The Perv. By Turkish...

[Guest Fadi]

The Conclusion and postscript of Dadrian essay. The Perversion by Turkish sources of Russian General Mayewskis Report on the Turko-Armenian Conflict. Published in the Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, vol. 5, 1990-1991, pp.139-152, there is an article on this same subject on Zoryan Institute web-site here.

 

Since I won't post the rest of the essay, here are the subtitles.

 

The Origin of the Report

 

Discrepancies in Mayewski's Attitude

 

The Doctored Turkish Source of the French Version

 

Hartmann's Findings and Conclusion

 

The Political Uses and Misuses of Mayewski's Report

 

Conclusion

 

Postscript

 

 

 

pp. 146-148

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

It is evident that Mayewski's report was repubished under the auspices, if not the direct supervision, of World War I military in­telligence chief Seyfi. It is not clear, however, whether the 1915 and 1916 editions are identical in content, and whether these two editions together textually match the first Turkish translation which was published in 1912. Three major conclusions emerge from this inquiry. First, the Turkish and French translations distort and possibly falsify Mayewski's report, and are aimed at blaming the Armenians, the victims of the 1894-1896 massacres, by shifting attention to and specially vilifying the Armenian revolutionaries. Second, the distribu­tion of this tract, just before the onset of World War I massacres, to high-ranking Ottoman officers stationed in the regions of Van and Bitlis indicates sinister intentions disguised under the innocuous claim of wanting to help them in their "orientation." Third, the report has been used to provide a context within which to present the World War I Armenian experience as the outcome of outbreaks of reprisals similar to those the Armenians provoked in the past. This conclusion is supported by another German Orientalist, namely, Professor D. Julius Richter. In a letter obtained by French Intelligence, Richter declares that the wartime republication and distribution "in large numbers" of General Mayewski's report, maligning the Armenian revolutionaries, had a definite purpose. That purpose was to portray the Hamidian massacres as mere reprisals for the excesses of these revolutionaries; the Armenians are thus depicted as victims of their own provocations. Added Richter, "In order to conceal this hidden motivation, the Ger­man authorities, who undertook the production of the material, did not indicate the place and name of the publisher."21 In the absence of the complete original text of Mayewski's report in Russian, it is difficult to evaluate the extent of the misportrayal of its contents against the true background of his actual data, observations, and thoughts.

 

 

 

postscript

 

 

In light of the indications above that Major Mehmed Sadýk for a number of reasons is not a reliable translator, serious doubts may be raised about the accuracy of another work which he translated and which still is a principal source of anti-Armenian Turkish propaganda seeking to whitewash the wartime massacres. It concerns the personal accounts of another Russian officer, Lieutenant Colonel Twerdo-Khlebof, Commander of the Second Artillery Regiment of Fortress Erzerum, which Sadýk translated into Turkish.

 

These memoirs of the Russian officer depict the atrocities attrib­uted to the Armenian military units which set out to defend the area surrounding Erzurum, following the collapse of the front which was precipitated by the 1917 Russian revolution. Presented in the form of a chronological account, the memoirs essentially cover the period starting with December 1917 when the Russian revolution caused the collapse and dissolution of the Russian army occupying eastern Turkey, and ending with March 12, 1918, when Vahib Paþa's Army retook Erzurum. Twerdo-Khlebof reportedly wrote his account while in Turkish captivity at Vehib's headquarters.

 

The Turkish translation was first published in Erzurum in 1918 under the title Short History (Tarihçe). It was subsequently incorpo­rated in (1) Kazým Karabekir's Erzincan ve Erzurumun Kurtuluþu (The Liberation of Erzincan and Erzurum), (2) A. Hulki Saral Paþa's Ermeni Meselesi (The Armenian Question), (3) Talat Paþanýn Hatýra­larý (The Memoirs of Talat Paþa), and a host of other books, brochures, and articles focusing on Armenian reprisal acts against Turks in the 1917-18 period.

 

According to a Turkish source, the Russian original is deposited in the Archive of the Department of the History of the War, Section World War I 123, drawer 5, File 5-A-1/16, D.I. Harp Tarihi Dairesi Arþivi, Dünya Harbi Dolabý 123, Göz 5, Dosya 5-A-1/16, D.l).22 The relationship of the present inquiry to the translation of this second work has serious implications for the reliability of Turkish methods of documentation aimed at self-exculpation. Moreover, Lieutenant Colonel Twerdo-Khlebof's report, written in longhand, must be eval­uated against the backdrop of certain constraints resulting from the condition of his captivity.

