The Trial of Soghomon Tehlirian 

He executed Talat Pasha in Berlin and was found not guilty of murder. Here are the entire trial proceedings... Most of it has not been edited after scanning, but I am putting it online already.


Witness His Excellency General Otto Liinatt von Sanders (66 years
old, protestant) takes the oath.

A commander at Gallipoli, he had much respect for Ataturk

     WITNESS — In addition to Dr. Lepsius’ testimony, Itoo would like to offer a few comments from a military point of view.
in my opinion, we should divide into two categories the events which have taken place in Armenia, generally referred to as “The Armenian
Massacres.” First, in my opinion, is the order of the Young Turks to deport the Armenians. We can hold the government fully responsible for
the preparation of this deportation and partially responsible for all of the ~~bsequent events. Second, we have the war and the fighting that took place in the Armenian territories. Initially, the Armenians defended themselves against the Turks, contrary to the Turkish orders to disarm,
and, as has been proven beyond doubt, some joined the Russians and fought against Turkey. Naturally, it is understandable that the victors in
such a war would be accused of massacring the vanquished. I believe these two categories are distinguishable and have to be
distinguished. The government ordered the deportation of all Armenian inhabitants of the Armenian territories, or the Eastern Anatolian provinces, as a strategic military move.
I wish to stress the fact that all the captains and officers up to the rank
of general in the Eastern Provinces were Turks. Some of you are aware
of the fallacious rumors that have been circulated concerning the
presence of German officers in these provinces. What I said is what these
captains and civil officials have reported in Constantinople; the carrying
out of the orders issued thereupon for deportation fell into the worst
hands.
It is also essential to mention that, prior to the war, the Turkish police
force was extremely efficient. It consisted of 85,000 troops and a special-
ly selected brigade. Most of these people were drafted into the army and
separated into various brigades and in their place an auxiliary police
force was created. It certainly did not represent a select class. It consisted
mostly of criminals or the perennially unemployed. Discipline among
these people was understandably very lax. We should keep this in mind
when we bear testimony relating to the atrocities committed against the
Armenians.
It was not the Turkish army or the Turkish police force that attacked
the Armenians, but rather a temporary supplementary police force
created because of the exigencies of the time. Furthermore, we should
remember that the economic situation was so dismal that not only many
Armenians, but thousands of Turkish soldiers as well died of the lack of
food supplies, disease, and other consequences of poor organization in
the Turkish government. In my division alone, after the battle of
Galipoli, thousands died of malnutrition. I feel all of these points shawd
be kept in mind.
We should also not overlook the fact that many Turks were fighti118
under the banner of a “Holy War” and thus felt that the more severely’
they acted with the Armenians, the Christians, the more benevolent their
actions were. This is especially true of the subordinate officials. me.
Kurds, who have always been enemies of the Armenians, committed
numerous atrocities against the Armenians as well.
As far as I know, the German government did whatever it could at the
time, conditions permitting, to help the Armenians. However, we should
also recognize that it was a difficult task for the German government. x
know personally that our Ambassador, Count Metternich, continuously
protested against the policies and measures taken against the Armenians..
I can say without hesitation, as Dr. Lepsius was good enough to stress,
that there was not a single German officer involved in any of the actions
taken against the Armenians, contrary to the many suspicions entertain-
ed with regard to us. The fact of the matter is that we intervened
whenever and wherever we could.
I should mention that I personally never received any orders signed by
Talaat. The orders I received were signed by Enver and they generally
had little significance. These orders were generally incomprehensible or
totally impracticable. For example, I once received an order to remove,
all Jews and Armenians from the German officers’ staff. It goes without
saying that the orders were never carried out, since we needed them as interpreters. Very often we received such nonsensical orders.
In February 1916, I had the opportunity to oppose the orders of tlw
Governor of the vilayet of Adrianople to expel the Armenians and Jews
from Adrianople. I got word about this from the Bavarian senior deputy,
Witmar. I went there and looked into the matter. Our representative was,
the Austrian Consul. My on-the-spot investigation verified the fact that
the Governor had ordered the deportation. I went to Constantinople
and, with the help of Consul Count Metternich and the Ambassador’s
Consul Palavichin, the orders were withdrawn.
On another occasion I went to Smyrna. The governor of the province
had 600 Armenians taken out of bed and put in wagons to be deported. I
went to see the governor and told him that if another hand was raised
against the Armenians, I would order my soldiers to kill his police officers. Thereupon, the order was withdrawn. This is the truth. Dr. Lepsius mentions this incident in his book.
This is approximately what I know through personal experience. I
would like to stress that I have never set foot in Armenia. I have ne~’d.
been close to Armenia and the Turkish government has never listened tO 2
my views nor have they asked for my views on any of the measures takCO4
against the Armenians. On the contrary, everything was done
clandestinely so that we would not have any knowledge of their internal
political relationships.
Some of the most libelous reports of the world press have stated that
German officers, and I think the same applies to all German officials,
took part in the planned deportation of the Armenians. On the contrary,
in accordance with our duty we intervened whenever we could to assist
the Armenians. In my district, except for the examples cited above, the
Armenians were few and scattered far and wide.
I cannot say what the role of Talaat was as concerns the issuing of
orders. As far as I know the principal order pertairnng to the deportation
of the Armenians was given on May 20, 1915. In any event it was the
result of a decision of the Young Turk committee and it had the
unanimous approval of the ministers. The implementation of the orders
was left to the Valis, the lower echelon officials, and especially the horrible police force.
In any event, I consider it my duty to state that, in the five years I was
in Turkey, I never saw an order signed by Talaat against the Armenians
and neither can I testify whether or not such an order was ever issued.
Witness Bishop Krikorts Balakisn (Vicar from the Annenian.
Apostolic Prelacy in Manchester, England, who has come to
Berlin for the trial) tskes the oath. The witness speaks halting German. No interpreter is needed.



