A Disputed Genocide: The Armenian Case (2): The Implementation of Genocide

Guenter Lewy, 2005. Publisher The University of Utah Press

The literature is voluminous on what Armenians call the first genocide of the twentieth century and what most Turks refer to as an instance of intercommunal warfare and a wartime relocation. Yet despite the great outpouring of writing, an acrimonious debate over what actually happened almost one hundred years ago continues unabated. The highly charged historical dispute burdens relations between Turkey and Armenia and increases tensions in a volatile region. It also crops up periodically in other parts of the world, where members of the Armenian diaspora push for recognition of the Armenian genocide by their respective parliaments and the Turkish government threatens retaliation. 

Vestnik Kavkaza publishes chapters from the book by Guenter Lewy "The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: a Disputed Genocide," revealing the essence of the issue.

Authors supporting the Armenian cause maintain that there exists abundant documentary evidence to prove that in 1915 the CUP and the Turkish government implemented plans for the total destruction of the Armenian community. The materials used to substantiate this charge include telegrams allegedly sent out by minister of the interior Talaat Pasha, ordering the extermination of the Armenians, and similar documents presented to the courts-martial of Young Turk officials held in 1919-20 by the Turkish government. The Special Organization, a covert special forces unit, is said to have been the primary instrument in the implementation of the plan of extermination.  

ARAM ANDONIAN'S The Memoirs Of Nairn Bey  

Aram Andonian was an Armenian, employed as a military censor at the time of mobilization in 1914, who was arrested and deported from Constantinople in April 1915. After a series of escapes and rearrests he reached Aleppo, where he managed to obtain a permit for a temporary residence. After the liberation of the city by British troops in October 1918, Andonian collected the testimonies of Armenian men, women, and children who had survived the deportations. As he relates the story, he also made contact at that time with a Turkish official by the name of Nairn Bey, who had been the chief secretary of the deportations committee of Aleppo. Nairn Bey handed over to Andonian his memoirs, which contained a large number of official documents, telegrams, and decrees that, he stated, had passed through his hands during his term of office. Andonian translated these memoirs into Armenian; and, after some delay, they were published in Armenian, French, and English editions. The Armenian version, which appeared in Boston in 

1921 under the title Medz Vodjiru (The Great Crime), is the most complete. 

The French and English editions, published in Paris and London in 1920, reveal substantial differences from the Armenian edition as well as from each other. Much of the material that is presented as the words of the Turkish official in the English edition is narrated by Andonian himself in the French edition, making it difficult to decide whether the text was written by Nairn Bey or by Andonian. Many passages in the French edition (168 pages long) are omitted in the English version, which consists of a mere 84 pages.1 

The French edition, Documents officiels concernant les massacres armeniens, contains fifty documents, including thirty-one alleged telegrams from Talaat Pasha. The English edition, The Memoirs of Nairn Bey: Turkish Official Documents Relating to the Deportations and Massacres of Armenians, contains the text of forty-eight documents, thirty of which are said to be Talaat Pasha telegrams. These documents, especially the telegrams of the wartime minister of the interior, undoubtedly are the most damning and incriminating evidence put forth by the Armenians. If accepted as authentic, they provide proof that Talaat Pasha gave explicit orders to kill all Turkish Armenians—men, women, and children. 

Several of the documents directly implicate the Committee of Union and Progress in the plan of extermination. A dispatch from the governing body of the CUP, dated March 25, 1915, states: "It is the duty of all of us to effect on the broadest lines the realisation of the noble project of wiping out the existence of the Armenians who have for centuries been constituting a barrier to the Empire's progress in civilization." A telegram of Talaat Pasha dated September 16, 1915, notes that the CUP has "decided to destroy completely all the Armenians living in Turkey. Those who oppose this order and decision cannot remain on the official staff of the Empire. An end must be put to their [the Armenians] existence, however criminal the measure taken may be, and no regard must be paid to either age or sex nor to conscientious scruples." The same odd tone of self-accusation and acknowledgment of criminality is sounded in another directive from the CUP of February 18, 1915: 

The Jemiet [CUP] has decided to save the fatherland from the ambitions of this cursed race, and to take on its own patriotic shoulders the stain which will blacken Ottoman history. 

