Assassination of Talaat Pasha
Assassination of Talaat Pasha | |
---|---|
Part of Operation Nemesis | |
Location | Hardenbergstraße 27, Charlottenburg, Berlin, Brandenburg, Germany |
Date | 15 March 1921 |
Deaths | Talaat Pasha |
Motive | Revenge for the Armenian genocide |
Accused | Soghomon Tehlirian |
Verdict | Acquittal |
On 15 March 1921, Armenian student Soghomon Tehlirian assassinated Talaat Pasha—former grand vizier of the Ottoman Empire and the main architect of the Armenian genocide—in Berlin. At his trial, Tehlirian argued, "I have killed a man, but I am not a murderer";[1] the jury acquitted him.
Tehlirian came from
Tehlirian's trial was held 2–3 June 1921, and the defense strategy was to put Talaat on trial for the Armenian genocide. Extensive evidence on the genocide was heard, resulting in "one of the most spectacular trials of the twentieth century", according to Stefan Ihrig.[3] Tehlirian claimed he had acted alone and that the killing was not premeditated, telling a dramatic and realistic, but untrue, story of surviving the genocide and witnessing the deaths of his family members. The international media widely reported on the trial, which brought attention and recognition of the facts of the Armenian genocide; Tehlirian's acquittal brought mostly favorable reactions.
Both Talaat and Tehlirian are considered by their respective sides to be heroes; historian Alp Yenen refers to this relationship as the "Talat–Tehlirian complex". Talaat was buried in Germany, but Turkey repatriated his remains in 1943 and gave him a state funeral. Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin read about the trial in the news and was inspired to conceptualize the crime of genocide in international law.
Background
As the leader of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), Talaat Pasha (1874–1921) was the last powerful grand vizier of the Ottoman Empire during World War I. Considered the primary architect of the Armenian genocide,[5] he ordered the deportation of nearly all of the empire's Armenian population to the Syrian Desert in 1915, to wipe them out.[6] Of 40,000 Armenians deported from Erzurum, it is estimated that fewer than 200 reached Deir ez-Zor.[7] When more Armenians survived than Talaat had intended, he ordered a second wave of massacres in 1916.[8] Talaat estimated that around 1,150,000 Armenians disappeared during the genocide.[9] In 1918, Talaat told journalist Muhittin Birgen , "I assume full responsibility for the severity applied" during the Armenian deportation and, "I absolutely don't regret my deed."[10]
When United States ambassador
Talaat Pasha’s exile in Berlin
After the
Arriving in Berlin on 10 November, Talaat stayed in a hotel in
Talaat had influential German friends from the beginning of his exile and acquired status over time as he was seen as a representative of the
Operation Nemesis
After it became clear that no one else would bring the perpetrators of the genocide to justice,
One of these volunteers was
After the war, Tehlirian went to Constantinople, where he assassinated Harutiun Mgrditichian, who had worked for the Ottoman secret police and helped compile the list of Armenian intellectuals who were deported on 24 April 1915. This killing convinced the Nemesis operatives to entrust him with the assassination of Talaat Pasha.[45] In mid-1920, the Nemesis organization paid for Tehlirian to travel to the United States, where Garo briefed him that the death sentences pronounced against the major perpetrators had not been carried out, and that the killers continued their anti-Armenian activities from exile. That fall, the Turkish nationalist movement invaded Armenia. Tehlirian received the photographs of seven leading CUP leaders, whose whereabouts Nemesis was tracking, and departed for Europe, going first to Paris. In Geneva, he obtained a visa to go to Berlin as a mechanical engineering student, leaving on 2 December.[46]
The conspirators plotting assassinations met at the residence of Libarit Nazariants, vice-consul of the
Assassination
On a rainy Tuesday (15 March 1921) around 10:45 a.m., Talaat left his apartment intending to purchase a pair of gloves. Tehlirian approached him from the opposite direction, recognized him, crossed the street, closed in from behind, and shot him at close range in the nape of his neck outside Hardenbergstraße 27, on a busy street corner, causing instant death.
