The Talat Pasha Telegrams
On this page, we'll try to get to the bottom of the Talat Pasha telegrams. I'm deviating from the general rule of this site by providing Turkish sources... when it comes to Armenian forgeries, the brunt of the work has been performed by Turks. (Professor Türkkaya Ataöv seems to have made it his specialty to expose Armenian disinformation.)
Aram Andonian is the Armenian forger who put words in Talat Pasha's mouth. His fakery is still used by Armenians to prove their case.
The second article, "Armenians Forged 'Documents' to Accuse Turks," is also by the professor. I later learned what's provided below is an excerpt from a more comprehensive article the professor had written; following up are Armenian Falsifications (which could also be a part of the larger article... I ran into these from various sources and did not cross-check them), and finally, an article that gets into seemingly "new" specifics, compared to Ataöv's work : The Telegram Attributed to Talat Pasha... which cites actual telegrams written by Talat Pasha, to see where his heart really lied.
One telegram in particular, from July 12, 1915, reflects Talat Pasha’s sensitivity towards the safety of all Christians in the area. Located on this other page, if not below.... now this is a real telegram.
The Andonian "Documents" Attributed to Talat Pasha Are Forgeries!
By Professor Türkkaya ATAÖV
A most recent (1983) publication by the Turkish Historical Society and written by Sinasi Orel and Süreyya Yuca, as a scholarly evaluation of the so-called "Talat Pasha telegrams" is most important for the proper assessment of the "Armenian issue". This momentous book of unusually competent erudition critically examines all the documents produced in the English and French editions of the Aram Andonian book (Annex 1), which hitherto served as the basis of many arguments of some Armenians and like-minded foreign writers. This impressive new Turkish volume sheds light on a most important aspect of the topic in question. No commentator can now stand on solid grounds without reading it and giving it due attention. I do not think that previous arguments, set forth by a group of Armenian publicists for the last sixty-three years, can be repeated. One judges it as a moral obligation to inform all concerned that it will no longer be possible to continue appraising the "Talat Pasha telegrams" in the same manner that they have been assessed before, without first seeing weighty evidence offered in this volume of 344 pages.
Without going into minute but nevertheless meaningful details, I may summarize the evidence as pointing to the assertion that the Andonian "documents" are fake. The "documents," first printed as early as 1920, have been utilized by certain circles as "proof" of deep Ottoman Government involvement in the loss of life of Armenians in 1915. Aram Andonian was a hitherto-unknown Armenian who allegedly received those manuscripts (including the assumed orders of Talat Pasha) from a minor Ottoman official called Naim Bey, working in the Rehabilitation Office in Aleppo, Syria. The work based on them was published in Paris, London and Boston. The recent Turkish publication treats each and every so-called "document" painstakingly in terms of both form and content and offers the suggestion that they are counterfeit. The fabrication of fraudulent documents is not uncommon in history. The falsity of "Hitler diaries" was lately proven within a matter of weeks. The so called "Zinoviev telegram", that had created a public stir in England in the early 1920's, is now accepted as a forgery.
Andonian's work in English (84 pp.) includes 48 and in French (168 pp.) 50 such "documents". It is difficult to ascertain which portions of the book are part of Naim Bey's "memoirs" and which are Andonian's own composition, for several pages in the English edition, presented as Naim Bey's reminiscences, appear as Andonian's writing. In spite of the fact that the book mentions the collaboration of an obscure Ottoman official, who may not have even lived, and the authorship of another uncelebrated Armenian, its publication in several languages was, most probably, a coordinated endeavour and not an individual enterprise, especially at a time (1920) when Turkey was involved in a struggle of life and death. The book takes care to condemn the whole Turkish nation, an effort sociologically unsound and academically invalid. While in the book and in a letter of June 10, 1921, author Andonian states that the "documents" were handed to him by the "humanitarian" Turk free of charge (Naim Bey turning down all suggestions of payment), the same Andonian in his letter, dated July 26, 1937 (addressed to a certain Mary Terzian, living in Switzerland) declares that the Armenians paid for every "document" that they got from him — who is now described as an alchoholic, a gambler, a lover of money and entirely immoral. If the latter description is true, then why did Andonian wait for seventeen years to give a correct account? It may be that a realistic description would create suspicion on the very authenticity of the "memoirs" and "documents." Andonian was not trying to protect Naim Bey, but preserve the acceptability of his "documents".
