ARTICLE CATEGORY: OTHER / MAKALE TÜRÜ: DİĞER

To cite this article: Lütem, Ömer Engin and Yiğit Alpogan. “Review Essay:
Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide.”
Review of Armenian Studies, Issue 37 (2018).

Submission Date: 23.05.2018

Acceptance Date: 26.06.2018

REVIEW ESSAY: KILLING ORDERS:

TALAT PASHA’S TELEGRAMS AND
THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
(DEĞERLENDİRME YAZISI: ÖLDÜRME EMİRLERİ:
TALAT PAŞA’NIN TELGRAFLARI VE ERMENİ SOYKIRIMI)

Ömer Engin LÜTEM*

Yiğit ALPOGAN**

Taner Akçam, Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian
Genocide (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), pp. 261.

n his recently published book “Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams

I and the Armenian Genocide”, Taner Akçam contends that the telegrams
and letters that were published 98 years ago by Aram Andonian and
which are attributed to several high-ranking Ottoman officials, particularly
the Ottoman Minister of the Interior Talat Pasha, are in fact genuine and
authentic. Akçam’s book at hand is the revised English translation of his
Turkish-language book Naim Efendi’nin Hatıratı ve Talat Paşa Telgrafları
(The Memoirs of Naim Efendi and Talat Pasha Telegrams) that was
published in 2016.1
* Honorary President, Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM)
** ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1967-4331
Advisor, Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), yalpogan@avim.org.tr
1 For that book, the Honorary President of the Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), Ömer Engin
Lütem, had penned an extensive article analyzing Akçam’s Turkish-language book: Ömer Engin
Lütem, “An Assessment On Aram Andonian, Naim Efendi And Talat Pasha Telegrams,” Review of
Armenian Studies, Issue 34 (2016), p. 129-156. Many of the points that had been raised by Lütem
for that book are almost entirely applicable to the revised English translation book as well. However,
as Lütem unfortunately passed away on January 2018, I have taken upon the task of updating
Lütem’s analysis for the revised English translation book. In order to properly credit the previous
work carried out by Ömer Engin Lütem, his name has been listed as one of the authors as well for
this article.

Review of Armenian Studies 45

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

Akçam’s main argument is based on the assertion that the book The Talat Pasha
Telegrams: Historical Fact or Armenian Fiction?, which was published in
1983 by Şinasi Orel and Süreyya Yuca (the English version of this book is
titled The Talât Pasha Telegrams: Historical fact or Armenian fiction?) and
which examined the documents in detail and concluded that they must be
forged, is full of errors and that the charges leveled against Aram Andonian
and the documents themselves are unjustified.

Contrary to Orel’s and Yuca’s claims, Akçam

In addition, the materials argues that there was an Ottoman official by
published by Andonian and the name of Naim Efendi and that it was
Akçam are actually
actually him who provided Andonian with the
photographs of
photographs. We thus lack documents in question. Moreover, according to
the originals of the all theAkçam, the memoirs published by Andonian
disputed documents and were personally written by Naim Efendi. In
texts. It is therefore not order to buttress his claims, Akçam refers to
possible to subject them to three “archival documents” which he falsely
a forensic examination characterizes as “Ottoman Archival
either. Thus, Akçam’s Documents.” Furthermore, Akçam annexed to
impassioned efforts to
authenticate the documents his book the text of memoirs which he claims
are tenuous at best. to have been written by Naim Efendi and
which he found in the private papers of Krikor
Guerguerian. According to Akçam, Krikor
Guerguerian found these memoirs in the Boghos Nubar Library in Paris and
copied them by photographing.

It is necessary to remind readers at this point that there is actually no indication

whatsoever (such as a name, signature, paraph, dates etc.) on the text of the
memoirs, demonstrating that these memoirs were in fact written by Naim
Efendi. Furthermore, even if the memoirs were in fact written by Naim Efendi,
there is no information on whether changes were subsequently made on the
text or whether the text was edited by someone or some people. It is also
necessary to point out that there are no available samples of the handwriting
of Naim Efendi other than the text produced by Akçam. It is therefore
impossible to compare the handwritings. In addition, the materials published
by Andonian and Akçam are actually photographs of photographs. We thus
lack the originals of the all the disputed documents and texts. It is therefore
not possible to subject them to a forensic examination either. Thus, Akçam’s
impassioned efforts to authenticate the documents are tenuous at best.

A more interesting point is that the text published by Akçam as the “memoirs
of Naim Efendi” does not actually resemble the “memoirs” that historians

46 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

know of. The so-called “memoirs” do not provide a narrative of Naim Efendi’s
role inside the events, contain no dialogues with others, and do not cover events
in a sequential-chronological manner. Perhaps the strangest of all, the
“memoirs” do not contain any biographical information on Naim Efendi
himself and his occupation, or the post he was serving at.

Classically, a memoir would provide some biographical data on its author and
the author’s place inside the events and would provide plenty of details about
his/her interactions with other persons involved in the events covered by the
memoirs. Unfortunately, the text offered by Akçam as “Naim Efendi’s
Memoirs” does none of these. The “memoirs” merely provide a text that is
alleged to be official correspondences between various state officials and
include occasional commentaries on these correspondences. Moreover, the
events are presented in a completely haphazard manner as the text does not
follow a chronological order. For instance, telegrams dated September 1915
are provided following telegrams dated January 1916, and this continues to be
the case throughout the text of the so-called memoirs. Again, a telegram dated
February 1917 is followed by other telegrams dated 1915 and 1916. Moreover,
throughout the text, there is no indication on what Naim Efendi’s duty was and
where he served. In this respect, as mentioned above, the text do not resemble
the texts of standard memoirs, and give the impression of a custom-made work
that would serve a specific agenda.

The text published by Akçam is also strikingly different from the text of the
memoirs published by Andonian in 1920. For instance, while the text published
by Andonian contains statements about the places and positions in which Naim
Efendi served, no such statements are contained in the text published by Akçam.
Thus, the obvious suspicion which arises is that the text might have been changed
by Andonian (and by the Armenian Bureau in London and the Armenian National
Delegations in Paris who made changes on the text as mentioned by Andonian
in one of his letters) in line with their interests. However, as Akçam is completely
taken in with the authenticity of Andonian narrative and published documents,
he does not even consider and discuss this possibility. Akçam cannot bring
himself to question and critically analyze the accuracy of Andonian’s narrative
and insists that Anadonian’s narrative must be the sole truth. In order to explain
discrepancy between the two texts, Akçam makes the assumption that there must
be still another “memoir text” in addition to the one he published and Andonian
must have published that other text and this would explain why there actually
two different texts. However, Akçam fails to provide any indication, let alone
evidence, supporting this possibility. As a matter of fact, it is actually this
approach by Akçam that constitutes the book’s main problem. In fact, in cases
where there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of these documents, Akçam

Review of Armenian Studies 47

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

consistently tries to explain away inconsistencies and suspicions by making one

assumption on top of another assumption.

It would be useful to remind readers that Andonian’s explanations and

comments, made on different dates, about the same events and people do not
always conform and even frequently contradict each other. It is therefore
extremely problematic to unquestioningly take Andonian’s statements at face
value and accept them as departing points. For instance, Andonian depicted
the so-called Naim Efendi as a kind-hearted and charitable person, and wrote
that Naim Efendi, despite his poor financial situation, provided him with these
documents without expecting anything in return simply to ease his own
conscience.2 However, in a letter he wrote in 1937, he describes Naim Efendi
as “an alcoholic and gambler” and “an entirely dissolute creature”, and states
that the documents were acquired from Naim Efendi in return for money.3

Similarly, Andonian, in his letter dated 1937, claims that the authenticity of
the documents he published were confirmed by the German Court in Berlin in
1921 during the trial of Soghomon Tehlirian who had assassinated Talat Pasha.
However, when the proceedings of the court are checked, it can be seen that
this is not the case. According to the court proceedings, despite Tehlirian’s
attorney’s request to submit five documents from Andonian to the court, it is
seen that he dropped his request following German prosecutor’s objections.
According to the prosecutor, it was not for the court to decide whether Talat
Pasha was guilty or not, and such determination necessitated a historical
research. This effort necessitated the examination of materials different from
those that were present. According to the prosecutor, the fact that the accused
Tehlirian had been convinced of Talat Pasha’s guilt was sufficient in terms of
revealing Tehlirian’s intention to murder him. In the face of these objections,
Tehlirian’s attorney Adolf von Gordon abandoned the request to submit the
documents to the court.4 Furthermore, during the trial in Berlin, the prosecutor
had a distanced and reserved approach towards these documents, and had taken
into consideration the possibility that they could be forged:

“The use of the forged documents cannot also lead me into error… I am
familiar with the history of how, in the chaos of the revolution, we came
to possess documents bearing the signatures of high ranking individuals,
and how it was subsequently proved that they were forged.”5

2 Şinasi Orel ve Süreyya Yuca, Ermenilerce Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların Gerçek Yüzü (Ankara
Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1983), p. 7.
3 Orel & Yuca, Ermenilerce Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların…, p. 8.
4 Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide (Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press, 2007), p. 66 ; Orel & Yuca, Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların…, p. 18
5 Orel & Yuca, Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların…, p. 19.