Police cordoned off the body. Fellow CUP exile Nazım Bey arrived at the scene shortly afterwards and went to Talaat's apartment at Hardenbergstraße 4, where Ernst Jäckh, a Foreign Office official and pro-Turkish activist who often met with Talaat, arrived at 11:30 a.m.[56] Şakir also learned of the assassination and identified the body for the police.[52] Jäckh and Nazım returned to the scene of the assassination. Jäckh attempted to convince the police to surrender the body using his authority as a Foreign Office official, but they refused to do so before the homicide squad arrived. Jäckh complained the "Turkish Bismarck" could not remain outside in such a state for passersby to gawk at.[57] Eventually, they received permission to transport the body, which was sent to Charlottenburg mortuary in a Red Cross vehicle.[58] Immediately after the assassination, Şakir and Nazım received police protection.[58] Other CUP exiles worried they would be next.[59]
Funeral
Initially, Talaat's friends hoped he could be buried in Anatolia, but neither the Ottoman government in Constantinople nor the Turkish nationalist movement in Ankara wanted the body; it would be a political liability to associate themselves with the man considered the worst criminal of World War I.[62] Invitations from Hayriye and the Oriental Club were sent to Talaat's funeral, and on 19 March, he was buried in the Alter St.-Matthäus-Kirchhof in a well-attended ceremony.[63] At 11:00 a.m., prayers led by the imam of the Turkish embassy, Shükri Bey, were held at Talaat's apartment. Afterwards, a large procession accompanied the coffin to Matthäus, where he was interred.[58]
Many prominent Germans paid their respects, including former foreign ministers
In late April, national-liberal politician Gustav Stresemann of the German People's Party proposed a public commemoration to honor Talaat.[66] The German-Turkish Association declined.[67] Stresemann was well aware of the genocide and believed at least one million Armenians had been killed.[68] Talaat's belongings ended up in the possession of Weismann, the head of Berlin's Public Security Office; his memoirs were given to Şakir who had them published.[69]
Trial
At the beginning of the police investigation, Tehlirian was offered a Turkish-speaking interpreter, but he refused to speak Turkish. On 16 March, the police recruited an Armenian interpreter, Kevork Kaloustian, who was part of the Nemesis operation.[70] Tehlirian admitted he had killed Talaat out of vengeance and planned the act before he came to Germany, but told police he acted alone.[71] At his trial, Tehlirian denied the assassination was premeditated; the interpreter had refused to sign the document of interrogation on the grounds that Tehlirian's injuries incapacitated him.[72] The preliminary investigation was concluded by 21 March.[73]
The Dashnaktsutyun raised between 100,000 and 300,000
The trial was held at the
Defense and prosecution strategies
The defense strategy was to put Talaat Pasha on trial for the murder of Tehlirian's family members and the other one million Armenians whose deaths he had ordered.[83] Natalie saw it as an opportunity to propagandize the Armenian cause.[84] He believed that Tehlirian would likely be convicted according to German law but hoped to secure a pardon. Werthauer was more optimistic, announcing days after the assassination his certainty of achieving his client's acquittal.[85] The Protestant missionary and activist Johannes Lepsius, who had spoken out against the killing of Armenians since 1896, worked on presenting the case against Talaat.[86] Their strategy was successful, as the social-democratic newspaper Vorwärts noted: "In reality it was the blood-stained shadow of Talât Pasha who was sitting on the defendant's bench; and the true charge was the ghastly Armenian Horrors, not his execution by one of the few victims left alive."[3]
To maximize the probability of acquittal, the defense presented Tehlirian as a lone vigilante, rather than an avenger of his entire nation.
In contrast, the German prosecution's main goal was to depoliticize the proceedings[76] and avoid a discussion of Germany's role in the genocide.[88] The trial was held in only one and a half days instead of the three requested by the defense, and six of the fifteen witnesses the defense called were not heard.[89] The prosecution applied for the case to be heard in camera to minimize exposure, but the Foreign Office rejected this solution, fearing that secrecy would not improve Germany's reputation.[90] Historian Carolyn Dean writes that the attempt to complete the trial quickly and positively portray Germany's actions during the war "inadvertently transformed Tehlirian into a symbol of human conscience tragically compelled to gun down a murderer for want of justice."[91]
Ihrig and other historians have argued the prosecutor's strategy was deeply flawed, indicating either his incompetence or a lack of motivation to achieve a conviction.[92] Gollnick insisted that events in the Ottoman Empire had nothing to do with the assassination and tried to avoid the presentation of evidence on the genocide. Once the evidence was presented, he denied Talaat played a role in the Armenian atrocities and was ultimately obliged to justify the orders that Talaat sent.[76] Before the trial, Hans Humann, who controlled the anti-Armenian Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper, lobbied the prosecutor's office intensely.[93] Although he had access to Talaat Pasha's memoirs, the prosecutor did not enter them into evidence at the trial.[94] Ihrig speculates Gollnick was disgusted by Humann's lobbying and perhaps even sympathized with the defendant. After the trial, Gollnick was appointed to the editorial board of Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung.[95]
Tehlirian's testimony
The trial opened with the judge asking Tehlirian many questions about the genocide, which revealed the judge's knowledge of the genocide and Turkish and German narratives about it. He asked Tehlirian to recount what he witnessed during the events.