Andonian offers two different dates as to when the got the "documents" from Naim Bey. In his book it is after the British-occupied Aleppo and in the 1937 letter before the British entry. He also suggests inconsistent motives in respect to why Naim Bey happens to possess such "documents." In the book he suggests that they were under Naim Bey's hands and that he was searching ways and means of averting personal responsibility, but in the 1937 letter he asserts that Naim Bey stole them to turn them into money. The recent (1981) French Dasnak publication (Annex 2), based on the same "documents", mentions, in addition, that after the British entry into Aleppo, an Armenian delegation requested the Turkish authorities for permission to see the archives on the transfer of the Armenian population. It is difficult to understand why the Turks were approached for permission since such requests could then be made to the occupying power with greater ease. The Dashnak publication probably wishes to attribute more "authority" by adding, after 61 years, Turkish officials. Further, Andonian writes that he met Naim Bey at the beginning of 1916. But he also says that Naim Bey was dismissed from office again in the initial months of the same year. Now, Aleppo fell to the British in October 1918. But Andonian had mentioned that the "documents" were under Naim Bey's hand. How can that be if he was dismissed long ago or how can he later "steal" them, especially when the same Andonian argues that the Ottoman Government "did away with all the documents pertaining to the Armenian massacre"? Following Andonian's logic, while all documents pertaining to this issue were destroyed, a dismissed junior bureaucrat enters a government office and steals highly secret "documents"!
Andonian says that the "documents" in question are authentic. Not stating why and how the reader should accept them as such, he nevertheless feels this omission and in a letter dated June 10, 1921, and addressed to the lawyers of Soghomon Tehlirian (who assassinated Talat Pasha in Berlin) he gives "guarantee" of having seen the originals of these "documents" and that some "documents" had been countersigned by Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey, the Governor of Aleppo.
"...The Ottoman Empire had yearbooks in which all the government officials were included. Examination of these yearbooks has demonstrated that there was no official named Naim Bey in Aleppo during the years in question." — Kamuran Gurun, The Armenian File, p.238
ADDENDUM: Prof. Ataov appeared in a documentary refuting the genocide, "Sari Gelin," and offered these thoughts:
NARRATOR: "Besides the documents, codes were also fraudulent."
ATAOV: "They would never send something handwritten, from the capital city Istanbul to Aleppo; they would send a code. For example, 125. 364; and then 441, etcetera. Aram Andonian and his friends knew that the Ottoman Empire used codes for correspondence during wartime. However, they did not know what the codes really were. They made up the codes. We have the codebooks of the time. Two digit figures like 22, 41, that they made up, were never used. So the fraud starts with the codes."
It is necessary to state initially that, in contradiction to what some foreign circles believe to be true, these "documents" do not bear any order to massacre, hand-written or signed by Talat Pasha. Andonian tries to explain such involvement indirectly through the "notes" and "signatures" of Governor Mustafa Abdülhalik on "documents" allegedly given or sold by a man called Naim Bey in Aleppo. A question that comes to mind is the authenticity of the signature. Andonian replies to this that its authenticity was established by the Armenian Society in Aleppo. Knowing that Aleppo was occupied by the British and then transferred to the French and that both were now hunting the guilty," several Ottoman officials already having been arrested, why did Andonian and the Armenian Society in Aleppo not include British and French representatives in this "committee of experts" and receive the timely solid backing of both in this most important "discovery"? This was exactly what the victorious powers were looking for! But may be such an investigation never took place because it could never take place... Under the circumstances, the question of the authenticity of the "documents" was mentioned in the very first meeting with Tehlirian's lawyers in 1921 in Berlin. The Armenian circles relied on the opinion of a certain Dr. W. Rössler, who was appointed Germany's Consul to Aleppo during the First World War with the support of Dr. Johannes Lepsius, known for his deep sympathies for the Armenians. But even Dr. Rössler said that although the "documents", within the general contents of the book, given the "impression" of being authentic, it was very difficult to say the same for the individual telegrams, not knowing how the authenticity of such documents might be established and realizing that the author is under the spell of his emotions and not objective. Even Andonian himself admitted, in his letter of July 26, 1937, that Dr. Rössler found his book devoid of objectivity. He admits that his product is not a historical work, but a propaganda piece. And that the Armenian Bureau in London and the Armenian National Council in Paris have made use of his manuscript freely as they wished. What Andonian says in this connection, years after the printing of his book, shakes the very foundations of his publication and the "documents".
Further, many foreign circles take it for granted that the German court which tried Tehlirian, Talat Pasha's assassin, had accepted or had even endorsed at least some Andonian Naim Bey "documents" as authentic. But the minutes of the court proceedings show that the Court has neither accepted them as evidence, nor judged them as authentic. Tehlirian's lawyer Von Gordon withdrew them, and the Prosecutor said that the use of false documents cannot mislead him and that he know how so-called documents carrying the signatures of high dignitaries were later proven to be fabrications. One can assert at this particular point that the "documents" still preserve the status of being Andonian's personal production, especially when it is established that the originals are nowhere to be found. In his 1937 letter, Andonian says that they are probably lost.
