James Heathfield, BA History, Level 3, 2022-2023.
Talaat Pasha in 1916, image from Forty Years in Constantinople. The Recollections of Sir Edwin Pears 1873-1915 with 16 Illustrations. Herbert Jenkins Limited, London 1916. Soghomon Tehlirian published in The New Armenia volume 13, May-June 1921.
On a normal day in March 1921 in Berlin, two men far from home had a brief conversation, one man claiming he knew the other as an acquaintance. This conversation would be exceptionally brief however, as said man, Soghomon Tehlirian, then pulled out a revolver on the other man, Talaat Pasha, and killed him there on the spot. Once brought to court for this act, Tehlirian on the stand said that he was compelled to do this act after seeing his mother’s corpse rise and speak to him, commanding him to seek justice on Talaat as he was the perpetrator of the act that led to her death, the Armenian Genocide (Garibian, ‘”Commanded by my Mother’s Corpse”, 223-224). This case was duly reported on in English-language publications, following this sensational story, which appeared to them as a case revolving around unanswered questions about justice for the Armenian Genocide – a cause which they held some sympathy with, The Times itself branding the act which they saw as a lone individual seeking justice as ‘Armenia’s Vengeance’ (TALAAT PASHA MURDERED’, March 16th 1921, Times Newspapers Limited). However, despite this narrative of a lone individual seeking justice, the case was not as simple as that from Tehlirian’s side, though the papers did not know it – and as well, the papers were not always as simple in their sympathy as they should be. This blog post will look at the case of the assassination of Talaat Pasha and the trial against Soghomon Tehlirian through the coverage of both The Times and The New York Times to analyse how these newspapers approached and covered this case – and will argue that it was approached paradoxically with sympathy and without sympathy – as the coverage was filtered through ideas on the Orient and race of the time. Through looking at this case and its coverage, it can help us to understand why responses to the Armenian Genocide at the time were limited and led to its recognition remaining an issue to this day.
To understand the assassination and the trial that followed, it is important to understand some of the background to Armenia in the period – both how it was seen in America and Britain, and as well how Tehlirian ended up assassinating Talaat Pasha. In both America and Britain, the issue of the ‘Armenian Massacres’ as they were then known were something widely covered and discussed in both countries, and both nations made efforts to aid the Armenians during the Genocide against them – most notably the Americans, where scholars like Keith Watenpaugh have argued that the massive response and aid efforts provided to the Armenian people are the origins of modern humanitarianism (Watenpaugh, Bread from Stones, 2-3). Suzanne Moranian discusses as well the efforts of American missionaries in the Ottoman Empire to report on and aid Armenians affected by the massacres – giving attention to the Armenian Genocide’s high-profile coverage in the States and a lot of sympathy generated there. This was rather similar in the United Kingdom as well – where coverage of the Armenian Genocide also served a pragmatic benefit as well as being a moral prerogative – as with the Ottoman Turks being an enemy in the First World War, publicising the genocide provided a moral argument to the fight against them (Laycock, Imagining Armenia, 100). This culminated in British parliament putting together a ‘Blue Book’ – that compiled 700 pages of evidence of the Genocide against the Armenians by the Ottomans (Monger, ‘Networking Against Genocide During the First World War’, 295-6).
These concerted efforts during the war clearly show that there were both major moral and pragmatic sides to the Anglo-American discussion of the war, and that this heavily influenced views on Armenia and generated great sympathy for the Armenian people, that almost certainly coloured The Times and The New York Times’ views on the later case, as we shall see. But it leads to the question of why didn’t the British or Americans do anything beforehand? There was in fact an effort, spearheaded by the British, to punish the leaders of the Ottomans for the Genocide against the Armenians at the ‘Malta Trials’ – the first international attempt to punish people for crimes against humanity (Tusan, ‘”Crimes Against Humanity” ‘, 47-48). But, as Taner Akcam writes, the Malta Trials ultimately failed due to ideas of national sovereignty, and the British in the face of Turkish protests deciding to prioritise their colonial interests in the former Ottoman Empire over the universal principles of justice against the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide (Akcam, A Shameful Act, (Kindle Edition), loc. 7604-7614). This then highlights in contrast to the great moral ideals held by the Anglo-Americans, the colonialist aims of the period trumped any moral concerns towards the Armenians – something we shall see echoes of in the press coverage.
This led to a depressing situation for the Armenians – the Entente had failed them, and the perpetrators of the genocide were allowed to flee from justice all across Europe. But the Dashnaks, an Armenian political party that had long been resisting Ottoman rule, formulated a plan to take justice into their own hands. Termed Operation Nemesis, after the Greek goddess of justified anger and vengeance, it was a plan to track down and assassinate the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide and was carried out over the 1920s – one of the most high-profile assassinations, naturally, being that done by Soghomon Tehlirian in assassinating one of the ‘Three Pashas’ of the Young Turks, Talaat Pasha (Garibian, ‘”Commanded by my Mother’s Corpse”’, 231-232).
