Ara Sarafian: Talaat Pasha's Report Is The Official View Of The Armenian Genocide According To Ottoman Records
Mediamax interview with historian Ara Sarafian
"Talaat Pasha's Report on the Armenian Genocide, 1917" was published
by the Gomidas Institute in April 2011. As the title implies, it is
an appraisal of a report that was found in Talaat Pasha's private
papers and published by the Turkish journalist and popular historian
Murat Bardakci. According to Sarafian, Bardakci's analysis of Talaat's
report was limited and did not reflect the true content of the original
document. Sarafian draws on Ottoman records to verify the authenticity
of the 1917 document and interpret its content. He argues that the
1917 report was actually a special assessment of the Armenian Genocide.
Mediamax talked to Ara Sarafian.
- What can you say about "Talaat Pasha's Report on the Armenian
Genocide"?
- The report was found in Talaat Pasha's private papers way back in
1982 by the Turkish journalist and historian Murat Bardakci. He first
published parts of it in 2005 and then released the whole report (with
facsimiles of the originals) in 2008. I found the original report a
compelling document, though Bardakci, in his own introductory comments,
had toned down, even misrepresented, its Armenian content.
- How was the report toned down or misrepresented?
- Murat Bardakci prefaced his work with a chapter called "What
Happened on 24 April 1915" and repeated the official explanation
that Ottoman Armenians were subjected to a "population transfer"
in 1915; he dismissed any consideration of the Armenian Genocide
thesis; and he gave a wholly inappropriate title to Talaat's report
of 1917. However, he stated that the data he was presenting was open
to different interpretation.
After the report was released in 2005, the main discussion about it
was "led" by official Turkish historians, and they played down the
importance of the report. They pointed out that it did not have a
title, nor a date, that it could have been written by anyone. They
did not comment on the fact that it was found in Talaat's private
papers, discuss its content in broader terms, or suggest answers to
the questions they were raising. As far as I know, only one Turkish
historian, Fuat Dundar has ever discussed the report in some depth.
- Are you suggesting that official Turkish historians covered up
Talaat's report?
- Yes. They raised their questions without mentioning the extent to
which Talaat Pasha was directly involved in the deportation of Ottoman
Armenians and the types of record we know he collected in the process.
For example, he sent a circular to a list of provinces in February 1917
requesting specific information about Armenians. The information in
Talaat's report is in the same peculiar format as the information he
sought in that circular. The survey asked for the number of "native"
and "outside" Armenians in different provinces, including information
about the origins of "outsiders."
As the official Turkish historians undoubtedly know, some of the
responses to this circular can still be found in Turkish archives and
these responses clearly suggest that the February circular was the key
reference for Talaat's report. Some of the returns were identical to
Talaat's report; others had been updated and were slightly different.
This archival trail is the substance of my own introduction to
"Talaat Pasha's Report on the Armenian Genocide."
- How does such information from 1917 relate to the Armenian Genocide?
- Talaat's report makes its focus explicit with its opening
summary-analysis, where it introduces additional categories of
information. It has a column showing the Armenian population of
different provinces in 1914 according to official Ottoman statistics,
and it has a column that has been generated from the returns to
the 1917 survey. This column shows the total number of Armenians
from each province who were counted in other provinces. This latter
column must have been generated and included in the summary-analysis
upon special instruction. (Interestingly, there is no column showing
the total number of Armenians in the different provinces). With the
information that was included in the summary-analysis, Talaat could,
for example, look at the Armenian population of Izmit in 1914 and
see how many Izmit-Armenians were either in their native province
or elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire in 1917. These figures allowed
Talaat to see how many Izmit Armenians were deported from their native
province and how many still survived (or did not survive) in 1917.
It is for such reasons that I chose to entitle my analysis of Talaat's
document, first published by Murat Bardakci, "Talaat Pasha's Report
on the Armenian Genocide, 1917." I should say that I entirely disagree
with Murat Bardakci who called the same report, "A General Account of
the Armenian Population after the Population Transfer [tehcir]." If
the report described a "population transfer," then one would have
expected most of the deported to have been resettled elsewhere,
especially in the resettlement zone. In actual fact, the vast
majority of Ottoman Armenians (that is over 80 percent, in crude
figures) actually disappeared between 1914 and 1917. Most of these
missing Armenians were probably killed, with a large number of women
and children absorbed into Muslim households. As for those remaining
"native" and "outside" Armenians, perhaps they would be best described
as "captive victims" of the Armenian Genocide. They were "playthings"
of the Ottoman state, which played with their lives, and pushed them
to assimilate as Muslim-Turks. In some cases, such as Kayseri province,
the evidence shows that such victims were actively dispersed in Muslim
villages for assimilation.