Governor Mustafa Abdülhalik whose signature is supposed to appear on several "documents" was deported to the Island of Malta by the British after the war. He was acquitted. Abdulahad Nuri, another Ottoman official whose signature appears on the Andonian "documents", was not even sent to Malta. Can we be correct in attaching importance to certain "documents" that the occupying British, in the heated atmosphere of immediate post-war days, did not take seriously? Can it be that at least some of the "originals", especially prepared by Andonian and his friends, were destroyed to prevent their later detection as being fake?
Did Naim Bey, the hero of the "documents", exist? Search of the Prime Minister's Archives in Istanbul, among the Yrade-i Seniye (order) files and the Official Gazette gives no evidence of the appointment of a man by that name to the Rehabilitation Office in Aleppo. However, one can locate in the same archives some of the names that Andonian mentions. It is quite possible that Naim Bey never lived. If he has, he must have been a very minor official, for Andonian also states that he was "entirely unimportant". But how can such an unimportant person have access to such significant and top secret material?
Andonian's "documents" are full of various factual mistakes, omissions and contradictions that give him away. One of such blunders stems from his ignorance concerning the difference between the rumi (Julian) and the miladi (Gregorian) calendars. To change from the former to the latter, one adds 584 to the years and 13 to the days, so that rumi September 3, 1331 becomes miladi September 16, 1915. (Up until 1316 or 1900 only 12 days were added). The rumi year starts on the 1st of March. Since January and February are the last two months can only be found by adding 584+1 or 585, so that, for instance, January 5, 1331 becomes January 18, 1916. In the Ottoman Empire, New Year was the 1st of March — until 1917. A law, adopted on February 1917, did away with the 13 days of difference, but kept the difference between the years. The miladi year system was adopted in 1925 during the Republican ear, and 1341 became 1925. Not knowing the intricacies of this system, Andonian committed serious errors in putting "appropriate" dates on the "documents". His first "document" bears the date of "February 18, 1331". But in the miladi calendar, it is not February 18, 1915, the rumi date needed to be February 18, 1330. The "document" with February 18 or March 2, 1916 as the date fails to serve Andonian's purpose since he quotes this "document" to prove premeditation or a government pre-plan of the transfer of the Armenian population. To serve Andonian's purpose, the letter ought to have been written before the transfer, but with the date it has on it, it looks as if it was written nine months after the transfer had begun. One is led to think that if Andonian or his helpers had known such complexities, they would have put a much earlier date.
The second "document" bears the date of March 25, 1331. But since the first "document" is dated February 18, 1331, it can only be March 25, 1332. While referring to the first "document," the date is "corrected" as February 18, 1330, but Andonian has already given himself away. This must be the reason why Andonian leaves out the "original" of the first "document" from the English edition of the book and mentions only November 15, 1915, as the date of the second "document." No Ottoman official ever commits such mistakes, especially in the higher echelons.
In an attempt to attribute pre-planning to the Ottoman Government, Andonian asserts that the Armenians never thought of insurrection. He emphasizes that such a thought never passed through their heads. But abundant genuine Turkish documents and many Armenian sources show the contrary. For instance, Bogos Nubar Pasha, the Head of the Armenian Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, in a letter dated November 30, 1918 to the French Foreign Minister S. Pichon, simply states that the Armenian military detachments fought against the Ottomans as belligerents (Annex 3).
In both documents, a besmele (in the name of Allah) sign appears on the top. This was customary in those days. But the first "document" misses the long letter of "sin" and the dot for the "b" ought to be on the right, not in the middle. Both signs are bigger than usual, and the sign depicting "Allah" is falsely written. It is of course not unusual for an Armenian, who is Christian, to write out such a clumsy besmele, not having written it before.
"This report [Rössler’s report] is written in German. It contains much criticism about my book, which he considers lacking in objectivity. Moreover, he completely refutes most of the passages relating to the attitude of Germany during the war. There is no doubt that he is right in most of the matters he points out. However, he forgets that my work was not a historical one, but rather one aiming at propaganda."
Aram Andonian confesses in his letter dated July 26, 1937, addressed to Dr. Mary Terzian in Switzerland; reproduced in the Dashnak publication, Comité de Défense de la Cause Arménienne, 'Justicier du génocide arméniwn, pp. 230-37.
Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey signs documents when he wasn't
even on the job yet. (Caption by Feigl, "The Myth of Terror.")