This assassination was quickly reported on in the world press, and received major articles in The Times and The New York Times – both publishing relatively lengthy articles on the assassination itself and on Talaat Pasha. Despite this being the murder of a former head of state, on which you might expect some minorly flattering commentary, both newspapers are rather unanimous in their condemnation of the man and see the act as one that was inevitably caused by Talaat’s crimes towards the Armenians. They were quick to catch onto this – as once it had been established that it was an Armenian who had assassinated Talaat, both newspapers framed it in the context of Talaat being the main perpetrator of the genocide. The New York Times refers to Henry Morgenthau, the American ambassador to the Ottomans at the time of Talaat being in power there, as having ‘no doubt that Talaat was responsible for the Armenian massacres’, and in their article also make clear mention that he was wanted as a war criminal by the Entente (TALAAT PASHA SLAIN IN BERLIN SUBURB’, March 16th 1921, The New York Times Company). The Times, while not lending itself to as much speculation on the motive for the killing of Talaat just yet, also generally follows the course set out by The New York Times – billing its story on his assassination as ‘Armenia’s Vengeance’, and the article on Talaat’s life and career dedicating most of its time to talking about his pivotal role in the Armenian Genocide and the evidence for this (‘TALAAT’S CAREER’, March 16th 1921, Times Newspapers Limited).
This clearly highlights the sympathy held in the Anglo-American world for the Armenian cause and for justice for the Genocide. By framing it in no uncertain terms as an act of ‘vengeance’ against a wanted war criminal, they justify the act by Tehlirian as being one that restores some justice to the world: by taking out a man who committed atrocious acts and was wanted as a criminal for said acts. This shows clear sympathy with the Armenian cause for justice from the press, in some contrast to their governments of the time (and still today!) in offering recognition of the genocide. This is likely due to the political circumstances of the time, with both the British and American governments losing interest in the Armenian question with the collapse of the Treaty of Sevres and seeking accommodation with the new Turkish government, meaning little reason to concern themselves with the question of recognition of the genocide (Akcam, A Shameful Act, loc. 7727).
But, as can be seen, in their coverage of the trial this sympathy towards the Armenian cause came face to face with ideas on the Orient and race from the period – which presents the paradoxical situation of the papers providing sympathy, yet without seeming to be sympathetic. This can be clearly seen in the most famous incident of the trial process – where Tehlirian gave his account of seeing his mother’s ghost, who was killed in the Genocide, a few weeks before killing Talaat – who told him to kill Talaat, or he would no longer be her son (Garibian, ‘”Commanded by my Mother’s Corpse”’, 223-224). This sensational story once again attracted attention to the case, and this was by design – the defence team for Tehlirian proved his ‘innocence’ in the act through arguing that the violence of the Genocide and witnessing his whole family be killed meant that he did not have control over himself when he committed the act. We now know this defence to be a bit of a stretch, since the act was part of the wider Operation Nemesis, and that Soghomon did commit the killing with deliberate intent – but, the genocide angle was what was presented in court and which evoked the most attention and pathos (Garibian, ‘”Commanded by my Mother’s Corpse”’, 227). This account was duly reported on, being recounted in the articles by The New York Times and The Times – both of which provided a sympathetic commentary of the events and gave full emphasis to this narrative – The Times saying that the story lost ‘a little of its vividness in the interpreters’ rendering’, but that enough ‘atmosphere’ came through to portray a ‘grim picture’ of the massacres (THE AVENGER OF BLOOD’, June 3rd 1921, Times Newspapers Limited). The New York Times as well made it clear to comment that Talaat had been ‘condemned to death as a Turkish war criminal’, providing implicit justification for the assassination as one carrying out a sentence that had been put down on Talaat (‘SAYS MOTHERS GHOST ORDERED HIM TO KILL’, June 3rd 1921, The New York Times Company).
However, this sympathy for Tehlirian’s predicament stands in a confusing contrast to some of the other commentary, which seems to denigrate him and treat the case as almost a window-dressing to observe people of the ‘Orient’. In The New York Times, Tehlirian is referred to as an ‘undersized, swarthily palefaced Armenian’, and saying that during his account his ‘Oriental temperament got the better of him and he shrieked’ (‘SAYS MOTHERS GHOST ORDERED HIM TO KILL’, June 3rd 1921, The New York Times Company). In The Times, they also gave a similar racist description of Tehlirian, treating him almost like a lost child who doesn’t know where he is, and like he doesn’t have the discipline to be in the trial (‘THE AVENGER OF BLOOD’, June 3rd 1921, Times Newspapers Limited). And the weirdest case of this is seen in The New York Times’ article – where, when commenting on the witnesses, they talk about Talaat’s widow, and instead of being concerned about exactly what she’s said, how she’s reacting to the trial, and what she could possibly say, they decide to instead mention how ‘attractive’ she is, and that she was ‘fashionably attired in modern black silk mourning’ (‘SAYS MOTHERS GHOST ORDERED HIM TO KILL’, June 3rd 1921, The New York Times Company). As should be plainly obvious, expressing the attractiveness of Talaat’s widow was completely inappropriate to the description of the case and the course of it. What it highlights is the degree to which Orientalism impacted descriptions of the case – by giving such in-depth and racist descriptions of Soghomon and Talaat’s Turkish widow, and denigrating Tehlirian’s testimony as being coloured by his ‘Oriental temperament’. There was clearly a tension in the sympathy for the Armenians being limited by the proscribed racial ideas of the time. As Jo Laycock notes, mistrust of Armenian accounts of the genocide were present as soon as they were around, due to popular ideas from the time of people from the Near and Middle East as being prone to ‘sensationalism’ and letting their ‘emotions overtake them’ – unlike the clearly very rational and professional westerners who would never be prone to such things (Laycock, Imagining Armenia, 106). This clearly shows this Anglo-American press as holding sympathy without sympathy – showing care towards the events of the Armenian Genocide and happily publishing it – but still being mistrustful of the people actually providing the evidence, and couching everything they say in Orientalist tropes.
