The Naim-Andonian documents...

[Guest Fadi]

... Since there was no new materials posted in this forum for long time, I have decided to post something that people could read, I will be doing this as much as I can in future.

 

Here, I will post the conclusion(only the conclusion for copyright reasons) of the essay from Dadrian titled; "The Naim-Andonian Documents on the World War I Destruction of Ottoman Armenians: The Anatomy of a Genocide. (published in Int. J. Middle East Stud. 15 (1986), pp. 311-360)

 

 

 

pp. 338-343

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

There are two ways by which to inquire into the validity of documents when their authenticity is called into question. One of them involves the negative route of falsification. Problems of doctoring, signature forging, or outright fabrication of an entire piece are examined. One may assess these documents also by comparing stated objectives against attained results: Were the Ottoman Armenians in fact largely exterminated or not?

 

This study has established that the material under review is flawed with respect to technicalities. These, however, are matters that are rather extrinsic to the test of falsification. The recent efforts of a number of Turkish authors to invalidat the Naim-Andonian material by focusing on these flaws have been examined and found to be equally and similarly deficient. These flaws involve miscounting, misdating, misconversion of dates from old to new style, and careless editing, despite the availability of manifold resources, including staff assistance provided by the Turkish Historical Society—which in the chaos of the armistice were neither available nor affordable by either Nairn or Andonian. Besides being incidental rather than central, such problems are endemic to the cumbersome nature of the material itself.

 

The argument of falsification has been found to be untenable, since the few instances on which the argument is predicated merely involve irregularities. Irregularity is not coterminous, however, with forgery. Forgery presupposes skill, caution, and above all a measure of sophistication geared to avoiding mistakes. The presence and easy detection of such defects in the material under review mitigate against that charge. Indeed, no forger of any value would have produced material so incomplete and so flawed with glaring imperfections; these could have been easily avoided by anyone disposed to forge. Furthermore, a government apparatus known for its chronically erratic methods of transactions cannot be held exempt from such irregularities. Moreover, one is dealing here with highly secret transactions in the midst of a consuming "Great War," initiated and directed by a political party that relied on diversions and camouflage for the pursuit of its secret designs; irregularity is an integral part of such a mentality.

 

The recent publicity accorded to a set of Talat documents illustrates this point of diversion and camouflage. Talat is portrayed in them as a caring, responsible Interior Minister whose sole aim is claimed to be "the protection," "the safety," and "the relocation" of the deportees. On its face value this countervailing evidence not only is convincing but in a sense belies the evidence supplied by Nairn. The later evidence is punctured, however, by the following facts:

 

1. When Talat showed three of these documents to the Interim German Ambassador

Ernst Hohenlohe-Langenburg, and indirectly to Austrian Ambassador Johann Margrave

Pallavicini, he triggered a series of reactions among the Ambassadors and provincial

consuls of Germany and Austria. These reactions, detailed in notes 37 and 38, depict

Talat as "a double-dealer," prone to repeated deceptions.102

 

2. British High Commissioner Nevile Henderson, as explained earlier, expressed serious

doubt about the purpose of these documents and the intent of Talat.103

 

3. In the testimony of German, American, and Ottoman officials are embodied

statements revealing a pattern of command and a control system through which benign

directives are seen as being secretly countermanded. These revelations are furnished

particularly by General Hans Seeckt (the German Chief of the Ottoman General Staff),

German Ambassador Paul Wolff-Metternich, U.S. Aleppo Consul Jackson, the German

Consul of Adana, Biige, a Turkish district commissioner, and a deputy.104

 

A vivid example of this double-dealing through a two-track system of communication is contained in the memoirs of Falih Rifki Atay, who served as Talat's personal secretary. Here, Talat is described as having conveniently accommodated a favor-seeker by obliging him with a letter of recommendation addressed to a provincial governor (district commissioner). According to Atay's account, soon after the departure of the elated beneficiary, Talat summoned Atay to his office and directed him to inform the governor in question via a cipher telegram that Talat's letter was to be disregarded. Atay explains this double-dealing by referring to Talat's penchant for "lies" and "deception" (yalan, aldatici) as part of his "Oriental ethics."105

 

