“The great Turk is governing in peace twenty nations from different religions. Turks have taught to Christians how to be moderate in peace and gentle in victory.”Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary
From: ARNOLD REISMAN [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 9:49 PM Subject: My upgraded article on the Hitler quote at the USHMM
Arnold Reisman
Reisman and Associates
December 31, 2010
Abstract: Not long after the Nazi takeover of Germany and proclamation of their Jewish agenda, Armenian propaganda efforts were directed toward establishing a linkage between their own historical experiences and those of European Jewry. Following WWII the cornerstone in the Armenian case has been Adolf Hitler’s purported remark “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” This sentence is widely known, quoted, taught, and believed worldwide. National and local governments in several countries have used it to justify resolutions declaring that the alleged slaughter of Armenians by Turks was genocide. The veracity of this statement, however, cannot be confirmed anywhere in the transcripts of evidence admitted into record by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. Quite the contrary. Transcripts of the speech in which that statement was supposedly made by Hitler on August 22, 1939, and admitted into evidence are devoid of that sentence. Believed to be Hitler’s justification for the invasion of Poland and his “final solution,” that sentence may, in fact, be a contrived statement. Using archival documents, this paper casts doubt upon the veracity of that statement and questions the validity of its use on a USHMM wall in a memorial to victims of genocide. These findings are put into the context of the Armenians’ use of terror as part of a propaganda campaign. This campaign began in the second half of the 19th century, for the purpose of alerting western countries to their victimization and encouraging the west of the need to dismantle the Ottoman Empire. One outcome of WWI. This paper relies on various archival documents including contemporaneous articles from the New York Times and Western diplomatic dispatches as well as writings by ethnic Armenian historians in both the US and the USSR.
Arnold Reisman PhD. PE
Author of:
My Enemy’s Enemy
An Ambassador and A Mensch: The story of a Turkish Diplomat in Vichy France
SHOAH: Turkey, the US, and the UK
Turkey’s Modernization: Refugees from Nazism and Ataturk’s Vision
Post-Ottoman Turkey: Classical European Music and Opera
Arts in Turkey: How Ancient Became Contemporary
Refugees and Reforms: Turkey’s Republican Journey
The Transformation of Istanbul: Art Galleries Reviving Decaying Spaces
The Jewish lobby in US backs Turkey over the Armenian Genocide, Abraham Foxman, the head of the US-based organization Anti-Defamation League, has said in an interview with Turkish daily Sabah.
Foxman said that the historical dispute between Turkey and Armenia should be left to historians.
“The Armenian Cause is an issue between Armenia and Turkey, and it should be resolved between those two countries,” said he.
“The US is wrong when it attempts to meddle in that issue … The history should be left to historians. We back Turkey in that issue,” Foxman said.
The relations of the Armenian Intelligence Service with terrorist organizations is well known in Russia, in the USA, and in the Western World. Selling weapons to PKK, a terrorist organization, with the help of the famous criminal nicknamed “Ded Hasan” (Usoyan) via the territory of Armenia and performing terror acts in BTC (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan) pipeline is also known to the public. Now, the Armenians, being afraid of Azerbaijan’s economic development, are cooperating with the terrorist organizations to prevent Azerbaijan from developing its military power.
By judging these facts given by Hafiz Musayev, the Major-General of the Azerbaijan National Security Ministry, in his book titled “The Principles and Characteristics of Special Services Activities in the Fight of Against International Terrorism”, we can assume that the terrorists supported by the Armenians try to deliver a blow to the interests of the USA and the Western countries in Azerbaijan. The importance of the book lies in its having developed dozens of interesting suggestions by analyzing the methods of fighting of foreign intelligence services against international terrorism and the activities of intelligence and counter-intelligence services in the regional war on international terrorism.
The book is a clear and authoritative guide to strengthening the cooperation of world leading countries in the war against international terrorism and for this purpose, the author suggests the formation of the Regular International Secret Service Network in the Europe and USA. The membership of such organization should be on a voluntary basis.
Throughout the book the author steps calmly and firmly into the fact that, all terror organizations know that fighting against them the USA and the Western countries carry the 30% of the cargo by using Azerbaijan’s air space en route to the conflict zones. And the activities of the terrorists are more concentrated on how to interfere with carrying the cargo than on Azerbaijan. Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora try to direct the activities of terrorists towards Azerbaijan by fighting against the interests of the USA.