The Jemiet, unable to forget all old scores and past bitterness, full of hope for the future, has decided to annihilate all Armenians living in Turkey, without leaving a single one alive, and it has given the Government a wide scope with regard to this.2 

The utter ruthlessness of Talaat Pasha is a recurring theme in the documents. An undated telegram by the interior minister to the authorities in Aleppo gives the order to "collect the children of the Armenians" and to "take them away on the pretext that they are to be looked after by the Deportations Committee, as not to arouse suspicion. Destroy them and report." On September 21, 1915, Talaat informs the government of Aleppo: "There is no need for an orphanage. It is not the time to give way to sentiment and feed the orphans, prolonging their lives. Send them away to the desert and inform us." In another undated telegram Talaat notes that by "continuing the deportation of the orphans to their destinations during the intense cold, we are ensuring their eternal rest."3 

The demonization of Talaat Pasha in Andonian's work, it should be noted in passing, represents an important change from the way in which many Armenians regarded Talaat's character before the events of 1915. For example, on December 20, 1913, British embassy official Louis Mallet reported to London that the Armenians had confidence in Talaat Bey "but fear that they may not always have to deal with a Minister of the Interior as well disposed as the present occupant of that post."4 Similarly, after the German missionary Liparit had visited Turkey in December 1914, he stated that Talaat was a man "who over the last six years has acquired the reputation of a sincere adherent of Turkish-Armenian friendship.”5 

Some others who later came into close contact with Talaat continued to adhere to this favorable appraisal. William Peet, the American head of the international Armenian relief effort in Constantinople, recalls that Talaat Pasha always "gave prompt attention to my requests, frequently greeting me as I called upon him in his office with the introductory remark: ''We are partners, what can I do for you today?'"6 Count Bernstorff, from September 1917 until October T918 the German ambassador to Turkey, acknowledges Talaat's failure to prevent the crimes against the Armenians but adds that he has come to respect him and calls him a man of "absolute integrity."7 

Perhaps the Turkish statesman at some point indeed turned into the vicious fiend that Armenian writers have accused him of being ever since the deportations and massacres. Or could it be that the Armenians after 1915 simply got it all wrong? 

Practically all Armenian authors writing on the subject of the massacres have accepted the documents reproduced in the memoirs of Nairn Bey as genuine and consider them the centerpiece of their case against the Turks. The Andonian documents, writes Stephan Astourian in a typical appraisal, "establish without the shadow of a doubt the intent and involvement of the highest Ottoman authorities" in the massacres.8 Among recent supporters of the Armenian cause who have relied upon the Naim-Andonian documents are David Lang and Robert Melson.9 Yves Ternon has defended the authenticity of the work but has suggested that it is preferable not to use it in view of the great difficulty of proving its genuineness.10 

As proof of the authenticity of the documents appearing in the memoirs publicized by Andonian, several writers refer to the 1921 trial of Soghomon Tehlirian, who was charged with the assassination of Talaat Pasha in Berlin on March 15, 1921. 

At that trial, it is alleged, five of the Talaat Pasha telegrams were authenticated and accepted by the court as evidence.11 However, the stenographic record of the trial, published in 192T, yields a rather different picture. Andonian had come to Berlin and had made five telegrams, supposed to be originals, available to Tehlirian's lawyers. Yet when defense counsel Adolf von Gordon sought to introduce these five telegrams as evidence, the prosecutor objected on the ground that the question of Talaat's guilt could not be resolved by the court. To do so, he submitted, required a historical inquiry, "for which quite different material than what is here available would be needed." The prosecutor argued, furthermore, that the question of whether Talaat was indeed responsible for the Armenian massacres was irrelevant. It was enough to take note of the fact that the accused Tehlirian had been convinced of Talaat's guilt. "This fully clarified his motive." Defense counsel von Gordon thereupon withdrew his motion to introduce the five telegrams into evidence.12 

Not only were the Talaat telegrams not admitted into evidence, but they were never authenticated either. 

Tehlirian's lawyers, before using the documents, sought to make sure that they were genuine. With the help of Dr. Johannes Lepsius, a longtime supporter of the Armenian cause, they therefore contacted Dr. Walter Rossler, who had been German consul in Aleppo from 1910 to 1918 and who had witnessed the tragic events of 1915. In a letter dated April 25, 1921, Rossler gave his assessment of Andonian's book and of the documents contained therein. While the author appeared to be carried away by his passions and lacked the ability to be objective, Rossler wrote, "the content of the book gives an impression of authenticity. The published documents coincide with the course of events and share a similarity with reality." 