The English and the French texts of the same "documents" have conspicuous differences in wording, with several omissions or additions. For one, dates differ. A paragraph that starts with "Dr. Nazym Bey writes" in the French version cannot be found in the English publication. Some sentences change places, for instance, going from the sixth paragraph to the second. Omissions or additions are too many to be considered typographical errors. The "documents" are poor in Turkish grammar and language. They are full of expressions referring to the Turks as if they are blaming themselves. In some cases, the English or French version of a "document" is printed with no "original." The copies of these "telegrams" do not exist in the Prime Minister's Archives in Istanbul. One may suggest that the copies might have been destroyed. The matter is not as simple as that. Signatures on the "documents" are also fake. For instance, the genuine signature of Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey is different from his supposed signatures in the Andonian books. Further, the Cipher Books at the official archives disclose that no such telegrams were sent on such prescribed dates. In some cases, two fake "telegrams" bear the same number, which is impossible. In one of the French "documents" the number of the dead Armenians is quoted as 95,000; in its English translation, the number goes up to 100,000. Some of the "documents" could not be signed by Mustafa Abdülhalik as the Governor of Aleppo, simply because he was not the Governor then. The Governor was Bekir Sami Bey, the former starting duty on September 27, 1331 (or October 10, 1915). Not knowing this, Andonian apparently had Mustafa Abdülhalik "signing" many "documents" previous to his taking up duties in Aleppo. There are genuine documents, for instance the one dated September 22, 1331, in the Turkish archives signed by Bekir Sami as the Governor of Aleppo. Mustafa Abdülhalik could not have signed a fake document, dated September 3, 1331, as the Governor of the same city, 19 days prior to that date (that is, September 22, 1331). There are also cases, in which Andonian's "documents" match the copies in the archives only in terms of dates, but not the number, nor the subject matter. For instance, the cipher telegram dated September 3, 1331 ought to have been numbered 78 and not 502. And its subject matter is the need to dig artesian wells in several places on the Sinai. Some of the writings are on the kind of paper used in foreign schools or easily available from the local P.T.T. offices; such papers were never used as official records. Andonian also forgets that with each 1st of March as the New Year, official correspondence began to be numbered from 1; Andonian's numbering, however, continues, frequently adding to these further blunders of date. One of his common errors is that he never adds 13 to the days of the month to find the miladi dates. Not knowing the actual cipher used by the Ottoman Government, he frequently made up his own, which does not correspond to the cipher system available in the archives.
The two "telegrams" that are frequently referred to and attributed to Talat Pasha are the ones numbered 819 and 1181 in Andonian's book. The former is dated March, 7, 1332 (or March 20, 1916). No such telegram was sent from the Ministry of Interior to the Governor ship of Aleppo on that day. The only telegraph which bears this date is nevertheless numbered 9, and its subject matter is the Armenians in Antep. Andonian has again erred, having forgotten that documents begin being numbered with 1 starting with the 1st of March. It is unreasonable to think that 819 telegrams might have been sent from Istanbul to Aleppo within a short span of 7 days. Moreover, on that very day, a different kind of cipher was being used for official correspondence than the one apparently made up by Andonian.
As to the second "notorious telegram" it is suspicious that number 1181 does not appear in the French and the English "texts". The Turkish and the English "texts" bear September 16, 1915 as the date while the French version is dated September 15, 1915. Here, Talat Pasha "refers" to the total destruction of all Armenians and "uses" a style of language that is meant to be a "confession." On that day, a telegram was indeed sent, but it was numbered 84, not 1181, and its subject was the postponement of the transfers of the Armenians working on the railroads. Andonian's cipher system again fails to correspond with the system used then. Andonian was slanderously careless with the numbers of his "documents". The one we are dealing with now bears "1181," but his other "document" dated September 3, 1331 is numbered 502, and still a third dated September 29, 1331 is identified as 537. How can a document, squeezed in between these two dates, namely allegedly written on September 16, 1331 be registered as 1181?
Gérard Chaliand and Yves Ternon in their book entitled Le Génocide des Arméniens, state (on p. 136) that the Andonian "documents," if authentic, have particular importance. This is how authentic they are! Incidentally, the first photograph that these two French writers offer their readers (on p. 147) as depicting Enver Pasha is of course incorrect; the picture is of Djemal Pasha — just to give an idea how reliable some documentation's may be! (Annex 4.)
The Governor of Aleppo, who seems to figure out prominently in Andonian's book, was exiled to Malta by Britain on June 7, 1920; his exile number was 2800. The British searched the Ottoman archives, used the Armenian Church reports, resorted to witness accounts and finally applied to the Government of the United States requesting the latter to provide them with evidence, if any. Official replies on June 1, 1921 and July 23, 1921 expressed regret that they could not find proof to convict any of the detainees at Malta.