The author also comments on the Armenians living in the USA and the Western countries who became billionaires. But their hostility and ill-intentioned policy towards Azerbaijan inveigles them into the fight against the interests of the countries who fed them.
The book consistently presents that there is no such a notion as “friend” for the Armenian lobby living the USA who supports the unmasked Armenian terror organizations in the USA. It has already been proved that the Armenian lobby is even ready to shock the interests of the USA with the purpose of joining Daglig Garabag to Armenia.
The book shows how, under the strong statements of the President of Azerbaijan Republic Ilham Aliyev, agitated are the Armenian officials in Yerevan and the Armenian Lobby in the USA. Based on the information from the mass-media, it has become known that the USA Intelligence Service has laid bared the relations of Armenian Lobby in the USA with the terrorist organizations.
Today Armenia and the Armenian Lobby by using their relations with the terrorist organizations try to strike a blow to Azerbaijan who is ready to free its occupied territories by declaring a war on Armenia. But mostly the interests of the USA and western countries will suffer from this terror attacks. The political elites of the USA and the West must realize this without any hesitation.
Thoroughly discussing terrorism issues in the globalization era, the author quotes academician R. Mehdiyev, the head of President’s Administration of the Republic of Azerbaijan, who masterly analyses the process of globalization:
“Globalization has already made remarkable gifts to the mankind, opened new perspectives in development, and expedited the processes of world movement. Meanwhile, as it happens in every gigantic process, the globalization has also its own negative features appearing in various, sometimes in nihilistic forms. First of all, it indicates itself in living level growing disparity of the population of the “rich” and “poor” countries.”
The way out of this situation of the Armenian people living in poverty is becoming limited day by day. For its expansionist policy Armenia has been put aside of all regional-economic projects. Taking part in these projects Azerbaijan and Georgia have been developing their economies, but Armenian economy went down. The poverty inveigles the Armenian people into trading in arms, drugs, and in cooperation with international terrorist organizations.
But the role of the Azerbaijan Intelligence Service in struggle against international terrorism is unexampled. In most of his interviews the Azerbaijan National Security Minister Eldar Mahmudov announced that the relations of the Azerbaijan Intelligence Service with the world most powerful Intelligence Services are in a high level and he supplied with some examples on discovering suspects linked to terrorist organizations and their extradition.
Backed by influential politicians and a major media campaign, the pro-Armenian lobby’s defeat by its conventionally powerful rival in the “genocide resolution” debate shows both the strengths and limits of guerrilla tactics in political battles.
In their campaign to get the U.S. House of Representatives to recognize World War I-era killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as “genocide,” U.S. Armenians artfully utilized some of the classic strategies of “guerilla warfare,” capitalizing on the elements of surprise and mobility to harass a larger, traditional “army” – in this case, Turkey.
But the strong effort to get such a resolution passed before the last day of the current House term – and with it, the leadership of Armenian advocate Nancy Pelosi – was, in the end, unsuccessful, as the lower house of the U.S. Congress wrapped up its two-year term Wednesday without taking up the topic.
The nature of many such political, and military, confrontations can be illuminated by considering the famous words of former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want.” In Rumsfeldian terms, the Armenians were equipped with the backing of outgoing House Speaker Pelosi, most of the Democratic big shots in the House and a full-fledge media campaign, but lacked the strong firepower needed to counter their conventionally powerful rival.
That the duration between the initiative and the outcome is inversely proportional to the success of the operation is another key tenet of guerrilla warfare, and one that proved crucial in this case. The Armenians decided to launch their “genocide” recognition effort at a time when their ally, Pelosi, had lost midterm congressional elections against the Republicans and would cede her post in early 2011. The latest push was a last-ditch chance to win before the Republican takeover takes place.
Celebrity-led campaign
The pro-resolution media assault began with a brilliant high-tech attempt by reality-TV star Kim Kardashian and rock musician Serj Tankian, both Armenian-American celebrities, to use the social-networking websites Twitter and Facebook to urge their millions of followers to demand that Pelosi schedule a vote before the year’s end on the “genocide resolution” bill pending in the House. Then last week, the Armenian National Committee of America, the largest and most influential U.S. Armenian group, structuralized and finalized the Armenian demand for a House floor vote.
Armenia claims up to 1.5 million Armenians were systematically killed in 1915 under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey denies this, saying that any deaths were the result of civil strife that erupted when Armenians took up arms for independence in eastern Anatolia.