Nonetheless, it was difficult to establish the genuineness of the telegrams said to be sent from Constantinople, "because these telegrams contain only the handwriting of the telegraph officials and the individuals responsible for their decoding." Rossler concluded that he could not see how the authenticity of the telegrams could be proven.13 

Some of the documents in the Naim-Andonian book are also reproduced as facsimiles. None of the originals of these documents were ever made available for inspection by outside observers, however, which adds to the difficulty of establishing the genuineness of the documents. 

According to Andonian, in the summer of 1920 some of the originals were sent to Constantinople at the request of the Armenian patriarch there, to be used at the forthcoming trial of a Turkish official, Abdula-had Nuri Bey. This man is described by Andonian as the Aleppo representative of the general deportations committee and as Nairn Bey's boss. As it turned out, this trial never took place, because Abdulahad Nuri escaped from custody. In a letter dated July 26, 1937, Andonian states that he never learned what happened to these originals.14 

Nothing is known of the subsequent fate of the five original documents (mentioned earlier) that were taken by Andonian to Berlin in T921 in order to be used at the Tehlirian trial. Other originals are said to have been deposited at the Bibliotheque Nubar in Paris, the main library of the Armenian General Benevolent Union, where Andonian served as curator until his death in 1951. According to Dadrian, however, "Nubar library no longer has these documents, believed to have been transferred to Soviet Armenia in the 1960 s."15 As of today, all of the originals of the documents reproduced in the Naim-Andonian book have disappeared. 

Sinasi Orel and Siireyya Yuca, two Turkish authors who have undertaken a detailed examination of the authenticity of the documents in the Andonian volume, suggest that the Armenians may have "purposely destroyed the 'originals,' in order to avoid the chance that one day the spuriousness of the 'documents' would be revealed."16 Orel and Yuca argue that the documents in question are "crude forgeries," and they justify this conclusion by pointing to numerous discrepancies between authentic Turkish documents and those reproduced in the Naim-Andonian book. Some examples: 

1.The signature of Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey, the governor of Aleppo, which appears on nine of the documents, does not jibe with actual specimens of the governor's signature. 

2. Andonian either was unaware of or carelessly neglected to account for the differences between the Ottoman and European calendar. These errors destroy the system of reference numbers and dates that he used for his documents. 

3. An examination of the dates and reference numbers that are found in the ministry of the interior's registers of outgoing ciphered telegrams reveals that the reference numbers on Andonian's documents bear no relationship to the actual reference numbers used on ciphered telegrams sent from Constantinople to Aleppo in the period in question. 

4. All but two of the documents are written on plain paper with none of the usual signs found on the official paper used by the Ottoman government during World War I. 

5. The documents contain mistakes in grammar and language that only a non-Turkish writer would make.17 

Orel and Yuca have searched for the name of Nai m Bey in various official registers but have not found any reference to such a person. In this situation, they conclude, "it seems impossible to make a definite judgment on the question of whether or not Nairn Bey was an actual person." If not a fictitious person created by Andonian, he clearly must have been a very low-ranking official, who "could not have been in a position to have access to documents of a secret and sensitive nature."18 If Nairn Bey was in fact an actual person, he is described in a highly contradictory way by Andonian. In the French edition of the book Nairn Bey is portrayed as an honest and kind individual, who provided the documents to Andonian because his guilty conscience prompted him to expiate for this misdeeds as an official of the deportations committee. "Although his financial situation was not good, Nairn Bey declined any offer of money."19 However, in the letter composed in 1937 (referred to earlier) Andonian gives a totally different account: 

There were matters which I could neither disclose in my book, nor to Tehlirian's lawyers in order not to blacken Nairn Bey's character which was in reality not that good... .He was addicted to alcohol and to gambling, and in reality it was these shortcomings which dragged him into treachery. The truth of the matter is that everything which he provided us in the way of documents, we bought from him in return for money  in my book I gave an entirely different portrayal of Nairn Bey, because to have unveiled the truth about him would have served no purpose. Nairn Bey was a totally dissolute creature.20 

It would appear, suggest Orel and Yuca, that Andonian in his book published in 1920 lied about the character of Nairn Bey, for "he did not want to risk anything which would threaten the credibility of the 'memoirs' and 'documents' provided by Nairn Bey. Andonian knew, of course, that no one could be expected to believe the 'memoirs' of an alcoholic, gambler or dissolute character."21 It also would not have been opportune to admit that the material was bought, especially from a depraved character like Nairn Bey, who would be suspected of having manufactured the documents to obtain money for his destructive and expensive habits. 

