truth behind some well-known and often-repeated forgeries
by Armenian activists who are attempting to sway the world
opinion regarding the existence of a "genoeide"
in 1915, are exposed in the following paragraphs.
Hitler's quotation regarding the Armenians - A myth
year Armenian activists lobby politicians in Canada and
the U.S. to prodaim a "genocide remembrance week"
in April recognizing the so-called Armenian genocide. Every
politician who speaks in favour of such a motion inevitably
refers to the following statement, given to the m by the
Armenian activists who daim it was moda by Hitler; "Who,
af ter all, speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians".
so-called Hitler statement is accepted as a "historical
fact" and has been quoted by numerous politicians who
support the Armenian couse, in parliamentary debates in
North America. It also appears routinely in Armenian propaganda
Armenians want to play on the sentiments of the Jewish Holocaust
and purport that Adolf Hitler moda this quotation in a speech
regarding his planned annihilation of the European Jews.
One of the most frequently utilized falsifications by Armenian
spokesmen is that Hitler felt justified in going forward
with his plan to exterminate European Jewry during the Second
World War, because he was encouraged that the world had
not reacted to allaged Ottoman mistreatment of its Armenian
population during the First World War.
problem with this linkage is that there is no proof that
Hitler ever moda such a statement. It is claimed that he
referred to the Armenians in the mannar 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 offieial texts in the reliable Nuremberg documents.
is natural to assuma that Hitler spoke to his generals on
that day in his and their natiye tongue, German. The Nuremberg
documents are the only authoritative and authentic sources.
However, a few English translations that appeared in New
York Times and London Times in 1945 carried an additional
sentence in Hitler's speech that does not occur in the authorized
the Nuremberg tribunal there were three authentic versions
of the records of the Hitler's meeting with his generals,
although no officici minutes exist. All three versions are
similar in content. William lo Shirer in "The Rise
and Fall of the Third Reich" states as follows:
Nuremberg there was some doubt about a fourth account of
Hitler's speech listed as N.D. C-3. and though it was referred
to in the proceedings, the prosecution did not submit it
in evidence. White it undoubtedly rings true, it may have
been embeffished a little by persons who were not present
at the meeting at the Berghof".
several publications Armenian activists refer to the fabricated
Hitler statement about Armenians and quote it as "exhibit
US-28 of the Nuremberg Tribunal" to mislead the unsuspecting
public as if it were authentic and credible. They obviously
fail to indicate that exhibit US-28 was not introduced as
evidence by the prosecution because of lock of proof of
its authenticity and was not preserved in the records of
the trials. This is the record Shirer refers to as being
"embellished by persons who were not presant at the
meeting at the Berghof". Neither of the two versions
of the records introduced as evidence in Nuremberg nor the
notes kept by General Franz Halder who was present at the
meeting, contain any reference to Armenians.
quotation, and indeed an entire text of a Hitler speech
purportedly made at Obersalzberg on August 22, 1939, was
first published in 1942 in a book entitled "What About
Germany?" authored by Louis Lochner.
cited an unnamed informant as his source for a document
called "Contents of Speech to the Supreme Commanders,
and Commanding Generals, Obersalzberg, August 22, 1939".
He further stated that he obtained a copy of this speech
one week prior to Hitler's 1939 invasion of Poland. This
"document", the origin of which has never been
diselosed, investigated, and much less established, is the
sole source of Hitler's purported remark regarding the Armenians.
is interesting to note that, in Lochner's unnamed informant's
documents, there is not a single direct or implied reference
to the Jewish reorle. The statement referred to Hitler's
impending invasion of Poland and to the fate he envisioned
for its citizenry; it had absolutely nothing to do with
his plans for the Jews of Europe.
Nuremberg transcripts, however, elearly demonstrate that
the tribunal rejected Lochner's version of Hitler's Obersalzberg
speech in favor of two more official versions found in confiscated
German militery records. These two records are, respectively,
the detailed notes of the August 22, 1939 meeting taken
down by Admiral Hermann Boehm, Chief of the High Seas Fleet,
who was in attendance (Document No. 798-PS) and a memorandum
in two parts which provides a detailed account of Hitler's
August 22, 1939, remarks at Obersalzberg (Document No. 1014-PS).
second document originated in the Chief of the High Command
of the Armed Forces files and was captured by American troops
at Saalfelden in Austria. This was the chief document introduced
by the prosecution at Nuremberg as evidence in the course
of the session concerned with the invasion of Poland.
two versions are in fact preserved in the transcripts of
the Nuremberg Tribunal and are internally consistent with
each other regarding the wording of Hitler's Obersalzberg
speech. It is important to note that none of these eyewitness
versions contain ant reference whatsoever to Armenians.
addition, a third eyewitness account of the Obersalzberg
meetings is found in the detailed diary kept by General
Franz Halder. His notes, which were not submitted as evidence
at the Nuremberg Tribunal, also do not contain any reference
story in the Times of London on November 24, 1945 based
on a "Ieaked document" on the assumption that
it would be introduced as evidence by the time the story
broke, made reference to the Armenians in Hitler's statement.
