Talk:Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech

message: 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).
* 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, 
“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.
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Compromise Solution 

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

message: 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 scan 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 uploaded 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
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 PDF:
"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)
replies: text: 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—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)
thread_title:  Sources in the German Foreign Office's Archive 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No source in the German Foreign Office's Archive 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This is nonsense 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Refutation? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  L 3: The Very Document: "Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Polish quote! 

message: 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)
thread_title: L-3

message: 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)
thread_title:  Minutes 

message: 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? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Of course, the Armenian-specific information will remain unchanged in the article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A short statement on “The Armenian Quote” 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion entirely miss a point 

message: 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."http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-01/tgmwc-01-05-05.shtml
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 W:NPOV manner. --92slim (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Maybe. --92slim (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. --92slim (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The poor state of this article 

message: There is "where an estimated one to one-and-a-half million ethnic Armenians were "killed by Turks"." phrase.How aoppropriate for W: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Killed by Turks" 

message: 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)
replies: text: To put it plain and simple: The speech is a fraud. --41.151.18.70 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: thumb|250px|Adolf Hitler's statement on planned attack on Poland and genocide of Poles
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)
replies: text: Do images bother you? 92slim (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Image of the Text of the Speech 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: This whole article needs to be rewritten from scratch

message: 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)
thread_title:  Forgery 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Why is the Lochner account even in this article, let alone the only account? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New article