Tehlirian was asked whom he held responsible for instigating the massacres and about historical precedents such as the Adana massacre. Only then did the judge read out the charges of premeditated murder. Asked if he was guilty, Tehlirian said "no", despite having initially admitted to having carried out the assassination.[101] He explained, "I do not consider myself guilty because my conscience was clear ... I have killed a man, but I am not a murderer."[102] Tehlirian denied having a plan to kill Talaat, but said that two weeks before the killing, he had a vision: "the images from the massacre came in front of my eyes again and again. I saw the corpse of my mother. This corpse stood up and came up to me and said: 'You saw that Talât is here and you are totally indifferent? You are no longer my son!'"[103] At this point, he said that he "suddenly woke up and decided to kill" Talaat.[104] After further questioning, he denied knowing that Talaat was in Berlin and reiterated that he had no plan to kill the Ottoman official, appearing confused.[105] The judge intervened in favor of Tehlirian after further probing from the prosecutor, saying that "there had been changes in his [Tehlirian's] resolve".[104]
The testimony was false: Tehlirian was actually fighting with the Armenian volunteers in the Russian army at the time his family was killed.[106] Historian Rolf Hosfeld says Tehlirian "was extremely well groomed" and his testimony was highly believable.[107] Historian Tessa Hofmann says that, while false, Tehlirian's testimony featured "extremely typical and essential elements of the collective fate of his compatriots".[43] The prosecution did not challenge the veracity of the testimony, and the truth was not uncovered until decades later.[108] During the trial, Tehlirian was never asked if he belonged to an Armenian revolutionary group or if he committed the assassination as part of a conspiracy.[109] Had the court known that the assassination was part of a premeditated conspiracy, Hosfeld argues, Tehlirian would not have been acquitted.[107]
Other testimony on the genocide
The court then heard from the police officers and the coroner as witnesses to the assassination and its aftermath, as well as Tehlirian's two landladies, before calling upon Armenians who had interacted with Tehlirian in Berlin. These witnesses gave information on the Armenian genocide. Levon Eftian told the court that his family was in Erzurum during the genocide and both his parents were killed, but other relatives managed to flee. Tehlirian's interpreter, Zakariants, also testified later that day, saying that he lost his father, mother, grandfather, brother, and uncle during the 1890s Hamidian massacres. Mr. Terzibashian, an Armenian tobacconist in Berlin, testified that all his friends and relatives who had been in Erzurum during the genocide were killed.[110]
Christine Terzibashian
Christine Terzibashian, the tobacconist's wife, said she knew nothing of the assassination. The defense asked her to testify about the Armenian genocide, and the judge allowed this. She was also from Erzurum and said that of her twenty-one relatives, only three survived.
Afterwards, Terzibashian recalled, "the gendarmes came and picked out the most beautiful women and girls" and that any who refused were "impaled with bayonets and their legs were ripped apart". She recalled that the killers would cut open pregnant women to kill their children. This caused great stir in the courtroom. She stated that her brother was killed and her mother immediately died. When she refused to marry one of the Turks, "he took my child and threw it away". After recounting more gruesome details, she said the truth was even worse than she could relate.[114] Asked whom she held responsible for these massacres, she stated, "It happened on Enver Pasha's orders and the soldiers forced the deportees to kneel and shout: 'Long live the pasha!'"[115] The defense said that other witnesses, including two German nurses in Erzindjan, corroborated her account. Thus, Gordon argued, Tehlirian's account was also "true to the core".[115]
Expert witnesses
Two expert witnesses were heard on the veracity of the previous testimony, which the prosecutor also agreed to hear.[116] Lepsius testified that the deportation was ordered by the "Young Turk Committee", including Talaat Pasha.[117] Lepsius quoted from an original document from Talaat regarding Armenian deportations: "the destination of the deportations is nothingness" (Das Verschickungsziel ist das Nichts) and gave details about how this was carried out in practice.[116] Lepsius noted that, despite the official excuse of "preventative measures", "authoritative figures openly admitted in private that this was about the annihilation of the Armenian people".[117] Mentioning the collection of Foreign Office documents he edited, Germany and Armenia, Lepsius stated that hundreds more similar testimonies existed like those heard by the court; he estimated one million Armenians were killed overall.[118]
German general Otto Liman von Sanders acknowledged that the CUP government ordered the Armenian deportations, but also offered excuses and justifications for the deportation, claiming it occurred because of military necessity and the advice of the "highest military authorities"; he did not acknowledge that these high-ranking military officers were mostly Germans.[119] Unlike other witnesses, Liman von Sanders said he did not know if Talaat was personally responsible for the genocide.[120]
Grigoris Balakian
Next to testify was the Armenian priest Grigoris Balakian, one of those deported on 24 April, who had come from Manchester, England. He described how most of the members of his convoy were beaten to death in Ankara. "The official name was 'deportation,' but in reality it was a systematic policy of annihilation", he stated,[121] explaining:
