Forging the past: Oxford University Press and the 'Armenian Question'

Source: Eurasia-Critic

Jeremy SALT

January, 2010



Screenshot from AGBU Photo Archive

In 2005 Oxford University Press published Donald Bloxham's The Great Game of Genocide. Imperialism, Nationalism and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians. The first hardback edition was followed by a paperback version in 2007. The book is more of a prosecutor's brief than a balanced study of the fate of the Ottoman Armenians during the First World War, but forgery and not balance is the point of this article.

The book includes nine photographs printed on glossy paper. Eight of the photographs are credited. One is not. It shows a man in an unbuttoned jacket and tie standing in front of a circle of ragged children and one apparent adult with something in his hand. The caption reads: 'A Turkish official taunting starving Armenians with bread'.

Even a cursory glance is enough to show there is something wrong with this photo. One side of the man's jacket is darker than the other. A ragged line clearly runs between the two halves. The wall in the background abruptly disappears into a blank white space behind the standing man. A child lying on the ground is raising an emaciated arm. If stretched out to its full length it would fall below his knees. His scarcely visible other hand and wrist seem quite plump by comparison. The little boy sitting to the right of the standing man seems to be clutching something in his hand but it is impossible to tell what it might be.

Suspicions aroused, the photograph is taken to a photographic analyst in Ankara. He is not told what the subject matter of the photograph is supposed to be. He subjects the photo to a 2400-fold pixel magnification. The pixels come up like little crosses. It takes him ten minutes to conclude that this is not a 'photograph' at all but a photographic soup, composed of bits and pieces taken from other photographs.

The technical giveaway is the pixels. Were the photograph genuine they would have to be homogeneous but they are not. They are leaning in various different directions. Otherwise the analyst concludes that the man's right arm does not belong to the body. It has come from somewhere else. His right leg seems to have disappeared altogether. The boy sitting on the ground on the man's right is not clutching anything at all. The forger simply did not take enough care when cutting the paper around the fingers in the photograph from which his figure was taken.

The man in the caption obviously cannot be a 'Turkish official' as there was no Turkey at the time the photo was apparently taken (i.e. during or shortly after the First World War). A similar reference to 'Turkish soldiers' appears in the caption of one of the other photographs.

Having finally been told what the photograph of the standing man is supposed to be, the analyst points out the obvious, that no Ottoman memur or civil servant would be dressed in an unbuttoned jacket over a shirt with a collar and tie. He would be wearing a collarless shirt buttoned up to the neck. Almost certainly (definitely for a photograph) he would have a fez on his head, and it is hardly likely that an Ottoman memur would pose for such a photograph anyway.

Furthermore, given the cumbersome equipment photographers had to carry around with them early in the 20th century, even if the photographer arrived on the scene just as this 'Turkish official' was tormenting starving children with a piece of bread he could not have taken the photograph unless the standing man and the starving children agreed to hold their poses or to reenact the tableau when he was ready.

Oxford University Press had already been informed (by the writer of this article) that the 'photograph' was a forgery when Servet Hassan, the General Coordinator of the Federation of Turkish Associations in the UK followed up with a complaint in October. Responding to her protest, in an e-mail sent on October 19, Christopher Wheeler, OUP's history publisher, conceded that that the 'photograph' was a forgery. 'Existing stock' of the book had been destroyed but the 'photograph' had been retained in a new printing with the following caption:

'This photograph purports to be an Ottoman [sic.] official taunting starving Armenians with bread. It is a fake, combining elements of two (or more) separate photographs: a demonstration were one needed of the propaganda stakes on both sides of the genocide issue with evidence of all sorts manipulated for latterday political purposes. The photograph was also included when the book was first published but then was believed to be genuine. It had previously been used in Gérard Chaliand and Yves Ternon's Le Genocide des Arméniens (1980), which shows that prior use is no substitute for rigorous investigation of a picture's provenance - and in the absence of clear provenance, for a minutely detailed examination of the picture itself. It is a cautionary tale for historians, many of whom are better trained in testing and using written sources than in evaluating photographic evidence. The publishers and author are grateful to have had the forgery drawn to their attention'.