But these momentous developments did not prevent the Daily Telegraph for instance, from publishing in its May 29 1922, issue some of the Andonian "documents". After all, Turkey was then in the midst of a national liberation movement.
Had these "documents" not been concerned with the Turks and the Armenians, no historian, writer, correspondent, politician, or any commentator would have even touched them. It is obvious that, objectively speaking, there is enough doubt, to say the least, as to their authenticity. Authors Orel and Yuca have reproduced several authentic documents, which further destroy whatever remains of Andonian's made-up telegrams.
A Forged Telegram
One of the telegrams. Compliments of an Armenian web site. Its big headline reads: "Kill every Armenian woman, child and man without concern for anything. "Wow. Aram Andonian sure didn't mince words when he put them into Talat Pasha's mouth.
The Armenian web site was kind enough to provide translations of three of the telegrams. Forget about The Daily Telegraph fraudulently using these telegrams as proof, well after they were proven to be faked. That was back in 1922. The Armenian web site is actually suckering the unwary by using these telegrams as genocidal "proof" TODAY.
By the way, what's that quote doing up there on the fake telegram? "The Turk has trodden this land, all is in ruins." By Victor Hugo. I didn't know the famed novelist dabbled in history, just like some contemporary novelists and authors are unexpectedly expert in historic matters; gee, these Armenian web sites sure can be educational.
Armenians Forged “Documents” to Accuse Turks
(From The Turkish Times, August 1, 1998)
Contrary to what [Armenian critics] assert, “intercomrnunal clashes” and “wartime privations” are not irrelevant. The view that many Armenians perished on account of epidemics and general war conditions is not a propaganda to belittle the events of 1915. In the past centuries, considerably more soldiers died from sickness and contagious diseases than from enemy weapons during wars. This was also true for the Ottoman scene during the First World War, and affected both Turks and Armenians. The Turkish army losses in the war were tremendous, the number of dead from disease reaching figures unheard of in the 20th century wars. The Armenians lived and fought on Ottoman territory almost under the same conditions, suffering huge losses, just like the Turks.
For instance, a Frenchman’s article in the Paris-based journal Turcica informs us that when the French, evacuating the Turkish town of Maras in February 1920, took with them about 5,000 Armenians, half of the latter died on account of exceptional difficulties connected with the journey.
One should also add that Talat Pasha allowed the American missionaries to do relief work among the Armenians, in spite of the fact that Turkey and the United States were on the opposing camps during the war. How many examples are there in history of a combatant country permitting the citizens of another country fighting in the other camp to stay, feed, cloth and educate the people it is accused of exterminating?
Several civil and conventional wars took many more Armenian lives than generally acknowledged by contemporary Armenian writers. Plentiful evidence support the view that there had been an armed Armenian uprising behind the Turkish Eastern Front, and that Armenian guerillas, assisted by the Russians, fought on the side of the Tsarist armies. Hostilities continued between the Turks and the Armenians after the Bolshevik Revolution. Sections of Armenians participated in the civil war in the Caucasus during and after the triumph of Communism in Russia and the adjacent territories. There had been a conventional war between the Ankara government and the independent Armenian Republic immediately after the creation of the latter. There have also been conventional wars between the same independent Armenian Republic, on the one hand, and Georgia and Azerbaijan, on the other. Professor Falk writes in the Journal that the Armenians have “reexperienced the reality of atrocity in relation to the unresolved fight over the future of Nagorno-Karabagh region.” That region is legally a part of Azerbaijan, and the Armenians are holding it as occupied territory, contrary to international law. Back in the 1920s, while the Armenians conducted a war against the Azeris, some Armenians revolted against the authority of the newly-created Armenian Soviet Republic. The Armenians joined forces with the French against the Turks in Southern Anatolia. Armenian irregular units have also participated in the Turco-Greek War of 1919- 1922.
In all these armed conflicts, whether civil wars, guerilla warfare, underground fighting or outright conventional wars, the Armenians inflicted sufferings on other peoples, but they themselves also died in the process. A consequence of these conflicts was that many Turks lost their lives as well. Some Turks were also victims during the whole duration of the First World War and after. While whole Turkish cities, towns and villages became ruins, and Muslim corpses filled ditches and wells, before the Bolshevik Revolution, the dramatic events following 1917 left the armed Armenians, whether regular soldiers or irregular bands, as the only authority in parts of Eastern Anatolia.
The whole region was a graveyard after the Armenian retreat. The Armenians destroyed everything on their path. A number of foreigners witnessed these pillages and murders.
While Professors Dadrian, Falk and Smith do not see the evidence of Armenian crimes, especially some recent Turkish publications include interviews with elderly people as well as a host of new documents prove Armenian mass murder of Turks in various corners of Eastern Anatolia, principally in Van, Kars, Bitlis and Erzurum. The Turkish documents complement grandiloquence in the memoirs of Armenian commanders or spokesmen that they have wiped out enemy forces or groups.
