely discarded. I shall find more. --92slim (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm removing Arnold Reisman too. He is not a historian or even an academic. See here. --92slim (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You don't get to decide someone is a "notorious genocide denier" and therefore cannot be included here, even if he might be so. By the same standard, your Bardakjian is a poor source, because he simply asserts the L3 document in genuine without proving it. He even says L3 is "as sound as the other evidence submitted at Nuremberg" which is a dubious statement at best, since Nuremberg had a lot of, in hindsight, confirmed false evidence and 'evidence' which was not admitted even from the start, because of its unreliability. Which included this 'document' as well. As for your smug personal attacks claiming that I cannot read English, I suggest you tone it down. You're not supporting your case, specially when it's clear to any average reader that the quotation is much too convoluted, and flat out grammatically incorrect (you don't "realise" a document). It drowns the reader in needlessly complicated wording, the German original probably sounded better. I'd like to also point out Albrecht is not a historian by training.


 * So far there is Hillgruber and his colleagues, Browning and Baumgart who all (rightly) think the L-3 document is phoney/inaccurate. There is likely more. The Nuremberg Judges, not exactly known for having a high standard of filtering unreliable evidence, denied its admission because it was just an unverifiable piece of paper (and, according to a quick google search, it even bore an FBI laboratory stamp.) Couple this with the fact that it contains specially aggressive 'quotes' by Hitler which usually he didn't express that way, and coupled with the fact copies were given out to press and presented as genuine, even though it was denied admission, really seals the deal on how this collection of text called "L-3" is nothing more but forged war propaganda. Yet there is little indication to this in the article. Either you will balance the article and illustrate the problems, or I will. 86.90.43.5 (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added three more historians who agree on the veracity of the document: Edouard Calic, Vahakn Dadrian and Abram L. Sacher. Your rants are unjustified, as is your undue criticism of Richard Albrecht. As you can see, major historians disagree with your POV. Even when adding some revisionist such as Heath Lowry your point would be moot, so you need to provide more sources and reach consensus before arguing. By the way, I do decide who's a historian, based on their credentials, so that point is moot too. I am adding Hillgruber for a more balanced POV anyway. As you should know, there is no official proof that the L-3 wasn't admitted because of being "war propaganda". --92slim (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Btw, Hillgruber doesn't give proof that the document is false either, so the argument about Bardakjian is also moot. --92slim (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You continue acting very self-righteously, perhaps you have a vested interest in upholding this document. Edouard Calic's claims have been put into doubt by several historians: Mommsen, and Roper being among them, which is again not illustrated in what you edited: his work is unreliable. Since Dadrian bases himself on Calic's claims, this same can extend to him. As you can see, "major historians disagree with your POV". I am glad to know a random, wonderfully qualified, guy on wikipedia decides who has the 'credentials' for being a historian, and who doesn't. Let me guess your measuring standard: agreement with your POV? Albrecht is not a trained historian, which was the basis on which you deleted Reis. The tribunal didn't decide it was "war propaganda". I concluded it from the aforementioned critiques and suspicions with this 'document'. Again, the strongest evidence for its forgery is refusal of admission at Nuremberg. It's simply an unknown piece of paper that uses exceedingly cruel language to paint a darker picture of the speech; not unsuspicious that it was sent to the media either, huh? 86.90.43.5 (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * the strongest evidence for its forgery is refusal of admission at Nuremberg No, it's not at all. You continue Yes I do. Now, just because some historians are criticised by you or some other historians, doesn't make them less credible. Reis is virtually unknown and he is NOT a "researcher of history" as it was falsely claimed. Albrecht is known and was trained as a journalist and social researcher. We can remove him, but he is infinitely more credible than Reis, who by the way, is likely a stoolie of the Turkish goverment. The other historians you quote (Mommsen and Roper) are indeed relevant, they have the proper university credentials and are NOT revisionists (like Lowry, who shouldn't be used at all in Wikipedia), but you haven't provided sources, so your rants are still undue. It is indeed not suspicious that it was sent to the media; the person who sent it didn't want it to be lost (allegedly Canaris). PD: Please style your replies, they are all over the place. --92slim (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine to see this article left as is. It provides all viewpoints from a wide array of historians. In fact, The Armenian Quote section gives more WP:WEIGHT to the observation to those who disagree with its veracity. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment
I think this page would be considerably improved if names and sources were stated.

Who recalled the quote in his memoires?

When was the speech made?