Getting near to
Yozgad about four hours from the town, we saw, in a valley hundreds of heads with long hair, heads of women and girls. The chief of the gendarmes in our escort was named Shukri. I said to him, "I thought that only the men were killed." No, he said, "if we killed only the men, but not the women and girls, in fifty years, there would again be several million Armenians. We must therefore eliminate the women and children in order to settle it once and for all, at home and abroad."[83]
Shukri explained that, unlike in the Hamidian massacres, this time the Ottomans took steps that "no witness would ever reach any court". He said he could speak freely to Balakian because he would die of starvation in the desert.[121] Shukri said he had ordered that 40,000 Armenians be clubbed to death. After a while, Gordon interrupted, asking Balakian about telegrams from Talaat. Balakian said he had seen such a telegram sent to Asaf Bey, vice-governor of Osmaniye in Cilicia, which read: "Please telegraph us promptly how many of the Armenians are already dead and how many still alive. Minister of the Interior, Talât".[122] Asaf told Balakian that it meant, "What are you waiting for? Begin the massacres [immediately]!"[123] Balakian said that Germans working for the Baghdad railway saved his life. He said Armenians, correctly, held Talaat responsible for the massacres.[124]
Witnesses and evidence not heard
The defense wanted to read into evidence several of the
Talaat's telegrams were discussed in press coverage, including that by The New York Times.[132] Other witnesses who had been called but were not heard included Bronsart von Schellendorff, soldiers Ernst Paraquin and Franz Carl Endres , medic Armin T. Wegner, and Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter, who witnessed the genocide as vice-consul in Erzurum.[133]
Mental state
Five expert witnesses testified about Tehlirian's mental state and whether it absolved him from criminal responsibility for his actions according to German law;[78] all agreed that he suffered from regular bouts of "epilepsy" due to what he experienced in 1915.[134] According to Ihrig, none of the doctors had a clear understanding of Tehlirian's condition, but their understanding sounded similar to the later disease of post-traumatic stress disorder.[135] Dr. Robert Stoermer testified first, stating that in his opinion, Tehlirian's crime was a deliberate, premeditated killing and did not stem from his mental state.[136] According to Hugo Liepmann, Tehlirian had become a "psychopath" because of what he witnessed in 1915 and therefore was not fully responsible for his actions.[137] Neurologist and professor Richard Cassirer testified that "emotional turbulence was the root cause of his condition", and that "affect epilepsy" completely changed his personality.[138] Edmund Forster said that traumatic experiences during the war did not cause new pathologies, merely revealed those that already existed, but agreed Tehlirian was not responsible for his action.[139] The last expert, Bruno Haake, also diagnosed "affect epilepsy" and completely ruled out the possibility that Tehlirian was able to formulate the action of his own free will.[140]
Closing arguments
All the witnesses were heard on the first day. At 9:15 a.m. on the second day, the judge addressed the jury, stating they needed to answer the following questions: "[First, is] the defendant, Soghomon Tehlirian, guilty of having killed, with premeditation, another human being, Talât Pasha, on 15 March 1921, in Charlottenburg?... Secondly, did the defendant carry out this killing with reflection? ... Thirdly, are there any mitigating circumstances?"[141]
Gollnick gave only a brief closing argument; his speech took up six pages in the trial transcript compared to thirty-five for the defense.[141] He argued Tehlirian was guilty of premeditated murder (as opposed to manslaughter, which carried a lesser sentence) and demanded the death penalty. Political hatred and vindictiveness, Gollnick argued, fully explained the crime. Tehlirian plotted the killing long in advance, traveling from the Ottoman Empire to Berlin, renting a room across the street from his intended victim, carefully observing Talaat, and finally killing him.[142] He emphasized Liman von Sanders' evidence, arguing he was more reliable than Lepsius, and distorting what the German general actually said.[143] Appealing to the stab-in-the-back myth about German defeat in the war, Gollnick argued that the "dislocation" of Armenians was carried out because they "conspired with the Entente and were determined, as soon as the war situation allowed, to stab the Turks in the back and to achieve their independence".[144] Arguing there was no evidence of Talaat's responsibility in the massacres, he questioned the reliability of the documents presented at the trial and the objectivity of the tribunal that had sentenced Talaat to death.[142] At the end of his speech, he emphasized Talaat Pasha's patriotism and honor.[145]
Of the defense attorneys, Gordon spoke first, accusing Gollnick of being "a defense attorney for Talât Pasha".[145] He argued in favor of the evidence linking Talaat to the commission of the genocide, particularly telegrams. Such a large-scale extermination of one million Armenians, he maintained, could not have taken place without the coordination of the central government.[146] Furthermore, the defense noted that "deliberation" (Überlegung) in German case law refers to the time at which the decision to kill is made, excluding other preparations. A planned act cannot be murder if at the moment of its execution there was no deliberation.[147]
Werthauer said that Talaat served in a "