Andonian links his work on the memoirs of Nairn Bey to his endeavor to preserve the memory of the horrible suffering of the Armenian community. However, Orel and Yuca point out that the publication of the book was in fact "part of a larger organized undertaking....The book's appearance coincides with the extensive attempts on the part of various Armenian circles to persuade the Entente Powers to establish an independent Armenian state in Eastern and South-Eastern Anatolia, in the wake of the Ottoman Empire's defeat in the First World War."22 The documents contained in the book, depicting the Young Turk leadership and indeed the entire Turkish people as utterly ruthless and evil villains, were to influence public opinion in America and Western Europe and provide ammunition for Armenian lobbying at the Paris Peace Conference. This is why the Armenian National Union, formed under the leadership of the veteran Armenian statesman Boghos Nubar Pasha, bought the documents. Andonian confirms this interpretation in a letter to Tehlirian's lawyers dated June TO, 192I: "I was entrusted with the duty of bringing these documents to Europe in the name of the Armenian National Union in Aleppo, and to submit them to the delegation of the Armenian National Union at the Peace Conference."23 

At the time when Andonian was taking the documents to Europe, the British were searching archives all over the world for evidence that could be used against the Ottoman officials they had arrested, taken to Malta, and planned to try for the massacre of the Armenians. 

Among the materials that came into their hands in Constantinople were the Nairn memoirs. Several telegrams from the Naim-Andonian book were included in a dispatch sent to London in March 1921.24 They also appear in the dossiers of the Malta detainees. Yet the British government never made use of these telegrams. As in the case of the "Ten Commandments" discussed in chapter 5, the law officers of the Crown apparently regarded the Naim-Andonian book as another of the many forgeries that were flooding Constantinople at the time. 

While Andonian willingly undertook the mission given him by the Armenian National Union, he apparently was not entirely happy with the way in which the Armenians who brought out the English and French editions of the book treated his text. In his letter of July 26, 1937, he concedes that Consul Rossler's criticism of the book as lacking in objectivity was warranted. However, he goes on to say that Rossler "forgets that my book was not a historical one, but rather aiming at propaganda. Naturally, my book could not have been spared the errors characteristic of publications of this nature... I would also like to point out that the Armenian Bureau in London, and the National Armenian Delegation in Paris, behaved somewhat cavalierly with my manuscript, for the needs of the cause they were defending."25 

It is possible that the repeated instances in the documents where Turkish leaders confess their guilt on account of the drastic measures that they are forced to take against the Armenians are the result of changes made by Andonian's British and French editors. The dispatches and telegrams, note Orel and Yuca, are full of expressions which simply are out of character with what Andonian would have us believe was the typical behaviour of the leaders of the Committee of Union and Progress. Is it conceivable that the leaders of Union and Progress, who it is claimed made a "premeditated," "cold-hearted" decision to "massacre the Armenians," would have referred to their decision in this respect as the "shame which will besmirch Ottoman history," or state that they had been "obliged to take, unfortunately, bloody measures in this respect"?...The aim of the individual who concocted these forged "letters" was nothing less than the desire to have the Turks themselves acknowledge (in advance of the events themselves) the "guilt of the Turks," to confirm as it were the Armenian claims against the Turks. In short, to have the Turks say what the Armenians themselves wanted to say. 26 

The admission made by Andonian (in order to protect his own reputation) that the book was written for propaganda purposes and was then further embellished by zealous editors seriously undermines the value of the work. When all is said and done, we are left wondering what credence to give to any of the documents, knowing that they were purchased and publicized as part of a propaganda effort.

In 1986 Dadrian published an article in which he sought to answer the strong criticism of the Naim-Andonian book by Orel and Yuca. Andonian, wrote Dadrian, assembled the book "in the turmoil and chaos of the armistice"; it was a "penchant for propaganda that prompted Andonian to rush the documents to London with a view to influencing public opinion and Allied diplomats who were to elaborate the terms of peace with defeated Turkey. A valuable opportunity was thus lost for submitting the documents to Ottoman authorities for possible authentication." Dadrian acknowledged that "all three versions—Armenian, French, and English—suffer from a series of typo graphical and editorial errors, including inaccuracies of dates The result is incongruities in the interrelationships of the various pieces as well as in the chronology of the events depicted." Nevertheless Dadrian decided that the flaws in the documents were mere "technicalities" and that "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."27 