Are there other references to the speech (though not neccessarily to the very mentioning of the atrocities against the Armenians)? --Ruhrjung 09:35, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * To put it plain and simple: The speech is a fraud. --41.151.18.70 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That information is already in the article, so I guess you're the fraud sockpuppet using IPs. --92slim (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Calic
This article repeatedly quots Calic's book "Ohne Maske". Calic's book is commonly regarded as not trustworthy (to say the least) by such prominent histarians as Hugh Trevor-Roper and Hans Mommsen.--137.248.1.31 (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Great, please now find a source in English or prove that Calic is a known forger.
 * Please sign your contributions. Your point concerning language is irrelevant. It is quite selfunterstanding that a German source msut be accepable in a point on German history. And a wikipedia-Article pointing out Calic's forgery should be quite acceptable within wikipedia:
 * Größere Resonanz fand Calic mit der von ihm 1968 herausgegebenen Quellensammlung Ohne Maske. Hitler-Breiting Geheimgespräche 1931. Dieser Band enthielt zwei bis dahin unbekannte Protokolle von Interviews, die der Leipziger Journalisten Richard Breiting 1931 mit Hitler geführt haben soll, und die Calic im Nachlass von Breiting aufgefunden haben will. Die Interviews geben Einblick in Hitlers damalige politische Gedankenwelt und Zielsetzung. Das Vorwort zu dem Buch schrieb der Historiker Golo Mann. In zahlreiche Sprachen übersetzt, fand das Buch zunächst ein überwiegend positives Echo. In den 1970er-Jahren wurden hingegen von Hugh Trevor-Roper und vor allem von Hans Mommsen und Fritz Tobias Zweifel an der Authentizität der Dokumente geltend gemacht. In späteren Jahren verdichtete sich die Kritik an dem Breiting-Buch zu dem Vorwurf, Calic sei einer Quellenfälschung aufgesessen oder habe diese sogar selbst angefertigt. --137.248.1.31 (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WIkipedia articles are not allowed as sources. However, foreign language sources are allowed and personally I believe the Der Spiegel article is reliable and can be cited. Zerotalk 14:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also I think you are not describing the situation correctly, as it sounds from your words that Calic forged documents. From what I can understand from the Der Spiegel article, Calic's fault was that he was taken in by documents he found in Breiting's estate and did not check their authenticity well enough. He didn't forge the documents himself. Zerotalk 14:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Obersalzberg Speech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721083553/http://www.genocidescholars.org/images/IAGS_Obama_Letter.pdf to http://www.genocidescholars.org/images/IAGS_Obama_Letter.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Image of the Text of the Speech
An image of the text of the speech (see right) has been used to illustrate this article - I removed it as redundant, as the text of the speech is also presented in the body of the article itself.

, and I don't understand why. He gave only "WP:NOTCENSORED" as the reason, but that doesn't make any sense - the text of the speech is no more or less "offensive" as a photo or as text. That is not why I removed the image. , but he deleted it.

