Whose 'Story' is it?

 

Our sources for the history of Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, are two collections of surviving Morgenthau papers, one housed in the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., which is known a 2 The Papers of Henry Morgenthau (Hereafter: LC: PHM),12 and the other, part of the Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Papers in the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Presidential Library in Hyde Park, New York (Hereafter: FDR: HMS).13 These two collections, which comprise literally tens of thousands of documents, must be supplemented by a wide variety of published and unpublished materials, the most important of which are the papers of the well-known Pulitzer Prize winning journalist,l4 biographer and historian, Burton J. Hendrick. 14 For, not only did Ambassador Morgenthau need the approval of President Woodrow Wilson to proceed with the plan for the book which bears his name, more importantly he needed the skilled hand of Burton J. Hendrick, to actually write the work in question. In point of fact, it appears that the actual concept of the book originated in the mind of Hendrick, who first suggested it to Morgenthau in April of 1916.15 It is through an examination of several thousand letters and documents in the above-mentioned collections that eventually the rather murky origins of the work in question emerge. To unravel the many threads which went into Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, we must begin by discussing the various sources upon which it was based.

First and foremost, is a typed-transcript called 'Diary' which covers the actual period of Morgenthau's sojourn in Istanbul (Constantinople), that is, the period from November 27, 1913 (the date of Morgenthau's arrival in the Ottoman Capital), to his departure from Turkey on February 1,1916,16 a period of twenty six months. From internal evidence, in particular Morgenthau,s comments about dictating to his secretary, a Turkish Armenian named Hagop S. Andonian,17 it appears that on a regular basis Morgenthau related his day's experiences to Andonian, who in turn typed them up for posterity. Though extremely detailed, in particular as regards his contacts with the Young Turk leaders, Said Halim Pasha, Enver Pasha, and Talaat Bey, the version of events recorded in his daily 'Diary' entries often bears little relationship (as will subsequently be demonstrated) to the descriptions of the same meetings and discussions narrated in Ambassador Morgenthau's Story. Despite this problem 9 there can be no doubt ; that the key source material upon which the book was based is the daily record preserved in the 'Diary.'

In addition to his 'Diary,' and based primarily upon it, Morgenthau was in the habit of writing a lengthy 'round robin' type weekly letter to various members of his family back home in the United States. 18 These letters were likewise prepared by Hagop S. Andonian, Morgenthau's personal secretary, and indeed often, as Morgenthau tells us in a letter of May 11,1915, actually written by him:

"I have really found it impossible to sit down and dictate a letter quietly. So I have instructed Andonian to take my diary and copy it with some elaborations of his own. Of course this relieves me of all responsibility for any errors."19

It was then a combination of the Morgenthau 'Diaries' and 'letters' which served as the basic raw material out of which the work was ultimately assembled. These two sources were supplemented in some instances by copies of actual reports received by Morgenthau in Constantinople, or dispatched by him to Washington, D.C.20 Stated differently, these formed the skeletal framework upon which the finished product was to be hung.

With this background in mind we must now turn to an examination of the actual manner in which the book was written, and to the even more complex question of by whom it was written. In this regard, in each and every edition, the author appeared solely as: Henry Morgenthau. And today, seventy two years after its appearance, no one has ever suggested in print that anyone but Morgenthau authored Ambassador Morgenthau's Story.21 Despite this fact, there are abundant clues scattered about in the surviving Morgenthau material to provide us hints as to the identity of the work's actual author. First and foremost, is an acknowledgment made by Morgenthau in the 'Preface' to both the book's American and British editions, where he wrote: "My thanks are due to my friend, Mr. Burton J. Hendrick, for the invaluable assistance he has rendered in the preparation of this book."22 This acknowledgment is, to say the least, an understatement. For in point of fact, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story emerged from the pen of Burton J. Hendrick, with the editorial assistance of a large number of individuals, including Morgenthau himself. In addition, he was assisted by his Armenian secretary Hagop S. Andonian who followed Morgenthau to the States and lived with him throughout the period in which the book was under preparation.

Very little is known concerning the life of Hagop S. Andonian. In numerous appearances of his name in both the 'Diary' and 'Letters' he is generally referred to by Morgenthau as "my secretary," though on occasion he clearly fulfilled the role of "Dragoman," (translator) as well.23 The 'Diary' records the fact that he was a frequent guest at the Morgenthau table, and often accompanied the Ambassador to the movies in the evening. From a reference in Morgenthau's family 'Letter' of July 15, 191424, it appears that Andonian was a student at the American run Robert College around the turn of the century. A surviving photograph of the Embassy staff taken during Morgenthau's tenure, shows him to have been in his early thirties at that time. While nothing specific has apparently survived to shed light on the question of why he returned to the United States with the Morgenthaus, a 'Diary' entry for February 8, 1916 clearly establishes that he left Turkey with the Ambassador. On that date in describing a shipboard masquerade party en route to New York, Morgenthau records that his son "Henry was dressed as a Greek and Andonian as a Turkish lady. "25 Among the surviving Morgenthau correspondence is a copy of a letter addressed by the Ambassador on January 9, 1918 to the Honorable Breckenridge Long, Third Assistant Secretary of State, requesting that official's assistance in obtaining a deferment from military service for his secretary, Mr. Hagop S. Andonian. This letter includes the following paragraph:

"You probably know that with the approval of the President, I have undertaken to write a book. Mr. Andonian is assisting me in the preparation of that work and owing to his intimate knowledge of the east and his unusual experience, his services to me are really indispensable".26

This passage establishes three facts of interest: a) One reason for Andonian's being in the U.S. was to assist Morgenthau with the book; b) the actual work on the book had begun by the beginning of January 9, 1918, and, c) by 1918 Andonian was eligible for military service in the U.S.

There are also three short references to Andonian in Morgenthau's 1918 Diary/Appointments Calendar: 1) an entry for April 26, 1918 which reads: 'Dictated at Yale Club to Andonian and examined galley proofs of second instalment next book;' 2) an entry for April 17, 1918 reading: 'Dictated all day to Andonian and Hendrick and, 3) a two-word notice on September 9, 1918 which reads: 'Andonian left.'27 The next and final references to Andonian in the Morgenthau Papers are two handwritten letters dated December 16 1920 and December 24, 1920 28. Written from Istanbul on a letterhead bearing the names: 'Haig, Nichan, Hagop Andonian' and listing their role as agents for the 'Sun Insurance Company,' and as real estate brokers, Andonian writes to inquire about the truth of rumors then circulating in the Ottoman capital to the effect that Morgenthau is to be appointed by the U.S. President to mediate between the Kemalist and Armenian forces. Andonian offers his services to Morgenthau should these rumors prove true (they didn't).