48 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

At this juncture, it should be stated that these comments by the prosecutor

were legitimate observations. Indeed, at the end of the First World War,
several groups, including foreign intelligence services, ambitiously embarked
on a quest to find documents in order to accuse and try the Union and
Progress Government. As mentioned by a British intelligence officer, this
state of affairs had created “a very large market” of salable documents and
had resulted in the “regular production of forgeries for the purposes of sale.”6
Ultimately, the authenticity of the documents was not in any way verified by
the Court.

It could be concluded from these instances that Aram Andonian did not always
tell the truth. Therefore, it would be appropriate for serious historians to
approach Andonian’s words with a degree of caution. Taking Andonian’s
allegations at face value without making any verification is problematic from
the point of view of historical methodology. However, Akçam, in his book,
accepts the claims of the Naim-Andonian narrative without any questions and
forms his arguments based on a set of assumptions.

Akçam also faults Orel and Yuca for claiming that the encrypted telegrams
published by Andonian do not match with the encryption techniques and
number groups used by the Ottoman Ministry of the Interior, and that
therefore these telegrams should be considered fake. Furthermore, Akçam
claims that the objections raised by Orel and Yuca regarding the type of paper
used in Andonian’s documents are completely groundless. Giving several
examples about these objections, Akçam concludes that both the type of
paper and “the encryption techniques found in the telegraphic cables that
Naim sold to Andonian are the same as those used by the Ottoman
Government” and that these instances do not actually “bring into question
their authenticity, but instead confirms it” (p. 100-101). In addition, Akçam
also takes issues with Orel and Yuca’s claims that the signatures, allegedly
belonging to Governor of Aleppo Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey, contained on
Naim-Andonian documents were fake by providing some other samples of
the governor’s signatures. Stretching the issue further, Akçam further claims
that inconsistent dates used on Naim-Andonian documents cannot be
considered as a basis for claiming that the documents should be fake and
concludes that they must be, to the contrary, be considered as indications of
their authenticity (p. 102-114).

In a follow-up chapter following these polemics, Akçam claims that

certain events and individuals mentioned in the “memoirs” of Naim

6 Lewy, A Disputed Genocide, p. 49.

Review of Armenian Studies 49

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

Efendi and in the documents published by Andonian can be found in Ottoman

archival documents. Accordingly, on the basis of these similarities, Akçam
concludes that these documents must be authentic (p. 123-163).

The substance of Akçam’s assertions and the method and evidence he uses in
the support these assertions will be examined in detail below. However, before
proceeding to a detailed examination of these claims, an important problem
concerning Akçam’s book must be highlighted. Throughout his book, when
presenting and summarizing the findings of Orel and Yuca in their studies about
Andonian’s documents, Akçam consistently oversimplifies, misrepresents, and
distorts these findings and attributes false assertions and opinions to Orel and
Yuca that were never raised by them to begin with. He then attempts to refute
these assertions that he claims were made by Orel and Yuca, and based on this,
he concludes that the study by Orel and Yuca are unreliable and full of
mistakes. Through such shrewd manipulations, he concludes that objections
raised by Orel and Yuca about the forged nature of Naim-Andonian documents
are not insignificant and can be “easily refuted.”

It is possible that some of Akçam’s claims might impress readers who are
not familiar with Orel and Yuca’s work and the debate, and who find out
about the objections concerning the authenticity of these documents only
through Akçam’s misrepresentations. However, readers who personally read
Orel and Yuca’s work will see that many of Akçam’s accusations are both
unfair and inaccurate. By taking these reservations into consideration as well
as analyzing Akçam’s contentions in some detail, this review article aims to
provide readers with a more balance perspective on the Naim-Andonian
documents.

The Existence of Naim Bey

Akçam, at the very beginning of his book, refers to arguments about whether
the documents published by Aram Andonian are authentic and whether Naim
Bey who is claimed to have provided these documents to Andonian was a real
person. According to Akçam, the claims by Şinasi Orel and Süreyya Yuca may
be summarized as follows:

“The authors based their claims on three main arguments: (1) It was
unlikely that there was an individual by the name of Naim Efendi; (2) a
non-existent person cannot write a memoir, and such memoir cannot
therefore exist; (3) the telegraphic cables attributed to Talat Pasha were
falsified. They thus concluded that both the memoirs and the documents

50 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

are forgeries perpetrated by Armenians, most likely by Andonian

himself.”(p. 36)

The striking problem here is the presentation of the arguments of Orel and Yuca
in such a grossly inaccurate and oversimplified manner. To begin with, Orel
and Yuca did not in any way allege that “it was unlikely that there was an
individual by the name of Naim Efendi” and that “a non-existent person cannot
write a memoir, and such memoir cannot therefore exist.” According to Orel
and Yuca, there might be different possibilities
on this issue. However, given the limited
The striking problem here
knowledge available on the issue, it is not is the presentation of the
possible to arrive at a conclusive judgement. arguments of Orel and
In discussing whether there was actually an Yuca in such a grossly
official by the name of Naim Efendi, Orel and inaccurate and
Yuca provide the following discussion: oversimplified manner. [...]
According to Orel and
“…it can be said that there are three Yuca, there might be
possibilities regarding Naim Bey: different possibilities on
this issue. However, given
the limited knowledge
a) Naim Bey is a fictitious person. available on the issue, it is
not possible to arrive at a
b) Naim Bey is an assumed name. conclusive judgement.

c) Naim Bey is an actual person.

In these circumstances, it seems impossible to make a definite

judgement on whether Naim Bey was an actual person or not.
[emphasis added] The only point which can be made with certainty is
that if Naim Bey actually existed, he was undoubtedly an unimportant
official. Indeed, Andonian confirms this in his letter of 26 July 1937,
where he writes:

‘Naim Bey was an entirely insignificant official…’”7

As might be seen above, Orel and Yuca clearly state that in the light of available
information, it is not possible to arrive at a conclusive judgement on the subject.
However, if an official by the name of Naim Bey indeed existed, they reach
the conviction that he must have been a very low-ranking official who would
not have had access to top secret documents.

7 Orel & Yuca, Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların…, p. 23-24.

Review of Armenian Studies 51

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

Having misrepresented the arguments of Orel and Yuca, Akçam then proceeds
to refute the claims he falsely attributed to Orel and Yuca. Referring to three
different documents (which he presents as “Ottoman Documents”) that mention
an official by the name of Naim Efendi, Akçam attempts to give the impression
that one of the basic arguments of Orel and Yuca was incorrect and that he thus
proved Orel and Yuca wrong. This attempt of course remains desperately
unconvincing when one checks the original account of Orel and Yuca.

Furthermore, it is rather problematic, to say the least, to present the three

documents Akçam refers to as “Ottoman Archival Documents”, since one of
these documents is actually a document published by Aram Andonian -the
authenticity of which is under doubt. Incredibly, Akçam attempts to validate
the controversial Naim-Andonian documents by referring to Naim-Andonian
documents themselves. The other two documents referred by Akçam are also
unpublished Naim-Andonian documents that are preserved in the Andonian
Collection contained in the Nubar Library in Paris. These are not Ottoman
archival documents. Thus, Akçam uses one set of Naim-Andonian documents
to authenticate another set of Naim-Andonian documents, and in the process
misrepresents these documents as “Ottoman Archival Documents”.

Another source utilized by Akçam to prove that Naim Efendi was a real person
is a document8 that makes a reference to an official by the name of Naim
Efendi. The document itself is the testimony of a former dispatch officer named
Naim Effendi and his testimony was required for his involvement in a
corruption case that took place in the region.

