|
'There are important
grounds for considering these documents fake'
Taner Akcam, "Turkish
historian" brought into the USA by the Armenian network, and
disciple of Vahakn Dadrian (who wrote a "weasel book"
attempting to present the Andonian documents as legitimate);
"Turkish National Identity and the Armenian Question"
(Istanbul 1992) note 8, p.119. ADDENDUM, July
2007: In his later 1999 book, the 2006 English version of which
became "A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question
of Turkish Responsibility," Akcam reversed himself, and decided
to give Andonian credence.
|
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 most well-known of
many fabrications on the Armenian Question are the famous "Talat
(Pasha) Telegrams," in which the Ottoman interior minister and other
officials supposedly telegraphed instructions to murder the Armenians.
These conclusively have been proven to be forgeries by Sinasi Orel and
Sureyya Yuca. However, one can only wonder why they would ever have been
taken seriously. A whole people cannot be convicted of genocide on the
basis of penciled scribblings on a telegraph pad.
Justin McCarthy |
|
|
|
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.
|
Talat Pasha
|
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
============
|
Turkkaya Ataov |
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?
|
Aram
Andonian
|
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.
|
Andonian slips up with a 1916
date, when the
resettlement process was all but over. Text in
the caption by Erich Feigl, "The Myth of Terror."
|
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.
(From mfa.gov.tr/grupe/eg/eg15htm.htm)
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 |
TURKKAYA ATAOV
Türkistan Newsletter
(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.
|
Armenian
Falsifications |
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).
|
1965
Reprint of "Memoirs of Naim Bey"... a man who probably never
existed. The son of William
Gladstone, Herbert John Gladstone, wrote the introduction.
|
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?”
Aram Andonian
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? |
REFERENCES:
Hallacoglu, Prof. Dr. Yusuf, Ermeni Tehcirine Dair Gerekceler (1915), TTK Yayini, Ankara,
2001.
Published by:
Turkish Hutorical Association, Ankara, 2001.
FOOTNOTES:
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?
Must Read:
Vahakn Dadrian's Greatest Embarassment
(Featuring an in-depth analysis of Andonian's work)
See also:
Hilmar Kaiser finds the real Naim Bey?
|
|