When shifting the discussion to the other route of analysis—namely, the route of confirmation—the essence of the material under review becomes highlighted as primary source. Indeed, the confirmation is amply afforded by the findings of the Turkish Military Tribunal through a comprehensive indictment and a series of verdicts. These findings were based on authenticated official documents, sworn testimony, and depositions provided by a plethora of high-ranking officials, civilian and military, who independently verified the direct complicity of the men prominently figuring in the Naim-Andonian documents. These officials include three army commanders, several deputy commanders, and seven governors. Furthermore, the evidence, gathered before and during the trials, was itemized and placed in more than 200 files, with specific labels, numbers, and proofs of certification attached. The proceedings were published in Takvimi Vakayi, the official gazette of the Ottoman government, the special supplements of which served during the proceedings as a judicial journal.106

 

The material is rendered even more substantial when one moves from confirmation to corroboration by still another independent source—the official and mostly secret reports of German and Austrian diplomats, Ottoman Turkey's fervent allies, and of American representatives at Istanbul and Aleppo up to April 1917, when the U.S. entered the war. These wartime accounts foreshadow most of the postwar findings of the Courts-Martial. Critical in this respect are the testimonies of Lieutenant-Colonel Stange, of U.S. Aleppo Consul Jackson, and above all of German Aleppo Consul Rossler, who was able to read the French translation of the Andonian volume. Rossler's consular district being the locus in quo of the documents, and of the principal officials described in them, his judgment that the documents appear to be "genuine" (echt) rather than false assumes even greater significance.

 

It may be concluded with a high degree of certainty that the two letters and the 50 decoded, ciphers that constitute the Naim-Andonian material are true documents. This certitude is unmistakably manifest in the case of those 13 documents whose original Ottoman texts are reproduced through plates, as noted in Table 2.

 

Having reached this conclusion, it is necessary to evaluate briefly the thrust of these documents. The paramount question to be answered in this regard is: What was the nature of the destruction of Ottoman Armenians? From the body of the data presented in this study, three criteria emerge:

 

1. Premeditation. As ideological guideposts for the scheme and enactment of that destruction, keynoted in the remaining 50 documents, the two letters (Nos. 1 and 2) are critical in this respect. In them is outlined a blueprint of a radical solution to a lingering Turko-Armenian conflict. It is equally significant that these letters contain no reference to the wartime conduct of the Armenian population or any segment of it. They focus instead on "the humiliations and bitterness of the past"—in other words, to a history of anti-Armenian enmity predating that war. Talat ventilated that sense of enmity by branding the Armenians as "a curse for centuries" (No. 52). These facts suggest, if they do not literally indicate, the rationale for premeditation107 in the light of which the argument that the anti-Armenian measures were nothing but a wartime aberration is considerably obviated. By the same token, charges of Armenian insurgency and acts of sabotage may be assigned the kind of perspective within which their validity may be probed and evaluated. The essence of any legal definition of premeditation is deliberation upon a contemplated act—a decision to commit a crime. The key Indictment underscored this aspect of the destruction by quoting Nazim as having said that the measures initiated against the Armenians were "determined following extensive and full deliberations." Moreover, in the Bayburt verdict the Court underscored that "the crimes were premeditated and determined upon at Ittihad's central headquarters"; in this and in the Yozgad verdict the Court invoked Article 170 of the Ottoman Penal Code, which prescribes death for premeditated murder. The concept of premeditation is defined in Article 169 in terms of the Arabic word tacammuden, derived from the rootword camd, which means "intent based on prior deliberation." As indicated in note 39, American Ambassador Morgenthau had kept a regular diary. The August 3, 1915, entry touches on this problem of premeditation. In it, Talat is quoted as saying, "The Union and Progress Committee had carefully considered the matter in all its details and that the policy which was being pursued was that which they had officially adopted . . . the result of prolonged and careful deliberation" (p. 333). For his part Lieutenant-Colonel Stange, in his "secret" report to the German Military Mission in Turkey, confirmed the presence of "a long before entertained plan of a thorough reduction, if not extermination, of the Armenian population." He furthermore indicated that military needs were a secondary consideration but were used as "a welcome pretext [in order to exploit] the favorable opportunity" afforded by the war. He singled out the brigands, which he called "scum" (Gesindel), as the tools of the extermination.108

 

2. Intent. Although implicit in premeditation, intent, not to be confused with motive, is

a state of mind, a mental attitude that as a rule is proved by consequences resulting from

it. At present, that proof is furnished by the answer to the question "Was the destruction

of the Armenians enacted with a design and with determination?" Among the ciphers

listed in this study, five from Talat (Nos. 4, 5, 8, 25, and 45), and two from Nuri (Nos. 29

and 35) clearly exhibit such a design and a resolve.109 This state of mind and the resulting

consequences are summarized by General Vehib, the Third Army Commander, as follows:

"The massacre and destruction \katl ve imhasi\ of the Armenians . . . were the result of

Ittihad's Central Committee decision [neticei mukarrerat]." A copy of the original

deposition is in the Jerusalem Armenian Patriarchate Archive (series 17, file H, Nos.