To anyone familiar with Turco-Armenian history in the post war period, the question of a possible relationship between Morgenthau's Secretary Hagop S. Andonian and, Aram Andonian, the author of the collection of forged documents known as: The Memoirs of Naim Bey: Turkish Official Documents Relating to the Deportations and Massacres of Armenians, London (Hodder & Stoughton), 1920, immediately comes to mind. Both were natives of Istanbul and shared the rather uncommon surname of 'Andonian,' which raises the possibility that they may have indeed been related. To date, no additional information on this question has been uncovered.

Another key figure who had significant input in the preparation of the book was Arshag K. Schmavonian, yet another Turkish Armenian who, in 1918 was in the employ of the State Department in Washington, D.C. as a 'special adviser,' and who had worked as Morgenthau's interpreter in Istanbul and accompanied him in all meetings with Turkish officials. Schmavonian's role as friend confidant and adviser to Morgenthau both during and after his stay in Istanbul is easily traceable in the various surviving Morgenthau Papers. Indeed, almost from the day of his arrival in Turkey, Morgenthau relied upon Schmavonian as his eyes and ears in what must have seemed an alien environment given the fact that Morgenthau knew neither Turkish, French, Greek nor Armenian, the four principal languages spoken in the Ottoman Capital. Already, in a 1914 interview given shortly after his arrival in Turkey to a correspondent of The New York Herald, Morgenthau acknowledged his dependence on Schmavonian in the following terms:

"It will be my duty to dive into the very heart of things surrounding me. With the help of the Legal Adviser of the Embassy, Mr. Schmavoni, who knows the Orient so well, I shall be able to master the task in a more or less satisfactory manner in a few weeks."

There is hardly a page of the Morgenthau 'Diary' which does not contain reference to Arshag K. Schmavonian. He accompanied Morgenthau on almost every official visit he paid to members of the Young Turk Government, he sat in on Morgenthau's meetings with American businessmen (many of whose legal affairs he handled in Turkey), he participated in all meetings with the American missionary interests (whose legal affairs he also handled), and, also assisted Morgenthau in the writing of his cables to Washington, D.C. The National Archives in Washington, D.C. houses a collection of Schmavonian Papers.31 Though the overwhelming majority of these papers deal with, Schmavonian's representations of various American business and missionary interests, they also preserve a few handwritten notes from Morgenthau to Schmavonian, all of which bear the salutation: 'My dear Mr. Schmavonian.' In the Morgenthau papers there are also a large number of letters from Arshag Schmavonian to Ambassador Morgenthau, covering the years 1914-1921.32 All of the letters written prior to 1919 bear the salutation: My Dear Chief.'

The extent to which Morgenthau relied upon his Armenian adviser can be partially measured by a speech he gave when raising funds for Armenian and Syrian Relief following his return to the United States. Of Schmavonian, he wrote:

"The first man I found in the Embassy whom I could lean upon for all kinds of assistance, the man who has done the yeoman work of the American Embassy, is an Armenian [Schmavonian]. He has been connected with our Embassy for sixteen years. I found him to be an unusual man, held in high regard by the Turkish authorities. My private secretary [Andonian] was also an Armenian.

Through these two men I became acquainted with some Armenian priests and with patriots and professors, and learned not only to respect but to love and admire many of the Armenians."33

Nor did this relationship end with Morgenthau's departure from Turkey. The two men were reunited in 1917 when Morgenthau was sent by President Wilson to Europe, and Schmavonian joined him once again in the role of interpreter. Then, following the rupture of relations between Turkey and the United States, Mr. Schmavonian was transferred late in 1917 to Washington, D.C. where he remained in the capacity of a 'Special Adviser' until his death in January, 1922. Morgenthau wrote a moving tribute to his memory, which illustrates the closeness of their relationship:

'Great was my pleasure to find upon meeting Mr. Schmavonian that the enthusiastic praise of my predecessors [Ambassadors Straus and Rockhill] was not only fully justified, but had failed to do him adequate justice. He had all the traditions of the office most methodically stored away in his mind, and made them accessible to me at any time, day or night, at a moment's notice, and it was the same as to all the American missionary and educational activities in Turkey. He was so eminently just, and so absolutely truthful, that every one with whom he came in contact, promptly recognised the sterling qualities, and soon learned to love their possessor.

'He was a delightful social companion and graced any assembly which he attended. The services which he rendered to the United States government and to all the Ambassadors at Constantinople, to the missionary interests, American business interests, and the Armenian and Jewish populations in Turkey, were unexcelled by anyone.

'He was unobtrusive to a fault, and never claimed any credit for himself. His devotion to his mother and to the service possessed him completely, and he was always thoroughly loyal to his own people, the Armenians.

'The United States has lost one of its most faithful servants, and I, one of my dearest friends.'34

Some idea of the extent of Schmavonian's role in shaping Ambassador Morgenthau's Story may be had by an examination of his surviving correspondence with Morgenthau during the period in which the book was written:

a) January 16, 1918 letter from Schmavonian to Morgenthau responding to an earlier request for the names and titles of various Ottoman Cabinet members during Morgenthau's tenure 35

b) January 26, 1918 letter from Morgenthau to Schmavonian asking him to supply facts based on the cables and dispatches which Morgenthau sent the Department of State from Turkey. 36

c) An enclosure of August 29, 1918 of comments on Morgenthau's manuscript prepared by the State Department, appears to have been written by Schmavonian as well, thus raising the possibility that he was (as might logically be expected) the official in the Department assigned to comment on the draft of Morgenthau's book. 37

d) September 3, 1918 Morgenthau to Schmavonian letter, clearly establishes that it was Schmavonian who was commenting on Morgenthau's manuscript. When Morgenthau writes:

'I am sending by this mail our article No. 7, the first half of the Armenian story... I do hope that in your good natured and accommodating way, you will work over time, and I will promise you that I shall not write more books that have to get the approval of the State Departanent.' 38

In short, Schmavonian was a key aide to Morgenthau both throughout his tenure in Turkey, as well as during the months in which Ambassador Morgenthau's Story was being written in 1918. He was even entrusted by the State Department with the task of approving Morgenthau's manuscript. .

Despite his role at each and every stage of the project, he is not mentioned by name in Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, an oversight which is hard to comprehend. This is particularly so in light of the fact that he is named in Morgenthau's 1922 autobiography: All in A Life Time. In this book, which Morgenthau wrote in collaboration with French Strother, Scnmavonian appears (as he in reality was) a close confidant of Morgenthau.39 Can it be that Morgenthau felt that reference to his dependence upon his Armenian assistants (Andonian is not mentioned either) might appear strange in a book devoted partially to the Armenian Question?