In a follow-up letter written on November Mr Wheeler, describing the forgery as a 'composite photograph', said OUP regarded republication of the 'photograph' with a fresh caption as 'a more effective rejoinder to the forger than silently dropping his or her photograph from the book'. Although the unknown provenance of the 'photograph' could have created suspicions, 'it is by no means uncommon for photographs from this period to lack one. And while the forgery is no masterpiece, without magnification it does not deceive the naked eye. These are not excuses for having been 'taken in' but they are mitigation'. The letter ends with a reference to forgeries going back to the Donation of Constantine and the need for historians and publishers to be vigilant. There is no mention of what could and should be done about copies of the book already sold, particularly those on the shelves of libraries around the world.

The caption in the new printing slides over all the important issues. Of course, there is propaganda on 'both sides', but there is nothing on the Turkish 'side' (as far as this writer is aware) to compare with the textual and photographic forgeries manufactured on the Armenian 'side'. It is very difficult to take at face value the statement that when the book was first published the photograph 'was believed to be genuine'. Nine photographs were published. Eight were properly sourced and one was not sourced at all, not even to the Chaliand and Ternon book. This suggests that someone must have had doubts about the authenticity of this photograph (which until 2008 at least was displayed prominently in the Museum of the Armenian Genocide in Yerevan. It can also be found online in the US Library of Congress - again without a source). Over and above all of this, it does not take a 'minutely detailed examination' or magnification to see that this 'photograph' is most probably and almost certainly a fake. OUP is usually meticulous in its sourcing. In his message to Servet Hassan on October 19 Mr Wheeler admits that there was no 'clear provenance' for the photograph. This implies that someone must have had misgivings. So why did the book's editors allow this fake to go to press?

Forgeries have been part of the 'Armenian question' since the 1920s, produced with the intention of proving what could not otherwise be proved. The most notorious of them is the Andonian papers, a collection of 'telegrams' and other 'documents' purporting to show that the CUP government (and especially Talat Paşa) deliberately set out to exterminate the Armenians. These were shown to be forgeries more than 20 years ago but still surface from time to time, most notably in the writings of the journalist Robert Fisk.

Another 'document', appearing during the British occupation of Istanbul, is the 'ten point plan', supposedly drawn up by the CUP government sometime late in 1914 or early in 1915, according to which all male Armenians under 50 were to be exterminated, with girls and women converted to Islam.

The 'plan' was handed to the British by an Ottoman functionary. Then looking for evidence against the prisoners they were holding in Malta, the British did not make use of it. Taner Akcam, a Turk who has adopted the Armenian version of history in all its essential details, utilises the plan in the text of his own tendentious book 1, observing only in a footnote that the British were 'skeptical' of its authenticity. Bloxham himself has described the 'plan' as 'dubious at best and probably a fake'. 2 In fact, the 'plan' certainly is a fake.

In short, no serious historian could possibly take this plan as gospel truth, but this is exactly what Ben Kiernan, an Australian who is now Professor of Genocide Studies at Yale University, does in his recent publication Blood and Soil. A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur (Yale University Press, 2007). The 'plan' is the platform for his brief examination of the fate of the Ottoman Armenians and the accusations he makes that the Ottoman government drew up a plan to exterminate them.

What is extraordinary here is that it would have taken no more than a cursory check to establish that this 'plan' is suspect at least, is almost certainly a fake and is worthy of a footnote at most. Did no one at Yale University Press think of asking Ben Kiernan to come up with a better source than his only source for this accusation, Vahakn Dadrian, a committed Armenian national historian and propagandist for the Armenian cause?