VON GORDON — At least I would like to mention the contents of these
telegrams. The telegrams prove that Talaat personally gave the orders to
massacre alt the Armenians including women and children. Originally
the order was given to spare only those children who were too young to
remember what had happened to their parents. However, in March 1916
this order was rescinded as it was felt that these children could, in the
future, turn out to be a dangerous element in the community.
The witness Andonian can testify to the authenticity of these
telegrams. He obtained them directly from the office of the Vice-
governor of Aleppo after the British occupation. Then he placed them at
the disposal of the Armenian Delegation.
I personally feel it is important, essential in fact, that the Jurors accept
the defendant’s belief that Talaat was the responsible party and the
author of the Armenian Genocide. If the Jurors are willing to accept this,
then I am willing to waive the reading of these telegrams.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY — I feel that the motion should be denied. Even
though great latitude was granted to discuss this subject, nevertheless, it
is not the purpose of this body, nor is it within its competence, to come to
a historic decision pertaining to the guilt or innocence of Talaat and the
extent of his involvement in the massacre of the Armenians. The essential
point is that the defendant believed that Talaat was the responsible party
and thus the motive becomes fully clear.

DISTRICT Arr0RNEY — Members of the jury, it is not the legal implications of this criminal case which give it special significance and ex-
plain the intense interest being shown in it, not only in our country, but
in other countries as well. To account for such attention we have to look
at the other aspects of this case. In view of its psychological causes, the
incident takes us back to events that took place during the World War.
This case has, as its root, the bloody and savage events that took place in
Asia Minor and it is as if we again have to hear the thunder of the World
War. Furthermore, it is the personality of the victim of the act that gives
the latter an added significance. From a nameless and unknown mass of
people, a hand rose up and struck down a human being who held the
reins of his country in band while it was involved in a world struggle. He
was the faithful ally of the German people and together rode the waves
of fortune.
However, gentlemen of the jury, these recollections and impressions
cannot obligate the accusor and the judge to dismiss the incident and let
the perpetrator of the incident go free. We must view the matter solely
from the point of view of penal justice, as the law demands.
From a legal point of view, the case is quite simple. On March 15,
1921, the defendant shot and killed Talaat Pasha on Charlottenburg-
strasse. The aim was well taken. Death was instantaneous and there is no
doubt that the defendant wanted to kill. He committed the act intentionally. Did the defendant not testify that he still felt gratified in having
successfully committed that act? The commission of a homicide is
punishable under German law. The perpetrator has to be punished where
a human being’s life has been taken. In the eyes of the law, it makes no
difference whether the victim was a German citizen or not. According to
Article 3 of the Penal Code, the law applies throughout Germany for any
crimes committed within its borders.
Gentlemen of the jury, the defendant made several remarks that were
peculiar from a number of points of view when he was apprehended right
after the commission of the act and found himself surrounded by an
angry mob. He said, “This is no loss to Germany. lam an Armenian. He
is a Turk.” What he meant by that was that they were foreigners and,
therefore, that the act was of no concern to Germany. This exclamation
has no significance at alt in terms of penal justice. Whether or not the
victim and/or the perpetrator of the crime were citizens of Germany has
no bearing. According to our laws, the defendant has to be punished if,
of course, there are no circumstances which would make this an excusable homicide. I shall get to this later.
First and foremost we should clarify the point as to whether or not this
was a premeditated crime. The law distinguishes between a premeditated
and non-premeditated crime. The punishment for the former is very
severe — the death penalty. For the latter, that is a killing committed at
the time of emotional distress, the penalty is less severe.
Likewise, I can accept a familiar fact: where the perpetration of the
crime is done with definite deliberation and premeditation, when the act
is committed under calm and clear circumstances, with consciousness of
the rational implications and motives of the act, of the means and consequences of committing the crime, as well as of the moral absolutes to
avert the act. In other words, the first type of killing is one in which the
defendant can take into consideration all these factors. Furthermore, he
is able to assess the pros and cons of the act and then reach a decision on
the basis of these purely rational considerations.
I ask you, “Did the defendant commit this act following such deliberation?” Naturally I also have to ask a second question: “What factors led
the defendant to commit this act?”
There is no question in my mind that what we are dealing with here is a
political assassination. The defendant’s motives were political hatred and
political vengeance.
A graphic picture of events that took place in far-off places unfolded
before you. Without a doubt, horrid events took place; dreadful events
befell the Armenian people. Undoubtedly, horrible things happened to
the defendant and his family. Also there is no doubt that a brutal fate afflicted his very essence; all of his relatives were subjected to death and he
was forced to be an eyewitness to all of this. The defendant, because of
what he had seen and suffered, became vengeful. When he became
vengeful is something I will get into a little later.
It is also quite clear that the defendant held Talaat Pasha to be the
responsible party for the acts. The defendant looked upon Talaat as the
person who struck down his compatriots, his parents and relatives, and,
indeed, himself. Furthermore, the defendant looked upon Talaat not
merely as the Minister of Interior who, because of his position, would
presumably be held politically liable for the acts committed during his
tenure in office, but also as personally and morally the author of the
above mentioned offenses.
Gentlemen of the jury, the determination of these motives is sufficient
to judge Tehlirian’s act from the penal-legal point of view.
But the examination of the witnesses went into the question of whether
Talaat was really the personal and moral author of these crimes. Even
though, in my opinion, it makes no difference whatsoever, from a legal
point of view, whether or not Talaat was the author or whether the
defendant’s notion that Talaat was the author corresponds to the truth,
nevertheless, since the witnesses did expound on this point, I feet
obligated to comment.
Gentlemen of the jury, it is patently clear and witnesses have so indicated, that the Armenians and their friends are convinced of Talaat’s
responsibility for the crimes committed against them.
However, gentlemen, this is not an impartial view. It would have been
easy for us to bring a whole series of witnesses to give an altogether different picture of what took place. I have personally spoken with many
Germans who were in Turkey and were close to scenes of the incidents in