The document which was provided to the prosecution by "an
American newspaperman", is the source of the alleged
Hitler statement on Armenians. However, this document was
not introduced as evidence, after the original minutes of
the Obersalzberg meeting were found.
results of the erroneous Times of London story were far
reaching. The world has been misled by Armenians since then,
info thinking that the Nuremberg transcripts contained the
quote attributed to Hitleri "Who stili speaks nowadays
of the extermination of the Armenians"? Armenian spokesmen
have been free to argue that Adolf Hitler justified his
planned annihilation of the Jews on the world's failure
to react to the alleged Attornan genocide of the Armenians
during the First World War.
truth, no document containing the purported Hitler statement
on the Armenians was introduced or accepted as evidence
in the course of the Nuremberg trials. The Nuremberg transcripts
through their preservation of Document Numbers 798-PS and
1O14-PS and the notes of Admiral Boehm, demonstrate that
the a/leged statement is conspicuously absent from Hitler's
remarks. The assertion that Hitler made a reference to the
Armenians in ant context whatsoever is completely without
Prof. Richard Hovannisian and a host of other Armenian spokesmen
have been planting this statement into the minds of Canadian
and U.S politicians during the last two decades. A significant
portion of Armenian propaganda efforts has been devoted
to establishing a linkage between their own historical experiences
and those of European Jewry during the Second World War.
The cornerstona in their case has long been the spurious
Hitler quote, "Who, after all, speaks today of the
extermination of the Armenians?"
a detailed analysis of the Nuremberg Trials records regarding
this false statement that is attributed to Hitler, please
refer to "The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the
Armenians" by Prof. Heath W. Lowry, Political Communication
and Persuasion, Volume 3, Number 2, 1985.
Talat Pasha Telegrams - A forgery
Attornan Empire fought, in the First World War on the side
of the Central Powers against the Entente Powers- England,
France, Russia and their allies. During the War, as part
of standard war propaganda, Ottomans were being accused
of massacres against the Armenians who were assisting the
Russians, the same way as'ftheir wartime ally the Germans
were being accused of atrocities against the Belgians.
the Treaty of Lauseanne in 1923, the Armenians realized
that an independent Armenia promised to them by their allies
for their efforts against the Ottomans during the First
World War, was now a failed dream. They started a large
propaganda campaign against the newly formed Republic of
Turkeyand after the Second World War they cashed-in on the
word "genocide". The intention was to draw a parallel
between the fate of the Armenians in the First World War
and Hitler's extermination policies towards the Jewish people.
Armenian propaganda daiming genocide, required proof that
a decision to exterminate the Armenians was made by the
Attornan Government as a policy. The reason for this was
that, the definition of the word "genocide" approved
by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December
1948, required that there had to be an intant of destroying
anational, ethnic, racial or religious group. For this purpose
Armenians produced a number of telegrams attributed to Talat
Pasha, the Minister of Interior of the Attornan Government,
supposedly found by the British forcas under the command
of General Alienby, when they captured Aleppo in 1918.
basis of the accusations against the Ottomans was a book
written by an Armenian, Aram Andonian in 1920, "The
Memoirs of Naim Bey: Turkish Official Documents Relating
to the Deportations and Massacres of Armenians". Mr.