Before proceeding to the testimony itself, the document provides a brief

description of the official named Naim Efendi:

“The testimony of Hüseyin Nuri’s son Naim Effendi, 26, from Silifke,
married, the former dispatch officer at Maskanah, currently employed
as the grain cellar official of the municipality. (November 14-15,
1916).”9

In his book, Aram Andonian mentioned that the individual whom he refers to
as Naim Bey had at one point served at Maskanah. For this reason, there is a
possibility that the Naim Efendi mentioned in the testimony could be the same

8 Contained within the seventh volume of the document collection titled Armenian Activities According
to Archive Documents (Arşiv Belgeleriyle Ermeni Faaliyetleri) published by the Directorate of Military
History and Strategic Research (ATASE) of the Turkish General Staff in 2007: T.C. Genelkurmay
Başkanlığı, Arşiv Belgelerinde Ermeni Faaliyetleri, Cilt VII. Genelkurmay Askeri Tarih ve Stratejik
Etüt (ATASE) Başkanlığı Yayınları (Ankara: Genelkurmay Basımevi, 2007).
9 T.C. Genelkurmay Başkanlığı, Arşiv Belgelerinde Ermeni Faaliyetleri, Cilt VII, p. 264.

52 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

person as Andonian’s Naim Bey. However, there is no evidence or indication

to verify that these two individuals are one and the same person. Furthermore,
as Orel and Yuca indicates, serious question marks exist as to how an individual
who was a minor civil servant in a small district such as Maskanah and who
had been dismissed shortly afterwards from his duty on charges of corruption
could have gotten his hands on top secret communications between the
Minister of the Interior and the Governor.10

According to Akçam, Naim Efendi served in Aleppo as the head clerk of the
Director-General of Dispatches, Abdülahad Nuri Bey, and it was through this
position that he might have obtained the documents. However, apart from the
narrative of Naim-Andonian book itself, there is no evidence to indicate that
Naim Efendi served in this position. The only source about this is the sentence
attributed Andonian to Naim Efendi: “I have been appointed to the head clerk
position of Abdülhalad Nuri Bey,” allegedly uttered by Naim Efendi after he
came to Aleppo. Apart from the sentence quoted above, no evidence has so far
surfaced to verify this sentence. The text of the memoir published by Akçam
also does not contain any statement or information in this direction.11

Serious problems arise even if we assume that the Naim-Andonian narrative

is accurate, since according to the document published by ATESE, as of
November 1916, the individual named Naim Efendi’s duty was that of a
municipal grain cellar officer. The explanation based on this assumption
would have made sense to a certain extent if the documents published in the
Naim Efendi collection covered events only before this date. However, the
Naim-Andonian documents and the so-called memoirs of Naim Efendi cover
a period until February 1917. Then remains the critical question of how Naim
Efendi, as a municipal grain cellar officer, could he have obtained the alleged
top secret communication between the governor and the minister of the
interior? This question becomes even more critical when one considers that
Naim Efendi’s testimony on allegations of corruption was taken during the
dates in question. Starting from November 1916, Naim Efendi served in a
position in which, unequivocally, he could not have reached the mentioned
correspondences. Also, due to the charges of corruption, he must be viewed
with skepticism as someone unreliable whose statements was quite difficult
to be believed in. We must accept that, under normal circumstances, it would
not be expected for such an official to have access to the correspondence in
question. However; Akçam, by making one assumption on top of another

10 Orel & Yuca, Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların…, p. 11-12.

11 For the full text of the alleged “memoirs”, see Appendix A in: Taner Akçam, Killing Orders: Talat
Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), p. 176-196.

Review of Armenian Studies 53

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

assumption, takes the Naim-Andonian narrative entirely at face value and

finds entirely plausible that Naim Efendi would have access to these
documents during aforementioned dates and reaches the conclusion that his
memoirs must be authentic.

In conclusion, Akçam misrepresents Orel and Yuca’s arguments concerning

Naim Efendi and attributes assertions to Orel and Yuca which were never
advanced by them to begin with. Subsequently, Akçam attempts to refute these
false claims never made by Orel and Yuca by referring to a single document
mentioning a certain “Naim Efendi”. Only through a great deal of twisting and
misquoting, Akçam arrives at the dubious conclusion that the findings of Orel
and Yuca are entirely wrong. When one checks the original account of Orel
and Yuca, Akçam’s contentions (which may impress readers who are not
familiar with the debate) remain rather trivial and insignificant. In addition to
these issues, Akçam, by unquestioningly accepting the entire Naim-Andonian
narrative, assumes that the official named “Naim Efendi” was all omnipotent
to reach every relevant information and correspondence. Given problems
summarized above, it seems clear that Akçam’s assumptions stand on very
shaky ground.

Ciphering Techniques

A significant portion of Akçam’s book is devoted to the encrypted telegrams

used by the Ottoman Ministry of the Interior. In their work, Orel and Yuca
argued that the number groups used for ciphering in Naim-Andonian telegrams
do not conform to the number groups used in the telegrams of the Ottoman
Archives, and that these number groups were constantly changed at certain
time intervals for security reasons while Naim-Andonian telegrams use the
same ciphers in a period spanning over two years. In the relevant section of
his book, Akçam claims that the encrypted telegrams used two, three, four, and
five-digit number groups at the same time and in a mixed way throughout the
war. On the basis of his findings, Akçam argues that Orel and Yuca’s claims
concerning encryption methods of the Ottoman Interior Ministry “are entirely
incorrect and are without any material basis” (p. 79).

In order buttress his contentions, Akçam refers to a number of archival

documents. In 1983, Orel and Yuca noted that in the documents they found
during their research, the two, four, and five-digit numbers were used at certain
times and were regularly changed during the war. In this respect, the telegrams
using three-digit numbers found by Akçam is a new information.

54 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

It would be necessary to remind readers at this point that Naim-Andonian

documents contains a number of telegrams using two and three-digit ciphers
in the alleged correspondence between the governor of Aleppo and the Ottoman
minister of the interior. Relying on the existence of two and three digit numbers
used for encryption amongst the documents he found at the archives, Akçam
arrives at the conclusion that the documents published by Andonian and the
Ottoman Archival documents conform to each other and that there is no
discrepancy between them (p. 78-96).

Despite this new piece of information provided by Akçam, there is an important

issue that needs to be taken into consideration here. Documents utilized and
the facsimiles of which have been published by Orel and Yuca are composed
of telegrams sent from the center to the provinces. However, all documents
referenced by Akçam in his book (he uses the facsimiles of some of them as
well) were sent from the provinces and various commissions in the provinces
to the center, thus to the Ministry of the Interior (p. 78-96). This situation will
only gain clarity if all the numbers used in ciphered telegrams to the Aleppo
Province from the Ministry of the Interior are analyzed in their entirety.
Furthermore, as can be understood from telegram numbers in the archives, the
telegrams sent from the provinces to the center and used in Akçam’s book had
not yet been classified at the time of Orel and Yuca’s work, and were
documents that were classified and made available to the readers later on. That
is to say, during the period in which Orel and Yuca conducted their research,
they might not have had the opportunity to examine these documents. As such,
this issue should not be overlooked when criticizing Orel and Yuca’s work. A
more crucial problem with Akçam’s handling of the encrypted telegrams is his
complete lack of understanding concerning the occasions in which the two or
three-digit numbers used for encrypting a telegram. These instances are
typically occasions where personal encryption codes were given to high-
ranking civil or military to officials (such as inspectors) to communicate with
the center on issues including, but not limited to, dismissal or criticism of the
provincial or district governors. In such circumstances, the official in question
needed to use an encryption different from the provincial authorities so as to
relay their judgement and criticism to the center without any concern that their
communication might be read by the provincial authorities themselves. Akçam
completely misses this point. In fact, this point becomes clearer if one considers
the fact that all of the correspondence between the governor of Aleppo and
Ministry of the Interior uses four or five-digit numbers for encryption. Akçam
fails to provide a single sample telegram from the correspondence between the
governor of Aleppo and Ottoman Ministry of the Interior using three or two-
digit groups.