question, and they have an altogether different grasp of what happened
than what you have heard here. They stated that there is no basis even for
saying that the government of Constantinople had decided to annihilate
the Armenians; rather it was the considerations of governmental and
military security — perhaps misunderstood — which motivated Talaat to
issue the order for deportation, the result of which, to be sure, had fatal
consequences.
PRESIDING JUSTICE (interrupting) — I would appreciate it if you
would not dwell at length on this matter which was not the topic of
discussion during cross-examination of the witnesses. Moreover, mentioning incidents which others have discussed has nothing at all to do
with the case before us.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY (continuing) — Nevertheless, I can make use of
the testimony to the extent that there was a difference between the
statements and the point of view of the two expert witnesses. I find that
the testimony of Dr. Lepsius, though detailed and interesting, is never-
theless deficient in that it ascribes, in my opinion, a systematic and planned nature to the crimes committed against the Armenians. It is not hard
to see that he came to this conclusion, not on account of what he saw and
experienced in Turkey, but in light of evidence that has more recently
been uncovered. For that reason I think I am correct in giving more
weight to the testimony of General Liman von Sanders, who was in
Turkey, held an important position and was close to the scene of the
events that took place. General von Sanders testified explicitly as to the
difference between the understanding behind the order given in Constantinople to deport the Armenians and the manner in which the deportation was carried out. The government in Constantinople had received
word that the Armenians were thinking of betraying the government and
plotting with the Allied Powers. It was decided that, as soon as the opportunity was ripe, they would attack the Turks from behind and create
an independent Armenia. Thus, for defensive and military reasons, the
government in Constantinople considered it necessary to deport the
Armenians. As to the character of these deportations, we should take in-
to consideration, gentlemen of the jury, that Asia Minor is not exactly a
place in which conditions characteristic of civilized peoples prevail. I feel
I should be careful in howl put this, i.e., those conditions which we were
used to before the war. The tradition in Asia Minor has always been one
of savagery and bloodshed, and our expert witnesses testified that, in
1915 a “Holy War” had already been declared. When people belonging
to different nationalities and of different faiths saw that all the Armenians were being deported to one place by the Turks, they looked upon
this naturally as an invitation to battle and attacked them. And this is
how the beastly instincts of men came forth, causing tooting, killing, etc.
The expert witness testified further that during the deportation the
soldiers who were guarding the caravans were no longer members of the
regular select military, but rather “gendarmes,” actually vagabonds
who, on their own initiative, committed the killings known to us all.
I feel it essential to make this digression to show that the testimony
presented here does not identify Talaat as personally and morally responsible for the killings. The various documents that they wished to call to
our attention do not convince me otherwise. As District Attorney, I
know, for example, that exactly the same sort of documents appeared
during our period of revolutionary upheavals, bearing the signatures of
prominent persons. After the war, as they later insisted, it was shown
that the signatures had been forged. Finally, the verdict of the tribunal in
Constantinople against Talaat, mentioned in this court, cannot convince
me of his culpability. I do not know if the tribunal had all of the evidence
before it. It is possible; however, we must not forget that whenever a
government falls, the members of the succeeding government look upon
the members of the former government as criminals. I hardly need remind you of the alacrity and upheaval with which a new government
came into power in Turkey, that the government of the Young Turks was
friendly to the Central Powers, while the new government, on the con-
trary, was forced to side with the Allied Powers. Therefore, as I indicated earlier, we are unable to tell whether or not the tribunal of Constantinople acted justly in condemning Talaat. I repeat, the testimony of
the witnesses did not, in the least, implicate Talaat morally for the killings of the Armenians.
To turn to the homicide. As I indicated, the motive of the defendant
was to get revenge through killing Talaat, who he was convinced was the
instigator and perpetrator of the massacres of the Armenians.
Gentlemen, this motive of revenge is not an ignoble one by any means;
on the contrary, it is an easy one to comprehend as long as human beings
are able to love and hate.
Later on, when I ask whether the defendant acted with premeditation,
it will be easy to see how motives of revenge made his premeditated kill-
ing. When you consider carefully how the defendant, after seeing his
parents’ house in Erzinga in ruins, scoured Europe until he came to
Berlin and found Talaat, it will not be difficult to conclude that he was
possessed by a fanatical, revengeful idea that drew him like a magnet to
the home and doorway of the victim.
Thus, in my opinion, the statement he made when he was first interrogated is absolutely truthful. I have no doubt whatsoever that it cor-
responds to the truth. At the time the defendant said, “As soon as I saw
my parents’ home in ruins, I wanted to avenge their deaths. In order to
do that, I went and bought a pistol
Gentlemen, I do not want to dwell on this point any further. There
may be doubts about this. In point of fact, the defendant himself
retracted his statements to that effect, saying they had been made when
he was weak of mind and under the immediate influence of shock caused
by killing. But I would like to emphasize a statement which the defendant
made to the police inspector and repeated in this courtroom. According
to his statement, the first time he thought of killing Talaat was fourteen
days before the actual killing. Therefore, we can see how the defendant
followed through his intention to the end, with a certain plan and
weighing all the factors. We see how he left his previous lodging; how he
justified that on health grounds; how he followed him and found out at
what time Talaat normally left his house; how, on March 15th, he put his
pistol in his pocket, followed Talaat and then passed in front of him to
make sure it was Talaat Pasha; how he let the victim pass him so he
would be behind him again and how he fired upon him from behind. The
aim was well taken; death was instantaneous.
For further proof that this was a premeditated crime, let us look to
another statement he made to the police. In answer to the question Why
did you not fire when you were facing him?,” he said, “1 might not have
succeeded. He would have tried to defend himself; he might have moved.
and I could not be sure that my shot would kill.”
Gentlemen of the jury, we also see from the evidence that this crime
was committed intentionally and very calmly. You recall how he threw
his pistol away and tried to escape. When he was caught and beaten, he
said, “The person I killed is not German. I am not German. You Ger-
mans have no reason to be saddened on account of this incident. It does
not concern you at all.”