Both the prosecution and the defense stressed the difference between German and Turkish behavior during the genocide. Werthauer argued Talaat had been living in Berlin without the knowledge of the German government.[105] Niemeyer said exoneration "would put an end to the misconception the world has of us" that Germany was responsible for the genocide.[153]
Verdict
After the closing arguments were delivered, the judge asked Tehlirian if he had anything to add; he declined.[91] The jury deliberated for an hour before answering the question of whether Tehlirian was guilty of deliberately killing Talaat with one word: "No".[154] A unanimous verdict, it left no possibility of appeal by the prosecution.[155] The audience burst into applause.[156] The state treasury bore the cost of the proceedings—306,484 marks.[157] Gollnick said that the acquittal was based on temporary insanity.[158] Ihrig says "the jury did not necessarily find Tehlirian innocent because of 'temporary insanity'"; he notes that the defense focused more on the political rather than medical aspects of Tehlirian's act.[133]
Following his acquittal, Tehlirian was deported from Germany.[159] He went to Manchester with Balakian, and then to the United States under the false name "Saro Melikian", where the editorial board of Hairenik honored him. He continued to be ill and needed medical treatment for his stress disorder.[160] He settled in Belgrade, Serbia, where he lived until 1950.[161] Transcripts of the trial, which were purchased by many Armenians around the world, were sold to recoup the cost of Tehlirian's defense and raise money for the Nemesis operation.[162]
Press coverage
The assassination and trial received widespread international press coverage[163] and brought attention and recognition to the facts of the genocide.[164] Contemporaries understood the trial to be more about the Armenian genocide than Tehlirian's personal guilt.[165] News coverage reflected the tension between public sympathy for the Armenian victims of genocide and the value of law and order. The New York Times noted the jury faced a dilemma; by acquitting, they would condemn the Armenian atrocities, but also sanction extralegal killing: "This dilemma cannot be escaped: all assassins should be punished; this assassin should not be punished. And there you are!"[166] Overall, reactions to the acquittal were favorable.[167]
Germany
The assassination made the headlines of many German newspapers on the day it occurred, most coverage being sympathetic to Talaat.[169] The next day, most newspapers in Germany reported on the assassination, and many printed obituaries. A typical example of coverage was in Vossische Zeitung, which acknowledged Talaat's role in attempting to "exterminat[e] all reachable members of the [Armenian] tribe", but advanced several justifications for the genocide.[170] Other newspapers suggested Talaat was the wrong target for Armenian revenge.[171] The Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung launched an anti-Armenian campaign claiming that backstabbing and murder such as Tehlirian had carried out was "the true Armenian manner".[172] One of the only newspapers initially sympathetic to the assassin was the Communist Freiheit.[173]
Coverage of the trial was widespread for a month thereafter, and Tehlirian's exploit continued to be brought up in political debate until the
On the nationalist side of opinion, which tended to be anti-Armenian, many newspapers switched from denying the genocide to justifying it, following Humann's Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, which published many anti-Armenian articles
Ottoman Empire
Following Talaat's assassination, Ankara newspapers praised him as a great revolutionary and reformer; Turkish nationalists told the German consul that he remained "their hope and idol".
Legacy
Turkey and Armenia
Historian Hans-Lukas Kieser states that the "assassination perpetuated the sick relationship of a victim in quest of revenge with a perpetrator entrenched in defiant denial".[194] Both Talaat and Tehlirian are considered by their respective sides to be heroes; Alp Yenen refers to this relationship as the "Talat–Tehlirian complex".[195]
Although considered a terrorist in Turkey,
Since 2005, there have been attempts by Turks in Berlin to have a memorial constructed at the site of the assassination[60] and commemorations on 15 March at his grave.[201] In March 2006, Turkish nationalist groups organized two rallies in Berlin intended to commemorate the assassination and protest "the lie of genocide". German politicians criticized the march, and turnout was low.[202] In 2007, Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was assassinated by a Turkish ultranationalist in broad daylight. Connections between the killings of Dink and Talaat have been noted by multiple authors.[203]
International law
Polish-Jewish law student
Those who defended
Future
References
- ^ a b Dean 2019, p. 41.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 232.
- ^ a b c Ihrig 2016, p. 235.
- ^ Akçam 2018, p. 158.
- ^ Dadrian & Akçam 2011, p. 23; Kieser 2018, p. xi.
- ^ Üngör 2012, p. 54; Göçek 2015, p. 151; Kieser 2018, pp. 234–235.
- ^ Üngör 2012, p. 53.
- ^ Kieser 2018, p. 374; Suny 2015, pp. 325–326.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 74.
- ^ Akçam 2008, p. 111.
- ^ Suny 2015, p. 269; Hofmann 2020, p. 75.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 76.
- ^ Kieser 2018, p. 320; Ozavci 2019, pp. 194, 215.
- ^ Suny 2015, pp. 298–299; Kieser 2018, pp. 20–21.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 132–133.
- ^ Suny 2015, p. 303; Ihrig 2016, p. 189.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 189; Kieser 2018, p. 21.
- ^ Suny 2015, p. 298.
- ^ Kieser 2010; Ihrig 2016, pp. 194–195.