- So, how many Armenians were "missing" according to Talaat's report?
- According to the report, Ottoman official figures counted 1,112,614
Armenians in the Empire in 1914. Of course, these figures need to be
verified, especially as there was no official census that year.
Talaat's summary-analysis also included a fascinating footnote that
stated that the official number of Armenians in 1914 shown in the
report excluded Catholic Armenians and rectified the figure to show
1,256,403 Apostolic and Catholic Armenians. (It did not mention
Protestant Armenians). The footnote also stated that the number of
these Armenians should be raised further to around 1.5 million in
order to account for undercounts. Similarly, the footnote stated that
the number of "native" and "outside" Armenians in the provinces should
be raised from 284,157 to around 350,000 to 400,000 people. According
to these figures, therefore, around 1,100,000 Armenians were missing
between 1914 and 1917.
Obviously the data has to be analysed. First, it is not clear how
many Armenians were in the Ottoman Empire in 1914. Then there is the
question of 40,000 or so Protestant Armenians who were not presented
in Talaat's report (even though they too were deported and killed
in large numbers). Talaat's data also missed out a few regions,
most notably Janik (Samsun) and Edirne, where there were also major
deportations. There is also the question of how many Armenians managed
to escape in the east and, as some may point out, what happened to
them after their escape. If they starved or froze to death, should
they be counted as victims of the genocide?
- What do you hope to achieve with your study on Talaat Pasha's report
of 1917?
- I tried to evaluate the significance of Talaat's report as a
historical document. Once I was able to do that, I decided to present
his data as the official view of the Armenian Genocide according to
Ottoman records. I also configured the data- as far as possible -
to show how different Ottoman Armenian communities fared during this
period. I did not try to analyse the figures much further. That can
be done over time.
- It has been 3 months since your book "Talaat Pasha's Report on the
Armenian Genocide, 1917" was published in English. What has been the
reaction to it especially from official Turkish historians?
- My work has been welcomed by many readers, both in Turkey and
elsewhere. However, there has not been an academic response so far.
When Murat Bardakci first published Talaat's report, there was similar
disquiet amongst official Turkish historians. The New York Times
even commented on the "silence" with an article, "Nearly a Million
Genocide Victims, Covered in a Cloak of Amnesia" (NYT, 8 March 2009).
- Do you fear any unfair treatment by Turkish state historians
yourself?
- No. Anyone who criticizes the official Turkish thesis on the
Armenian Genocide should be prepared for a reaction. This is part of
the process. Next month the Gomidas Institute will release a Turkish
translation of my work and I still hope that will lead to a sensible
discussion.
- Who is your audience in Turkey?
- People who are interested in the Armenian Genocide and have an
open mind.
- Are you confident that the translation will get fair consideration
given some extreme views expressed against you in some circles?
- There are extremists everywhere in the world. However, my audience is
different. Also, my work on Talaat's report is not a complex academic
text. It is quite simple and to the point. It is accessible.
The bulk of it is composed of statistics from Talaat's original
report. This original data is available in facsimile format (original
Ottoman text plus Turkish transliteration) in Bardakci's book, so
that its authenticity is not in question. I have presented this data
in somewhat clearer terms regarding the Armenian Genocide, especially
with the addition two significant maps. My own analysis in the work
gives an account of where the data came from and how it was used for
Talaat's assessment of the Armenian Genocide. The analysis draws on
Ottoman archival records which can be easily verified in Turkey.
"Talaat Pasha's Report on the Armenian Genocide, 1917" and maps can
be downloaded for at here:
http://gomidas.org/NOTES_AND_STUDIES/Talaat%20Pasha%20Report%201917.pdf
http://gomidas.org/NOTES_AND_STUDIES/Talaat%20Pasha%20Map%201.pdf
http://gomidas.org/NOTES_AND_STUDIES/Talaat%20Pasha%20Map%202.pdf