The Soghomon Tehlirian Monument at Ararat Cemetery in Fresno, California. Those Californian Armenians sure are loaded.

     Taking all these circumstances into consideration, we can only con-
clude that the killing was carried out in a perfectly coldblooded manner;
it was well thought-out and deliberated upon in advance.
Now let us took at the defendant’s temperament. Was the defendant
hat-tempered or easily provoked? The evidence is to the contrary. He
was a gloomy and calm man, wrapped up in himself. He was not one to
dance with joy or have fits of passion. On the contrary, he was one who
kept his thoughts to himself to a point where he would calmly analyze
them and take action.
Thus, in my opinion, it is possible to consider it a totally objectively proven fact that the basic signs of a truly premeditated killing did exist.
However, all this would not be sufficient to subject the defendant to
punitive measures. We should also determine whether or not there are
any extenuating circumstances which, as I said at the outset, would allow
the defendant to go unpunished. Here is where Article 51 of the German
Penal Code applies; it says that a homicide should go unpunished when
the defendant committed the act unknowingly or when he commits the
act under the influence of mental anguish that he no longer has control
over his free will. Therefore, when the case concerns the act of an in-
dividual subject to severe emotional turmoil, the law does not recognize
the killing to be punishable; rather, it treats it as an unfortunate accident
— just as if, for example, someone were to be killed by the kick of a
horse. Under these circumstances, according to the law, there is not a
culpable party and, as such, there are no punitive measures to be taken.
Hence, what we have to figure out is whether or not there were any such
circumstances in the case of the defendant.
Gentlemen, it goes without saying that if all the expert witnesses were
to give the same opinion, then the Court would naturally be obligated to
make a decision in accordance with their conclusion. Unfortunately,
however, in this case, we do not have a unanimity of opinion on the part
of the expert witnesses. Consequently, the Court itself is required to
decide whether or not the dispositions of Article 51 are applicable.
You heard three of the expert witnesses testify that those dispositions
do not apply to this case. It is true that the defendant is an epileptic, sub-
ject to convulsive attacks. However, that circumstance in itself is still not
sufficient, because the defendant was deprived of his free will only during these convulsive attacks, while he was a normal individual at other
times. For this reason, every time it is said the defendant is an epileptic,
the Court and the expert witnesses ask the following question: “Did he
have a convulsive attack at the time he committed the crime or immediately prior?” If not, then be acted as a normal person.
The first three expert witnesses were of this opinion while the latter
two explained that at the time of the commission of the cnme the defendant was not accountable for his actions.
It is then up to the Court itself to decide. Therefore, it is essential to
examine the personality of the defendant as revealed by his behavior dur-
ing the trial. I am convinced that his behavior in Court demonstrated to
us that we are dealing with a highly intelligent person. His answers were
decisive and always to the point. We should have seen some peculiar
behavior, but this was totally absent. The defendant has lived a life like
anyone else his age. His economic situation was such that he was not absolutely obligated to seek employment. He visited his relatives and
friends and took dancing lessons. His landladies describe him as a calm
and modest person. Thus, from all the evidence, we can see that, except
for the times when he was suffering from epileptic attacks, he was a mentally competent person. Consequently, I feel we must concur with the
three expert witnesses who denied the applicability of Article 51 to this
case.
Gentlemen, presumably you are aware that a new penal code will be
forthcoming in the near future as a result of judicial reforms; its rough
draft has already been prepared. That penal code prescribes the death
penalty for premeditated murder, but it recognizes extenuating cir-
cumstances which make it possible to change the death penalty to
another and milder penalty. However, the laws, as they stand today, do
not recognize extenuating circumstances. Though I know that will sound
quite severe to some of you, yet I am obliged to request that you find the
defendant guilty of having comitted premeditated murder.
We should not consider only the defendant, but also the victim. We
should remember that a man’s life was taken in his prime. His death is
mourned by his widow and relatives. He was looked upon as a great
patriot and an honorable man at least by his compatriots and co-
religionists.
Finally, gentlemen, those circumstances favorable to the defendant
will be taken into full consideration by the appropriate body if and when
a decision is made as to whether he should be forgiven for his act.
In conclusion, I propose that you give an affirmative answer to the
questions put to ~Od by this court, and find the defendant guilty of having killed Talaat Pasha with premeditation.