Andonian published his book simultaneously in London, Paris
and Boston - in English, French and Armenian. Ever since
then, these "documents" have formed the backbone
and the basis of all Armenian accusations against the Ottomans
and later against the Turks.
has been provan by scholars for quite some time now that
these "documents" were fabricated. The originals
of the papers copied by Andonian were never sean. When the
British Foreign Office enquired about them at the War Office
and with General Allenby himsaıf, it was discovered that
they had not been found by the British Army, but rather
had been produced by an Armenian Group in Paris. Not a single
one of these "important" documents reproduced
by Andonian in his book, can be found today.
made so many mistakas in preparing the papers, however,
that it is possible to prove with absolute certainty that
they were forgeries, eyan without the originals. Scholars
and historians demonstrated that they did not resemble the
Attornan administratiye documents neither in form, reference
numbers, script nor phraseology.
simplest, absolutely irrefutable proof of the forgery involves
Andonian's incorrect use of calandar information. Naturally,
for his forgeries Andonian used the Rumi calandar which
was in use in the Attornan Empire at the time. Because this
calendar's starting point is the year 622 AD. and uses the
are some complicated technicalities in converting between
the Gregorian and the Rumi calendars. The analysis of the
"documents" reveal that the forger simply knew
too little about the Attornan calendar and overlooked the
tricky details in converting. As a result, the forger reaches
some impossible and humorous conclusions.
one of his forged documents, Mr. Andonian dates a note and
signature attributed to Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey, purported
to be the Governor of Aleppo. A comparison with authentic
carrespondenge between the Governor of Aleppo and the Ministry
of the Interior in Istanbul, on the date in question, reveals
that the Governor of Aleppo on that date was Bekir Sami
Bey. In his attempt to prove massacres, Mr. Andonian, due
to his lack of knowledge of the tricky technicalities in
the conversion between the two calendars, was having Mustafa
Abdulhalik Bey signing documents as the Governor of Aleppo
while he was stili in Istanbul, before he was even appointed
to the position.
Feigl, in his book entitled "A Myth of Terror - Armenian
Extremism: Its Couses and Its Historical Context",
published in 1986, outlines in great technical detail all
the crude forgeries concocted by Mr. Andonianıand his associates,
on the so-called "Talat Pasha Telegrams".
decades, Armenian activists referred to these fabricated
"documents" as evidence, in their attempt to persuade
the politicians and the public erinian in the west regarding
their claim of an Armenian genceide.
ter the First World War the Attornan Capital was under Allied
occupation and all State Archives were easily accessible
to the British Authorities in Istanbul. If there were any
witnesses or any kind of evidenge regarding the Attornan
Government's involvement in any alleged Armenian massacres,
they could have been easily found. The British High Commissian
was unable to forward to london any legal evidence.
meticulous search conducted by the British for 30 months
with an utmost zeal to vindicate the Armenian allegations
produced nothing. From a political standpojnt, it was highly
desirable for the British Government that at least some
of the Turkish deportees to Malta should have been brought
to trial. The British Foreign Office left no stone unturned
in order to prove that the so-called Armenian massacres
actually taek place. Yet all efforts and zeal in this regard
ended with a complete failure. There was no evidence, no
reliable witness, no proof and no case!
Photographs of Human Skulls - A Distortion
severol decades various Armenian publications have featured
a photograph of a pyramid of human skulls which they alleged
belonged to Armenian victims of Turkish massacres during
the First World War. In most cases the date of 1915 - 1917
was explicitly stated in the legend underneath.
has been published on the cover of a book with the Attornan
Minister of the Interior Talat Pasha's photograph inserted
on the upper left corner, announcing in the inner pages
that the cover photogroph shows "Turkish barbarism".
The same photograph was enlarged and shown to the Canadian
public in the 1970's, in the Yerevan Payillian at the annual
Metro International Carovan festivities in Toronto, as proof
of "Armenian genocide".
reality, this was a photograph of a painting entitled "The
Apotheosis of War", created in 1872 by a Russian master
called Vassili Vereshchagin (1842-1904), which hangs in
the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow. The canvas, the subject
of which has got nothing to do with the Armenians, was painted
43 years before the alleged massacres. It was used fraudulently
and freely by the Armenians, as a tool to deceive and convince
the public into believing their unfounded allegations about
a "so-called genocide".
purpose of this deceitful manipulation was to create a false
impression in the minds of those who observe the photo arrangements.
It was designed to insult the Turkish people while serving
the political objectives of Armenian activists.
H. Morgenthau and Admiral Mark L. Bristol
Mark lambert Bristol served as the Commander of the U.S.
Naval Detachment in Turkish waters and as the U.S. High
Commissioner to Turkey during the years 1919-1927. In this
capacity he witnessed firs! hand; the Turkish War of Independence,
the formation of the First Turkish Republic and the early
years of its existence.
papers, which are housed in the Manuscript Division of the
Library of Congress in Washington, reveel in great detail
the character of political, military, social, and economk
conditions in Anatolia during the turbulent period of post
World War i.
following is an excerpt from Bristol's letter dated March
28, 1921 to Dr. James L. Barton, the Secretary of the American
Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions:
see that reports are being freely circulated in the United
States that the Turks massacred thousands of Armenians in
the Coucasus. Such reports are repeated so many times it
makes my blood bo il.