Yet another participant in the project was 'the U.S. Secretary of State, Robert Lansing who (at the President s behest?) read and commented upon every chapter of the work in progress. The nature of Lansing's role will be discussed below; however, a number of letters, dating from the gestation period of the book fully illustrate that it was not insignificant:

a) Lansing to Morgenthau letter of April 2, 1918, in which the Secretary states: "I am returning herewith the first installment of the proof of your book which I have read with particular interest... I have made various marginal notes suggesting certain alterations or omissions in the text before publication and I trust that you will agree with these suggestions".

b) Lansing to Morgenthau letter of April 27, 1918, accompanying another segment of the draft manuscript "accompanied by a few suggestions which after careful consideration we venture to propose."

c) Lansing to Morgenthau letter of August 29, 1918, together with proof sheets and more suggestions;

d) Lansing to Morgenthau letter of September 17, 1918 with "suggestions and remarks,"

e) Morgenthau to Lansing letter of September 22, 1918 asking permission to acknowledge in the Preface to the published book, his appreciation for the "trouble taken by the Secretary of State Robert Lansing in reading the manuscript and of the many valuable wise suggestions he has made;"

f) Lansing to Morgenthau letter of October 2, 1918 declining Morgenthau's wish to acknowledge his assistance with the book on the grounds "that on the whole it would be advisable not to mention my name in connection with the book."40

When one recollects the fact that prior to beginning his project, Morgenthau received the written blessings of the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, and, that as the work progressed, each chapter received the personal stamp of approval of the U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing, it is clear that Morgenthau's book may be said to bear the imprimatur of the United States Government.

This said, what literary merit the work has, and all its reviewers found it very readable indeed, is purely the result of Hendrick. While Hendrick was never accorded his due in terms of open recognition of his role in 'ghosting' the story, he was well paid for his efforts, as a surviving letter from Morgenthau to him dated July 5, 1918 attests. In lieu of a formal written contract, which does not appear to have existed between the two men, Morgenthau wrote the following to Hendrick:

I desire to put in writing that I intend to transfer to you a share of the income of the book, 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story,' about to be published by Doubleday, Page & Company.

'The definite arrangement is to be made when your work on the book is completed, but if anything should happen to me in the meantime, I hereby direct my Executors to arrange that you are to receive two-fifths of any profits that are coming to me from Doubleday, Page & Company, until you have received Ten Thousand [$10,000) Dollars, and that the first five thousand ($5,000) Dollars coming to me are to paid to you on account.'41

Hendrick, an individual fully deserving of serious scholarly study in his own right, must have been fully satisfied with the final 'arrangement' made at the completion of the book. From a receipt which has survived in the Morgenthau papers we may surmise that whatever the final agreement was, it guaranteed Hendrick's 40% share throughout the life-time of the book. It shows that in the period between January 2,1932 and July l,1932, that is, fourteen years after its initial publication, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story was still in print. In this six month span it registered a grand total of $2.00 in sales, of which the author's one-half share, i.e., $1.00, was divided as follows:

Mr. Burton J. Hendrick's 40% share . . . . . 40

Mr. Henry Morgenthau's 60% share . . . . . 60 42 Thus fourteen years after its initial publication, the American edition of the book was still providing income to Hendrick and Morgenthau. As for Hendrick's feelings, they were recorded in an Oral History interview he gave the historian Alan Nevins at Columbia University, a few months before his death in 1949. He stated:

"I had one job of 'ghosting.' That was the elder Henry Morgenthau's Reminiscences. That book created quite a good deal of interest. I worked with Henry all the time.

He was an interesting character. Henry Morgenthau was a very capable person, very chummy and good natured and was a very successful man. He, of course, made a great fortune here in New York in real estate...The writing of my books on Sims and Morgenthau was very interesting - more or less of a job..."

Hendrick44 who within ten years of the publication of the Morgenthau book was to receive three Pulitzer Prizes, one for the book he co-authored with Admiral William S. Sims: The Victory at Sea (recipient of the Pulitzer Prize in History in 1920), and two in Biography for his 1922 work, the Life and Letters of Walter H. Page and in 1928 for his second Page volume entitled The Training of an American, was already in 1918 a well-known journalist who had done stints as an editorial writer with The New York Evening Post, McClure's Magazine, and The World's Work. In these positions, in the words of his New York Times obituary writer, Hendrick "developed a reputation for painstaking accuracy,' honest thinking and good humor and developed an appetite for research in subjects of great historical interest." The Times obituary goes on to say that "critics of his biographies and histories almost invariably would remark that his freshness and penetrating analysis bore the mark of his early journalistic training." 45

Ironically, at least one reviewer of Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, a 'W.K.K.' writing in December 5, 1918 issue of the Detroit Michigan News, instinctively sensed that Morgenthau must have had a journalistic collaborator when he wrote:

"...Henry Morgenthau, our Ambassador to Turkey in the first year of the war, is either a born journalist, or else he had journalistic help in the preparation of his volume; for 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story' is pure journalese.."46

What we are faced with is less the memoirs of one individual, Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, than a memoir by committee as it were. Morgenthau's Istanbul notes (consisting of his 'Diary' and Family 'Letters'), are reworked initially by Morgenthau and Andonian, together with Hendrick; edited for content by Schmavonian (on behalf of the State Department); then fine tuned' by the Secretary of State Robert Lansing (on behalf of the Executive); and, finally written down as Ambassador Morgenthau's Story by Burton J. Hendrick.

As to the question of whose story it really is, as our subsequent examination will illustrate, it is a collective story bearing only a cursory relationship to what was actually experienced by Henry Morgenthau during his tenure in Turkey.

FOOTNOTES

See: Footnote #1 above.

See: Footnote #3 above

See: Footnote #5 above

FDR: HMS - Box No. 9: Burton J. Hendrick letter to Henry Morgenthau of April 7, 1916, in which Hendrick refers to discussions with Morgenthau of the possibility of Doubleday, Page 8z Co. publishing a book which would appear in a series of "personal narratives of all the big people who have figured in this war." This is apparently the earliest surviving document which specifically relates to the book project.

LC: PHM-Reel No. 5 (Containers 3£ 4): Contain the only known ropy of this daily record of Morgenthau's sojourn in Turkey. Simply labelled as the 'Diary; this document provides a day by day account of Morgenthau's activities while in Constantinople. When cited in the present study, I have listed the following information: LC: PHM-Reel No.5: 'Diary' date:. All references in the text to 'Diary' refer to this key source of information on Morgenthau's day by day contemporary record of his activities.

References of this nature include the following: LC: PHM - Reel No. 5: 'Diary' entries for September 25,1914, February 19,1915. The July 8,1915 entry reads: "We worked at the book from 7:15 to 8. Then Schmavonian and Writhe took supper with n. " This passage raises two possibilities: a) that others than Andonian may have also had a hand m compiling the 'Diary' and, b) that Morgenthau's 'Diary' may have all along been envisaged as the outline for a book he intended to publish. Given the fact that he does not appear to have ever kept such a detailed 'Diary' at any other stage of his life, this interpretation may well be true.