It is often said that there are none so blind as those who will not see. Everyone knows what happened to the Armenians, everyone has the right to say whatever they want except the Turks. They are kept out of this debate altogether. Barack Obama, members of the US Congress, members of European parliaments and parliaments elsewhere, even of the South Australian parliament, which recently passed a genocide resolution, apparently know more of Turkish and Ottoman history than the Turks do. There could hardly be a clearer example of neo-Orientalism. It would be far too much to say that the members of these parliaments know little of late Ottoman history. It would only be accurate to say that they know next to nothing of Ottoman history apart from what they have been spoon-fed by lobbyists or have read in books such as those written by Ben Kiernan, Taner Akçam or Donald Bloxham. Very few books or articles are allowed into the western cultural mainstream as a counter-narrative. The Armenian question as it has been written into the western narrative has long since passed from history into theology. It has been sacralized and history, in this instance the need to deconstruct this issue on the basis of all the known 'facts' and not just some of them, suffers as a result. This, it seems, is how forgeries such as those described in this article get into print.

1 Taner Akcam A Shameful Act. The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility (London: Constable and Robinson, 2007).

2 History Today, July 2005, issue 7, p. 68, Bloxham's reply to a letter to the editor following the publication of his article 'Rethinking the Armenian Genocide' in the June, 2005, issue. I wish to thank Erman Şahin for drawing this letter to my attention.

*Prof Jeremy Salt teaches in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University Ankara. He is the author of Imperialism, Evangelism and the Ottoman Armenians 1878-1896 (London: Frank Cass, 1993) and The Unmaking of the Middle East. A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008).

OtherLinks: Armenian Resource Center-Yet Another Armenian Forgery

Other Armenian Genocide Photo Fakery
http://angelsof1915.blogspot.com/2009/04/fake-illustrations-used-in-armenian.html

Biggest Photo Archive of Armenian Genocide Lie in the World

Photo Archive 4 :

Photo Archive 1-2 Link :


Photo Archive 3 Link:

Halacoglu Is Responding to Taner Akcam

TARAF 29th of May,2008
[Click for Turkish]

Yusuf Halacoglu Responding

Dikran M. KHALIGIAN from Armenian National Committee indicated in a documentary filmed in 2003 that the archives of Dashnak Sutyun were being prepared to be opened and that Dashnak Sutyun was in the process of presenting the archives to 3rd parties. He also indicated that the access to the archives was limited up until that time and permits were required to have access to them. He explained the reason for this limited access by indicating that the documents were very old and valuable and that some precautions had to be taken to preserve them before they were public use.


‘I am sending this response in relation to the accusations and claims directed against me as well as the questions asked in the article printed in Taraf newspaper on 25.05.2008 under the name of ‘Forget about the Armenian Archives, look at your own Ottoman Archives’. I would like the response to be printed with the same page and font formats if possible.’

I have been receiving positive feedback from different regions about my offer of giving USD 20 million to Armenians in return for access to their archives. This offer was published in Hürriyet newspaper on 20th of May, 2008 as a headline news. If we are to investigate events of 1915 on a proper basis, then Dashnak and Armenia archives as well as other Armenian archives in Jerusalem should be opened and investigated. Third party archives are as important as these aforementioned archives with regards to this matter though. Up until now we have seen pressure only on Ottoman Archives to be opened but not on any other archives. Then why has noone spoken of also opening Armenian archives as they represent the other side of the story? In a historical investigation, anyone very well knows that all related documents should be checked and analyzed in order to investigate objectively all sides of the story. At this stage, Ms. Hür questions what use Dashnak archives are to me. Whatever you are hoping to find from Ottoman archives yourself is applicable to the same extent to Dashnak archives, I am hopeful that I can reach very valuable information in these archives and Dashnak papers and documents in Russian archives presently support my position. Meanwhile, Ms. Hür is talking about the inappropriateness of my offer. I had difficulty in understanding why my offer was inappropriate. Why is offering financial support for the classification of these archives inappropriate? I think she has her own reasons for not supporting the idea of opening of these archives. I do not know about that, however if we are to contact with our Armenian colleagues and other Armenians on the subject matter, it is vital for all archives to be opened without hesitation to the service of all researchers from all around the world. Anyone should be able to confront history without fear. On the other hand, despite the disclaimer of Diaspora indicating that the archives in Boston are open to everyone, many people and foremost Ara Sarafyan indicate that the archives are open only for limited use by specific people.