171-182. See also note 47, p. 350.) The Military Tribunal took pains to emphasize the

overwhelming weight of evidence demonstrating that the deportations, purporting to be a

wartime measure of relocation, were a cloak for the intended extermination of the

deportees. In a rare attempt at interceding on behalf of the Armenians, American

Secretary of State Lansing denounced the "studied intention on the part of the Ottoman

Government to annihilate a Christian race. The true facts, if publicly known, would shock

the whole civilized world." He was referring to "reports for many months past from

official and other reliable sources" depicting "the cruelties, massacres, and starvation"

inflicted upon "the Armenian population of Turkey."' ° That intent was enforced by

stringent sanctions against officials opposed to, or even hesitant in, the implementation of

the various orders.

 

3. Organization and Supervision. Neither premeditation nor an allied resolve are

sufficient for the gargantuan task of destroying a people. The necessary twin condition is

division of labor. Foremost in this respect was the role of Talat's Interior Ministry and its three subsidiaries—the Directorates of Public Security, of the Istanbul Police, and of the Deportation Service. That Ministry additionally controlled the provincial gendarmerie in charge of collecting, grouping, and escorting the deportee convoys. For the task of actual extermination through massacre, Ittihad's leaders had created a separate Special Organization in which were enrolled tens of thousands of convicts released from the prisons and organized for that purpose. The key Indictment cites the Special Organization a dozen times, describing the enrollees as "criminals and outlaws" who were used for the massacre and destruction of the convoys subjected to deportation; "this fact was established through a constellation of evidence involving written testimony, proofs, and documents" (TV, 3540, p. 6). Lieutenant-Colonel Stange and German Consuls Scheubner von Richter, Bergfeld, and Rossler, as well as Aleppo American Consul Jackson, specifically referred to these killer units in their reports. The supervision was entrusted to carefully selected party functionaries called Responsible Secretaries and/or Delegates (katibi mesul, murahhas). Having supreme authority over provincial governors, these men resolutely pursued the aims of destruction. It is for this reason that the Military Tribunal instituted a special series of trials aimed especially at this category of Ittihadists. In pronouncing its verdict, the Court singled out the latter's role in "the organization and engagement [tertib ve ihzar\ of gangs of brigands carrying out the massacre and destruction of the Armenians" (TV, 3772, p. 2). It is most significant that §akir's two letters (Nos. 1 and 2) were addressed to Ittihad's Responsible Secretary Cemal. Cemal came from Adana to Aleppo to replace Ali Riza, whose compassionate attitude toward the Armenians §akir mockingly disdains in the third paragraph of his second letter.

 

Finally the question of the extent of destruction, resulting from the nature of the destruction, may be addressed briefly. Despite contemporary efforts to minimize Armenian losses drastically, no less a figure than a Turkish Interior Minister publicly declared on March 13, 1919, when the Courts-Martial were in high gear, that 800,000 Armenians were actually killed in connection with the deportations. This disclosure, buried in the records of the armistice, was somewhat anticipated three months earlier by Mustafa Arif, another post-war Turkish Interior Minister, who had stated, "The statistical computations on this subject are still continuing. When we complete our examinations in terms of exact numbers we shall then announce our findings to the press." Interior Minister Cemal's figure is exclusive of (1) the tens of thousands of Armenian soldiers and officers executed by fellow military, (2) a larger number of victims absorbed in the mainstream of the population through conversions, and (3) those multitudes who succumbed to the ordeals of deportation. Notwithstanding, his disclosure represents a landmark governmental admission made in 1919.111

 