To conclude, the Anglo-American response to the case of Soghomon Tehlirian is a perplexing one. In both of their coverage, The New York Times and The Times were careful to always emphasise the crimes of Talaat and that he was wanted in the Western World as well as a war criminal, highlighting the act carried out by Tehlirian as one of justice against a criminal, and making common cause with the Armenian desire for justice for the Genocide committed against them. Yet, when it came to covering the man himself, and any of the actual victims, there was a clear reticence to present them fairly, and without resorting to Orientalist descriptions that denigrated and treated the subject as a lesser being. This highlights again why recognition was often limited: as national governments both lost interest due to the changing circumstances in the region, and on a public level, due to widely held ideas on race and the Orient at the time continuing to hold back sympathy for the Armenian people.
Soghomon Tehlirian monument on his grave in Ararat Cemetery, Fresno, California, constructed in 1969. Image from 2022 by Asost, Wikipedia public domain.
Bibliography
Akcam, Taner. A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility (Kindle Edition).
Garibian, Sevane. ‘“Commanded by my Mother’s Corpse”: Talaat Pasha, or the Revenge Assassination of a Condemned Man’, Journal of Genocide Research 20:2 (2018), 220-235.
Laycock, Jo. Imagining Armenia; orientalism, ambiguity and intervention (Manchester, 2016).
Monger, David. ‘Networking Against Genocide During the First World War: The International Network Behind the British Parliamentary Report on the Armenian Genocide’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies 16:3 (2018), 295-316.
Moranian, Suzanne E. ‘The Armenian Genocide and American Missionary Relief Efforts’, in Jay Winter (ed.), America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915 (Cambridge, 2003), 185-213.
Tusan, Michelle. ‘“Crimes against Humanity”: Human Rights, the British Empire, and the Origins of the Response to the Armenian Genocide’, American Historical Review 119:1 (2014), 47-78.
Watenpaugh, Keith. Bread from Stones: The Middle East and the Making of Modern Humanitarianism (Oakland, 2015).
Primary Sources
‘TALAAT PASHA MURDERED’, March 16th 1921, Times Newspapers Limited – GALE|CS201658480, [online source] https://go-gale-com.proxy.library.lincoln.ac.uk/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=Newspapers&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&hitCount=134&searchType=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=67&docId=GALE%7CCS201658480&docType=Article&sort=Pub+Date+Reverse+Chron&contentSegment=ZTMA-MOD1&prodId=TTDA&pageNum=4&contentSet=GALE%7CCS201658480&searchId=R1&userGroupName=ulh&inPS=true, accessed January 19th 2023.
‘TALAAT’S CAREER’, March 16th 1921, Times Newspapers Limited – GALE|CS186323056, [online source] https://go-gale-com.proxy.library.lincoln.ac.uk/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=Newspapers&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&hitCount=134&searchType=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=66&docId=GALE%7CCS186323056&docType=Article&sort=Pub+Date+Reverse+Chron&contentSegment=ZTMA-MOD1&prodId=TTDA&pageNum=4&contentSet=GALE%7CCS186323056&searchId=R1&userGroupName=ulh&inPS=true, accessed January 19th 2023.
‘THE AVENGER OF BLOOD’, June 3rd 1921, Times Newspapers Limited – GALE|CS152768707, [online source] https://go-gale-com.proxy.library.lincoln.ac.uk/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=Newspapers&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&hitCount=134&searchType=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=57&docId=GALE%7CCS152768707&docType=Article&sort=Pub+Date+Reverse+Chron&contentSegment=ZTMA-MOD1&prodId=TTDA&pageNum=3&contentSet=GALE%7CCS152768707&searchId=R1&userGroupName=ulh&inPS=true, accessed January 19th 2023.
‘TALAAT PASHA SLAIN IN BERLIN SUBURB’, March 16th 1921, The New York Times Company – 98463368, [online source] https://www.proquest.com/hnpnewyorktimes/docview/98463368/fulltextPDF/E06BEEC161EF430DPQ/2?accountid=16461, accessed January 19th 2023.
‘SAYS MOTHERS GHOST ORDERED HIM TO KILL’, June 3rd 1921, The New York Times Company – 98471636, [online source] https://www.proquest.com/hnpnewyorktimes/docview/98471636/fulltextPDF/47A4CE13E93049F2PQ/1?accountid=16461, accessed January 19th 2023.