- ^ Dadrian & Akçam 2011, p. 24; Yenen 2020, p. 74.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 75; Kieser 2018, p. 382; Hosfeld 2005, pp. 11–12.
- ^ Hosfeld 2005, pp. 12–13.
- ^ Kieser 2018, p. 382; Hofmann 2020, pp. 74–75; Hosfeld & Petrossian 2020, p. 1.
- ^ Kieser 2018, p. 385.
- ^ a b Hosfeld 2005, p. 16.
- ^ Kieser 2018, p. 382.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 75; Hosfeld 2005, p. 12.
- ^ Kieser 2018, p. 319.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 75; Kieser 2018, p. 385; Hosfeld 2005, p. 15.
- ^ Hosfeld & Petrossian 2020, p. 1; Ihrig 2016, p. 227.
- ^ Kieser 2018, pp. 386–387.
- ^ Göçek 2015, pp. 251–252, 257.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 75; Kieser 2018, p. 385; Hosfeld & Petrossian 2020, p. 2.
- ^ Naimark, Norman (2017). Genocide: A World History. Oxford University Press. p. 74.
- ^ MacCurdy 2015, p. 172; Hofmann 2020, p. 77.
- ^ Göçek 2015, p. 266.
- ^ MacCurdy 2015, pp. 167, 194; Kieser 2018, p. 404.
- ^ MacCurdy 2015, pp. 172–173.
- ^ MacCurdy 2015, pp. 175, 201–202.
- ^ MacCurdy 2015, pp. 172–173; Jacobs 2019, p. 33.
- ^ a b Jacobs 2019, p. 36.
- ^ MacCurdy 2015, pp. 173–174, 186.
- ^ a b Hofmann 2020, p. 82.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 40; MacCurdy 2015, pp. 174, 272.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 77; MacCurdy 2015, pp. 177, 186.
- ^ a b MacCurdy 2015, pp. 187–188.
- ^ MacCurdy 2015, pp. 189–190.
- ^ MacCurdy 2015, pp. 189–190; Hosfeld 2005, p. 23.
- ^ MacCurdy 2015, pp. 189–190; Hofmann 2020, p. 81.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 226; Kieser 2018, p. 403; Bogosian 2015, p. 12.
- ^ Bogosian 2015, p. 12; Hosfeld 2005, p. 7.
- ^ a b c Suny 2015, p. 344.
- ^ Bogosian 2015, p. 13.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 226; Hosfeld 2005, p. 7; Suny 2015, p. 344.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 226; Hosfeld 2005, p. 8.
- ^ Kieser 2018, p. 404.
- ^ Kieser 2018, p. 404; Hosfeld 2005, pp. 8–9.
- ^ a b c Hosfeld 2005, p. 9.
- ^ Göçek 2015, p. 334.
- ^ a b Hofmann 2020, p. 88.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 88; Suny 2015, p. 346.
- ^ a b c d Hosfeld 2005, p. 10.
- ^ Hosfeld 2005, p. 9; Kieser 2018, p. 405.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 232; Hosfeld 2005, p. 10.
- ^ Kieser 2018, p. 405.
- ^ Kieser 2018, p. 407; Ihrig 2016, p. 268.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 268.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 269.
- ^ Dadrian & Akçam 2011, p. 155.
- ^ Petrossian 2020, p. 94.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 40; Petrossian 2020, pp. 94, 96.
- ^ Petrossian 2020, pp. 94, 96.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 78.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 82; MacCurdy 2015, p. 266; Hosfeld & Petrossian 2020, p. 6.
- ^ MacCurdy 2015, p. 271; Petrossian 2020, p. 95.
- ^ a b c d Petrossian 2020, p. 95.
- ^ Petrossian 2020, p. 95; Hofmann 2020, p. 79.
- ^ a b Hofmann 2020, p. 80.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 41; Garibian 2018, p. 221.
- ^ Hosfeld 2005, pp. 18–19; Hosfeld & Petrossian 2020, p. 3-4.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 82; Hosfeld 2005, p. 20.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 264.
- ^ a b c MacCurdy 2015, p. 266.
- ^ a b MacCurdy 2015, p. 267.
- ^ Hosfeld & Petrossian 2020, p. 7.
- ^ Hosfeld 2005, p. 18.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 78; MacCurdy 2015, p. 266.
- ^ Hosfeld 2005, p. 17.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 78; Hosfeld 2005, p. 17.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 79.
- ^ a b Dean 2019, p. 45.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 257, 262; MacCurdy 2015, pp. 278, 290.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 254.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 283.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 272.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 41; Ihrig 2016, pp. 235–236.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 236.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 236–237.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 237–238.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 238–239.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 235, 239.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 41; Ihrig 2016, p. 239.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 239; Dean 2019, pp. 41–42.
- ^ a b Ihrig 2016, p. 239.
- ^ a b Dean 2019, p. 42.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 82; Ihrig 2016, p. 263; Hosfeld 2013, p. 12.