Text should be presented as text - presenting it as an image doesn't add any value to the article. It's redundant, and it's less readable as an image, too. I imagine a picture of Hitler or the Obersalzberg retreat might be appropriate, but I don't understand what this image is supposed to contribute to the article. I guess I'll continue to delete it, unless chooses to discuss the matter here. --Stroller (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Do images bother you? 92slim (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you'd say such a thing - it's ridiculous and unhelpful. I've added images to other articles - the question is whether or not the image improves the article. Does it help the reader's understanding of the subject? Why do you want to include this image of text? Stroller (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that the image does not enhance the article. If the text came from some original document and we had an image of the original document, that would be good.  But just an image of someone's copy of the text doesn't have any use I can see. Zerotalk 22:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Do not reinsert this image. It serves little purpose. Zezen (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This whole article needs to be rewritten from scratch
It is almost entirely about the L-003 document and mostly about the "Armenian quote", an aspect that to me is frankly bizarre. As outlined above, L-003 has no proven authenticity and has with near certainty been doctored for shock effect by someone in the chain of transmission from Canaris (whose notes in all likelihood served as the base of most of the other versions) to Lochner. The article should contain a discussion of the different versions. It should present as fact those elements of the speech which are corroborated by these versions and/or other sources. It should more prominently feature Baumgart's research (possibly also Böhm's retort) as well as the research of other established historians. Opinions by Holocaust deniers as well as, I am sorry to say, non-historians publishing their alleged findings in small vanity press houses, should, by contrast, not be given much weight. As a side note, I also removed the photograph. It shows Hitler and Göring on the Obersalzberg, yes, but more than 3 years earlier, and in a different context if the attributation is correct. In this article, it adds no information and is misleading. If simple illustration is the idea, a picture of the Obersalzberg as such should suffice.Wulfhelm (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It may also in fact be a good idea to split the "Armenian quote" off into its own article. This section is more of a general discussion of whether Hitler knew about and referenced the Armenian genocide (for reasons I do not understand this seems to be an extremely contentious point, but that is neither here nor there) with a dubious connection to the Obersalzberg Speech. For example, it makes absolutely no sense to write that "confidential interviews with Hitler in 1931 contain[ed] the Armenian quote"; interviews from 1931 quite obviously cannot contain a quote from a 1939 speech. Wulfhelm (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This article was created in order to promote the "Armenian quote" (as if Hitler was a great source of historical truth!) and it has never recovered. I don't think it would be a great idea to move it to its own article (not a terrible idea either), but it would be a great improvement to confine mention of it to its own section which was reduced to about half the current size. Zerotalk 01:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed - the article is currently a WP:COATRACK for the Armenian quote. I'd suggest moving it to its own article, "Armenian quote" (or similar title), which would need to be partially or largely rewritten. The German article contains a summary of Hitler's speech with his rationale for why they should attack Poland, along with the provenance/pedigree of the documents. I would use the translation as a good starting point for any new article. Also worth noting: the German article states unequivocally that the quote is a proven forgery. Here's the relevant section (run through DeepL, but it matches my understanding of the German text): "At the Nuremberg Trial, another obviously forged version of the speech appeared, the so-called Genghis Khan speech (IMT document L-003). It contains implausible, particularly brutal and bloodthirsty phrases. It was created in German resistance circles to warn the British government against Hitler. At the instigation of Chief of General Staff General Ludwig Beck, this fake was handed over to the British journalist Louis Lochner, who forwarded it to the British Embassy in Berlin no later than August 25, 1939. The Military Court rejected this version as evidence. The falsification is beyond doubt,[3] but it was printed in a footnote in the publication 'Akten zur deutschen auswärtigen Politik' with the note that it was not presented as evidence,[4] so that the falsification still circulates occasionally in historical literature as a genuine document today. The historian Andreas Hillgruber opposes the understandable desire to accept quotes that are as incriminating as possible, even from dubious sources, without having been verified. This should bring historical scholarship into disrepute with the strong tendency to quote the key documents as literal reproductions of Hitler's statements.[3]" N.b. the book cited as [3] was published in 1976, but German Wikipedia is generally quite picky .-Ich (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

There's already a Hitler's Armenian reference now - maybe this article can now focus on the actual speech?
This article was long ago taken over by edit wars about whether Hitler did or did not reference the Armenian genocide in the speech. The unequivocal part of the speech, though, particularly where he orders the mass extermination of men, women and children of Polish blood and culture, receives virtually no attention here at the moment. Maybe we can now focus on that and leave the controversy to its own article? Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "The unequivocal part of the speech, though, particularly where he orders the mass extermination of men, women and children of Polish blood and culture, receives virtually no attention here at the moment."
 * I don't agree that Hitler said *anything* in the Lochner version of notes on the Obersalzberg speech. The Lochner version of the notes was not entered into evidence at Nuremberg, and instead two different versions were. (They themselves weren't very similar.) The article is about "Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech", but then contains a first heading titled, "Origin of the Document". But a speech is *not* a document, and there are *three* documents that purportedly contain notes/transcriptions of the speech.
 * I agree with others that this entire article should be re-written, to discuss *all three* versions, but to emphasize the two versions entered into evidence at Nuremberg as 798-PS and 1014-PS. It doesn't even make sense to quote from Lochner's L3 document, since the Wikipedia article is about "Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech", and Lochner's L3 document wasn't even entered into evidence at Nuremberg as what Hitler said in his Obersalzberg speech.
 * https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&p=2428183 MarkABahner (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Forgery
How obviously has something to be a forgery, before obviously biased Historiographers are willing to accept it as such? 105.12.4.84 (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is the Lochner account even in this article, let alone the only account?
"In his book What about Germany?, Lochner offered the following English translation of the third paragraph of the document L-3: Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions..."

This is one of three versions of the notes on the Obersalzberg speech. The other two were introduced as evidence at Nuremberg, and Lochner's version wasn't. The other two aren't even close to Lochner's version. So why is this version even in this article, let alone the only account? Introducing Lochner's account has prompted a bunch of debate about Armenia, but if Hitler never even mentioned Armenia--which he probably didn't--why even include that?

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&p=2428183 http://s3.amazonaws.com/cul-hydra/nur/nur00459/pdfs/nur00459.pdf http://s3.amazonaws.com/cul-hydra/nur/nur00458/pdfs/nur00458.pdf MarkABahner (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

New article
A new article at https://doi.org/10.1080/25785648.2023.2253666 argues that the Lochner version is the most authentic. Zerotalk 12:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)