Also in a documentary filmed by TRT in 2003, consulted by Prof. Dr. Kemal Çiçek from our institution, Dikran M. KHALIGIAN himself from Armenian National Committee indicated that the archives of Dashnak Sutyun were being prepared to be opened and that Dashnak Sutyun was in the process of presenting the archives to 3rd parties. He also indicated that the access to the archives was limited up until that time and permits were required to have access to them. He explained the reason for this limited access by indicating that the documents were very old and valuable and that some precautions had to be taken to preserve them before they were public use. So he gave the signal of the archives to be opened in a very short period of time. In the same documentary Mr. KHALIGIAN also indicated that there was need of a considerable amount of financial support for the classification of the archives. As you can see from this, noone other than Armenians or a few people supporting their thesis could make any research on the archives. You can not conclude that the archives are open by just the investigation and analysis of five researchers on the archives. Also in order for us to talk about archives being open for public use, it means that all papers and documents of the archives should be open. However it was announced that only four volumes of these archives were open. Let alone these volumes not having been presented to the whole science world, we do not know whether they include selective documentation. Despite all this, Ms. Hür supports Taner Akçam passionately by claiming that Ottoman Archives are closed or selectively presented and meanwhile she can not help but admit that she also benefited from Ottoman archives.

The claim of the Ottoman archives being sorted out and selectively presented creates a funny and ridiculous position today. If so, why did not the British claim such a thing during occupation of İstanbul, especially in a time when they were desperately after finding evidence to trial Malta deportees? Can these claims be just second guesses or predictions? We should not rule out other reasons if we consider that the newspapers back then had got financial support from various countries. Also Ottoman correspondence language and bureaucracy should be very well known in order to be able to understand whether Ottoman archives were sorted out . To know these things very well requires a considerable amount of time being devoted for investigation of Ottoman archives. People devoting such time to investigate Ottoman archives very well know that letters sent from central administration had been sent to many places and even if the ones kept by the central administration had been destroyed, this case is not applicable to the ones kept by local authorities. As a matter of fact, Prof. Dr. Selim Deringil indicated in a dialogue with Mr. Safa Kaplan which was printed in Hürriyet newspaper on 25th of April, 2005 that the Ottoman archives could not have been possibly sorted out. Same thing was indicated by Prof. Dr. Şükrü Hanioğlu. It is also quite a show of prejudice to indicate that it is almost impossible to investigate ATASE Archive. I suggest she makes a formal application to request such investigation.

Ms. Hür is claiming that even after the Ottoman archives were sorted out(!), what is left in the archives are alone enough proof for the so called genocide by basing her claims on Taner Akçam’s book called ‘Armenian Issue is Resolved’. However when the documents used in the book are compared with the originals of those documents, it will be clearly seen that the claims of Mr. Akçam are baseless. The two examples that I will be giving are perfect proof of how these documents had been distorted. The first example is related to a telegraph registered under DH. ŞFR. # 55/290 and where Mr. Akçam took the name of his book from. Mr. Akçam is trying to condition the reader that all Armenians had been killed by selectively referring to a sentence in the telegraph. The sentence in the telegraph is as follows: ‘The Armenian issue in the eastern provinces has been resolved’ (p. 182). However Mr. Akçam is just taking some part of the sentence and he is stating that ‘Armenian issue is resolved’. The reason why he is cherry picking some part of the sentence is because he is trying to prove that all Armenians in the country at the time had been attacked and had been victims of a genocide. Also he did not make any reference to other parts of the telegraph in his book where indeed the real striking sentences were included and he did not mention in his book why this telegraph had been written in the first place. When we investigate the telegraph with the dignity of a scholar, we see that some Armenians around Ankara were raped by some officers in charge of the relocation, gendarme or by public and rapers were also committing theft to satisfy their lower selves. The telegraph continues to indicate the sorrow the Ottoman Ministry was feeling because of these incidents. This means that let alone murdering or massacring Armenians, Ottoman authorities were very upset because of these incidents and orders were issued indicating that necessary precautions should be taken to prevent these types of incidents in the future. As a matter of fact, 146 people who were said to get involved in these incidents were instigated to military court.