- ^ a b Hosfeld 2013, p. 12.
- ^ Jacobs 2019, p. 36; Petrossian 2020, p. 94; Ihrig 2016, p. 263.
- ^ a b Bogosian 2015, p. 202.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 240–241.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 241.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 241–242; Dean 2019, p. 43.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 43; Ihrig 2016, p. 242.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 43; Ihrig 2016, pp. 242–243.
- ^ a b Ihrig 2016, p. 243.
- ^ a b Ihrig 2016, p. 244; Petrossian 2020, p. 96.
- ^ a b Ihrig 2016, p. 244.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 244–245.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 246–247.
- ^ Petrossian 2020, p. 96; Ihrig 2016, p. 247.
- ^ a b Ihrig 2016, p. 248.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 248–249.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 249.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 250.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 250; Mouradian 2015, pp. 256–257.
- ^ Akçam 2018, pp. 43–45.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 262–263; Hosfeld 2013, pp. 10–11.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 40.
- ^ Akçam 2018, pp. 44, 231–232.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 250–251.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 37; Ihrig 2016, p. 251.
- ^ Hosfeld & Petrossian 2020, pp. 9–10.
- ^ a b Ihrig 2016, p. 262.
- ^ Garibian 2018, p. 226.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 251.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 251; Garibian 2018, p. 226.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 251–252.
- ^ MacCurdy 2015, p. 191; Ihrig 2016, p. 252.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 252.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 252–253.
- ^ a b Ihrig 2016, p. 253.
- ^ a b Petrossian 2020, p. 97.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 255.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 255–256.
- ^ a b Ihrig 2016, p. 257.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 257; Petrossian 2020, p. 98.
- ^ Petrossian 2020, p. 98.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 44; Ihrig 2016, p. 259.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 259–260.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 44; Ihrig 2016, p. 260.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 44.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 47.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 46.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 81; Ihrig 2016, p. 262.
- ^ Hosfeld 2005, p. 27.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 262; MacCurdy 2015, p. 278.
- ^ Jacobs 2019, p. 36; Petrossian 2020, p. 95.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 81.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 67.
- ^ MacCurdy 2015, pp. 301–302.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 77.
- ^ MacCurdy 2015, p. 291.
- ^ Irvin-Erickson 2016, p. 36; Hofmann 2016, p. 94.
- ^ Suny 2015, p. 346; Dean 2019, p. 34.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 35.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 36.
- ^ Hofmann 2016, p. 94.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 277–279.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 227.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 228.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 228–229.
- ^ Hosfeld 2005, p. 11; Ihrig 2016, pp. 229–231; Hofmann 2016, p. 95.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 231.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 271–272.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 293.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 265.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 264; Kieser 2018, p. 408.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 268; Kieser 2018, p. 408.
- ^ Garibian 2018, p. 221; Gruner 2012, p. 11.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 272–273, 293.
- ^ Hofmann 2016, p. 95.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 356.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, pp. 293–294.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 296.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 86.
- ^ a b Kieser 2018, p. 406.
- ^ Hosfeld 2005, p. 11.
- ^ Sarıhan, Zeki (15 March 2020). "Talat Paşa'nın katli: Türkiye basınında nasıl karşılandı?". Independent Türkçe (in Turkish). Archived from the original on 30 April 2021. Retrieved 28 March 2021.
- ^ Adak 2007, p. 166.
- ^ Kieser 2018, pp. 407, 426.
- ^ Petrossian 2020, pp. 99–100.
- ^ Dadrian & Akçam 2011, p. 105.
- ^ a b Kieser 2018, p. 419.
- ^ Kieser 2018, p. 408.
- ^ Yenen 2022, pp. 2–3.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 77; MacCurdy 2015, pp. 275–280.
- ^ Yenen 2022, p. 20.
- ^ Yenen 2022, p. 3.
- ^ Garibian 2018, p. 234.
- ^ Hofmann 2020, p. 76; Garibian 2018, p. 234.
- ^ Yenen 2022, p. 24.
- ^ Fleck 2014, pp. 268–270; von Bieberstein 2017, p. 259.
- ^ Yenen 2022, p. 23.
- ^ Ihrig 2016, p. 371; Garibian 2018, p. 232.
- ^ Hosfeld 2013, p. 13.
- ^ Irvin-Erickson 2016, p. 36.
- ^ Jacobs 2019, p. 33; Ihrig 2016, p. 371.
- ^ Jacobs 2019, p. 33; Engel 2016, p. 176.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 28.
- ^ Dean 2019, p. 33; Garibian 2018, p. 234.
- ^ Gruner 2012, p. 19.
- ^ Hosfeld 2005, pp. 20, 28.
Sources
Books
- ISBN 978-3-319-69787-1.
- ISBN 978-0-316-29201-6.
- ISBN 978-0-85745-286-3.
- ISBN 978-1-5017-3509-7.