Review of Armenian Studies 55

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

In addition, digit groups were not the only source of doubts concerning the
authenticity of the encrypted telegrams contained in Naim-Andonian
documents. In Naim-Andonian documents, one can see that “two-digit” and
“three-digit” numbers are used in the same document in a manner that belies
logic and encryption methods. For instances, although the telegram dated 29
September 1915, attributed by Andonian to Minister of the Interior Talat Bey,
was written with an encryption code composed of three-digit numbers; the
first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh lines of the telegram contain two-digit
numbers for encryption.12 Likewise, the telegram dated 26 December 1915,
attributed to Abdülahad Nuri Bey and composed of with two-digit numbers for
encryption on the whole, contains three-digit numbers in the first, eleventh,
and fourteenth lines.13 Similarly, the telegram dated 20 March 1916 attributed
again to Talat Bey, although consisting of three-digit numbers, contains two-
digit numbers in its sixth line.14

Using both two-digit and three-digit number groups in the same telegram
necessitates two separate encryption keys for the decoding of a telegram. Yet,
as Orel and Yuca underlines, the decoding of such a telegram is not possible
due to encryption techniques. In none of the authentic telegrams for which
Akçam gives examples (he provides facsimiles for some of the telegrams) in
his book based on the Ottoman Archive is there a similar case, meaning that a
three-digit encryption used alongside with a two-digit number in the text of
the same telegram. Akçam fully overlooks this obvious and striking
discrepancy between the authentic documents in the Ottoman Archive and
Naim-Andonian documents, and argues that there is no contradiction and
discrepancy between them. He then claims that Naim-Andonian documents
could be authentic. Significantly, there is simply no archival telegram with
different digit numbers being used within the same text including in those
which were provided by none other than Akçam in his book. One can thus
conclude that there is a serious difference between the Naim-Andonian
Documents and the Ottoman Archival documents that begs explanation. Yet
Akçam simply ignores this crucial discrepancy.

The Use of Lined Papers

According to Akçam, one of Orel and Yuca’s main assertions to conclude that
Naim-Andonian documents were forgeries was “has to do with the paper on

12 Orel & Yuca, Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların…, p. 74-75.

13 Orel & Yuca, Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların…, p. 59.
14 Orel & Yuca, Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların…, p. 65-66.

56 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

which they are written. They claim that the fact that one of them is written on
lined paper is proof of it being a forgery” (p. 98). Akçam goes on to quote Orel
and Yuca as stating the following in their book:

“One of these ‘documents’ was written on a piece of paper bearing the

document number 76 but does not bear any official mark. Such a piece
of paper, which more greatly resembles the type used in calligraphic
lessons at French schools, cannot be expected to be found in use as
official stationery in Ottoman [administrative] offices.”(p. 98)

This is a classic example of how Akçam

practices deception. In the above quote, This is a classic example of
how Akçam practices deception.
Akçam allegedly quotes Orel and Yuca
In the above quote, Akçam
verbatim, presenting their text in an allegedly quotes Orel and Yuca
indented quote. Yet he leaves out verbatim, presenting their text
inconvenient parts of their argument and in an indented quote. Yet he
does so without giving the readers any leaves out inconvenient parts of
indication such as ellipsis “(…)” to their argument and does so
indicate that he left out parts of the text. without giving the readers any
Considering his previously-demonstrated indication such as ellipsis “(…
)” to indicate that he left out
questionable conduct, this is a deliberate parts of the text. Considering
attempt to manipulate what Orel and Yuca his previously-demonstrated
said in the first instance. In the original questionable conduct, this is a
text, Orel and Yuca’s objection regarding deliberate attempt to
paper type center on the fact that the manipulate what Orel and Yuca
paper used was “double lined.” Yet said in the first instance.
Akçam entirely left out this part of their
objections. This is what Orel and Yuca
actually wrote:

“Among the ‘documents’, the one numbered 76 was written on a double

lined paper [emphasis added] and one that does not bear any official
signs. It cannot be expected that a paper that rather looks like the type
used in calligraphy classes in French schools to be in use in Ottoman
[administrative] offices as official papers.”15

In Akçam’s version, Orel and Yuca’s objections concerning the double-lined

paper are deliberately left out even though the text is presented as a verbatim
quote. In his subsequent discussions, Akçam distorts Orel and Yuca’s objections
and claims that Orel and Yuca objected to single-lined papers and this claim

15 Orel & Yuca, Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların…, p. 60.

Review of Armenian Studies 57

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

has no basis in fact and that it was certainly odd for Yuca and Orel to make
that assertion:

“The authors’ judgment that lined paper ‘cannot be expected to be found

in use as official stationary in Ottoman [administrative] offices’ and their
use of this fact as evidence of forgery is simply incomprehensible. Lined
paper was in fact used within the Ottoman bureaucracy during the period
in question…”(p. 97)

Following this, Akçam notes that lined papers were used quite often in the
Ottoman Archives and he refers to a numbers of documents from the Ottoman
Archive using lined papers. After all these arguments, Akçam arrives at the
following bold conclusion:

“As will be understood below, Orel and Yuca’s claim is entirely wrong
that the lined paper found in one of Naim’s documents proves it to be a
forgery. Encrypted correspondence was not smooth or straight, so using
lined paper provided a useful foundation for such. Thus, the fact that
one of the documents provided by Naim was on lined paper does nothing
to prove that it is a forgery—on the contrary, it far more shows it to be
authentic.”(p. 98)

However, as indicated above, Akçam distorts here another important objection

of Orel and Yuca concerning the Naim-Andonian documents by twisting their
words and arguments. In their work, Orel and Yuca do not in any way claim
that “a telegram written on a lined paper” is the “proof” that it must have been
forged. As will be elaborated in more detail below, Orel and Yuca’s main
objection is based on the fact that this document was written on a “double lined
paper” that “bears no official inscription.”

Orel and Yuca raised no objection to the single lined papers that were used as
a standard in the encrypted telegrams. When one examines the documents used
in Orel and Yuca’s work (in which they even provided the facsimiles of these
documents), Akçam’s assertion became grotesque, placing Akçam in an
embarrassing position. A perusal of Orel and Yuca’s study makes it clear that
the encrypted telegrams that Orel and Yuca obtained from the archive (and
produced exact photos of) are written on single lined papers.

In line with this, telegrams dated 26 August 1915 and 11 December 1915 that
were sent by the Minister of the Interior Talat to certain sanjaks (sub-divisions
of provinces) that were published by Orel and Yuca in their books should
constitute good example for this:

58 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

Document 1

The copy of the ciphered telegram which was written on official “single
lined” paper dated 26 August 1915 that was published by Şinasi Orel and
Süreyya Yuca in page 77 in their book. This telegram was sent by Minister
of the Interior Talat Bey to Lieutenant Governorship of Çanakkale.

Review of Armenian Studies 59

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

Document 2

The copy of the ciphered telegram which was written on official “single
lined” paper dated 11 December 1915 that was published by Şinasi Orel
and Süreyya Yuca in page 78 in their book. This telegram was sent by
Minister of the Interior Talat Bey to Lieutenant Governorship of
Karahisar-ı Sahip (Afyon).

As can be seen in authentic telegrams that are taken from Orel and Yuca’s book,
Orel and Yuca themselves published documents containing telegrams that were
written on single lined papers. The objection of Orel and Yuca on this issue is
not about the papers being single lined as might be seen from the following
passage: “among the ‘documents’, the one numbered 76 was written on double
lined paper that contains no official inscription”16 [emphasis added]

Thus Orel and Yuca’s words make it clear that what they objected was the use
of “double lined papers,” and more importantly, the paper’s “lack of any official
inscription” in contrast to Ottoman Archival documents. Akçam completely
ignores the objection concerning the lack of any official inscription on Naim-
Andonian documents and makes no comment on this point. In addition, by

16 Orel & Yuca, Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların…, p. 60.

60 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

distorting Orel and Yuca’s objection concerning “double lined paper”, Akçam
argues that they, instead, claimed that “lined paper” was not used by the
Ottoman bureaucracy. Only through distorting and twisting the arguments of
Orel and Yuca is Akçam able to arrive at the conclusion that their arguments
are “incomprehensible” and “entirely wrong.”

However, as can be seen in the copies of the telegrams presented above, Orel
and Yuca do not object to the single lined papers, and they even published
documents written on single lined papers. Akçam here first distorts Orel and
Yuca’s arguments, then attempts to refute these false arguments that were never
advanced by Orel and Yuca to begin with. Within such confusion, Akçam
overlooks and tries to hide away Orel and Yuca’s objections about the papers
being “double lined” and about the absence of official inscriptions on these
papers unlike the authentic Ottoman Archival Documents.

Telegram Numbers

In 1983, Orel and Yuca drew attention to the fact that the telegrams amongst
the Naim-Andonian documents are different from the Ottoman Archival
documents in terms of telegram numbers as well. According to Orel and Yuca,
there is absolutely no relation whatsoever between the telegram numbers used
in the Naim-Andonian documents and the heading numbers of the authentic
telegrams (contained in the Ottoman Archive) that were sent on the same date.
Thus the heading numbers that are used in the Naim-Andonian documents and
Ottoman Archival documents contain great discrepancies. Furthermore, there
is no record on Naim-Andonian documents in the incoming-outgoing
documents log of the Aleppo Province. Amongst the telegrams that are present
in the Ottoman Archive, even though from time to time one comes across
telegrams that were sent during the same time as the Naim-Andonian
telegrams, it can be seen clearly that both in terms of the telegram numbers
and their contents, these two sets of telegrams are completely different from
each other.