The relevance of the discussion above warrants a final conclusion on the nature of the destruction. Governmental premeditation, intent, organization, and outcome respecting the scope of casualties are major determinants in any enactment of genocide. It is therefore maintained that the World War I destruction of Ottoman Armenians was a distinct case of genocide, which typologically may be called "optimal" since these determinants configure in it in full measure.112 In this configuration the criteria "nature" and "outcome" of destruction intertwine in producing the final solution to the Armenian Question as intended and sought by the Ittihad hierarchy. Johann Bernstorff, the last German Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire (September 7, 1917-October 27, 1918), attests to this fact by citing a laconic statement made to him in an exchange with no less a figure than the then Grand Vezir Talat whom Metter-nich, another wartime German ambassador to Turkey (November 15, 1915-October 3, 1916), described as "the soul of the Armenian persecutions" (die Seele der Armenierverfolgungeri): "When I kept on pestering him on the Armenian Question, he once said with a smile, 'What on earth do you want? The question is settled, there are no more Armenians.' " The ambassador later explains this assertion of having solved the Armenian Question in terms of the ancestral territories of the victims, namely, "Armenia where the Turks have been systematically trying to exterminate the Christian population." Despite his expressions of esteem for Talat, the ambassador goes on to concede Talat's role in that extermination: "His complicity in the Armenian crime he atoned for by his death."113

 

 

 

 

pp. 355-359

 

NOTES

 

102- Talat's November 18 cipher (No. 11 in Table 2) clearly outlines these procedures of camouflage and deflection intended for the benefit of the American Consuls. He is instructing the deportation officials to be careful about the real intent of the deportations, to avoid attracting attention when carrying out that intent through "the known measures" (tedabiri maliime), and to "create the conviction among foreigners" (kanaatinin tevlidi ifin) that the aim of "deportation" is nothing but "relocation" (tebdili mekdn).

 

103- See note 40. It is ironic that as British Ambassador to the Third Reich, the same Henderson on August 25, 1939, relayed to London without comment a summary version of Hitler's notorious speech of August 22, in which Hitler purportedly is exhorting his generals not to be concerned about the adverse consequences of his plans of extermination against Poland. In that speech, there is a reference to the Armenian massacres, and to Hitler's allowing that that episode of destruction had been consigned to oblivion ("Wer redet noch von der Vernichtung der ArmenierT') For a detailed examination of the reasons warranting the truth-value of this statement, and the circumstances of Henderson conveying the speech to London, see Winfried Baumgart, "Zur Ansprache Hitlers vor den Fiihrern der Wehrmacht am 22. August 1939. Eine quellenkritische Untersuchung," Vierteljahreshefte fur Zeitgeschichte, 16, 2 (1968), pp. 121-22, 138-39. For a similar reference by Hitler to "the extermination" ("Ausrottung") of the Armenians, see Edouard Calic, Ohne Maske (Frankfurt, 1968), p. 101. For the primary source of Henderson's communication to London see the Henderson file in FO 800/270, No. 39/85, folios 288-91. A monograph, just published, examines in detail the circumstances surrounding Hitler's August 22, 1939, reference to the Armenians to verify its authenticity: K. B. Bardakjian, Hitler and the Armenian Genocide, Zoryan Institute Special Report Number 3 (Cambridge, Mass., 1985), pp. 3-24.

 

104- Writing in the wake of the Turkish Armistice, while Seeckt was proceeding home with his German complement of officers via Odessa on the Black Sea, Seeckt explains the gap between official Turkish postures and unofficially held secret positions. In his essay on "The Causes of the Turkish Collapse" (Die Grunde des Zusammenbruchs der Tiirkei, dated November 4, 1918) Seeckt injects "the unhappy Armenian Question" when discussing Turkish rabid nationalism and methods of Turkish command and control. "Openly conveyed orders upholding official Turkish policy were followed b> secret instructions [geheime Weisungeri], or by intimations [Andeutungeri} that their execution was being discounted [aufihre Ausfuhrung nicht gerechnet wurde]" (Bundesarchiv/ Militararchiv-Freiburg im Breisgau, N247/202c, NachlaB Seeckt. The full text of the essay is reproduced in Jehuda L Wallach, Anatomie einer Militärhilfe. Die preußisch-deutschen Militärmissionen in der Türkei, 1835-1919 [Düsseldorf, 1976], pp. 258-71, remark on Armenians, p. 260). Ambassador Metternich complained to German Chief of Staff Falkenhayn that War Minister Enver's order to suspend the deportation of Baghdad Railway Armenian work details was "countermanded" [Gegenbefehl]. The message was relayed through Foreign Minister Gottlieb von Jagow on July 2, 1916 (Großes Hauptquartier 194, Türkei 41/1 cipher No. 763, folio 141). U.S. Consul Jackson on August 19, 1915, informed Ambassador Morgenthau that the anti-Armenian measures amount to "a gigantic plundering scheme as well as a final blow to extinguish the race, notwithstanding the existence of a Commission appointed by the Government to safeguard the interests of the Armenians." He then went on to state that, "On the 17th instant an order arrived from the Minister of the Interior to permit the Armenian Protestants to remain where they were, but on the 18 another order came that all Armenians without distinction should be deported" (Record Group 59, 807.4016/148, enclosure in Ambassador Morgenthau's August 30, 1915 report). German Constil Büge, reacting vehemently to Talat's assurances, informs Interim Ambassador Hohenlohe that Talat's order "was subsequently rescinded [nachher diese Verfügung aufgehoben]" (Türkei 183, vol. 38, A27578, September 14, 1915, report). Mehmed Ali, former District Commissioner of Üsküdar, testified at the fifteenth sitting of the Yozgad Court Martial series (March 27, 1919) that secret orders followed official orders of deportation, to the effect that the latter were to be disregarded, and that the deportees were to be exterminated. At the fourth sitting of the same trial series (February 11, 1919) Yozgad Deputy Þakir testified to "secret" orders decreeing the extermination of the Armenians, orders about which he personally had complained to Talat in Istanbul, only to be accused of "incompetence." (These last two items were culled from local dailies covering the trials, in particular Jhamang, March 29; Renaissance February 12; and Le Courier de Turquie, February 14, 1919 issues.)