- ISBN 978-3-647-31027-5.
- Fleck, André (2014). Machtfaktor Diaspora?: Armenische Interessenvertretung in Deutschland [Diaspora Power Broker? Representation of Armenian Interests in Germany] (in German). ISBN 978-3-643-12762-4.
- ISBN 978-0-19-933420-9.
- ISBN 978-3-462-03468-4. Archived(PDF) from the original on 2019-11-22. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
- ISBN 978-0-674-50479-0.
- Irvin-Erickson, Douglas (2016). Raphael Lemkin and the Concept of Genocide. ISBN 978-0-8122-9341-8.
- ISBN 978-1-4008-8963-1.
- MacCurdy, Marian Mesrobian (2015). Sacred Justice: The Voices and Legacy of the Armenian Operation Nemesis. ISBN 978-1-351-49218-8.
- ISBN 978-1-4008-6558-1.
Chapters
- Adak, Hülya (2007). "Identifying the "Internal Tumors" of World War I: Talat Paşa's hatıraları [Talat Paşa's Memoirs], or the Travels of a Unionist Apologia into History". Raueme Des Selbst: Selbstzeugnisforschung Transkulturell. ISBN 978-3-412-23406-5.
- ISBN 978-1-137-56402-3.
- Hosfeld, Rolf (2013). "Ein Völkermordprozess wider Willen" [An Unintended Genocide Trial]. Johannes Lepsius–Eine deutsche Ausnahme: Der Völkermord an den Armeniern, Humanitarismus und Menschenrechte [Johannes Lepsius—A German Exception: The Armenian Genocide, Humanitarianism, and Human Rights]. ISBN 978-3-8353-2491-6. Postscript: Page numbers based on an online edition, paginated 1–14.
- Kieser, Hans-Lukas (2010). "Germany and the Armenian Genocide of 1915–17". In Friedman, Jonathan C. (ed.). The Routledge History of the Holocaust. ISBN 978-1-136-87060-6. Archivedfrom the original on 2020-12-13. Retrieved 2021-03-23.
- Ozavci, Ozan (2019). "Honour and Shame: The Diaries of a Unionist and the "Armenian Question"". The End of the Ottomans: The Genocide of 1915 and the Politics of Turkish Nationalism. ISBN 978-1-78673-604-8.
- ISBN 978-90-4851-528-8. Archived(PDF) from the original on 2020-11-12. Retrieved 2021-03-23.
- von Bieberstein, Alice (2017). "Memorial Miracle: Inspiring Vergangenheitsbewältigung Between Berlin and Istanbul". Replicating Atonement: Foreign Models in the Commemoration of Atrocities. Springer International Publishing. pp. 237–265. ISBN 978-3-319-65027-2.
- Yenen, Alp (2020). "The Exile Activities of the Unionists in Berlin (1918–1922)". Türkisch-Deutsche Beziehungen.: Perspektiven aus Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. ISBN 978-3-11-220875-5.
Journal articles
- Akçam, Taner (2008). "Guenter Lewy's The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey". Genocide Studies and Prevention. 3 (1): 111–145. from the original on 11 January 2021.
- Garibian, Sévane (2018). ""Commanded by my Mother's Corpse": Talaat Pasha, or the Revenge Assassination of a Condemned Man". .
- JSTOR 41410719.
- (PDF) from the original on 21 March 2021.
- Hosfeld, Rolf; Petrossian, Gurgen (August 2020). "Tehlirjan, Soghomon". Lexikon der Politischen Strafprozesse (in German). pp. 1–13. Archived from the original on 23 January 2021. Retrieved 24 March 2021.
- Jacobs, Steven Leonard (2019). "The Complicated Cases of Soghomon Tehlirian and Sholem Schwartzbard and Their Influences on Raphaël Lemkin's Thinking About Genocide". ISSN 1911-0359.
- from the original on 16 May 2019.
- Petrossian, Gurgen (2020). "Ein Strafverfahren als Ausgangspunkt der Entwicklung des Völkermordsbegriffes" [A Criminal Case as the Starting Point for the Development of the Concept of Genocide]. Journal der Juristischen Zeitgeschichte. 14 (3): 93–100. .
- Yenen, Alp (2022). "The Talat-Tehlirian Complex: Contentious Narratives of Martyrdom and Revenge in Post-Conflict Societies". Comparative Studies in Society and History: 1–28. ISSN 0010-4175.
Further reading
- Kempner, Robert (1980). "Vor 60 Jahren vor einem deutschen Schwurgericht. Der Völkermord an den Armeniern". Recht und Politik . 3: 162–169.
- Parla, Ayşe (2023). "Hamlet after Genocide: The Haunting of Soghomon Tehlirian and Empirical Fabulation". Comparative Studies in Society and History: 1–25. ISSN 0010-4175.
- Trial record (in German)
- Podcast about the assassination with Hans-Lukas Kieser