Copies of Morgenthau letters arc found primarily in two separate sections (series) of the FDR Library - Morgenthau Papers. Specifically, they are in the FDR: HMS/Boxes 5, 7, 8,10 and in the FDR: I-IMJ/Gaer- Boxes Nos. I-2. While clearly based on the 'Diary' entries for the period they describe, there is often additional data found in the 'Letters' in that they provide a useful supplement to the sometimes laconic 'Diary' entries.

FDR: HMS-Box 7: HM to children letter of May 11,1915. That this comment does not relate solely to the May ll,1915 letter is confirmed by FDR: HMJ/Gaer- Box 1-2: HM letter to Henry Morgenthau, Jr. of September l,1915, where we read: "I am sending you one of the copies of the general letter which recently has been written by Andonian, so don't blame me if it is too impersonal and skeletonish:' On another occasion we find the following in a letter: "1 don't know whether you folks all noticed the difference in style between this letter and the preceding ones. I have dictated this one myself and filled the mere skeleton notes that I gave Andonian and from which the recent letters were written:' (FDR: HMS - Box No. 8: Letter of 7/13/1915 - p.l5)

Copies and 'paraphrases' and Morgenthau's cable traffic are found scattered throughout the LC: PHM-See, in particular, Reels No. 5, 7, 8,17. This material was compared with copies of Morgenthau's official reports preserved in the National Archives in Washington, D.C. In particular: Record Group 59 - General Records of the Department of State: Decimal File 867.4106 - Race Problems (Microfilm Publication 353: Reels 43-48).

Henry Morgenthau, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story. New York (Doubleday, Page & Co.),1918. (hereafter: AMS).

AMS: p. vii.

LC: HMS - Reel No. 5 for March 15-16,1915, where Andonian accompanied Morgenthau to the Dardanelles in that capacity.

FDR: HMS - Box No. 5.

LC: PHM-Reel No5.

LC: PHM - Reel No.:8

LC: PHM - Reel No.6.

FDR: HMS - Box No.13.

LC: PHM-Reel No. 37-date is illegible.

LC: PHM-Reel No.5.

National Archives: Record Group No. 84-Personal Correspondence of Arshag K. Schmavonian - 4 Boxes.

FDR: HMS -Boxes No. 5 (17letters from 1914), 9 (4 letters from 1916),10 (2 letters from 1916),12 (3 letters from 1919),14 (5 letters from 1921).

LC: PHM - Reel No. 22.

LC:PHM-Reel No.40

LC:PHM-Reel No.8

FDR:HMS-Box No.12.

FDR:HMS-Box No.12.

FDR:HMS-Box No.12

Henry Morgenthau (in collaboration with French Strother), All In A Life Time, New York (Doubleday, Page & Co.),1922. See: pp.178,187, 215, 216, 224, 227, 259, and 266.

FDR: HMS - Box No.l2.

Hendrick/Rusnnk: Morgenthau to Hendrick letter of July 5,1918.
LC: PHM-Reel No.l7.

I am indebted to Mr. Ronald J. Grele, Director of the 'Oral History Research Office' at Colombia University's Butler Library, for a copy of the 62 page Nevins interview entitled: 'The Reminiscences of Burton J. Flendrick.' The passage quoted above is taken from pages 31-32 of this interview, and is a summary of Hendrick's comments. In addition to the Hendrick materials discussed earlier in what I have termed the Hendrick/Rusnak Collection, and the Nevins interview, there are also 75 Hendrick letters in the archives of the American Academy of Arts and Letters in New York City. I am informed by Ms. Nancy Johnson, the 'AAAL' Librarian, that this material consists primarily of letters relating to Hendrick's membership in the 'AAAL; an organisation to which he was elected in 1923, and of which he remained a member until his death in 1949.

The most detailed work on Hendrick's career is Robert Rusnak's unpublished paper entitled: "To Cast Them in the Heroic Mold": Court Biographers - The Case of Burton J. Hendrick." I am indebted to the author for a copy of this study. Additional biographical information has been consulted in the following reference" works: a Obituary notice. 'Burton Hendrick, Historian, 78, Dies, The New York Times, Friday, March 25,1949. p.23. (Hereafter: Hendrick, Times: p.23.) b) Burton Jesse Hendrick entry in: The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography. Vol. XXXVIII., page 476. Ann Arbor, MI (University Microfilms),1967. c) Louis Filler, "Burton Jesse Hendrick," entry in The Encyclopedia Americana (International Edition). Vol.14, page 91. Danbury, CT (Grolier Inc.) ND. d) Burton Jesse Hendrick entry in the 1922-1923 Who's Who in America. Vol.12, page 1482. Chicago (A.N. Marquis & Co.),1923.

Hendrick, Times: p.23.

LC: PHM - Reel No. 40.




Advertisement appearing in The Jewish Criterion, Oct. 11, 1918; "The only authoritative record of an eye-witness of the part Turkey played in the war...The Murder of the Armenian Nation is described in the opening chapters of this historical document -- how the Turk, having 'vanquished' the Allied fleet, reverted to type and indulged in wholesale massacres which have shocked the world." Morgenthau's work is then described as an "important contribution to the history of the great war..." (Thanks to Gokalp.)

The Treatment of Talat Bey: a Case Study

 

The principal villain of Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, and the subject of its greater invective, is Talaat Bey, the Ottoman Minister of Interior. An examination of the treatment accorded him, therefore, will serve to establish the inexplicably wide discrepancies between events as recorded by Morgenthau in his 'Diary' and 'letters,' that is, during his actual sojourn in Constantinople (November, 1913 - January,1916), and in his 1918 book. While in no way comprehensive, the following examples, presented in the order in which they appear in Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, will serve to illustrate this point:

1) In describing "Talaat, the leading man in this band of usurpers," Morgenthau states:

"I can personally testify that he cared nothing for Mohammedanism for, like most of the leaders of his party, he scoffed at all religions. 'I hate all priests, rabbis. and hodjas,' he once told me."44

In point of fact, there is not a single reference in any of Morgenthau's contemporary Constantinople papers to support this statement. To the contrary, the sole reference to Talaat's religious attitudes is found in a 'Diary' entry for July 10, 1914, where, in describing a small supper party he gave on the previous evening for Talaat Grand Rabbi Nahoum and his wife, and Schmavonian, Morgenthau recorded:

"Talaat told me the other evening that he was the most religious in cabinet; and that Djavit had none and Djemal little." 49

Even were it not known that Talaat Bey was indeed the most religious of the Young Turk leadership

Morgenthau's own Diary' and 'Letters' contain literally dozens of references to the close relationship which existed between Talaat and the Grand Rabbi Haim Nahoum, leader of the Ottoman Jewish communities which make the quote attributed to him in which he allegedly stated to Morgenthau his "hate (of) all Priests Rabbis, and Hodjas," extremely unlikely.50

Why then did Morgenthau choose to portray Talaat Bey as an atheist, when his own 'Diary' gives the lie to his contention? The obvious answer is that he felt it would be useful in generating the desired disgust and revulsion on the part of his intended audience to portray the villain of the piece as a godless atheist rather than as a supporter of religion, even if it were Islam.