Near East Relief have the reports from Yarrow and our own
American people which show that such Armenian reports are
absolutely false. The circulation of such false reports
in the United States, without refutation, is an outrage
and is certainly do ing the Armenians more harm than good.
I feel that we should discourage the Armenians in this kind
of work, not only because it is wrong, but because theyare
addition to the reports from our own American Relief workers
that were in Kars and Alexandrople, and reports from such
men as Yarrow, I have reports from my own Intelligence Officer
and know that the Armenian reports are not true. Is there
not something that you and the Near East Relief Committee
can do to stop the circulation of such false reports?
was surprised to see Dr. McCallum sen d through areport
along this line from Constantinople. When I called attention
to the report, it was stated that it came from the Armenians,
but the telegram did not state this, nor did it state that
the Armenian reports were not confirmed by our own reports.
I may be all wrong; but I can't heir feeling that I am not,
because so many people out here who know the conditions
agree with me that the Armenians and ourselves who lend
ourselves to such exaggerated reports are doing the worst
thing we possibly can for the Armenians.
"While the Dashnaks were in power they did everything
in the world to keep the pot boiling by affacking Kurds,
Turks and Tartars; by committing outrages against the Moslems;
by giving no representation whatever to the Molokans which
are a large factor in the population of the Caucasus Armenia;
by massacring the Moslems; and robbing and destroying their
homes; and finally by starting an attack against the Turks
which resulted in a counter attack by the Turks... The acts
of the Armenian army at Kars absolutely disgusted our Americans,
of his objective observations and remarks, Admiral Mark
Bristol was frequently attacked and discredited by Armenian
and Greek spokesman as "anti-Armenian", "anti-Greek,"
and "pro-Turkish". For this reason, it is very
rare to find any mention of Admiral Bristol in any Armenian
publication. Instead they are full of quotations by Mr.
Henry Morgenthau who was his predecessor in Istanbul.
Heath W. lowry, in his artiele entitled "American Observers
in Anatolia CA. 1920: The Bristol Papers" states as
was a confirmed 'Turcophobe' whose hatred for the Turks
was matched only by his unabashed support for the Christian
minorities under Ottoman rule. To anyone sharing Morgenthau's
preiudices(induding the minorities themselves), Bristol's
evenhanded objectivity could only be interpreted as 'proTurkish'...Bristol's
insistence on the equality of Christian and Moslem alike,
marked o drastic change from Morgenthau's championing of
the Christian element. it is this fact which accounts for
his being incorrectly labeled as 'pro-Turkish' and 'anti-minority'."
spokesman consistently refer to H. Morgenthau's statements
as proof, in their pursuit to convince the politicians that
a so-called genoeide occurred. In his tenure, Mr. Morgenthau
has never left Istanbul and his only source of information
was the Armenian Patriarchate.
A. Schreiner was a distinguished foreign correspondent who
had served in Turkey from February until the end of December
1915. The following excerpts are from his letter dated December
ll, 1918 written to H. Morgenthau, expressing strong disagreement
with the views set forth in his book "Ambassador Morgenthau's
Storey" which is frequently referred to by Armenian
the interesj of truth / will 0150 affirm that you saw little
of the cruelty you fasten upon the Turks. Besides that,
you have killed more Armenians than ever lived in the districts
of the uprising. The fate of those people was sad enough
without having to be exaggerated as you have done. / have
probably seen more of the Armenian affair than all the Armenian
affaches of the American embassy together... To be perfectly
frank with you, / cannot applaud your efforts to make the
Turk the worst being on earth and the German worse, if that
be possible". (FOR: HMS-Box No. 12: Schreiner to Morgenthau
leffer of Oecember ll, 1918).
Michael Buzanski is the author of a full-Iength study on
Bristol's tenure in Turkey, entitled: "Admiral Mark
lo Bristol and Turkish-American Relations, 1919-1922".
He presents an analysis of Bristol devoid of rhetoric and
argues convincingly that Bristol should not be judged from
the "standpoint of the American Committee for Armenian
Independence". Buzanski concludes that Bristol must
be evaluated in terms of the manner in which he represented
the interests of the nation which he served. On this account
he gives Bristol high marks.