The second example is the reference made to the key telegraph dated 29th of June, 1331 (12th of July, 1915 according to gregorian calender) which was sent by Talat Pasha to the province of Diyarbakır (DH., ŞFR. Nr.54/406). The specific reference was made to the 185th page of the telegraph, where the issue in relation to Diyarbakır and Dr. Reşid was mentioned. Mr. Akçam here again fails to include the most important parts of the telegraph. He interpretes some sentences on the aforementioned page of the telegraph as some Armenians in the province as well as some other Christians from differing sects were being murdered lately and that some people sent from Diyarbakır butchered a total of 700 Christians, Armenians and other including reverends, in the city of Mardin by taking them out of the city. However he fails to include the said sentences in full in his book where he leaves certain parts out which results in misinterpretation of the meanings of the sentences. I included the full version of these sentences in my book called ‘Facts on the Relocation of Armenians’ ( I also included a copy of the telegraph in question at the end of my book). Mr. Akçam, when making reference to the said sentences in Ottoman Turkish on page 185 of the telegraph, fails to include two words (‘ez-cümle ahiren’ / ‘according to this sentence afterwards’) that are indeed on the original sentence, thereby changing the meaning of the sentences totally. He interprets that people sent from Diyarbakır were sent to butcher Armenians and other Christians, however when you continue to read the rest of the sentences you see that the people sent from Diyarbakır were sent to investigate the alleged murders of Armenians and other Christians in the province. Mr. Akçam also misspells the word ‘marhasa’ which means Armenian reverend in Ottoman Turkish by writing it as ‘murahhas’ which means officer or member in Ottoman Turkish. He does this with the intention of trying to get some government officers involved in the matter indeed when the matter did not have anything to do with government officers. In summary, people sent from Diyarbakır were sent to investigate the allegations by consulting Armenian reverends, Armenian public and other Christians in the city. A thorough critique of the book is being prepared by our institution.

Dikran M. KHALIGIAN from Armenian National Committee indicated in a documentary filmed in 2003 that the archives of Dashnak Sutyun were being prepared to be opened and that Dashnak Sutyun was in the process of presenting the archives to 3rd parties. He also indicated that the access to the archives was limited up until that time and permits were required to have access to them. He explained the reason for this limited access by indicating that the documents were very old and valuable and that some precautions had to be taken to preserve them before they were public use.

‘I am sending this response in relation to the accusations and claims directed against me as well as the questions asked in the article printed in Taraf newspaper on 25.05.2008 under the name of ‘Forget about the Armenian Archives, look at your own Ottoman Archives’. I would like the response to be printed with the same page and font formats if possible.’

I have been receiving positive feedback from different regions about my offer of giving USD 20 million to Armenians in return for access to their archives. This offer was published in Hürriyet newspaper on 20th of May, 2008 as a headline news. If we are to investigate events of 1915 on a proper basis, then Dashnak and Armenia archives as well as other Armenian archives in Jerusalem should be opened and investigated. Third party archives are as important as these aforementioned archives with regards to this matter though. Up until now we have seen pressure only on Ottoman Archives to be opened but not on any other archives. Then why has noone spoken of also opening Armenian archives as they represent the other side of the story? In a historical investigation, anyone very well knows that all related documents should be checked and analyzed in order to investigate objectively all sides of the story. At this stage, Ms. Hür questions what use Dashnak archives are to me. Whatever you are hoping to find from Ottoman archives yourself is applicable to the same extent to Dashnak archives, I am hopeful that I can reach very valuable information in these archives and Dashnak papers and documents in Russian archives presently support my position. Meanwhile, Ms. Hür is talking about the inappropriateness of my offer. I had difficulty in understanding why my offer was inappropriate. Why is offering financial support for the classification of these archives inappropriate? I think she has her own reasons for not supporting the idea of opening of these archives. I do not know about that, however if we are to contact with our Armenian colleagues and other Armenians on the subject matter, it is vital for all archives to be opened without hesitation to the service of all researchers from all around the world. Anyone should be able to confront history without fear. On the other hand, despite the disclaimer of Diaspora indicating that the archives in Boston are open to everyone, many people and foremost Ara Sarafyan indicate that the archives are open only for limited use by specific people.