Professor Falk further states that the Turkish state has “outrageously muddied the waters of truth by obscuring and distorting the story of Armenian genocide in the 1915-18 period” and that the “shameful” ongoing campaign of the same disseminated “various fabrications of the historical record, and through cajolery and intimidation.” He adds that Turkish accounts were “shoddy propaganda” or “inept or disingenuous scholarship.”
An appropriate reminder in respect to “intimidation.” Fred C. Ikle, United States Under Secretary of Defence for Policy defined the Armenian terrorist attacks against Turkish diplomats and property as “one of the most dangerous and most neglected of all terrorist movements.”
In the past, Armenian terrorists murdered official diplomatic representatives of the Turkish state and members of their families as well as non-Turks. Turkish embassies and consulates in Athens, Beirut, Berne, Brussels, Lisbon, Los Angeles, Lyons, Madrid, Ottowa, Paris, The Hague, and Vienna, as well as Turkish delegations in various places, including the Turkish center at the United Nations, have been attacked. Some Turkish consulates have been seized, occupied and officials inside have been killed and wounded. Turkish Airlines offices in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Geneva, London, Milan, Paris and Rome as well as non-Turkish airline offices such as Air France, Alitalia, British Airways, El Al, KLM, Lufthansa, Pan Am, Sabena, Swissair, and TWA were bombed, the latter for their commercial relations with Turkey. Several foreign governments such as Canada, France, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland were threatened for having brought legal proceedings against Armenian terrorists. The Turkish folk dances had to be cancelled in California on account of various intimidations, and Armenian groups broke up a Turkish history class in Los Angeles and bombed the residence of an university professor (Stanford J. Shaw), who went into hiding. Dr. Falk, as professor of international law and practice, knows that all of these activities are against accepted legality. The legal evidence of all these events and others are available. But Dr. Falk mentions so-called “intimidation” of the Turkish Government without bothering to explain what he means.
Quite a few Turkish publications on this issue are compilations of reliable documents, (exposing several Armenian falsifications), and individual scholarly works. I am aware from personal experience as well that Armenian propagandists frequently demanded the “release of Ottoman documents” but resisted using them when they contradicted their choice of conclusions. I participated, on the basis of invitation by two French courts, as a “witness of authority” in the trials of Armenian terrorist groups, one concerning the occupation of the Turkish Consulate-General, the murder of a Turkish official and the wounding of another, and the other involving the explosion of a bomb at the Orly Airport shedding the blood of some sixty people. I was asked by the lawyers of the defendants as to when the Ottoman documents would be available. A vast amount of Ottoman documents are indeed available in the form of series of printed material, often with translilerations and translations, or in microfilm, distributed world-wide, including various governments and leading libraries.
Thousands of reliable Ottoman documents, printed by Turks and setting the issue in a balanced perspective, are not utilized by those who wish to persist in presenting the Turks only in an adverse light.
The Turks have also published various studies exposing a number of falsifications. For instance, one of my publications carries this very title: “ 'The Andonian Documents’, Attributed to Talat Pasha, Are Forgeries!”
An Armenian writer, Aram Andonian, who had separately published (1920) a book in three languages (English, French and Armenian), either referred to or printed so-called “documents” that he attributed to the Ottoman leaders, principally to Talat Pasha, wartime (1914-18) Ottoman leader. Turkish scholars analyzed them and concluded that the book was based on forgeries. Andonian has never been able to show the originals of the so-called “documents”, because there are no such documents. What he calls “telegrams” have been fabricated by him and his circle. He later said that he “lost” them. Some circles entertain the wrong conviction that the German court, which tried Soghomon Tehlirian, Talat Pasha’s assassin, had accepted these “documents” as authentic and as evidence (1921). Even Tehlirian’s counsel (Von Gordon) had to withdraw them, and the German prosecutor said that he knew of “documents”, carrying the signatures of high dignitaries, later proved to be falsifications. While the victors of the First World War were searching all corners for such documents to accuse the Ottoman leaders, then detained in the Island of Malta, they chose not to assess the “telegrams” fabricated by Andonian.
The British could not also use the so-called “Ten Commandments” which Professor Smith rashly considers as “further proof of the existence of a central plan for genocide”. What Dadrian presents as a Turkish “document” is a correspondence between the British High Commission in Istanbul (which Dadrian still calls Constantinople) and the Foreign Office in London in early 1919. Where is the original of that “document”?