Initially the Turks were confused; they were unable to grasp whether this was a serious and well-planned last-minute effort to get recognition for the Armenian claims of genocide or simply a way to raise funds for ANCA at the end of the year. The seriousness of the situation became clear Dec. 17, when ANCA announced that a House floor vote on the bill could be imminent.
At this point, the disadvantages of the Armenian guerrilla attack became apparent. Turkey immediately mobilized its allies in Washington, mainly President Barack Obama’s White House, the State Department and large defense companies. As regional power Turkey put its full weight to bear on the issue, the fight began to transform from a guerrilla attack into conventional warfare, giving Ankara the advantage.
In this way, a vote was averted Dec. 17, and the Armenians began to lose their strength. This, too, follows the guerrilla-warfare principle that as the length of time between the guerrilla initiative and the intended result increases, the guerrillas’ chances of success fade. Eventually the Armenian effort formally was defeated when Pelosi declined to schedule a vote on the “genocide” bill Wednesday, the last day of the outgoing House.
Throughout the later phases of the battle, Turkey and the Obama administration did play their parts well. Turkey refrained from blatant threats against the United States, and the White House declined to put public pressure on Pelosi. The pressure was of the behind-the-scenes variety. “Obama and his people deliberately stayed away from actions that would be seen as undermining Pelosi and the House’s sovereignty,” said one analyst in Washington.
One prime concern within the U.S. administration was that the passage of the Armenian “genocide” bill might prompt Turkey – already a self-confident and independently acting power seeking to make its own policies in the Middle East and confronting Israel – to speed up a “paradigm shift” in its foreign policy, a fear one U.S. official privately confirmed.
Reactions from Turkey, Armenia
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu on Thursday expressed pleasure that a resolution on recognizing Armenian claims of genocide had not been included in the official daily agenda of the U.S. House of Representatives.
“We are pleased that a development that would strike a blow to balances in the Caucasus and Turkish-American and Turkish-Armenian relations did not happen in the U.S. Congress. Common sense prevailed yesterday,” Davutoğlu told reporters. “We thank the U.S. administration for their efforts. This incident once again proved that assessment of historical incidents by political authorities is principally wrong.”
The Armenians were furious by the House’s failure to vote, but pledged to fight back in the new Congress. “Armenian-Americans are angered and disappointed by the failure of Speaker Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership to honor their commitment to allow a bipartisan majority to vote for passage of the Armenian genocide resolution,” said ANCA chairman Ken Hachikian. “Speaker Pelosi clearly had the majority, the authority and the opportunity to pass the Armenian genocide resolution, yet refused to allow a vote on this human-rights measure.”
“I am happy that reason and common sense have prevailed,” said Namik Tan, Turkey’s ambassador to Washington.
“We now know that a majority of Congress agrees with President Obama about the importance of the U.S.-Turkey relationship, and expect this wisdom to carry over into the next Congress so that we can avoid yet another needless round of bashing our ally Turkey,” said Lincoln McCurdy, president of the Turkish Coalition of America, a U.S. Turkish group.
Once more, Washington became a battlefield for Turks and Armenians last week over HR 252, a resolution urging the United States House of Representatives to recognize the World Ward I era killings of Armenians during the final days of the Ottoman Empire as “genocide.”
There are quite a few upshots of this latest face-off. One of the first results was a strong showing of the newly energized and vibrant American-Turkish community which is better organized at this time due to mainly social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter, and as a leader of this vibrant respond, the Turkish Embassy in Washington, which swiftly got its acts together early hours in Friday morning to determine the strategy to encounter the Armenian pressure.
Though one of the Armenian-American leaders that I talked to this week, who wanted to stay an anonymous, disagreed with me on this point and said that this factor had a very little real effect in terms collision of the bill: “On the contrary,” the source said, who has been in this fight for decades, “it was a decision that the State Department, White House and Congressional leadership had taken sometime ago that they cannot push the current Ankara government further to the East and did not want to risk alienating it.”
I had a long conversation with the US Representative from Tennessee’s 9th district, Mr. Steve Cohen over the phone this week as well following the end of the 111th session of the U.S. Congress. The Congressman also made some similar observations about Turkey’s image in the Congress. Cohen, whose grandfather Abraham Hassan or Hassen (spelled differently in different documents) was born in Turkey in 1895, and who proudly calls himself a “descendant of a Turkish family,” stated that this last battle was more difficult for Turkey’s friends in the Congress to encounter, especially because of Turkey’s strained relations with Israel. “In the past, supporters of Israel in the House were meant also supporters of the Turkey cause. Not anymore. Turkey’s NATO membership and solid alliance to the West also used to be a strong argument. Now, in addition to Turkey’s Israel policy, dealing with Iran also raised questions and attributed to debate about Turkey is turning its face from West to East. And this was certainly not helpful either.”