 

FORE WORD
THE ENGLISH translation of the original trial
proceedings in The Case of Soghomon Tehlirian is being published for its
historic as welt as current relevance: it introduces the first ease during
which the details and horrors of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 were introduced as evidence to justify political violence in the face of neglect by
world governments.
This is the first in a series of publications incorporating the proceedings of recent trials of Armenian political prisoners around the world
who have, as Tehtirian did in 1921, forced the Armenian Cause onto the
streets and courts of world capitals.
Soghomon Tehlirian, a survivor of the Turkish genocide of Armenians
in 1915-1917, assassinated Talaat Pasha in Berlin on March 15, 1921. Talaat, Minister of Interior and mastermind of the Genocide, had fled Turkey to seek refuge in Germany where he continued to labor for his Pan-
Turanian schemes.
The assassination was the result of a decision by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation to seek justice for the 1.5 million Armenian victims of
the first genocide of the twentieth century. This was done only after it be-
came evident that no acknowledgement of the genocide was to be made
nor legal action taken against the Turkish state or against individuals
personally responsible for the crime. Several other assassinations of top
Turkish officials responsible for the planning and execution of the genocide followed.
Tehlirian’s trial on June 2-3, 1921 documents the facts and reasons for
his action. Over six decades later, those same facts — compounded by
Turkish denials — have motivated a new generation of survivors to use a
variety of means in seeking justice and retribution for the Armenian people.


Armenian Revolutionary Federation
Varantian Gomideh
Los Angeles


~1ttPfl Ut

On March 15, 1921, Talaat Pasha,
President of the Committee of Union and Progress (the par-
ty of the Young Turk movement) and the Grand Vizir of
Turkey, died of a bullet wound, in Berlin.

In 1943 Talaat's remains were exhumed in Berlin and sent
by Hitler to Istanbul for permanent buriaL

Today, Talaat Pasha rests in a mausoleum constructed on
Liberty Hill in IstanbuL

Today, in Ankara, the capital of Turkey, one of the principal avenues bears Ta1aat's name.

IT WAS April 1960 when Zaven called to Inform me that Soghomon Tehlirian had been taken ill and was
recuperating at the University of California Hospital in San Francisco.
That evening we went to visit Soghomon. We found him seated on the
edge of his bed talking to his wife, wearing striped pajamas rather than
one of the usual colorless hospital overalls. He seemed to be in good
spirits and was embarrassed that we were seeing him ungroomed and at a
time when he was in frail condition.
Here was this usually dapper, impeccably dressed, proud individual
unshaven, uncombed, seated barefoot in his crumpled pajamas.
To cover his embarrassment and in order to prevent us from making
innocuous queries as to his condition, he questioned us as to our schooling, research, work and in a rather offhanded manner dismissed his
hospitalization as an over-reaction on the part of his family and an unnecessary precaution on the part of his physician.
It was not long before he directed his attention to me and in a sardonic
manner asked, “When are you going to translate my autobiography?”
That took me back two years, when in one of my weekly visits to the office of George Mardikian Enterprises, Inc. where Soghomon worked, he
autographed for me his recently published book and, handing the book
to me, he asked whether I would translate it for him from Armenian to
English.
I had at the time expressed my fear that, because my command of
Eastern Armenian was inadequate, I could not translate the book competently.
He had continued that he did not expect a literal translation, but rather
one that would be sufficient for his purposes — namely, for William
Saroyan to read the translation and extract from it those sections which
might serve as the basis for a novel on “the incident in Berlin.”
This subject was discussed numerous times in the ensuing two years,
however, I did not feel I could change my stated position. I was not the
right person for the job.
Now we were in the hospital and the subject was again at the forefront
of Soghomon’ s thoughts. He continued, “The reason I want you to
translate it is because my trial is included in it and only an attorney can
appreciate the nuances of the trial.”
In order not to prolong the agony, I replied, “I am willing to translate
the section that relates to the trial, but someone else has to translate the
rest.”
Soghomon got down from the bed, sat in an armchair, and to my
astonishment said, “Then why don’t you translate the transcript of my
trial?’’
“What transcript?” I replied. “Are you telling me that in 1921 in Germany they took a verbatim transcript of a trial?”
“Of course,” he continued. “How else do you think I recall all the
details of the trial?” He turned his gaze to his wife and then looking at
me continued, “We have a copy of the transcript at home. Anahid will
give it to you. Why don’t you read it, and in a day or two you can come
back and we will discuss it.”
We had barely visited him for ten minutes, but he seemed very tired.
As we left, his wife was imploring him to return to bed.
Zaven and I returned to Berkeley. I spent an uneasy night. Over the
years, in all those hours I had spent with Soghomon, he never told me of
the existence of the “transcript.” Or had he and I never realty listened to
one another? What was so important about it?
I recalled that only nine months before, when my father was visiting us
from Ethiopia, I took him to San Francisco to pay a courtesy call to Mr.
George Mardikian. While my father was talking to Mr. Mardikian I was
in the adjoining room talking to Soghomon. Almost an hour had gone by
before my father came looking for me. I introduced him to Soghomon as
Soghomon Melikian (a pseudonym he used to evade the Turks). I had
never used his pseudonym before and I wanted to correct myself, but
they were having such a good time together that I refrained. Soghomon
kept telling my father how he was keeping an eye on me and that the
Armenian people needed more attorneys to pursue the Armenian Case.
My father reiterated that he was glad one of his sons had chosen a career
that could be of service to “our people.”
My father was a stickler for punctuality. I had to remind him that we
were late for our next meeting. We left Soghomon’s office and as we
descended in the elevator, I told him, “You of course know that you
were talking to Soghomon Tehlirian.” He immediately pushed the
emergency button and stopped the elevator between floors. I could not
believe my eyes. My father was not one who did anything in haste. “Take
the elevator up,” he told me in no uncertain terms.
We reentered Soghomon’s office. My father went up to him and said,
“1 apologize for not recognizing you. May 1. .“ and he kissed
Soghomon on both cheeks. My father was not one to show such outward
emotions, I was told to reschedule our appointment. My father and
Soghomon spent an hour talking.
That night in Berkeley, I thought of how the name of Soghomon
Tehlirian had evoked such strange behavior in my father. I also recalled
how often friends of Soghomon had warned me not to talk to him about
the “incident.” Respecting his wishes I had never asked him for details.
In fact in my conversations with Soghomon everything that related to his
past was centered on his stories of life in Yugoslavia, Algeria, and
France, events that took place subsequent to the “incident.”
I woke up early the next morning and waited until a respectable hour
before calling Mrs. Tehlirian to ask her when I could pick up the
transcript.
The doorbell rang. It was Zaven. He told me that Soghomon had pass-
ed away in his sleep.
Not knowing what else to do, I sent a cable to my father in Ethiopia in-
forming him of the passing away of Soghomon. A week later, I received
a letter from him telling me how all Armenians in Addis Ababa closed
their shops and attended religious services in memory of Sogbomon
Tehlirian. Armenian communities around the world had done the very
same thing.
From one of Soghomon’s colleagues I eventually obtained the
transcript of the trial and translated it, as I had promised him I would
do.
The “Trial of Soghomon Tehlirian” is taken from the pages of
history. It is not a legend. The events which led to the trial are
documented in Tehhirian’s biography.
VARTKES YEGHIAYAN