 

105- Falih Rýfký Atay, Zeytindaðý, pp. 24-25. Relating his experiences in Aleppo, Mustafa Nedim (see n. 79) wrote that Enver's and Talat's orders to the governors "were routinely countermanded through coded messages... I know this too well," pp. 102-3.

 

106- Beside the transcripts of the Courts Martial, there was another official publication that summarized the hearings of the Fifth Committee of the Ottoman Chamber of Deputies (Meclisi Mebusan Beþinci Þube Tahkikat Komisyonu). From November 5 to December 11, 1918, the Committee conducted 14 hearings, interrogating 15 ministers, including two þeyhülislams. In the course of its inquiries, the Committee secured a number of top-secret documents that eventually were transmitted to the Courts Martial. The Grand Vezir Said Halim three times in a single sentence conceded the fact of "the Armenian massacres," without adding the twin term "deportation." Referring to Talat's concealments and cover-ups, Said Halim also admitted to the practice of translating orders for "deportation" into orders for "killing." Furthermore, alluding to the Special Organization, he declared that it was "an evil" outfit, and was created without the decision of the government (Meclisi Mebusan Zabýtlarý, Üçüncü Meclis, No. 521 [istanbul, 1918]; for the abridged version see Harb Kabinelerinin isticvabý [istanbul, 1933], pp. 285, 287, 290, 293-94, 308).

 