Also in a documentary filmed by TRT in 2003, consulted by Prof. Dr. Kemal Çiçek from our institution, Dikran M. KHALIGIAN himself from Armenian National Committee indicated that the archives of Dashnak Sutyun were being prepared to be opened and that Dashnak Sutyun was in the process of presenting the archives to 3rd parties. He also indicated that the access to the archives was limited up until that time and permits were required to have access to them. He explained the reason for this limited access by indicating that the documents were very old and valuable and that some precautions had to be taken to preserve them before they were public use. So he gave the signal of the archives to be opened in a very short period of time. In the same documentary Mr. KHALIGIAN also indicated that there was need of a considerable amount of financial support for the classification of the archives. As you can see from this, noone other than Armenians or a few people supporting their thesis could make any research on the archives. You can not conclude that the archives are open by just the investigation and analysis of five researchers on the archives. Also in order for us to talk about archives being open for public use, it means that all papers and documents of the archives should be open. However it was announced that only four volumes of these archives were open. Let alone these volumes not having been presented to the whole science world, we do not know whether they include selective documentation. Despite all this, Ms. Hür supports Taner Akçam passionately by claiming that Ottoman Archives are closed or selectively presented and meanwhile she can not help but admit that she also benefited from Ottoman archives.

The claim of the Ottoman archives being sorted out and selectively presented creates a funny and ridiculous position today. If so, why did not the British claim such a thing during occupation of İstanbul, especially in a time when they were desperately after finding evidence to trial Malta deportees? Can these claims be just second guesses or predictions? We should not rule out other reasons if we consider that the newspapers back then had got financial support from various countries. Also Ottoman correspondence language and bureaucracy should be very well known in order to be able to understand whether Ottoman archives were sorted out . To know these things very well requires a considerable amount of time being devoted for investigation of Ottoman archives. People devoting such time to investigate Ottoman archives very well know that letters sent from central administration had been sent to many places and even if the ones kept by the central administration had been destroyed, this case is not applicable to the ones kept by local authorities. As a matter of fact, Prof. Dr. Selim Deringil indicated in a dialogue with Mr. Safa Kaplan which was printed in Hürriyet newspaper on 25th of April, 2005 that the Ottoman archives could not have been possibly sorted out. Same thing was indicated by Prof. Dr. Şükrü Hanioğlu. It is also quite a show of prejudice to indicate that it is almost impossible to investigate ATASE Archive. I suggest she makes a formal application to request such investigation.

Ms. Hür is claiming that even after the Ottoman archives were sorted out(!), what is left in the archives are alone enough proof for the so called genocide by basing her claims on Taner Akçam’s book called ‘Armenian Issue is Resolved’. However when the documents used in the book are compared with the originals of those documents, it will be clearly seen that the claims of Mr. Akçam are baseless. The two examples that I will be giving are perfect proof of how these documents had been distorted. The first example is related to a telegraph registered under DH. ŞFR. # 55/290 and where Mr. Akçam took the name of his book from. Mr. Akçam is trying to condition the reader that all Armenians had been killed by selectively referring to a sentence in the telegraph. The sentence in the telegraph is as follows: ‘The Armenian issue in the eastern provinces has been resolved’ (p. 182). However Mr. Akçam is just taking some part of the sentence and he is stating that ‘Armenian issue is resolved’. The reason why he is cherry picking some part of the sentence is because he is trying to prove that all Armenians in the country at the time had been attacked and had been victims of a genocide. Also he did not make any reference to other parts of the telegraph in his book where indeed the real striking sentences were included and he did not mention in his book why this telegraph had been written in the first place. When we investigate the telegraph with the dignity of a scholar, we see that some Armenians around Ankara were raped by some officers in charge of the relocation, gendarme or by public and rapers were also committing theft to satisfy their lower selves. The telegraph continues to indicate the sorrow the Ottoman Ministry was feeling because of these incidents. This means that let alone murdering or massacring Armenians, Ottoman authorities were very upset because of these incidents and orders were issued indicating that necessary precautions should be taken to prevent these types of incidents in the future. As a matter of fact, 146 people who were said to get involved in these incidents were instigated to martial court.