2) In a section of his work dealing with the forced return of Greek settlers on the Aegean coast of Anatolia to the islands from which they originated (in late spring and early summer 1914), Morgenthau writes:

"By this time I knew Talaat well; I saw him nearly every day, and he used to discuss practically every phase of international relations with me. I objected to his treatment of the Greeks; I told him that it would make the worst possible impression abroad and that it affected American interests."51

Contrary to Morgenthau's claim of almost daily intimacy with Talaat Bey, a thorough analysis of his 'Diary' entries for the period between January l ,1914 and July 2,1914, establishes that Morgenthau and Talaat met on a total of only twenty occasions, of which only eight were actual substantive meetings, the remainder being social events where they happened to be guests at the same dinner parties.52 Throughout the period in question, Morgenthau saw Talaat for substantive purposes an average of only once every three weeks. Indeed, during the height of the expulsions (Mid-May - June 1914) Talaat and Morgenthau did not meet at all. Morgenthau's 'Diary' records meetings only on May 4th and again on July 2, 1914.53

Nor does the 'Diary' record a single instance, despite Morgenthau's assertion, in which the Ambassador remonstrated with Talaat Bey over his treatment of the Greeks. To the contrary, it establishes that the matter was the subject of discussion in only one of their meetings, that of July 2,1914, an occasion on which Morgenthau simply recorded Talaat's reasoning for relocating the Greeks without any indication that he objected to it in any manner whatsoever:

"Schmavonian and I called on Talaat. He was very determined to have Greeks of the country, not cities, leave their country he said the, Greeks here pay taxes to Greece Government collected by Metropolitan; he says they want their islands back admitted Greek superiority in education and mercantile capacities..."54

In the weekly letter to his family of July 15, 1914, he records the same conversation as follows:

"In the afternoon, I paid a visit on Talaat. He was extremely frank... They are unquestionably determined to have such Greeks as live out of their cities to part from their country as peaceably and as soon as possible. The thing that seemed to annoy him most was that these very Ottoman Greeks are paying taxes to the Hellenic Government, and some of the very money that is earned on Turkish soil will be used to pay for the ships that Greece has just purchased from us. My secretary [Hagop S. Andonian] just informs me that when he attended Robert College twelve years ago, the Greek students used to pay every week something from their pocket money as a contribution to the Hellenic fleet. Talaat admitted to me that they either want the islands back or the Greeks expelled from the mainland.' 55

Far from remonstrating with Talaat Bey over the Ottoman treatment of their Greek population, there is not a hint in anything Morgenthau recorded to suggest that he found their policy unacceptable. Why then in 1918 does he claim that "I objected to his treatment of the Greeks," or that he "saw him [Talaat] nearly every day" and "he used to discuss practically every phase of international relations with me? 56 Once again, there can be only one reason: he is laying the groundwork for his claim of intimacy with Talaat on one hand, and, on the other, seeking to establish his credentials as a defender of any and all minorities persecuted by the hands of the Moslem Turks.

3) In attempting to describe the motivations impelling Talaat's treatment of minorities, Morgenthau writes:

"...Talaat explained his national policy; these different blocs in the Turkish Empire, he said, had always conspired against Turkey; because of the hostility of these native populations, Turkey had lost province after province — Greece, Serbia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Egypt and Tripoli. In this way the Turkish Empire had dwindled almost to the vanishing point. If what was left of Turkey was to survive, added Talaat, he must get rid of these alien peoples. 'Turkey for the Turks' was now Talaat's controlling idea." 57

This alleged conversation, complete with Talaat's use of the phrase "Turkey for the Turks," was, according to Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, part of the same discussion referred to above in which Talaat explained his desire to force the Greek settlers along the Aegean Coast to return to their original homes on the islands. As we have already seen, no reference to anything supporting Talaat's alleged views on 'Turkey for the Turks' was recorded by Morgenthau in either his 'Diary' or 'Letter' dealing with that meeting.

Why then did Morgenthau put these words into the mouth of Talaat Bey? Again, the answer is simple: he wanted to have the strongest figure among the Young Turk triumvirate embracing verbally what is one of the major leitmotifs of Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, namely, it was runaway Turkish nationalism which prompted their attempt to "exterminate" the Armenians. This theme, which does not find a single iota of support in either the 'Diary' or the 'Letters,' runs throughout his book. Over and over we read statements such as 'Turkey for the Turks,' 58 'In his eyes Turkey was the land exclusively of the Turks; he despised all the other elements in its population,'59 'It was his determination to Turkify the whole Empire. 60 'They decided to establish a country exclusively for Turks,'61 'Their passion for Turkifying the nation seemed to demand logically the extermination of all Christians,'62 and, 'The time had finally come to make Turkey exclusively the country of the Turks.'63 It is almost as if we are being subjected to some kind of 'subliminal' repetition designed to convince us that the Young Turks were racist ideologies. If Morgenthau himself had come to believe this of the Turks in 1918, he had certainly done so after leaving Turkey in 1915, for seemingly nothing he recorded during his sojourn in Constantinople serves to buttress such a view.

4) In describing a meeting with Talaat on October 29, 1914, in which the topic of discussion was the Turkish German alliance, Morgenthau relates the following discussion:

"At this meeting Talaat frankly told me that Turkey had decided to side with the Germans and to sink or swim with them. He went again over the familiar grounds, and added that if Germany won  — and Talaat said that he was convinced that Germany would win — the Kaiser would get his revenge on Turkey if Turkey had not helped him to obtain his victory." 64

In other words, Talaat is portrayed here as an individual who has taken a real politik decision and decided to side with Germany on the grounds that in his own opinion she is going to win the war. While no family letter covering this meeting has survived, Morgenthau did record his actual impressions of his October 29,1914 meeting with Talaat in his 'Diary,, presumably within hours of its occurrence. This is what he wrote:

"Called... on Talaat... We had a most interesting talk, He admitted frankly that they had decided to side with Germans; sink or swim with them; he said they had to have strong country to lean on and if they had not agreed to depend on Germans, they when defeated would have been first to suggest cutting up Turkey; they were prepared to swim or sink with them." 65

In the book, Morgenthau has twisted his 'Diary' entry to transform a very reluctant Talaat, one who has no opinion as to the likely outcome of the war, one who has simply embraced the lesser of two evils in a hope to stay afloat, into a calculating pro-German, who, having weighed the alternatives, comes down on the German side because of a belief in German invincibility. Why? Because it hardly suits his thesis to have his key villain not firmly committed to the evil German war machine. Once again, Morgenthau has sacrificed any claim to historical accuracy for what can only be termed the short-term propaganda coup.