Dadrian arrived at this conclusion by dismissing the points raised by Orel and Yuca as inconsequential and asserting that "their own volume... is teeming with identical errors"-"errors of dates, date conversion, and typography." It is difficult to provide "a strictly legal authentication of the material," Dadrian conceded; there are other ways of arriving at the truth, however, such as the "method of content verification. The principal actors covered by the Naim-Andonian material are repeatedly depicted [in other sources] in the same roles of arch-perpetrators and with reference to the same atrocities in identical or similar circumstances pinpointed in that material." According to Dadrian, the findings of the Turkish military tribunals convened in 1919-20 in particular confirm the veracity of the Naim-Andonian documents. "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." Other corroboration comes from reports of German and Austrian diplomats.28 

But what if these other sources are not as reliable and conclusive as Dadrian suggested? 

In the case of the Turkish military tribunals of 1919-20, the "official documents, sworn testimony, and depositions" relied upon by Dadrian do not actually exist; they are known to us simply from reports of the legal proceedings— official and unofficial. The originals of these documents and depositions are lost. The findings of the Nuremberg tribunals that judged the Nazi war criminals after World War II have become an invaluable historical source because they were based on thousands of original Nazi documents that everyone can consult in the archives of the Federal Republic of Germany. By contrast, not a single original Turkish government document used by the Turkish tribunals has been preserved. The reports of German and Austrian diplomats contain plenty of valuable information on the deportations and killings, but little solid evidence on who is to be held responsible for the massacres that took place.

In other words, Dadrian's attempt to authenticate the Naim-Andonian documents through the method of content verification stands or falls with the reliability of the sources he has invoked for this purpose. As the reader will learn later in this chapter, these sources do not provide conclusive evidence regarding the responsibility for the massacres, and the attempt to use them to prove the genuineness of the Naim-Andonian material must therefore be regarded as a failure. "Dadrian and his supporters," writes a critic, "are trying to prove what is a good case in regards to the general theme of massacres with bad evidence about a premeditated genocide."29 

All Turkish authors regard the Naim-Andonian documents as forgeries. But even a number of non-Turkish writers have raised questions about the NaimAndonian materials. 

Generally pro-Armenian, Christopher Walker had abandoned his earlier acceptance of the Talaat telegrams by 1997 and noted that "doubt must remain until and unless the documents or similar ones themselves resurface and are published in a critical edition."30

Hilmar Kaiser, who supports the charge of genocide, refers to several extant Turkish documents from the Ottoman ministry of the interior that "confirm to some degree the contents of two other telegrams ascribed to Talaat in Andonian's book." Orel and Yuca did not use these sources, and therefore "their thesis is to be put into question and further research on the 'Naim-Andonian' documents is necessary."31

The Austrian historian Wolfdieter Bihl has called the Naim-Andonian material "controversial" and notes that Artem Ohandjanian, the Armenian author of several well-researched books on the massacres, does not rely on them.32 (It should be noted here that Dadrian himself, in two books on the Armenian genocide published in 1995 and 1999 respectively, similarly does not refer to the Naim-Andonian documents and does not even list Andonian's work in the bibliographies of these books.)33 

Other Middle East specialists have been more forthright. In a review article published in 1989, Michael Gunter called the works of Mevlanzade Rifat and Andonian "notorious forgeries."34 The Dutch historian Erik Ziircher argued that the Andonian materials "have been shown to be forgeries."35 The British historian Andrew Mango speaks of "telegrams dubiously attributed to the Ottoman wartime Minister of the Interior, Talat Pasha."36 The controversy over the authenticity of the Naim-Andonian documents, it is clear, will only be resolved through the discovery and publication of relevant Ottoman documents, and this may never come to pass. Until then, I would argue, Orel and Yuca's painstaking analysis of these documents has raised enough questions about their genuineness as to make any use of them in a serious scholarly work unacceptable.  