According to Akçam, Orel and Yuca were wrong with their assertions on this
subject. According to Akçam, the Ottoman Minister of the Interior Talat Bey
had had installed a telegram machine in his own house, and from time to time
communicated with governors through it and sent telegrams to provinces from
his house. Again, according to Akçam, it is impossible to know what kind of
heading numbers was used in these telegrams that were sent from the house of
the Minister of the Interior (p. 76-77). Therefore, according to Akçam, the
discrepancy exhibited by the Naim-Andonian documents’ numbers with that

Review of Armenian Studies 61

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

of the archival documents is not a proof of the Naim-Andonian documents’

being forgeries.

First of all, again with no evidence, Akçam makes the assumption that all
Naim-Andonian documents were sent from the house of Minister of the Interior
Talat Bey. Both in the explanations made by Andonian about the documents,
and in the text of the “memoirs” alleged to have belonged to Naim Efendi,
there is simply no indication that the telegrams were sent from Talat Bey’s
house. On the contrary, it is clearly indicated that these documents were sent
from the Office of Ministry of the Interior (Dâhiliye Nezareti Celilesine).
Additionally, the wording of the telegrams leaves no room for doubt that the
telegrams from Aleppo to the center were sent to the Office of the Ministry of
the Interior, and they include no indication such as “Addressed to Minister of
the Interior Talat Bey” (Dâhiliye Nazırı Talat Beyefendi’ye) to suggest that they
were sent out to his private house.

Under these circumstances, the argument that the entire correspondence must
have been sent out from Talat Bey’s private house is an exercise in stretching
the argument beyond logic and to do so merely on the basis of assumptions
and without any evidence shows Akçam’s impassioned attitude in considering
the documents’ authenticity.

Additionally, the inconsistency regarding the heading numbers given to the

telegrams are not only valid for the ones alleged to have been sent from the
Ministry of the Interior to the Aleppo Province. The same inconsistency is also
visible in the telegrams alleged to have been sent from Aleppo to the Ministry
of the Interior. Amongst the Naim-Andonian documents, the telegram
attributed to Adbülahad Nuri Bey numbered 76 and dated 7 March 1332 (20
March 1916) is the most striking example. According to the Rumi Calendar
used by the administrative system of the Ottoman bureaucracy, the new year
starts at 1 March 1332 (14 March 1916). Accordingly, in order for the telegram
attributed to Adbülahad Nuri Bey to be numbered 76, he would have had to
send 76 ciphered telegrams to Istanbul between the dates 1-7 March 1332 (14-
20 March 1916), meaning in just seven days.17 In this regard, the inconsistency
on the heading numbers in the Naim-Andonian telegrams are valid for both
the telegrams sent from Ministry of the Interior to Aleppo, and the ones sent
from Aleppo to the Ministry. In the relevant section of his book dealing with
this question, Akçam once again completely overlooks this and does not
provide any plausible explanation for the telegrams sent out from Aleppo
province to the center.

17 Orel & Yuca, Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların…, p. 60.

62 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

Similarity with Ottoman Documents

An important portion of Akçam’s book is devoted to the efforts to prove the

presence of similarities between the memoirs allegedly belonging to Naim
Efendi and the Ottoman archival documents. In this respect, the author gives
ten separate examples in order to prove his argument that there are great
similarities between what is being told in the memoirs of Naim Efendi and the
events that actually took place as recorded by the Ottoman archival documents.
On the basis of this, the author arrives at the conclusion that the so-called
memoirs and the documents must be genuine and authentic. It is not possible
to reach a judgment on the veracity of Akçam’s arguments without individually
examining each document that Akçam refers to. However, even if we were to
take all of Akçam’s allegations at face value, the similarity between the
Ottoman archival documents and the Naim-Andonian materials is not a proof
for the authenticity of these documents. First of all, there is nothing new or
surprising about Akçam’s arguments. In fact, Orel and Yuca pointed that out
as early as 1983 that some of the events and individuals “said by Andonian to
have been employed in Aleppo and its vicinity during the relocation of the
Armenians, do appear in the archival documents” (p. 123-163). If someone is
producing forged documents for the purpose of making money and if he is
above a certain level of intelligence, that person will certainly make every
attempt to make the documents and the memoirs look as realistic as possible
to give them some appearance of authenticity. The literature on forged
documents memoirs diaries etc. provide ample instances on this.

Another forged document concerning the Armenian Question and similarly

produced for money, and simply known as the “Ten Commandments”,
demonstrates this case. Canadian historian Gwynne Dyer has characterized it
as an attempt “to reconstruct what might have been said, had the actual events
of April 1915-mid 1916 all been foreordained in a single comprehensive
official document.”18 In a similar vein, Dutch historian Erik Jan Zürcher noted
that it should come as no surprise that the contents of forged documents
resemble to actual events. According to Zürcher “any insider forging a
document to make money would have taken care that it did [resemble to actual
events] and inserted it among genuine documents of the period.”19

Luckily, the examples similar to this are not confined to the Armenian
Question. It is not unusual for forged documents produced for various purposes

18 Gwynne Dyer, “Correspondence,” Middle Eastern Studies, Volume 9 (1973), p. 377.

19 Erik Jan Zürcher, “Ottoman Labour Battalions in World War I.” in Hans-Lukas Kieser (ed.), The
Armenian Genocide and the Shoah (Zürich: 2002), p. 194 n.1.

Review of Armenian Studies 63

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

and covering different topics to contain a certain amount of true information

about actual events and people. The most striking example of this is the so-
called “Hitler Diaries” which created quite a sensation in the 1980s. In the
forged diaries, Adolf Hitler’s various speeches, notes, and meetings are
contained in a way that is similar to the actual ones. Moreover, the forged
diaries provide verbatim texts of certain speeches or meetings of Hitler, exactly
as they appear in some genuine documents and studies. This was enough to
mislead some historians; taking into account all the similarities, the details,
and the variety of the materials, some historians -including the celebrated
British expert on Nazi Germany Hugh Trevor-Roper and Gerhard Weinberg-
initially expressed their confidence in the diaries’ authenticity. However, as a
result examination conducted by German forensic science experts, it was
revealed that the “Hitler Diaries” were fake20 and that certain ingredients of
the diaries such as the papers, bindings, adhesives etc. were not yet actually in
use during the period when Hitler lived.21

A similar case involves the forged diary of Maxim Litvinov, the famous Soviet
Commissar for Foreign Affairs. In 1950s, a diary journal allegedly belonging
to Litvinov surfaced in Paris for the purposes of sale. After examining the diary,
E. H. Carr, the celebrated British historian of the Soviet Union, concluded that
the diary must be authentic. He did so again on the basis of the details and
accurate information provided by the diary. Yet the subsequent examiners
established that the diary was forged and that it added to the knowledge of the
scholars “as much as a forged banknote adds to our wealth.”22

If the verification logic employed by Akçam for the Naim-Andonian

documents were to be applied to the “Hitler Diaries” and “Litvinov Diary”, it
would result in the odd and erroneous conclusion that these forged diaries must
be authentic. According to Akçam’s logic, the fact that some of the information
contained in the diaries is congruent with other sources must point to the
authenticity and genuineness of the diaries. As indicated above; however, as a
result of the examination of German forensic experts and other experts on the
Soviet Union, it was established beyond any doubt that both the Hitler Diaries
and the Litvinov Diary are fake documents produced by some people to earn
money. The rather obvious conclusion is that some forged documents might
contain information similar to the actual events or authentic sources speeches

20 Robert Harris, Selling Hitler: The Story of Hitler Diaries (London: Arrow Books, 2010).
21 For an analysis of the content of the fake diaries, please see: Josef Henke, “Revealing the Forged Hitler
Diaries,” Archivaria, Volume 19 (1984), p. 21-27.
22 Hiroaki Kuromiya, “Guide to Emigre and Dissident Memior Literature,” in Sheile Fitzpatrick & Lynne
Viola (ed.), A Researcher’s Guide to Sources on Soviet Social History in the 1930s (Armonk, N.Y, 1990),
p. 258.