INTRODUCTION
RECENT ARMENIAN history provides many
examples of trials of political prisoners. During most of the last century
Armenia was occupied by foreign powers: Ottoman Turkey and tsarist
RusSia MmefliaflS sought liberation from oppression and exploitation
thtough successive waves of struggles. It was only natural that many of
the struggling Sons and daughters would end up in the prisons of the oc-
cupiers; a few were fortunate to be charged formally and tned in courts
of law. Whether under Ottoman or tsarist Russian saw, many such trials
became forums, sometimes the only legal ones allowed, to air Armenian
political grievances and articulate claims. As such, political trials capture
the essence of the conflict between governments and their subjects; the
legalized form of repress~Ofl — the legitimation of inequality and the
criminalizatiofl of the search for 3ustice — through the use of courts
helps raise fundamental issues regarding power and its legitimacy.
The trials of captured fedayees during the armed struggle at the turn of
the century against Ottoman Turkish misrule, the trial of leaders of the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation leaders in the 1910’s in Russia aTO
the most prominent such events preceding the Genocide. The Genocide
of Western Armenians under Turkish administration in 1915-1917 forced
the creation of a Diaspora; it also changed the character of the Armenian
struggle against the Turkish state, whether the one that planned and executed the Genocide or its successors since the founding of the Republic
of Turkey that have condoned and covered it up. The sovietization of the
short-lived Armenian Republic in Eastern Armenia in 1920 produced a
new situation there too; the hegemony of power by a single party and the
subjection of Mmcniafl interests to larger Soviet ones has also produced
a ne’~ type of resistance in Soviet Armenia. Both developments have
claimed new victims; the imprisonment and legal proceedings against
some of these constitute a ~~ntiflUiflg chapter in the long history of
political trials.
The strategy of governments to isolate individuals by charging them
with crimes and making examples of them has only helped crystallize
issues and galvanize support for the oppressed and the weak; it has also
created extremely charged and dramatic situations where the weight of
governments against an individual could have only created heroes.
None of the Armenian political trials can claim to have produced the
dramatic impact which was caused by the trial of Soghomon Tehlirian in
Berlin in 1921 following his assassination of Talaat Pasha; and no one
has been more of a hero than Soghomofl Tehlirian for having committed
that crime, particularly when his trial ended with a not guilty verdict,
thus fulfilling, if only partially, the need for justice felt by survivors of
the Genocide and their offspring.
Soghomon Tehlirian was born in Pakarij, near Erzinga in Western
Armenia. His family and most other Armenians he knew were among the
victims of the deportations and massacres which he witnessed and survived accidentally. Ta]aat Pasha was the Minister of Interior, later Grand
Vizir of the Ottoman Empire, and one of the triumvirate in the Ittihadist
(Committee of Union and Progress) government that assumed dictatorial
powers in the Ottoman Empire immediately preceeding and during the
First World War. Talaat Pasha was the main architect of the policy of
extermination of Armenians. Upon the defeat of the Ottoman Empire
and the escape of the Ittihadist leaders, a new Turkish government found
him and the other leaders guilty of the charge of massacres against Armenians during court-martial proceedings in Istanbul. Talaat and the
leading figures were already in Europe; no government in Europe was
willing to bring them to justice. ‘Whether seen as the implementation of
the death penalty imposed in absentia by the Turkish government against
Talaat or an execution by one in the name of a murdered nation the act
of Tehlirian on March 15, 1921 in Berlin and his subsequent trial on June
23, 1921 were seen as acts of justice.