107- The issue of premeditation needs to be understood in the broader context of the history of the Ittihad party, which from its very inception secretly pursued Turkism while pretending to multiethnic Ottomanism. After alluding to the pivotal role of Nazým and Þakir in the pursuit of this ideology, Aksin discerns a connection between the violent nationalism that evolved and gripped Ittihad, and the Armenian deportations (Sina Aksin, 700 Soruda Jön Türkler ve ittihat ve Terakki [istanbul, 1980], pp. 54, 159). Speaking of the Special Organization, Stoddard likewise asserted that "it rested on the concepts of Pan-Islam and Pan-Turkism, although, like the governmental authorities responsible for it, the organization's agents paid lip service to the traditional concept of Ottomanism" (Stoddard, Ottoman Government, pp. 54-55). In the pre-1908 negotiations between Ittihad and the Dashnak party, the issue of decentralization and local administrative autonomy, bitterly opposed by Ittihad, emerged and remained a discordant note, casting an abiding shadow over the relationship of the two parties. Neither their cooperation in the overthrow of Hamid nor their mutual assistance in the securing and defense of the Constitutional regime could overcome the ensuing tensions that separated the two parties. Aggravated by Ittihad's inability and/or unwillingness to carry out the promised reforms in the eastern provinces, the impasse seemed to defy remedy. The conflict that developed was abetted in no small measure by Nazým and Þakir's bad faith, if not outright deceptive gimmickry. Three letters produced by two Turkish historians demonstrate the secret intentions of these two pioneers of Ittihad. On September 22, 1906—i.e., a year before the 1907 joint Young Turk-Dashnak Congress of Paris—Nazým and Þakir, in a letter to "our Azerbaidjani brothers in the Caucasus," together advised the addressees to join hands with the Armenians in opposing the Russian government, "your greatest enemy." They then injected this counterpoint: "The Armenians can later be brought on to the right course in as much as the Muslims are in the majority." In a January 3, 1908, letter Þakir told his cohorts in Çanakkale that one reason for Ittihad's cooperation with the Armenians was to profit (istifade etmek) from their resources. In yet another letter (December 8, 1907), Þakir informed the Saloniki branch of Ittihad that the agreements reached with the Armenians were meant "to benefit us [temini menafi]. Once we are in power it will then be easy to teach a lesson to those seeking administrative autonomy" (Bayur, Türk inkýlâbý Tarihi, vol. 2, part 4 [Ankara, 1952], pp. 87, 126, 129-30). Similar letters are contained in Ahmed Bedevi Kuran, inkýlâp Tarihimiz ve Ittihad ve Terakki (istanbul, 1948), pp. 209-29. In one of these letters dated June 11, 1907, Þakir is accusing the Armenian revolutionaries of wanting to establish an Armenian state to be carved out of the territory of the Ottoman Empire, pp. 228-29. Commenting on the December 8, 1907 letter, Bayur interprets it to mean that as far as Ittihad was concerned the agreements with the Armenians were worthless. Amazed at the foolishness of committing such thoughts to writing, he allows that Ittihad must have been sanguine about the letters' remaining secret. In an editorial written during the Armistice, the noted opposition paper Alemdar berated the Armenians for having supported Ittihad. "The Dashnaks and Ittihad were one political party. Vartkes [the Dashnak leader] and Talat drank from one cup. But the bandit clique later executed him and the Armenians ... a terrible punishment for their mistake" (translated in Jhamanag, April 27, 1919). The destruction of the Armenians appears to be presaged in the last (Dec. 8, 1907) of these three letters, which constitute rarely available primary sources. Touching on the ingredient of premeditation, Bayur concedes that, exasperated with the tribulations of discord with the Armenians, Ittihad would eventually solve the problem by force of arms, i.e., using the Army [iþi ordu ile görmek] (Bayur, Türk inkýlâbý Tarihi, vol. 2, part 4, p. 13).

 

108- A leader of the Special Organization, ostensibly one of Þakir's lieutenants, published his memoirs in installments in the Turkish daily Vakit over a period of some six months; in them he reveals details on the workings of that outfit that are not published anywhere else. His accounts include verbatim reproductions of some of Þakir's secret telegrams to Talat and even a reference to a December 5, 1914, personal letter to Þakir's wife. Two revelations deserve foremost attention: (1) Before setting out for Istanbul in February 1915 Þakir convened in Erzurum a meeting of his top aides in which it was decided to make the Special Organization East an autonomous body for the purpose of devising strategy and tactics, and for having ultimate control over the çetes to be employed in the East (installment No. 88); and (2) he was subsequently able to persuade his cohorts in Istanbul that the Special Organization had to shift its operations from the external to the internal front, involving the Armenians (installment No. 83). A September 3, 1914 cipher exposes Þakir as ordering the ambush and destruction of the Dashnak delegates who were returning to their cities from their Eighth quadrennial Congress in Erzurum (installments 12 and 13). The evidence the author believes to be adducing for demonstrating Armenian sabotage against the Turkish war effort is patently false, however. "Combat Instructions" [Mardagan Hurahankner] spread over several installments of the series, as an example of such evidence, were actually printed at the turn of the century, and were used against the regime of Hamid, to overthrow which the Ittihad and Dashnak parties had joined hands. It is also revealed that General Vehib intended to imprison and prosecute Þakir (installment 69) (A. Bil, "Umumi Harpte Teþkilatý Mahsusa," Vakit, November 2, 1933-February 7, 1934; the rest, dealing with operations in the Balkans, appears in the subsequent issues of that paper). The Armenian daily in Paris, Haratch, whose installments are used here as a source, published these memoirs day by day in Armenian, starting with November 19, 1933, and ending with the April 7, 1934, issue, V. Ishkhanian being the translator. It is likely that "A. Bil" is a pseudonym, and considering the autobiographical hints supplied in installments 2, 14, 38, 46, and 88, the real author must be Cemal Ferid, nicknamed hamallar kehyasý, who was one of Istanbul's five Responsible Secretaries; he was cited in the indictment read out at the Court Martial in 1919, and was subsequently exiled to Malta as a prima facie suspect in the Armenian massacres. The British Blue Book describes him in that role (Bryce [Toynbee], Treatment, doc. No. 56, p. 233).