64 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

etc., but this does not necessarily mean that such documents must be authentic.
Historian Hiroaki Kuromiya, an expert on Soviet history, notes for instance
that “being consonant” does not “necessarily guarantee the reliability of the
memoirs as sources of information.” He considers that The Litvinov Diary case
“may have been a fortunate case because… it was closely examined by many
experts who knew at least something about Litvinov.” Kuromiya concludes
that “historians, who deal with much
less known ordinary people and their
The key question concerning the
lives, would have to take extra caution dispute of whether the documents
in using memoir literature.”23 are authentic is not the
similarities, but the
The key question concerning the inconsistencies among the
dispute of whether the documents are authentic and disputed materials.
authentic is not the similarities, but the In the dispute over the Hitler
inconsistencies among the authentic Diaries or Litvinov Diary;
historians, while drawing
and disputed materials. In the dispute
attention to the similarities they
over the Hitler Diaries or Litvinov have to the actual speeches and
Diary; historians, while drawing some sources written about Hitler
attention to the similarities they have to or Litvinov, nonetheless came to
the actual speeches and some sources the conclusion that the diaries are
written about Hitler or Litvinov, forgeries by pointing to a series of
nonetheless came to the conclusion that contradictions and rather absurd
the diaries are forgeries by pointing to errors within the diaries.
Akçam’s work is essentially quite
a series of contradictions and rather weak on this point.
absurd errors within the diaries.24
Akçam’s work is essentially quite weak
on this point. Below, a more balanced picture will be drawn for the readers by
examining the points ignored by Akçam.

The Issues Ignored by Akçam

Akçam remains completely silent on a number of subjects concerning the

points raised by Orel and Yuca: the chronological discrepancies of the Naim-
Andonian documents, the signature attributed to the Governor of Aleppo being
different from the actual one that is contained in the Ottoman Archive, Mustafa
Abdülhalik Bey’s signing of some documents with the title “Governor” before
he had actually been appointed to that post as a governor, and both Mustafa
Abdülhalik Bey’in and Abdülahad Nuri Bey adding notes to the documents
23 Kuromiya, “Guide to Emigre and Dissident Memior Literature,” p 258, 260.
24 Henke, “Revealing the Forged Hitler Diaries,” p. 21-27 ; Kuromiya, “Guide to Emigre and Dissident
Memior Literature,” p. 257-260.

Review of Armenian Studies 65

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

and signing them during dates when they were still in Istanbul and had not yet
reached Aleppo. A similar problem remains for the letters attributed to
Bahaettin Şakir Bey, which were allegedly sent from Istanbul to Adana in
February and March 1915, even though during those dates Bahaettin Şakir Bey
was not actually in Istanbul but in Erzurum. Additionally, while the Ottoman
archival documents used by Akçam as examples are all written on papers
bearing official inscriptions, the papers on which Naim-Andonian documents
are written do not. These points are completely ignored by Akçam.

It must be pointed out that the signatures attributed to the Governor of Aleppo
Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey occupy a special place in the dispute over whether or
not the documents are authentic. This subject will be touched upon in more
detail below. Before moving forward to this subject; however, it must be
indicated that there are errors and inconsistencies in the Naim-Andonian
document that are ignored and never mentioned by Akçam.

All the telegrams from the Ottoman Archives that Akçam uses as reference
point (and provides facsimiles for some of these telegrams) have been written
on headed papers bearing official inscriptions.25 However, the telegrams and
documents in the Naim-Andonian documents are different in this respect.
Some of them have been written on blank papers bearing no official
inscription whatsoever and which are different from the ones used by the
Ottoman bureaucracy. Akçam makes no comment on and remains silent about
this apparent inconsistency between the papers on which the Ottoman archival
documents and the papers on which the Naim-Andonian documents are
written.

Again, in Akçam’s book, the cipher number groups used in all the ciphered
telegram texts are composed of the number digits. For example, in a telegram
using four-digit ciphers, all number groups are four-digits and number groups
with different amount of digits are not used in the text. The same is true for
telegrams using two, three, and five-digit numbers, and number groups with
different amount of digits were not confused with each other within the
telegrams.

As previously mentioned, however, the telegrams among the Naim-Andonian

documents use both two-digit and three-digit numbers in a mixed and
haphazard manner within the text of the same telegram. As explained above,
this is a telegram not possible to decode in terms of encryption techniques,
because it will require two different code keys for the telegrams to be decoded

25 See all the documents provided as facsmiles in: Akçam, Killing Orders.

66 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

and will create great complications and misunderstandings.26 This clear

inconsistency between the Ottoman archival documents and the Naim-
Andonian documents is yet again ignored by Akçam throughout his book and
this problem is thus evaded with silence.

The inconsistencies in the Naim-Andonian documents are not limited to this.

Among the Naim-Andonian documents, in telegrams allegedly sent on 3
September 1331 (16 September 1915) and on 5 September 1331 (18 September
1915) by Minister of the Interior Talat Bey to the Governor of Aleppo; Mustafa
Abdülhalik Bey writes some notes on the telegram paper and puts his signature
underneath it as the governor.27 Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey addresses Abdülahad
Nuri Bey in these notes and asks him to do certain things. However, in the
dates during which those telegrams were sent, the notes were written, and the
signature was put, the governor of Aleppo was Bekir Sami Bey, not Mustafa
Abdülhalik Bey.28 Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey was only appointed as the Governor
of Aleppo by 10 October 1915. This means that if the documents were actually
authentic, it would have been Bekir Sami Bey, and not Mustafa Abdülhalik
Bey, who signed the telegram sent on 16 September 1915. Also, despite the
note dated 18 September 1915 addressed to Abdülahad Nuri Bey, Abdülahad
Nuri Bey had not yet been appointed to his position in Aleppo by that date.
According to the Ottoman archival records, in a telegram he sent on 14 October
1915, the Minister of the Interior Talat Bey asks Şükrü Bey, the Director of the
office for the Settlement for Tribes and Refugees (İskân-ı Aşairin ve Muhacirin
Müdürü), about his opinion of Abdülahad Nuri Bey since the latter was being
considered for appointment to Aleppo.29 In other words, as of the date of 14
October 1915, Abdülahad Nuri Bey had not yet been appointed to his position
in Aleppo, and the decision process about him had been still ongoing, and other
bureaucrats had been asked about their opinions on him.

Thus, in this so-called document, there is a correspondence between a governor

and a civil servant, both of whom had not yet been appointed to their posts.
This chronological inconsistency regarding the posts and the terms of office
of these individuals is one of the serious evidences that prove these documents
being forged. However, Akçam never touches upon this issue and in fact
remains silent with regard to these inconsistencies throughout his book.

26 Orel & Yuca, Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların…, p. 59, 65-66, 74-75.
27 Aram Andonian, Documents Officiels Concernant les Massacres Armeniens (Paris: Impremerie H.
Turabian, 1920), p. 109.
28 Orel & Yuca, Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların…, p. 54.
29 BOA DH DŞR 56-385. Telegram dated 13 October 1915 Emniyet-i Umumiye Müdüriyeti to Şükrü Bey.

Review of Armenian Studies 67

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

As indicated above, Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey was only appointed as Governor

to Aleppo by 10 October 1915. Therefore, it can be argued that the signatures
attributed to Governor of Aleppo Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey in the Naim-
Andonian documents after 10 October 1915 (27 September 1331) are rather
less suspicious. There is another document in Naim-Andonian documents sent
from the Ministry of the Interior in 29 September 1331 (12 October 1915).
Similarly, four days after this telegram, on 3 October (Teşrin-i Evvel) 1331 (16
October 1915), Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey seemingly noted down his name as
Governor of Aleppo and signed the document.30 Therefore, since Mustafa
Abdulhalik Bey was appointed as governor six days before this telegram, this
document seems comparably less suspicious.

On the other hand, when one looks at the Ottoman Archive registries, although
Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey was appointed as governor on 10 October 1915, it can
be seen that he was in Istanbul until 1 November 1915, and that he only arrived
to Aleppo on 8 November 1915. The same applies to Abdülahad Nuri Bey as
well. The then-recently appointed Governor of Aleppo Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey
and Abdülahad Nuri Bey left Istanbul together for Aleppo on Monday, 1
November.31 A telegram stating that the two officials would arrive to Aleppo on
8 November was sent to Istanbul.32 Thus, it is impossible for Mustafa Abdulhalik
Bey and Abdülahad Nuri Bey to have written down notes or to have signed
documents in Aleppo as of September and October 1915. This is clearly and
undisputedly the case because they had arrived to Aleppo only in 8 November.
This is another serious evidence that the documents are fake.

The same inconsistency can be found in a letter attributed to Bahaettin Şakir

Bey and which was supposedly sent by the Central Committee of the
Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) to CUP’s Adana delegate Cemal Bey
on 2 March 1915.33 On the date in which the letter was sent, Bahaettin Şakir
Bey was not in Istanbul but in Erzurum, and remained there until 13 March
1915.34 Thus, this is yet another indication that the Naim-Andonian documents
are fake and have serious discrepancies with the authentic documents and
chronology of events.