5) In discussing a late evening visit on the night of November 3, 1914 to Talaat's home for the purpose of protesting the treatment of English and French civilians, Morgenthau writes:

"'Well, Talaat,' I said, realising that the time had come for plain speaking, 'don't you know how foolishly you are acting? You told me a few hours ago that you had decided to treat the French and English decently and you asked me to publish this news in the American and foreign press...

A piece of news which Talaat received at that moment over the wire almost ruined my case... Talaat's face lost its geniality and became almost savage, he turned to me and said:

"The English bombarded the Dardanelles this morning and killed two Turks.'

And then he added:

'We intend to kill three Christians for every Moslem killed!'

...Finally the train was arranged. Talaat had shown several moods in this interview; he had been by turns sulky. good-natured, savage and complaisant.." 66

This account, which covers some six pages in the Morgenthau book, portrays Talaat Bey as some kind of eccentric child, beguiled by the candor of Morgenthau into eventually acceding to his every wish. A good part of it consists of alleged conversations given as direct quotations. Much is made of Talaat Bey, who started life as a telegraphist, "sitting there in his grey pyjamas and his red fez, working industriously his own telegraph key, 67 etc. etc. In point of fact, the entire source for this six page uninterrupted dialogue between Talaat and Morgenthau is the following entry in his 'Diary' for November 3,1914:

Arshag Schmavonian

"Schmavonian and I went to [Sublime] Porte and then to Talaat's house, he in pajamas, wife peeping through doors. Bedri appeared phone working. I put it strong that I had spread news all the world and if they balked condemnation follows; he admitted it was general German Chief of Staff who had just returned thought they were too lenient and interfered. There is already conflict between civil and military and Germans and Turks; troubles ahead; Promised to try and let foreigners [stay in) interior unless Beirut, Smyrna, or other unprotected ports were bombarded, then all would be kept as hostages. Smyrna Governor would inform our Consul that three Christians be killed for every Moslem that was killed. Dardanelles had been bombarded from 8:30 to 8:40 and two Turks killed At 7:45 Talaat told us train could go. We returned to station about 8:10 when it was announced it could go. Such joy." 68

Here is an almost classic case of the account in Ambassador Morgenthau's Story bearing almost no resemblance to the passage in the 'Diary' upon which it should have been based. From the portrayal of Talaat "this huge Turk" hunched over his telegraph machine and "banging the key with increasing irritation,"69 (when in point of fact he was speaking on the telephone), to his alleged response to the bombing of the Dardanelles which had resulted in two civilian deaths, of promising to 'kill three Christians for every Moslem killed, 70 (combining two totally unrelated events out of sequence), that is, from start to finish, the entire section appears to be nothing more real than the rambling of an overactive imagination; Again, the question is why? Here too, it is Morgenthau s intent to portray Talaat Bey, as his prototypical Turk, as bestial, crude, and vicious in his actions. Only the cajoling influence of the American Ambassador, Henry Morgenthau can stem the unpredictable, dangerous Turk. In reality, the Minister of Interior, and de facto head of government of a state to which Morgenthau was accredited as Ambassador of a foreign country, received him in a crisis situation at home, and spent some time resolving the issue of foreigners who were citizens of belligerent nations wishing to leave the country without exit visas, via a series of phone calls. This act of gracious kindness is twisted into a parody of fact in which Talaat is depicted as an emotionally unstable, petulant schoolboy who can only be controlled by the firm-speaking Henry Morgenthau. While Burton Hendrick could be excused if he had misunderstood the laconic entries in the 'Diary ' it appears that all the fictional detail in this section of the book had to have been added in 1918 by Morgenthau himself.

6) Many times it is hard to find any linkage between the passages in the book and the 'Diary' references they are obviously supposed to be drawn from. One such example is the following. Morgenthau et al. write:

"I called on Talaat again. The first thing he did was to open his desk and pull out a handful of yellow cablegrams.

Why don't you give this money to us?' he said, with a grin.

What money?' I asked.

Here is a cablegram for you from America, sending you a lot of money for the Armenians. You ought not to use it that way; give it to us Turks, we need it as badly as they do.'

'I have not yet received any such cablegram.' I replied.

'Oh, no, but you will,' he answered. 'I always get all your cablegrams first, you know. After I have finished reading them I send them around to you. 71

Not only does Talaat Bey read other people's mail, he brags about it. Not only does he carry out the 'extermination' of the Armenians, he is so heartless that he actually dares to ask Morgenthau to give him the money which generous Americans have collected for the relief of these suffering people. It takes a careful reading of the Morgenthau 'Diary' to find the entry that served as the source for this statement. It reads.

"He [Talaat] asked me if I would take additional money offered by U.S. to me by cable received today; it was an admission that he had read or knew contents of my telegram. 72

There are several problems with the interpretation of this passage given in Ambassador Morgenthau's Story:

a) The 'Diary' entry for its source is dated October 14, 1914, a full six months prior to the onset of the Armenian deportations, and at least ten months prior to the arrival of any American aid earmarked for Armenians,

b) The 'Diary' entry makes it clear that Morgenthau has already received the telegram in question, i.e., Morgenthau does not suggest that Talaat is referring to a message he has not already seen;

c) Morgenthau only infers from Talaat's question that he has seen, or has been informed of a cable on the subject of funds; he is not so informed by Talaat himself who, in the book, brags of receiving all cables prior to Morgenthau ever seeing them.

Clearly, Hendrick, with the tacit approval of Morgenthau, has simply fabricated yet another discussion between Talaat and Morgenthau for the purpose of portraying the Turkish leader as a thoroughly disgusting and inhuman character.

7) On occasion, Morgenthau even goes beyond 'poetic license' and literally records alleged conversations which, have no foundation whatsoever in either the Diary or the 'Letters. In perhaps the most damning indictment of this nature, Morgenthau writes:

"One day Talaat made what was perhaps the most astonishing request I had ever heard. The 'New York Life Insurance Company' and the 'Equitable Life of New York' had for years done considerable business among the Armenians. The extent to which these people insured their lives was merely another indication of their thrifty habits.

'I wish,' Talaat now said, 'That you would get the American Life Insurance Companies to send us a complete list of Armenian policy holders. They are practically all dead now and have left no heirs to collect the money. It of course all escheats to the state. The Government is beneficiary now. Will you do so?