Prime Minister Said Halim Pasha. What is the proof that he supervised the "massacres"? The British could find no proof, when they carted the official away to Malta... such a deceptive article. And get a load of this sentence: his assassin "implemented the death penalty." As if vigilante murder could be a legitimate act.

  The assassination of Talaat was the first in a series of such acts of justice against the organizers of the Genocide. It was preceeded only by the execution of Khan Khoyski, prime minister and minister of foreign affairs of Merbaijan; the act was committed by Aram Yerganian and Misak Garabedian in the spring of 1920 in Tiflis. Khan Khoyski was, along with his minister of interior Jivanshir, responsible for the massacres of Armenians in Baku. On July 19, 1921 Misak Torlakian brought to justice Jivanshir in Constantinople. In December of the same year a youthful Arshavir Shirakian implemented the death penalty upon Said Halim Pasha, the prime minister under whose supervision the deportations and massacres had been implemented. Arshavir Shirakian then joined Aram Yerganian in Berlin and on April 17, 1922 executed Behaeddin Shakir and Jemal Azmi, the two leaders of the “Special Organization” that was in charge of the execution of the Genocide. Three months later, Stepan Dzaghigian assassinated Jemal Pasha, the second member of the Ittihadist triumvirate. Jemal was in Tiflis then and cooperating with the Bolsheviks. Dzaghigian was supported in this most daring act in front of the Cheka building by Bedros Der Boghcsian and Ardashes Kevorkian. Soon after, a young Armenian executed the third member of the Lttihadist dictatorship, Enver Pasha, who was then in Russia pursuing his Pan-Turafliafl dreams under new colors.
Soghomon Tehlirian and Misak Torlakian were apprehended and tried
publicly in Berlin and Rome, respectively. (Holdwater: I'm resisting the urge to correct the many distortions of this piece, but two quick points: Enver Pasha did not die by the hand of an Armenian assassin. And unless Torlakian was behind another assassination, he was tried not in Rome, but in 1921 Istanbul by the British, for the murder of the Azeri official.) Both were acquitted. The proceedings of the trial of Soghomon Tehlirian reveal the trauma of genocide, as lived by individuals and families, in fact by a whole nation.
For reasons still unclear, testimony presented was limited to supporting
the defense argument that Tehlirian acted alone to bring to justice, compelled by the haunting memories of the destruction of his family and
mass murders. It is highly improbable that the execution in series of
those primarily responsible for the genocide and the superb organization
required to track down protected fugitives and to punish them could
have been incidental.
The series of acts were, in fact, the Armenian Nuremberg. In his
memoirs, Tebllrian relates his brief stay in Boston, preceeding the act
that made him the most respected Armenian hero of modem times for
survivors of the Genocide:

Here in America too our people were following with intense interest
events in Armenia. Armenians were most tortured by the fact that the
Turkish butchers had escaped punishment. At the start of the war A1lied
leaders had made solemn promises that members of the Ottoman government were going to be held personally responsible for the massacres. The war ended, the Allies were victorious; yet those responsible for the
Armenian Holocaust remained unpunished and were even protected.
(Holdwater adds: Uhhhh... ever hear of the Malta Tribunal?)
Within the American Armenian community the idea that Armenians
must bring those leaders to justice by their own means had matured. ... It
is necessary to add that this attitude was common to Armenians
everywhere: Armenians were disturbed by the position of the Allies. A
whole nation had been butchered with such cruel methods and, despite formal statements, the Allies had done nothing.... Naturally, the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation could not remain indifferent and was thinking of
bringing those leaders to justice. The Ninth World Congress of the ARF in
the spring of 1919 had discussed the matter. And here in America I realized, that what had become an obsession for me had been transformed into
an actual project and under the leadership of Armen Garo much
preliminary work had already been accomplished)

Indeed, the Ninth Congress had also complied a list of the 101 most
important criminals and passed it on to the Miles, with the expectation
that an international court of justice would bring them to justice.3 The

‘According to Soviet Armenian sources, the terrorist was an Armenian soldier in the Red Army.
2soghomon Tehlirian, VerhishuPflfler jRemembraflCes], Cairo, 1956.
‘Armenian Review, 3(1982) and 4(1982).

ARE or Dashnaktsutiun, a party that had a legacy of struggling against
the Ottoman and Russian despotisms, had adopted assassinations as part
of its tactics since its founding in 1892. It had been argued that in
despotic societies particularly cruel and lawless officials can add substantially to the misery of the people; and since the system protected, in fact
produced, such individuals, popular justice must be implemented to protect the larger public from state terror.
It was not surprising, therefore, that the ARE took the initiative to
organize the “special task” or the Nemesis project. Tehlirian and the
others were given guidance, assistance, and continued financial and
logistical support by a tightly knit network of researchers and tacticians.
The group, which included Hrach Papazian and Shahan Natali, designed
strategy, located the criminals, selected the targets ensuring that the most
important leaders be punished first, and secured funds and weapons.
The project came to a halt with the punishment of the top leaders
among the lttiliadists.