30 Andonian, Documents Officiels, p. 110.

31 DH ŞFR 57/191. In the telegram dated 31 October 1915 sent to Şükrü Bey, it is requested that “since
Governor of Aleppo and Abdülahad Nuri Bey will set out for their journey on Monday, be present at
Aleppo on their arrival.”
32 BOA DH ŞFR 496/53. Telegram dated 8 November 1915 from İsmail Bey to the Ministry of the Interior.
33 Andonian, Documents Officiels, p. 96-98 ; Aram Andonian, Memoirs of Naim Bey (London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1920), p. 49-51.
34 Ali İhsan Sabis, Harp Hatıralarım: Birinci Cihan Harbi, Cilt II (İstanbul: Nehir Yayınları, 1990), p.
378.

68 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

The Question of Signatures

Naim-Andonian documents include a number of signatures attributed to

Governor of Aleppo Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey, which he allegedly signed as
“Mustafa Abdülhalik.” The signatures attributed to Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey
has a particular role in the dispute over the authenticity of the Naim-Andonian
documents. This is because in a letter written in 10 June 1921, Aram Andonian
himself defended the authenticity of the documents on the basis of the
signatures attributed governor Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey:

“There is no doubt that these documents were taken out of the files of
the Assistant Directorship of the Deportation Office in Aleppo. The
Governor of Aleppo, after having had the orders he received from the
Minister of the Interior (Talât Pasha) concerning the Armenians
deciphered, appended a note with his signature to them in which he
referred them for implementation to the Assistant Directorship of the
Deportation Office where Naim Bey was a secretary.

When Naim Bey agreed to provide us with these documents, the Aleppo
Armenian National Union, which was an official organization, had the
handwriting and signatures (appended to the documents in question),
examined. This examination lasted exactly one week. Other documents
to which the Governor Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey had appended notes and
his signature were examined, and even the smallest details were
subjected to comparison. Finally, it was determined without any
possibility of doubt that the handwriting and signature in the notes added
to the documents belonged to the Governor Mustafa Abdülahlik Bey.
This erased even the slightest suspicion as to the authenticity of the
documents…”35

As might be clearly seen from the above quote, the main basis for the
authenticity of the documents in question was the assumption that the signature
on the documents attributed to Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey was genuine.

In order to test the validity of the Andonian’s claims, in 1983, Orel and Yuca
compared the signatures attributed to Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey on Naim-
Andonian documents to the original signatures of him contained on the
Ottoman archival documents. Their comparison revealed that, contrary to what
Andonian claims, the original signatures from the Ottoman archival documents
and those from the Naim-Andonian documents were significantly different.

35 Orel & Yuca, Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların…, p. 13.

Review of Armenian Studies 69

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

On these grounds, Orel and Yuca concluded that the comparison of the
signatures “clearly establishes that the ‘signatures’ on Andonian’s ‘documents’
are forged, because they bear no relationship to Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey’s
actual signature.”36

In his book, Akçam also provides a number of samples from the signatures of
Governor Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey. Akçam notes that whereas Orel and Yuca
only presented samples from documents which the governor signed as
“Mustafa Abdülhalik,” he himself found other documents which he signed as
“Abdülhalik” using only one of his names. This leads Akçam to believe that
the governor used different signatures and on
the basis of different signatures the governor
The consistent and used, Akçam concludes that “one cannot use
marked differences these differences in signatures alone to decide
between two set of the authenticity of the documents containing
signatures clearly
them” (p. 107). Akçam’s conclusion is clearly
establishes that the
signatures contained in an erroneous one not only because he attempts
the Naim-Andonian to blur and gloss over the significant
volume do not jibe with differences between the signatures but also
the authentic signatures because he misses the main point; that
from the Ottoman archival Andonian himself in the first place argued that
documents and must the authenticity of the “sold documents” had
therefore be considered been established by a comparison of the
fake.
signatures and that even “even the smallest
details were subjected to comparison”, and
they “determined without any possibility of doubt” the signatures in question
were the same and that this “erased even the slightest suspicion as to the
authenticity of the documents.” Akçam thus seems to have forgotten
Andonian’s own words.

After serving as the governor of Aleppo, Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey was

appointed as an undersecretary to the Ministry of the Interior in 1917. During
this period, the volume of documents that he had to sign significantly increased.
Presumably as a result of the high number of documents he had to sign on a
regular basis, during his tenure as undersecretary he used only “Abdülhalik”
when signing documents.

In the tables presented below, the readers will see a comparison of the authentic
signatures of the governor and those attributed to him in the Naim-Andonian
documents. To be more precise, Table-1 compares authentic documents which

36 Orel & Yuca, Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların…, p. 13.

70 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

the governor signed as “Mustafa Abdülhalik” to those attributed to him in

Naim-Andonian. Table-2 compares the documents the governor signed merely
as “Abdülhalik.” Finally, Table-3 table highlights the differences in authentic
signatures, whether signed as “Mustafa Abdülhalik” or merely as “Abdülhalik,”
in comparison to those contained in Naim-Andonian volume. This detailed
comparison will enable readers to see the differences between the authentic
signatures of the governor on the one hand and those attributed to him in Naim-
Andonian volume on the other. The consistent and marked differences between
two set of signatures clearly establishes that the signatures contained in the
Naim-Andonian volume do not jibe with the authentic signatures from the
Ottoman archival documents and must therefore be considered fake.

The names or numbers within the boxes indicate the sources from which the
signatures has been taken. The numbers indicate the archival references to
documents from the Cipher Office collection of the Ottoman Archives’
Ministry of the Interior papers (Dahiliye Nezareti Şifre Kalemi):

Review of Armenian Studies 71

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

Table 1: Signed as Mustafa Abdülhalik

Samples from Authentic Signatures Samples from Naim-Andonian

Orel & Yuca Naim-Andonian

Orel & Yuca Naim-Andonian

Orel & Yuca

Naim-Andonian

Naim-Andonian

Naim-Andonian

72 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

As might be evident from the Table-1, the authentic signatures (presented on

the left side of the table) are significantly different than the fake signatures
(presented on the right side of the table) that were attributed to Governor
Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey in the Naim-Andonian documents. In the authentic
samples, the tail at the left end of the signatures is longer than the ones on the
fake signatures. What is even more striking is that the authentic samples’ tail
-which starts at the left and extends to the right over the main body of the
signature- never extends beyond the main body of the signature. However, in
the fake samples, the tail extends way beyond the main body of the signature.
In addition, the connection between ‫( ﻖ‬kaf) -the last letter of the signature- and
the main tail of the signature are starkly different on both sets of signatures.
On the authentic signatures, as the letter ‫( ﻖ‬kaf) ends it moves slightly upwards
and connects with the main tail to the left; whereas on the fake signatures the
tail of letter ‫( ﻖ‬kaf) goes up and makes a rightwards curve and then connects
with the main tail of the signature.

Below the table compares the signatures signed merely as “Abdülhalik”.

Review of Armenian Studies 73

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

Table 2: Signed as Abdülhalik

Samples from Authentic Signatures Samples from Naim-Andonian

77/59 Andonian-Nubar Library

77/95

78/8

78/158

78/178

79/74

79/132

74 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

Table 2 Continued
Samples from Authentic Signatures Samples from Naim-Andonian

79/186

79/188

79A/28

80/15

80/18

80/29

80/71

Review of Armenian Studies 75

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

Again, as will be seen from the Table-2, the authentic signatures (presented on
the left side of the table) are significantly different than the fake signatures
(presented on the right side of the table) that were attributed to governor
Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey in the Naim-Andonian documents. As with the
signatures on Table-1 previously presented, the signatures bear the same
characteristic differences on table two. Again, in the authentic samples the tail
at the left end of the signatures is longer than the ones on the fake signatures
while the connection between the letter ‫( ﻖ‬kaf) and the main tail of the
signature bears the same difference highlighted on Table-1. Yet again, the
authentic samples’ tail -which starts at the left and extends to the right over the
main body of the signature- never extends beyond the main body of the
signature. However, in the fake samples, the tail (although its right-end section
is faint) extends way beyond the main body of the signature.

A further stark difference between the authentic signatures and those of the
Naim-Andonian documents is the consistent manner in which both set of
signatures connect ‫( ﺣ‬ha) and ‫( ﻞ‬lam) letters when composing the signature.
The difference regarding the connection points of the two letters between the
group of signatures are presented on Table-3 below.