The second example is the reference made to the key telegraph dated 29th of June, 1331 (12th of July, 1915 according to gregorian calender) which was sent by Talat Pasha to the province of Diyarbakır (DH., ŞFR. Nr.54/406). The specific reference was made to the 185th page of the telegraph, where the issue in relation to Diyarbakır and Dr. Reşid was mentioned. Mr. Akçam here again fails to include the most important parts of the telegraph. He interpretes some sentences on the aforementioned page of the telegraph as some Armenians in the province as well as some other Christians from differing sects were being murdered lately and that some people sent from Diyarbakır butchered a total of 700 Christians, Armenians and other including reverends, in the city of Mardin by taking them out of the city. However he fails to include the said sentences in full in his book where he leaves certain parts out which results in misinterpretation of the meanings of the sentences. I included the full version of these sentences in my book called ‘Facts on the Relocation of Armenians’ ( I also included a copy of the telegraph in question at the end of my book). Mr. Akçam, when making reference to the said sentences in Ottoman Turkish on page 185 of the telegraph, fails to include two words (‘ez-cümle ahiren’ / ‘according to this sentence afterwards’) that are indeed on the original sentence, thereby changing the meaning of the sentences totally. He interprets that people sent from Diyarbakır were sent to butcher Armenians and other Christians, however when you continue to read the rest of the sentences you see that the people sent from Diyarbakır were sent to investigate the alleged murders of Armenians and other Christians in the province. Mr. Akçam also misspells the word ‘marhasa’ which means Armenian reverend in Ottoman Turkish by writing it as ‘murahhas’ which means officer or member in Ottoman Turkish. He does this with the intention of trying to get some government officers involved in the matter indeed when the matter did not have anything to do with government officers. In summary, people sent from Diyarbakır were sent to investigate the allegations by consulting Armenian reverends, Armenian public and other Christians in the city. A thorough critique of the book is being prepared by our institution.

Meanwhile, Andonian papers that were qouted as highly reliable evidences, were proven to be fake by the book called ‘The Real Story Behind the Telegraphs that were Attributed to Talat Pasha by Armenians’ written by Şinasi Orel and Süreyya Yüce (Ermenilerce Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların Gerçek Yüzü – Ankara 1976). Andonian family immigrated to USA in 1923. You can find their ‘immigration document’ in Appendix 1. You can also find two examples of the telegraphs that are supposed to have been written by Talat Pasha in Appendix 2. However it can easily be understood with even simple eyes that these telegraphs have nothing to do with Ottoman telegraphs, that they are full of errors and that they had been written post events.