Forgeries are too common in history to be considered impossible. Referring to writer Gwynne Dyer, Dadrian says that “the British eventually ignored the document.” They chose to ignore it while they were searching the whole Ottoman archives for a single reliable document to be used against Turkish leadership and moreover reaching to other archives in search for similar material. The British, in fact, did everything they could, but the 118 individuals, including the former Ottoman premier and other high dignitaries, had to be released from Malta.
The British knew that these so-called “documents” could not be relied upon. For instance, Aram Andonian himself admits, in a letter (26 July 1937) to an Armenian lady (Mary Terzian) residing in Geneva (Switzerland) that his book was not an historical piece, but a propaganda work, and that others used it freely in the way that they preferred. In terms of appearance and contents, the Andonian “documents” abound in various factual errors, omissions and contradictions that give him away. These supposed papers, in the way they were printed in Andonian’s books, are not the kind used by the old Ottoman bureaucracy. In fact, no papers were used but various cryptogram systems at different times, during the war. But Andonian’s ciphering does not agree with the coding complex that we have in the Ottoman archives. Apparently, the Armenian writer has made up a cipher system of his own. The dimensions of the forgery gain more gravity especially when the confusion involving dates and numbers of the “documents” that Andonian seems to have fixed are analyzed. He has committed blunders on account of his ignorance concerning the difference between the Julian and the Gregorian calendars. Not knowing the intricacies of this system, Andonian made miscalculations in putting “appropriate” dates. Sometimes, he errs with a margin of nine months. He habitually forgets to add the 13 days to find the Gregorian date.
There is an utter confusion in terms of the numbers of the “documents”. The numerals on the forged “documents” do not coincide with the numbers (and the dates) of authentic documents. The corresponding documents in the Ottoman archives concern the digging up of new artesian wells in the Sinai Peninsula or the condition of railroad workers.
The signatures are forged. At times, a governor is supposed to have signed an official document before taking up that post. There are notable differences between the English and the French texts, words altering, sentences and paragraphs changing places, and certain phrases disappearing or replaced by others. The Turkish used is poor at times.
For another look at the reasons why these telegrams were fake, visit this relevant page at armenianreality.com.
THE TELEGRAM ATTRIBUTED TO TALAT PASHA
One of the most significant Armenian allegations regarding the immigration implementations is the telegrams, which — also allegedly — contained Talaat Pasha’s orders for killing the Armenians. However, Talaat Pasha himself has expressed in a number of occasions that the measures taken with regard to Armenians have no object of massacring them in any way. In fact; in a cryptic telegraph — communiqué wired on August 29, 1915 to the Governors of Hüdaverdigar, Ankara, Konya, Izmit, Adana, Maras, Urfa, Halep, Zor, Sivas, Kütahya, Karesi, Nigde, Mamuretülaziz, Diyarbekir, Karahisar-i Sahib, Erzurum and Kayseri Provinces and sub-Provinces; the purpose of the immigration was explained as the follows (1).
“The purpose of the Government regarding the moving of Armenians from their original settlements is to prevent their anti-governmental actions; and to discourage their ambitions of establishing an Armenian State. Their massacre is completely out of question; on the contrary the safety of the groups during immigration should be ensured; and while measures for their catering should be taken, the “Immigrants Allocation” should be used to meet the cost. Armenians who are allowed to stay in their original settlements should not be re-located afterwards. As it was stated before the immigration of the dependents of military forces; protestant and catholic Armenians; and artisans (in accordance with the need) are definitely prohibited by the Government severe legal measures. Against the gendarmes and government officials who attack the immigrating groups or those who lead such attacks severe legal measures should be taken and such individuals should immediately Court-Martialed. Relevant provincial and sub-provincial authorities shall be held responsible for such events.
In another cryptic note sent to Ankara on May 27 1915 it was said that; “The measures taken by the Government regarding the Armenians are based on the necessity to ensure and protect the welfare and order of the Country. Exclusion of the Catholic and Protestant Armenians — who are at present observed as impartial at the present- from immigration, is the indication that the Government has no intention to massacre them” (2).
However, the communiqué which was issued by the Government for deporting the terrorist Armenians and their Gang leaders has been understood incorrectly in some places. Hence, several Armenian Bands, which were caught, were sent to places in which they continued their actions more freely. Upon such occurrences Talaat Pasha issued another communiqué on June 1, 1915, stressing that such Armenians should be transported to the places where they would not be able to continue their harmful actions, and also there deportations should be limited to the terrorists and rebels only (3).
Furthermore, in still another cryptic note dated June 13, 1915 dispatched to Mamuretüllaziz province, it was stated that the Armenians, besides those who were handed to the Court Marshall should be kept at suitable locations within the province under a previous order, hence not necessarily sent to Mousul province (4).