76 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

Table 3: Signed as Both Mustafa Abdülhalik and Abdülhalik

Autentic Signatures Naim Andonian

Orel & Yuca Orel & Yuca

77/59 79/186

77/95 79/188

78/8 79A/28

78/158 80/15

78/178 80/18

79/74 80/29

79/132 80/71

Review of Armenian Studies 77

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

Again, as will be evident from the Table-3, both set of signatures connect ‫ﺣ‬
(ha) and ‫( ﻞ‬lam) letters are strikingly different when composing the signature.
In the authentic ones, Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey extends the tail of ‫( ﺣ‬ha)
upwards and by drawing a curve backwards/rightwards it starts drawing the
letter ‫( ﻞ‬lam) from behind that curve (which makes it take on the shape of a
cancer awareness ribbon). In signature after signature, the authentic samples
follow the same, consistent ribbon pattern. However, in the fake signatures of
Naim-Andonian documents, the drawing and connection of the two letters are
quite different. In the fake signatures of the Naim-Andonian documents, the
forger extends the tail of ‫( ﺣ‬ha) upwards and without drawing curve back/right,
it goes left and starts drawing the letter ‫( ﻞ‬lam). Thus, the connecting point of
the two letters on Naim-Andonian signatures resemble a horseshoe as displayed
on the right-hand side of the Table-3, whereas on the authentic signatures from
the Ottoman archives, it resembles a ribbon as indicated above. Table-3 above
highlights the relevant connecting points of the two letters by showing them
within red circles.

The readers might see that while authentic signatures from the Ottoman
Archives are quite similar and consistent with each other, they are significantly
different from those signatures displayed on the Naim-Andonian column.
Naim-Andonian documents are also consistent in themselves, making it
obvious that, regardless of whoever the forger might have been, they took
enough care to compose signatures in a consistent manner to avoid suspicion.
In signature after signature, the forged samples connect the letters of ‫( ﺣ‬ha)
and ‫( ﻞ‬lam) in a way that resembles a horseshoe and, in a manner, completely
and starkly different from the authentic signatures of Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey.
Moreover, this continues to be case both in documents signed as “Mustafa
Abdülhalik” or merely as “Abdülhalik”, which demonstrate that Akçam’s
claims concerning the different signatures used by governor is desperately
unconvincing.

Editorial Shortcomings

Beyond the myriad of manipulations and distortions present in Akçam’s book,

one can also come across some note-worthy editorial mistakes and
shortcomings within the text of the book. These include:

a) Books containing academic research are expected to have chapter

numberings, as such numbering provide a proper structure to such
serious works. However, Akçam’s book lacks such chapter numbering
(the Turkish version published by İletişim Yayınları in 2016 lacks
chapter numbering as well).

78 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

b) The signature table on page 106 titled: “Image 6 – Table of signatures

of Governor Mustafa Abdulhalik” has a Turkish entry (“Bogos Nubar
ve Andonyan) despite the book being in the English language.

c) One of the book’s appendixes titled “Appendix A.1: The Ottoman-

Turkish Original of Naim Efendi’s Text” starting on page 176 in fact
contains an English text rather than the “Ottoman-Turkish original” as
indicated by the title.

d) Note 76 on page 72 states “emniyeti

İsmail Canpolat” when it should have These are the kinds of the
editorial mistakes and
stated “emniyet-i umumiyye müdüri shortcomings that one
İsmail Canbolat” (his last name has would not expect from a
been misspelled and his title is publication house as
incomplete). His last name has also prestigious as Palgrave
been misspelled in pages 148 and 259 Macmillan and suggests
(index section). that Akçam’s book was not
edited properly in line
These are the kinds of the editorial mistakes with the publication
house’s standards.
and shortcomings that one would not expect
from a publication house as prestigious as
Palgrave Macmillan and suggests that Akçam’s
book was not edited properly in line with the publication house’s standards.

Conclusion

As the detailed analysis provided above indicates, Akçam’s arguments on

Naim-Andonian documents are based on the oversimplification and even worse
on the distortion of Orel and Yuca’s previous findings. In order to bring
credibility to his claims, Akçam presents Orel and Yuca’s findings in a distorted
manner and ignores these writers’ most basic objections. Having presented
these objections and findings in an oversimplified and distorted manner, Akçam
then goes on to refute the arguments and objections which Orel and Yuca never
made to begin with. Claiming that he easily refuted Orel and Yuca’s objections,
Akçam then attempts to prove the authenticity of the Naim-Andonian
documents by resorting to various manipulations.

However, as has been examined above, while listing his allegations, he bases
his arguments on serious logical errors and obvious distortions. Apart from
these, in his book, Akçam remains completely silent on a number of issues for
which no explanation can be given, such as: the chronological discrepancies

Review of Armenian Studies 79

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

in the Naim-Andonian documents, the signature attributed to governor of

Aleppo being different from the genuine signature of the governor contained
in the Ottoman Archive, Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey’s signing of some documents
with the title “Governor” before he had actually been appointed as a governor,
and also both Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey’in and Abdülahad Nuri Bey adding
notes to the documents and signing them during dates when they were still in
Istanbul and had not yet reached Aleppo. Unable to present credible evidence
to explain the inconsistencies and discrepancies of the Naim-Andonian
documents, Akçam resorts to several assumptions to be able to argue that the
documents must be authentic, assumptions for which he does provide any
evidence for most of the time.

On top of all this, Akçam does not present convincing explanations for the
most basic objections (fake signatures, the type of paper used by the Ottoman
bureaucracy, chronological discrepancies etc.) directed by Orel and Yuca
towards the Naim-Andonian documents and ignores many of these objections.
For these reasons, it is apparent that Akçam’s study cannot be taken as a
credible and balanced work of scholarship that makes a meaningful
contribution to the debate on the concerning the authenticity of the Naim-
Andonian documents.

80 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018
 Review Essay: Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archives

Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (BOA), [Prime Minister’s Office, Ottoman

Archives], Istanbul.

Dâhiliye Nezareti Şifre Kalemi Evrakı (Cypher Office of the Ministry of the
Interior Collection)

Secondary Sources

Akçam, Taner. Naim Efendinin Hatıratı ve Talat Paşa Telgrafları, Krikor

Gergeryan Arşivi. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2016.

Akçam, Taner. Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian
Genocide. Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.

Andonian, Aram. Documents Officiels Concernant les Massacres Armeniens.

Paris: Impremerie H. Turabian, 1920.

Andonian, Aram. Memoirs of Naim Bey. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1920.

Dyer, Gwynne. “Correspondence”. Middle Eastern Studies, Volume 9, 1973.

Fitzpatrick, Sheila & Viola, Lynne (ed.). A Researcher’s Guide to Sources on

Soviet Social History in the 1930s, New York: Armonk, 1990.

Harris, Robert. Selling Hitler: The Story of Hitler Diaries. London: Arrow
Books, 2010.

Henke, Josef. “Revealing the Forged Hitler Diaries”. Archivaria, Volume 19,
1984.

Kieser, Hans-Lukas (ed.). , The Armenian Genocide and the Shoah. Zürich:
Chronos Verlag, 2002.

Kuromiya, Hiroaki. “Guide to Emigre and Dissident Memoir Literature” in

Sheila Fitzpatrick & Lynne Viola (ed.), A Researcher’s Guide to Sources
on Soviet Social History in the 1930s, New York: Armonk, 1990.

Lewy, Guenter. The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed

Genocide. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2007.

Review of Armenian Studies 81

No. 37, 2018
 Ömer Engin Lütem - Yiğit Alpogan

Orel, Şinasi and Süreyya Yuca. The Talât Pasha Telegrams – Historical fact
or Armenian fiction? Lefkoşa (Nicosia): K. Rustem and Bro., 1983.

Orel, Şinasi ve Süreyya Yuca. Ermenilerce Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların

Gerçek Yüzü. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1983.

Sabis, Ali İhsan. Harp Hatıralarım: Birinci Cihan Harbi, Cilt II. İstanbul:
Nehir Yayınları, 1990.

T.C. Genelkurmay Başkanlığı. Arşiv Belgelerinde Ermeni Faaliyetleri, Cilt

VII. Genelkurmay Askeri Tarih ve Stratejik Etüt (ATASE) Başkanlığı
Yayınları. Ankara: Genelkurmay Basımevi, 2008.

Zürcher, Erik Jan. “Ottoman Labour Battalions in World War I”. Hans-Lukas
Kieser (ed.), The Armenian Genocide and the Shoah. Zürich: 2002.

82 Review of Armenian Studies

No. 37, 2018