One final reference may be in order. Although focusing on the Special Organization's role in some of the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire, Stoddard also offered some general comments on the overall mission of that organization. He stated that combating "internal foes" was part of its scheme: It meant "to ride herd on all separatist and nationalist groups." Fear of a future independent Armenia "carved out of Ottoman territory" was an important factor in strategy. The political Directorate of the organization included Nazým, Þakir, Public Security Chief Canbolat, and Midhat Þükrü, Ittihad's Secretary-General. Agreeing that it "was a secret, rather disreputable group," Stoddard believes that the excesses of the organization were intended to be explained away by blaming "groups of brigands" too distant to be susceptible to any control by authorities (Stoddard, Ottoman Government, pp. 5-6, 49-50, 54-56.

 

109- In No. 5 there is the exhortation to have no scruples in the application of destructive means; in Nos. 8 and 45 is contained the assurance that cruelties and atrocious behavior will not be subject to prosecution; in No. 25 is a categorical order to have the infants collectively exterminated "without arousing suspicion, and through the exercise of circumspection [tarifli olarak}, using the reassuring excuse that they are being taken to a place where they can be fed by deportation officials"; and in No. 35 it is declared, "The only way you can assist in the attainment of the goal we are pursuing is the severity and swiftness with which the deportees are to be dispatched. . . . The current weekly lists showing the number of the dead are not satisfactory." Because of their extraordinary importance the texts of the remaining two ciphers are being offered below in their entirety.

No. 29. "Following an investigation, it has been established that only 10% of the Armenians, subjected to general deportation, is reaching its destination, with the rest succumbing to such natural causes as hunger and sickness incurred on the roads during the trek. You are directed to apply severe measures towards these survivors in order to effect a similar result."

No. 4. "All rights of the Armenians to live and work in the territories of Turkey have been completely cancelled. Assuming full responsibility, the government has ordered to end even the lives of babes in the cradle. The results of this order have already been attained in a few provinces. Nevertheless, for reasons unknown to us, exceptions are being made for certain people who are being sent on to Aleppo instead of being deported straight to their places of destination. The government is thus coming face to face with an additional difficulty. Disregarding their excuses, remove them, be they women or children, or whatever they may be, even those who are incapable of moving. Prevent their being protected by the people who, out of ignorance, treat material interests as a higher priority than patriotic feelings, and are unable to appreciate the grand policy pursued by the government in this regard. Given the fact that the operations of indirect extermination—severity, speed, travel difficulties, misery—, that have been carried out in other places, can be implemented there directly, work heartily. General orders have been issued from the War Ministry to all Army Commanders to the effect that the military post commanders [nokta komandom} are not to interfere in the affairs of deportation. Inform the officials to be appointed for this end that they must work for the realization of our goal, without being afraid of responsibility. Please send weekly cipher reports on the results of your operations."

This pivotal order gave the Governor of Aleppo, Mustafa Abdülhalik, license in the treatment of the surviving deportees. Finally, reference may be made to an American-trained sociologist who served as a journalist during the war, was exiled to Malta by the British as a dangerous nationalist editor, and had there intimate exchanges with top Ittihadist leaders. Referring to "the policy of general extermination," he described the Ittihadist rationale as follows: "A dense Armenian population in the Eastern Provinces has proved to be a danger to the very existence of Turkey. . . . [T]he instruments to remove this danger. . . shall be universally despised and condemned. Only in a very distant future" would this sacrifice for the national cause be appreciated (Ahmed Emin [Yalman], Turkey in the World War [New Haven, 1930], p. 220). For a similar comment by Falih Rýfký Atay with special reference to Þakir see note 76.

 

110- U.S. National Archives, Record Group 867.4016/299. Lansing articulated this position of the United States government in a November 1, 1916, cipher to Josef C. Grew, American Charge in Berlin, instructing him to seek the support of the German Foreign Affairs Minister in interceding on behalf of the Armenians, with their ally, Imperial Turkey. On November 4, 1916, Grew complied, repeating word for word Lansing's decrial of the Turkish Government's measures of extermination to Jagow, the German Foreign Affairs Minister (Türkei 183, vol. 45, A30011).