This was almost too much, and I lost my temper. 'You will get no such list from me,' I said, and I got up and left him. 73

Perhaps more than any single incident related in Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, this callous disregard for human life and decency etches itself into the reader's memory. Surely, no one could have invented such a conversation. It must have occurred as related by Morgenthau. But did it? A careful examination of everything written by Morgenthau from the beginning of the Armenian deportations in April of 1915 to the date of his departure, on February 1, 1916, fails to locate a single reference to this alleged conversation. Given the fact that we have hundreds of references in the 'Diary' for this period to Talaat and to matters affecting the treatment and mistreatment of Armenians, this lacuna is difficult to explain. Morgenthau, in addition, filed numerous reports to the Department of State relating to Armenians, not one of which makes any reference to this discussion. Finally, for the period in question we have a complete run of 'Family Letters,' comprising several hundred pages, which are literally filled with references to meeting with Talaat and discussion of the treatment of Armenians. Their contents refer to every single day during the last twelve months of Morgenthau's tenure in Turkey, and yet, they too, fail to make any reference to Talaat's callous request that the Turkish Government be recognised as the beneficiary of the insurance policies held by the very Armenians whose lives had been lost as a result of the treatment they had been accorded. More telling than his argument by absence' is the fact that this is the only alleged conversation between Talaat and Morgenthau mentioned in Ambassador Morgenthau's Story for which there is no basis, either in the 'Diary' or the 'Letters.' In short, this appears to be rioting more than an attempt to further darken the already fully tarnished image Morgenthau has painted of Talaat Bey.

It is upon closer examination of the Morgenthau Papers that an even more disturbing explanation for Morgenthau's having included this bit of fiction in his book, suggests itself. When one goes back over the 'Diary' entries prior to the period of the Armenian deportations, i.e., prior to April 24, 1915, one sees that Morgenthau did in fact discuss the affairs of one the companies named in his book with Talaat Bey. On April 3, 1915 (a full three weeks prior to the beginning of the deportations), we see the following entry:

"Called on Talaat at Minister of Commerce's Office, spoke to him about 'New York Life Insurance Company's funds. 74

Can it be that it was this two line entry in Morgenthau's Diary which served as the springboard from which Hendrick constructed the alleged conversation discussed above? As in the discussion on Talaat Bey reading Morgenthau's cables and suggesting that money earmarked for Armenians be given to his government, is it possible that Hendrick has simply fabricated (presumably with the connivance of Morgenthau) this entire episode? Once again, the answer is, yes. While there was an issue involving funds belonging to the New York Life Insurance Company which had been frozen in Turkey, it had nothing to do with Ottoman Armenians. To the contrary, a series of entries in Morgenthau's 'Diary' for the months of March and April 1915 allow us to state categorically that the issue was just the opposite of what was portrayed in the book.

We may summarise the 'Diary' entries relative to the 'New York Life Insurance Company' issue, as follows.

1) On 24 March, a Mr. Feri, the Constantinople representative of the Insurance Company, paid a visit to Morgenthau and informed him that the Ottoman Government was refusing to release their bank accounts because their company headquarters was in Paris, France (a country with which the Ottoman Empire was then at war);75

2) On 29 March, Morgenthau took up the company's problem in a discussion with Talaat Bey, who informed him of the following: "as to the New York Life funds, the company had never registered and they don't want them to withdraw their funds, as they fear that they would not pay their losses here; 76

3) As noted above, on 3 April, Morgenthau's 'Diary' notes that he "called on Talaat at Minister of Commerce's office; spoke to him about New York Life Insurance Company's funds; 77

This then is the extent of references to the New York Life Insurance Company funds in the Morgenthau papers. The March 29, 1915 entry makes it clear that, far from wanting to serve as the beneficiary of deceased policy holders, Talaat's and the Turkish Government's interest was in making sure that the company maintained enough capital in Turkey, so as to guarantee their ability to pay any future claims which might arise under their coverage.

Simple logic tells us Morgenthau's account must be false, as his 'Diary' establishes that throughout his tenure in Constantinople, the New York Life Insurance Co. had its own representative in the Ottoman capital; that is, had Talaat Bey wanted a list of their clients he had only to demand it. 78

Once again, the question we must ask is: Why does this passage appear in Ambassador Morgenthau's Story in the first place? In addition to the by now obvious aim on the part of Morgenthau, namely, to blacken the reputation of Talaat Bey in every conceivable fashion and whenever possible, there may well have been an even more venal reason for the inclusion of this passage. A thorough reading of the Morgenthau papers shows that at the very time Morgenthau's book was being written he was also a member of the Board of Directors of the Equitable Life Assurance Society of New York. 79 Indeed, his 'Diary' for the year 1918 shows that on March 21 he attended a meeting of the Equitable Life Assurance Company at 12:00 and then met with Burton J. Hendrick at 2:30 80 (presumably to work on the manuscript). Morgenthau, who had been elected a member of the Society's board at ifs December 1,1915 meeting, 81 was very proud of his being so recognised and even wrote his son Henry Jr. to the effect that: "I think my selection as one of the Trustees of the 'Equitable Life Assurance Society' shows that the financial powers are already realising that my name and advise [sic. advice] will be of some value. 82 It may well be that the passage in question was nothing more than a 'plug' for the life insurance business. By naming the 'Equitable Life Assurance Society' and praising Armenians for having the foresight to insure their lives, Morgenthau may simply have been throwing in a free advertisement for his fellow trustees who had the good sense to recognise back in 1915 that, in his words "my name and advise will be of some value." While there is no way to advance this suggestion beyond the realm of hypothesis, one thing is clear - there is nothing in the Morgenthau papers to suggest that the alleged conversation between Talaat Bey and Morgenthau ever transpired.

8) Not satisfied with relating fictitious conversations between himself and Talaat, Morgenthau also at times simply brings together events which transpired on separate occasions, thereby creating a totally erroneous impression. A case in point of this technique concerns the most serious discussion Morgenthau ever had with Talaat on the treatment of the Armenians. This talk, which occurred on August 8, 1915, took place at the initiative of Talaat who sent word to Morgenthau (through their mutual friend, the Grand Rabbi Haim Nahoum) that he wanted to see the American envoy alone, that is, without his Armenian escort-interpreter Arshag K. Schmavonian as he desired to discuss "Armenian matters. 83

Morgenthau's version of this meeting in his 'Story' begins as follows:

"In the early" of part of August...he sent a personal messenger to me, asking if I could not see him alone he said that he himself would provide the interpreter. This was the first time that Talaat had admitted that his treatment of the Armenians was a matter with which I had any concern. The interview took place two days afterward. It so happened that since the last time I had any visited Talaat I had shaved my beard. As soon as I came in the burly Minister began talking in his customary bantering fashion.

'You have become a young man again,' he said: `You are so young now that I cannot go to you for advice any more.'

'I have shaved my beard,' I replied, 'because it had become very grey — made grey by your treatment of the Armenians."'

In actual fact, the 'beard incident' occurred not in the course of the August 8, 1915 meeting on 'Armenian matters,' but rather a month earlier on 3 July when Morgenthau's 'Diary" records the following:

"...Talaat teased me about having shaved beard and said I had become young and he would no longer take my advice...I told him I shaved it because it grew grey on account of treatment of Armenians. 85

By juxtaposing the banter of the 3 July conversation with the very serious appointment on the "Armenian matters" which occurred a month later, Morgenthau creates the impression that Talaat was not very serious in asking him to come discuss the Armenian question on 8 August. How could he be serious when he began a talk about life and death matters by joking about Morgenthau's beard?