The proceedings of the Tehlirian trial were first published in German
in 1921 (Berlin) under the title of Der Process Tataat Pascha [The Trial
of Talaat Pasha], with an introduction of the German health official, Armin T. Wegner, who had witnessed and photographed the Genocide.
Soon after, the volume was translated to Armenian and published by the
Mekhitarist Congregation of Vienna (Vienna, 1921). A Spanish translation by Bedros Agopyan appeared in Buenos Aires in 1973 under the title
Un Proceso Historico [A Historic Trial]. In 1980 a French translation,
with appendices, appeared in Paris under the title of Jucticier de
Genocide Atrndnien [The Vindication of the Armenian Genocide]. A second Armenian translation was published in Beirut, Lebanon in 1981,
edited by Haroutiun Kurkjian; released under the title of Tehlirian: Artarahaduytse [Vindication], this second translation is the most comprehensive collection of documents on the case yet. This volume is the
first English translation of the proceedings of the trial.

The doors of The New York Times were always kept wide open for the writings of George R. Montgomery (Director, Armenia-America Society)... I'm familiar with his attempt to discredit U.S. Admiral Colby M. Chester within the pages of the biased newspaper. In the July, 1921 issue of The New York Times Current History Magazine, Mr. Montgomery (whom I assume must have had the original name of "Montgomerian") was allowed his little soapbox in an article entitled, WHY TALAAT'S ASSASSIN WAS ACQUITTED.

Here, Mr. Montgomery wrote "It developed into a case against the German military authorities, who had at least allowed the massacres to continue without protect," which supports Holdwater's view that the reason why the assassin was acquitted was mostly because the Germans were afraid a conviction would implicate them... as Defense Attorney Werthauer craftily pointed out: "If a German court were to find Soghomon Tehlirian not guilty, this would put an end to the misconception that the world has of us..."

Montgomery makes it seem it was the Talat telegrams that made the case, such as:

The heartlessness of the Turks in regard to the doomed children made a deep impression on the Berlin jury. The following are some of the documents presented on this point: Nov. 5, 1915
To the Government of Aleppo:

We are informed that the little ones belonging to the indicated persons [Armenians] from Sivas Mamuret-ul-Aziz, Diarbekir and Erzeroum are adopted by certain Moslem families and received as servants when they are left alone through the death of their parents. We inform you that you are to collect all such children in your province and send them to the places of deportation, and also to give the necessary orders regarding this to the people.

The Minister of the Interior,
TALAAT.

(There are more such examples.)

The director states Professor Lepsius was the one who produced these "Turkish official documents which proved the heads of the Turkish Government at Constantinople -- and particularly Talaat himself -- to be directly responsible for converting the deportation into shambles." There is no mention of Andonian, who appears to be present at the trial from the transcript, above. Mr. Montgomery also states these "letters and cipher telegrams" resulted from "the capture of Aleppo by the British" which "made possible the securing of these official documents from the archives."

If what is being referred to are the documents discovered by British forces commanded by General Allenby when they captured Aleppo in 1918, then we must be talking about the forger, Aram Andonian, who published his reworked samples from this batch in Paris, in 1920. Gwynne Dyer, in his Turkish 'Falsifiers' and Armenian 'Deceivers,' referred to documents "captured by the British in Palestine in 1918" which went beyond the realm of my knowledge. (Although I think Dr. Dyer might have mistakenly said Palestine for Aleppo.)  Assuming we can take the word of the Director of the Armenia America Society, regarding the source of these telegrams, it seems almost certain the telegrams that Mr. Montgomery cites came from the hand of the forger, Aram Andonian.

Another weirdo notion is, if the British captured these telegrams and letters, how did they come to the possession of hysterical Turcophobe Dr. Lepsius? Maybe that's not where these telegrams came from... perhaps Mr. Montgomery was just throwing out a typical ... ehhhh.... "Armenian exaggeration" (or, in his defense, simply accepting an "Armenian exaggeration" thrown out by his counterpart of the German-Armenian organization, the good Dr. Lepsius), and these telegrams were just another batch cooked up by good old Aram.

I can only be 100% certain of one thing, at this point. Since a couple of the telegrams Mr. Montgomery provided are very incriminating, and the kind of "smoking gun" genocide enthusiasts are searching for, if these documents were valid... they would have certainly be used as the evidence the British were desperately searching for, in the two-and-on-half-years Ottoman officials were holed up in Malta, awaiting trial for war crimes. Especially if such documents were captured by the British.

If you'd like to get a better bead on telegrams Talat Pasha really wrote, this is where you'd want to go.


ADDENDUM, 03-07: "Montgomery has a Turkish missionary background and accompanied the King-Crane com. to the Levant as a 'technical advisor.' ...[H]e also served with the U.S. peace delegation at Paris. He later became director of the Armenia-America soc." Dr. Robert Zeidner, The Tricolor over the Taurus: The French in Cilicia and vicinity, 1918-1923, The University of Utah, 1991, p. 205, fn 68.