I would also like to comment on some of the criticisms of Taner Akçam in relation to some of the issues that were included in my book called ‘Facts on the Relocation of Armenians’. First of all, I published a book to respond to questions and criticims of Taner Akçam. If Ms. Hür reads my book called ‘From Exile to Genocide: A Turk examines the Armenian claims against his country’ (Babıali Kültür Publishing, İstanbul, 5th edition, February 2008, 1st edition by February 2006), she will see clearly that all points and questions of Taner Akçam were answered by related documents. As a matter of fact, it was included in the book that the villains attacking the Armenian convoys being transferred to Syria in 1915, killing people, seizuring their possessions and / or kidnapping women from the convoys were sent to martial court for trial by the order given by Talat Pasha’s himself. 67 of the judged were sentenced to death, 68 were punished by forced labor and / or confined to fortresses and 524 were sentenced to imprisonment for periods between 2 to 5 years with the rulings of the martial court given on 19th of Feb, 12th of March and 22nd of May, 1916. The death sentences were executed and the information and documents related to these were already included in the book. The book also includes a list of how many people from which cities were instigated to courts. To confirm all these, a page of the ruling of the martial court is included in Appendix 3. In this document, it is seen that let alone for killing Armenians, criminals had been sentenced to death for even seizuring Armenians’ possessions. I believe these documents are perfect answers to ‘Akçam is questioning, Halaçoğlu is remaining silent’. Indeed, we gave all necessary answers long before but I guess they did not have the time to read my book for that. The books includes information as to the sources sent from Eskişehir in relation to the ‘Abandoned Property Commissions’ of ‘200,000 kuruş’ and ‘600,000 kuruş’. It should be assessed cautiously why these people who considered the application of these abandoned property commissions not as a government in war trying to preserve the lives of its citizens at all costs but as the government taking possession of Armenian goods and property, were at the same totally ignoring the ‘68 million kuruş’ approved and sent from government budget to Ministry of Internal Affairs for the proper relocation and settlement of Armenians and ’13,467,400 kuruş’ which was sent to Ministry of Health for the same reasons. The cash sent to provinces during the same period totalled ‘3,166,900’. ‘800,000 kuruş’ out of this was from abandoned property commissions. Whom was this amount sent for? This question is answered by the report sent by the then Aleppo consul of US, J.B. Jackson on 8th of Feb, 1916 to Ambassador Henry Morgenthau stating that 500,000 Armenian immigrants had arrived at Aleppo and 486,000 out of this were provided ncecssary care and aid (a photocopy of the report is included in the book). Jackson also included the cities and villages where the immigrant Armenians had been located in his report. The book also includes documents and their numbers which pertain to permits given by Talat Pasha to foreign charities in relation to the aids to be provided to Armenians in need. They also ignore the fact that Ottoman government allocated daily wages to Armenian migrants of ‘3 kuruş’ for the adults and ’60 para’ for the children, just for the sake of trying to prove a so-called genocide. We see that this allocation was also mentioned in the letter sent to Ambassador Morgenthau by Dr. W. M. Post working in an American hospital in Konya, as ‘1 kuruş’ to adults and ’20 para’ to children.

Meanwhile people who are making such claims, first and foremost Ms. Hür, should be well aware of the meaning of the word ‘genocide’. They should be well aware that seizure of Armenian possessions or exiling Armenians do not constitute a genocide. They should be well aware that by claiming that Ottoman archives had been sorted out or cherry picked, they can not prove a genocide. And of course they should also be well aware that the mere fact of some Armenians losing their lives do not constitute a genocide. Can the documents in the ‘League of Nations’ archives in Geneva proving that 1,200,000 Armenians were living after WW1 (the ones living under different identities are excluded) or the letter sent by Boghos Nubar Pasha, the chairman of Armenian National Delegation, to French Minister of External Affairs stating that they fought alongside with Entente Powers and that they lost many Ottoman Armenian soldiers fighting in French, English and Russian armies be ignored? How are the riots and uprisings of Armenians back then that were also mentioned in French and Russian archives going to be explained? And unfortunately it should also be assessed carefully why these ‘informal’ historians are not responding positively to the request of us, we the ‘formal’ historians, whereby we request to be able to openly discuss the issues with all historians whether Turkish or not or we request to be able to make researches together. But most importantly, they need to be able to answer our questions as listed below:

1. Had Armenians rioted before and after WW1?
2. Had Armenians cooperated with western powers military and administrative wise?
3. Had they fought against Ottomans in Russian, English and French armies?
4. Do you know the activities of Nazarbekov and Andranik in 1914 & 1915?
5. How many Muslim civilians had been massacred by Armenian comittees until the period of ‘Relocation’ which is up to the date of 27th of May, 1915?
6. Who surrendered Van to Russians and who burnt down and destroyed the city?
7. How many Armenians had survived WW1?
8. How many Armenian riots and uprisings had taken place between November 1914 and May 1915 when Ottoman empire had been fighting in 4 different battles?
9. Which countries had provided arms to Armenian Committees?
10. Do you know anything about the Armenians who had sacrificed their lives for France?
11. What are the reasons for Ottoman administration and people to feel hatred and hositility against Armenians?



(29th of May,2008)