 

111- The statement was published in the March 13, 1919, issue of the French daily Le Moniteur Oriental, and the March 15, 1919, issue of Alemdar. Incensed that the Minister had dared to make such a revelation "to a non-Muslim journalist. . . about the number of Armenians killed," some editors inveighed against him, with Siileyman Nazif declaring, "This act is not worthy of a Muslim minister" (Hadisat, March 17, 1919). Others, however, praised him for clarifying an important point through his "authoritative" disclosure (Ikdam, Vakit, March 15, 1919). Under the heading "The Courage to Redress a Mistake" (Hatadan donmek cesareti), Vakit wrote, "Cemal is anxious to cleanse the bloody past." To mollify his critics, on March 16 Cemal hedged, stating that he was misunderstood: The actual figure was a total of 900,000, which included the dead and the survivors (Alemdar, March 18, 1919). The editors of the Moniteur three days later retorted that they were sticking to the 800,000 figure for the accuracy of which they vouched, and that there was no misunderstanding at all. Memleket and the semiofficial Alemdar supported this reaffirmation by Moniteur, the latter adding that in releasing his original figure "the Minister had relied upon statistics compiled by appropriate authorities" (quoted in Jhogovourtee Tzain, March 19, 1919). Cemal's effort to soft-pedal the shock caused by his disclosure proved futile. Yielding to pressures including the Sultan's displeasure, he resigned on April 7, 1919 (Alemdar, Vakit, Le Courier de Turquie, April 8, 1919; Morning Post [London], April 14, 1919; Ali Fuad Tiirkgeldi, Goriip Ifittiklerim, 2nd ed. [Ankara, 1951], p. 197). Cemal had a long-standing career in Ottoman civil service. He was Sub-Governor at Yaffa, Governor of Izmit, Governor of Harput (where he was replaced by Sabit due to his resistance to Talat's anti-Armenian policy), and at the time of his appointment as Interior Minister he was Governor of Konya. Contemporary Turkish authors continue to berate him for what they consider to be his treachery. Celal Bayar, president of the Turkish republic 1950-1960, denounced Cemal's act as "the ugliest and most unnecessary disclosure" (Ben de Yazdim, vol. 7, [istanbul, 1969], p. 2,114). The noted historian Bayur decried the former Minister for supplying "to our enemies proof and weapons [kanit ve silah\" (Yusuf Hikmet Bayur, Ataturk. Hayati ve Eseri [Ankara, 1963], p. 268). Not only do these vehement reactions attest to the significance of the disclosure made, but more importantly, they accent the substance of that disclosure, which the authors do not challenge and about which nothing is said. Referring to "the official reports of the Turkish Government," to which government he had access as head of the American Military Mission, Major General James Harbord declared that 1.1 million Armenians were deported, concluding that the count of "the dead from this wholesale attempt at the race ... is about 800,000," and that the episode represents "the most colossal crime of all the ages" (James G. Harbord, "Report of the American Military Mission to Armenia," International Conciliation, 151 [June 1920], pp. 280-81). As recently as December 1979, "a representative of the Turkish Republic" at Paris was reported to have admitted that "we Turks have massacred 1 million Armenians" (from an article by Can Pulak in the December 30, 1979, issue of Giinaydm, quoted in the Boston Armenian daily Baikar, January 16, 1980). The admission was made to the widow of Yilmaz Qopan, an official of the Turkish Embassy at Paris who was assassinated by an Armenian on December 22, 1979.

 

112- Vahakn N. Dadrian, "A Typology of Genocide," International Review of Modern Sociology, 5, 2 (Autumn 1975), pp. 201-12.

 

113- Memoirs of Count Bernstorff, trans, from the German by Eric Sutton (New York, 1936), pp. 176, 180, 374. For another reference to solving the Armenian question see the discussion on Nazim, pp. 328-29 above. The Metternich description of Talat is in Turkei 183, vol. 40, A36184, December 7, 1915, report. It should be noted that in a rare, confessional mood Talat during the war had revealed his premonition of a violent death in an interview with the Turkish feminist writer Halide Edib by saying, "I am ready to die for what I have done, and I know that I shall die for it" (Memoirs of Halide Edib, p. 387). For a similar utterance of guilt see n. 20. Talat was indeed assassinated on March 15, 1921, in Berlin where he was living incognito and under the fictitious name Mehmed Sai. Tehlirian, the Armenian student charged with the murder, was on June 3, 1921, acquitted by a Berlin-Moabit District Court jury, which, following a one-hour deliberation, found Tehlirian not guilty on grounds of temporary insanity as provided by Article 51 of the German Penal Code. For details of the trial see note 29. Finally, it is most significant that, while serving as German Ambassador to the United States (1908-1917), Bernstorff categorically denied the massacres when they had already run their course, describing them as "the alleged atrocities" and "pure invention" (September 28, 1915, issues of The Washington Post and The New York Times).

Edited April 8, 2003 by Fadi