1. Sinasi Orel and Sureyya Yuca, The Taldt Pasha 'Telegrams': Historical Pact or Armenian Fiction? pp. 2—4. 
2. Aram Andonian, comp., The Memoirs of Nairn Bey: Turkish Official Documents Relating to the Deportations and Massacres of Armenians, pp. 51, 64, 50. 
3. Ibid., pp. 62—63, 60, 62. 
4. FO 371/1773/58131.
5. Report of December 1914, PA, Botsch. K./168 (Fiche 7243). 
6. Louise Jenison Peet, No Less Honor: The Biography of William Wheelock Peet, p. 170. (This book, based on Peet's diaries and journals, is written in the form or an autobiography.) 
7. Bernstorff, Memoirs of Count Bernstorff p. 175. 
8. Stephan H. Astourian, "The Armenian Genocide: An Interpretation," History Teacher 23 (1990): 116. See also Zaven M. Messerlian, The Premeditated Nature of the Genocide Perpetrated on the Armenians, pp. 43-45. 
9. Lang, The Armenians, p. 27; Melson, Revolution and Genocide, p. 3T2 (n- 22). 
10. Yves Ternon, "La qualite de la preuvc: A propos des documents Andonian et de la petite phrase d'Hitler," in L'actualite' du genocide des Armeniens, ed. Comite de Defense de la Cause Armenienne, p. 138. See also his Enquete sur la negation d'un  genocide. 
11. Gerard Chaliand and Yves Ternon, The Armenians: Prom Genocide to Resistance, trans. Tony Berrett, p. 93; Mary Mangigian Tarzian, The Armenian Minority Problem 1914—1934: A Nation's Struggle for Security, p. 65; Jean-Marie Carzou, Un genocide exemplaire: Armenie 1915, p. 248. 
12. Tessa Hofmann, ed., Der Volkermord an den Armeniern vor Gericht: Der Prozess Talaat Pasha, p. 69. In his summation the prosecutor returned to the ques tion of Talaat's guilt. Revolutionary upheavals, he pointed out, frequently bring forth forged documents. It therefore could not be concluded that the guilt of Talaat had been proven (p. 86).
13. Rossler's letter is reproduced in a book on the Tehlirian trial published by a Dashnak organization in Paris, Comite de Defense de la Cause Armenienne, entitled Justicier du genocide armenien: Le proces de Tehlirian, pp. 226—29. I have used the translation provided by Orel and Yuca, The Taldt Pasha 'Telegrams,' p. 16. 
14. This letter, addressed to an Armenian woman living in Switzerland, Dr. Mary Terzian, is reproduced in Comite de Defense de la Cause Armenienne, Justicier du genocide armenien, pp. 230—37. The discussion of the documents sent to Constantinople is on pp. 230—31. 
15. Vahakn N. Dadrian, "The Naim-Andonian Documents on the World War I Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians: The Anatomy of a Genocide," International Journal of Middle East Studies 18 (1986): 317 (note e); Vatche Ghazarian, ed. and trans. Boghos Nubar's Papers and the Armenian Question 1915— 1918: Documents, p. xvii. 
16. Orel and Yuca, The Taldt Pasha 'Telegrams,' p. 23. 
17. Ibid., pp. 143-44, 39- 
18. Ibid., pp. 25-26.
19. Aram Andonian, Documents officiels concernant les massacres armeniens (Paris, J92o), p. T4, quoted in Orel and Yuca, The Taldt Pasha 'Telegrams; p. 8. 
20. Andonian quoted in ibid., p. 9. 
21. Ibid. 
22. Ibid., p. 5. 
23. Andonian, Documents officiels concernant les massacres armeniens, p. 225, quoted in ibid., p. 7. 
24. FO 371/6500/E3557, pp. 2, 6-8.
25. Andonian, Documents officiels concernant les massacres armeniens, p. 232,  quoted in Orel and Yuca, The Talat Pasha -Telegrams,' pp. 16-17. 
26. Ibid., p. 39. 
27. Dadrian, "The Naim-Andonian Documents," pp. 318-19, 340. 
28. Ibid., pp. 323, 325, 340. 
29. Michael M. Guncer, "Why Do the Turks Deny They Committed Genocide against the Armenians?" Orient (Leverkusen, Germany) 30 (T989): 492. 
30. Walker, "World War I and the Armenian Genocide," p. 247. 
31. Hi 1 mar Kaiser, "The Baghdad Railway and the Armenian Genocide, 1915— 1916: A Case Study of German Resistance and Complicity," in Remembrance and Denial, ed. Hovannisian, p. 108 (n. 78). 
32. Wolfdieter Bihl, preface to Artem Ohandjanian, Armenien: Derverschwiegene Vdlkermord, p. 8. 
33. Dadrian, History of the Armenian Genocide and Warrant for Genocide. 
34. Michael M. Gunter, review article, International Journal of Middle East Studies 21 (1989): 422. 
35. Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History, p. 121. 
36. Andrew Mango, "Turks and Kurds," Middle Eastern Studies 30 (1994): 985