Mr. Lincoln McCurdy, the president of the Turkish Coalition of America, credited Steve Cohen, along with Rules Committee senior ranking member Alcee Hastings (Democrat-Florida), Gerald E. Connoly (Democrat-Virginia) and Bill Delahunt (Democrat-Massacheusetts, who left the Congress) for they were significant voices in energizing the opposition against Democratic leadership not to bring the bill to the floor within the party.
His opposition to the bill was based on practical reasons and Cohen conveyed to me his conversation with General David Petraues, who is in the charge of the U.S. Central Command currently. Petraues described the genocide resolution as “harmful” and “mistaken,” and talked about Turkey’s traditional help to the US troops around the world.
While the US Congress was going to through its last hours and it was unknown to us whether HR 252 was going to be brought to the floor by the Speaker Pelosi, I was at the White House to talk about Turkey-US relations of 2010 with the spokesperson of the White House National Security Council, Mike Hammer. In our conversation, I heard many compliments about Turkey and how much President, personally invested in the relations with it with exception of two matters. (Hammer also said that early Turkey visit was fully President’s idea.) It was worth paying attention on Hammer’s cautionary note over Turkey’s dealing with Iran and strained relations with Israel.
Whether it is about powerful Jewish lobbies or historic bonds between the US and Israel, Israel is still an exceptional ally for the U.S. Even the Netanyahu government, which made everything about the Middle East Process more difficult for the Obama administration, did not diminish the popularity of Israel among Americans and for their administration. Therefore, unless something extraordinary happens to the bond between the two, which was defined as “unbreakable” by Obama at his speech in Cairo, there is little evidence for the U.S. to change its stance when it comes to Israel.
However, if there are still some who imagine that the U.S. administration would break its ties with Turkey just because there are some significant policy differences on these or potential other matters in the future, they also are badly mistaken. As Hammer explained to me in so many different levels and various partnerships that the two carry currently, it became clear to at the end of our talk that the U.S. administration will not retreat to invest and improve the bilateral ties with Turkey.
For realpolitik and national security reasons, today’s Turkey is too important an ally to be mistreated by Washington. And we have witnessed this during the most difficult times in 2010 when the U.S. administration was extremilty careful not to criticize Ankara publicly. In addition to all of that, finally, the latest Cablegate revelations, and impending thousands of cables also makes the U.S. government extra cautious in the relations with Turkey, not to anger it with such resolutions.
“The Armenian Genocide bill” of HR 252, at a time when almost all Democratic leadership positions both in the US administration and the House have been occupied by the supporting voices of the bill in the past, had failed this week. And this failure happened also when the U.S. Congress and the Ankara administration are on odds on number of issues that are cited above.
So was the battle a complete win for the Turkish side and loose for the Armenian side? No it is not.
Even though there is a lesser chance in coming years for another passage of a similar bill in the U.S. Congress, since the new Republican House majority appears to be more in line with the Turkish arguments, the Armenian diaspora still made enough damage to Turkey’s image or brand within a week, which Ankara works hard to polish for sometime.
It is true that the Armenians failed in effort to get the recognition of the genocide bill, though as the same Armenian leader confided in me this week that Armenians believe that “this is not end of the story. 1915 wiped out a nation,” he told me, “and our properties got stolen. This fight will go on with various tracks, whether by blocking an Ambassador to Azerbaijan, pushing for the Genocide bill or following the legal actions until we get the justice.”
One unchanged truth out of the battle, which a considerable part of it was conducted in the cyber world, is that the resolution fight continues to poison the relations between the two communities once or twice measure in every year. And the gap between them appears to be getting wider.Turkey’s Washington Ambassador Namik Tan, who talked to scores of Congressmen and used twitter and other social networking sites to rally the Turkish community against the resolution, during a press conference this week to the Turkish press, stated that he indeed would like to reach out to the Armenian community to talk and engage, instead of a fight.
I also echo Ambassador Tan’s wish in this holiday season and applaud this spirit of engagement, and hope that still miracles can happen.