In a cryptic note dated June 14, 1915 which was sent to Erzurum, Diyarbekir, Mamuretülaziz and Bitlis provinces, after stressing that the Armenians should be protected during the immigration process; it was mentioned that it was natural to take measures against those who would try to flee or rebel against the gendarmes; however in no case Moslem peoples should be involved in such corrective acts; and also no opportunities should be set to start conflicts between the Moslems and Armenians.
Coming to the telegraph which is the core of the alleged claims of Armenian massacre (5).
An Armenian named Aram Andonian referred to it in his book, titled: “Memoirs of Naim Bey / Official Turkish Documents Regarding the Deportation and Massacre of the Armenians” published in London in 1920. This book was published under the titles: “Official Documents Regarding the Massacre of the Armenians”; and “The Gross Offence, the Last Armenian Massacre and Talat Pasha; the Originals of the Signed Official Telegraphs” in Paris and Boston respectively.
The telegraphs in the book, which were attributed to Talat Pasha, are false documents, which were originated to create a “massacre criminal”. As a result of the examination and research which was carried out by Messrs. Sinasi Orel and Süreyya Yuca on the subject documents a number of positive evidences, which prove the falsity of them were found. Among these evidences are: “that the person named Naim Bey — from whom the documents have been said that obtained — had never been employed in the “Celleppo Re-Settlement Department, that neither the said documents were authentic, nor the type of the papers were the same of those used in the official communication of that time; that the original counterparts were not among the Ministry of Interior documents in the Prime Ministry’s Archives; that the deed numbers on the documents could not fond in the registration logs of the relevant department; that there were some mistakes on the dates according to Mohammedan and Gregorian Calendars; that there were inconsistencies between the signatures; and there were some big grammatical and spelling mistakes in them.”
Furthermore, although it was mentioned that; “the original copies of the documents which were used in the book were kept at the Armenian Office in Manchester” since then they have persistently been concealed from the examination of the World opinion, and since their “authenticity was based on the report of the Aleppo Armenian Unit during the Ottoman times; is an important indication of the falsehood of the alleged claims of Armenian massacre.
“Can a single Turk be found who has not had his share in these pillages? Can a single Turkish house be pointed out where an abducted Armenian woman, girl, or child is not found?”
Holdwater: Well, let's see, Aram... if half of the Ottoman Empire's 1.5 million Armenians were female, and if 750,000 were then to be divided into the homes of 10-13 million Turks... where IS my calculator?
Hallacoglu, Prof. Dr. Yusuf, Ermeni Tehcirine Dair Gerekceler (1915), TTK Yayini, Ankara, 2001.
Turkish Hutorical Association, Ankara, 2001.
1) DH. EUM 2. Branch, 68/80
2) DH. EUM 2. Branch, 68/71; 2. Branch 68/84 (see doc: 192, 200)
3) DH. EUM 2. Branch, 68x101 (see doc 217).
4) An Armenian group which consisted of 26.064 people and lived in Aleppo were not actually included in the immigration process. Because; the population re-settled in the new settlement location were brought from Anatolia. On the other hand while the number of those who arrived at Aleppo were given as around a hundred thousand, (see: DH EUM. 2nd Branch, 68/80) the population arrived here was taken as 100.000.
5) OREL, Sinasi, YUCA Sureyya, Ermenilerce Talat Pasa’ya Atfedilen Telgraflarin Gercek Yüzü, Turkish Historical Association Publication, Ankara 1983.
The above was from ermenisorunu.gen.tr
ARA SARAFIAN PAYS TRIBUTE TO ANDONIAN
The famous "genocide map," created in 1920 and which may be seen all over the Internet in one form or another, "was primarily the work of engineer-cartographer Zadig Khanzadian and Aram Andonian, probably the foremost expert on the Armenian Genocide at that time." The author of those words was almost certainly Ara Sarafian. (http://www.gomidas.org/books/map2.htm) In other words, this infamously dishonest man who created such obscene evil with his forgeries, has now been assigned the role of a kind of valid historian. When would Andonian have had the time to conduct authentic research, assuming he would have taken his role as "foremost expert" seriously, busy as he was with the production of his propagandistic book?
Vahakn Dadrian's Greatest Embarassment
(Featuring an in-depth analysis of Andonian's work)
Hilmar Kaiser finds the real Naim Bey?
- Turkish - Armenian Relations
- American Academicians' Declaration (May 19, 1985)
- Turkish diplomats killed by armenian terrorists
- Questions and Answers
- Western perception towards the issue
- How the armenian issue came about?
- Armenian Terror
- What is the Armenian Problem?
- Armenian-Azerbaijan Conflict
- So Called Armenian Genocide
- Karabakh Conflict
- Khojaly Massacre
- Book Reviews