 

The pattern of omission and commission in Mehmed Sadik's method of translation, as established through this study, tends to cast aspersions upon the value of other reports of similar nature. This ascertion of skepticism turns into outright suspicion when one takes into account Sadik's association with the Turkish Intelligence Office, implicated in the organization of the wartime Armenian massacres. By the same token, one cannot discount a more or less similar association for Lieutenant Colonel Twerdo-Khlebof. Indeed, Armenian sources do indicate the probability of such an association in a context involv­ing ethnic conspiracy and the lure of women.23

 

It is most significant that an important segment of the historio­graphy is built around a single translator's twin works with a view of exonerating massacres against the Armenians. Mayewski and Twerdo-Khlebof are household names in many of the Turkish language works billed as ingredients of the Turkish viewpoint in which the roles of victim and perpetrator are more or less reversed with considerable abandon. No Turkish author has since emerged to probe the reliability of Mehmed Sadik's translations in order to assess the documentary value of the existing versions. A single author, a military man with ties to Turkish Intelligence, remains the undisputed and unchallenged source of anti-Armenian allegations pervading an important part of Turkish historiography. No detached and reputable Western scholar should underestimate the significance and portents of this phenomenon for the overall analysis of the documentation of the Turko-Armenian conflict and the dimensions of its sanguinary results.

 

 

 

pp. 151-152

 

 

NOTES:

 

 

21. French Foreign Ministry Archives, Quai d'Orsay, Paris. Guerre, 888, II, Ar­ménie, p. 54, French Army chief of Staff Fifth Bureau to the Foreign Ministry. July 11, 1916, p. 54.

 

22. Kars ili ve Çevresinde Ermeni Mezalimi. 1918-1920 (The Armenian Atrocities in Kara Province and Its Environs, 1918-1920), K. M. Fahrettin, ed. (Ankara: Kardeþ, 1970), p. 7.

 

23. In an editorial note Twerdo-Khlebof is described not as a Russian officer but as one of Tatar origin with strong affinities for the Turks (Armenian Review 35 [Autumn 1982), 288). An Armenian Commander in charge of a volunteer regiment in his memoirs twice mentions this officer who "does not enjoy a good reputation. I have information about his contacts with Tatar Seyidof." The latter had come to Erzurum to spy and to foment anti-Armenian disturbances. The Armenian Commander mentioned above was irked that "despite the existence of 70 fortress cannons only a few times artillery fire was used. No wonder that the few shells thus spent fell on our soldiers for Colonel Khlebof was an Azerbaijani Tatar; being a friend of Seyidof, he directed the fire against the Armenian soldiers" (Sebuh, lm Husheren Vol. 2 [boston, MA: Hairenik. 1929], pp. 31, 68-69). The Aide de Camp of General Andranik has the following entry in his log: "The sympathy of this Colonel was entirely directed towards the Turks. He and his officers were billeted in Turkish houses where they used to ravish Turkish girls ,.. none of the cannons opened fire, despite repeated orders. With but few exceptions, the foreign officers and military were won over through bribery and TUrkish ladies" (Zöra-var Andraniki Kovkasean Chakati Patmakan Oragrut'iwne (The Historical Log of General Andranik's Caucasian Front), edited by his Aide de Camp [boston, MA: Baikar, 1924), pp. 90-91, 92-93). When trying to deny the mass extermination of the Armenians, the Ottoman Delegation cited the Twerdo-Khlebof report in order to rivet the attention of the Paris Peace Conference on the atrocities perpetrated by the Armenians against the Turks. In rebutting these allegations formulated in the Memorandum of the Turkish delegation, the Armenians portrayed Khlebof and his fellow military as officers who "were bribed by the Turks to whom they relayed secret information." The rebuttal further states that these officers were eventually rewarded for their services when the Turks united them with their families in Tbilisi (Tiflis) (Réponse au mémoire de la Sublime Porte en date du 12 Février 1919 [Constantinople, n.p., 1919], p. 12).