It is only when we read the actual 'Diary' entry for August 8,1915, that we realise just how serious the talk actually was:

"I called on Talaat. He had his man there to interpret for me. First he spoke English but as Talaat himself noticed he was very slow, he asked him to try German which worked better. Talaat told me that he greatly preferred that I should always come alone when I had any Armenian matters to discuss with him. By this he admits that he was willing to discuss Armenian affairs with me. He told me that they based their objections to the Armenians on three distinct grounds:

1) that they had enriched themselves at the expense of the Turks;

2) that they wanted to domineer over them and establish a separate state;

3) that they have openly encouraged their enemies, so that they have come to the irrevocable decision to make them powerless before the war is ended.

I argued in all sorts of ways with him but he said that there was no use; that they had already disposed of three-fourths of them, that there were none left in Bitlis, Van, Erzeroum, and that the hatred was intense now that they have to finish it. I spoke to him about the commercial losses, he said that they did not care, that they had figured it out and knew it would not exceed for the banks etc. five million pounds. He said they want to treat the Armenians like we treat the negroes, I think he meant like the Indians. I asked him to make exceptions in some few cases which he promised to do; he also definitely promised that the people living in Constantinople could depart. I asked him about the removal of some sixty people,. he said those are people who have come here from Izmid. It was simply impossible to move him. He said they would take care of the Armenians at Zor and elsewhere but they did not want them in Anatolia. I told him three times that they were making a serious mistake and would regret it. He said, 'we know we have made mistakes, but we never regret. 86

In tone and content that was a far more serious discussion than the account in Ambassador Morgenthau's Story implies. There is no-hint of banter in the 'Diary' entry; far from it, Talaat emerges as being extremely candid. A close reading of his comments as recorded in Morgenthau's 'Diary' suggests that his comparison of their plans for the Armenians with the American treatment of the Negroes may have been, despite Morgenthau's suggestion, well spoken. It is in fact 'segregation' which he is referring to, as is clear from the final statement attributed to Talaat on this matter, to wit, "He said they would take care of the Armenians at Zor and elsewhere but they did not want them in Anatolia. 87

Why does Morgenthau not challenge Talaat on this statement Because it is not out of keeping with what he is hearing at that time from others, including Zenop Bezjian, the 'vekil' (representative) of the Armenian Protestants in the Ottoman Empire. A month after the above-mentioned conversation with Talaat, Morgenthau receives a visit from Bezjian, which he records in his 'Diary' in the following terms:

"Zenop Bezjian, Vekil of Armenian Protestants, called. Schmavonian introduced him; he was his schoolmate. He told me a great deal about conditions [in the interior). I was surprised to hear him report that Armenians at Zor were fairly well satisfied; that they have already settled down to business and are earning their livings; those were the first ones that were sent away and seem to have gotten there without being massacred. He gave me a list where the various camps are and he thinks that over one half million have been displaced. He was most solicitous that they should be helped before winter set in." 88

All comments in Ambassador Morgenthau's Story notwithstanding, as late as September 1915, Morgenthau had not firmly concluded that the Armenians were the subject of an attempted 'extermination' by the Young Turk leadership.

9) In addition to inventing conversations, on occasion Morgenthau and Hendrick take unsubstantiated rumor, surround it with quotation marks and put it in Talaat's mouth as well. One such example is the following passage, which reads:

"Talaat's attitude toward the Armenians was summed up in the proud boast which he made to his friends: 'I have accomplished more toward solving the Armenian problem in three months than Abdul Hamid accomplished in thirty years.' 89

Given the violent means by which Sultan Abdulhamid II responded to the Armenian uprising in 1895-1896, this boast attributed to Talaat can not help but send a chill down the spine of the reader. For what Talaat is implicitly saying is that he has killed more Armenians in three months than Abdulhamid did in thirty years. Once again, he has the criminal publicly boasting of his crime. One's only question can be who are the friends in whom Talaat thus confided, and which of them passed his boast along to Morgenthau?

Morgenthau's 'Diary' entry for July 18,1915 provides us the answer to these queries, he writes:

"Gates told me Talaat had said that he has accomplished more in three months about crushing the Armenians than Abdul Hamid could do in thirty three years."90

About the last person one would expect to see listed among the 'friends' of Talaat Bey is Caleb Gates, the former American missionary who served as President of Robert College during Morgenthau's tenure in Constantinople. Far from being 'friends' they were hardly acquainted, as is clear from Gates' own book: Not To Me Only. Not surprisingly, Gates does not choose to repeat the rumor he mentioned to Morgenthau in his own writing or to record it as fact. 91 Morgenthau suffered from no such inhibition himself. If it served the general purpose of casting Talaat in a negative light it was deemed worthy of inclusion in his book. Even rumor, if dressed up with quotation marks and placed in the mouth of Talaat Bey, found its place in Ambassacior Morgenthau's Story. Understandably, this Gates-inspired rumor did not find its way into Morgenthau's weekly 'Letter' of July 22,1915. For Morgenthau's views of Talaat in 1915 were far different than in 1918 when his book was written.

0) Discussing a chance meeting with the German Ambassador Wangenheim, which occurred on October 15, 1915, Morgenthau states:

"A few days after his [Wangenheim's] return, I met him on his way to Haskeuy; He said that he was going to the American Embassy and together we walked back to it. I had been recently told by Talaat that the intended to deport all the Armenians who were left in Turkey and his statement had induced me to make a final plea to the one man in Constantinople who had the power to end the horrors. 92

A close examination of Morgenthau's 'Diary' and 'letters, establishes that, contrary to the claim in this passage, Morgenthau had not seen Talaat Bey at all during the first half of October (nor had he been told anything resembling is during his four previous meetings on September 6,13, 20 and 30,1915).93 What he had heard was gossip, passed on not by Talaat Bey as he alleges, but rather by his two Armenian staff members, Schmavonian and Andonian. His 'Diary ' entry for October 7, 1915 includes the following comments.

Schmavonian today received two absurdly contradictory statements, one from an Armenian Deputy who said that Talaat Pasha had stated to him that nothing further would be done against the Armenians, that now they intended to take [up] the question of their Greek subjects; while another man told him that they contemplated to complete matter. Andonian reported to me about Armenian Patriarch's interview yesterday with Talaat. Talaat's statements to the Patriarch were not at all reassuring. He had said that all their measures against the Armenians were perfectly justified, had expressed great resentment at Armenians having tried to secure European intervention to establish a proper government and introduce reforms in Anatolia and had said that they were just waiting for such a chance to punish the Armenians...When Patriarch answered that they ought to punish responsible parties and not women and children; he said these things are inevitable!"94

In other words, Morgenthau's statement in his book relevant to his October 15, 1915 meeting with Wangenheim, should have read, "I had been recently told by Schmavonian that he had been told by an unnamed man that the Turks were contemplating to complete the matter and deport the remaining Armenians," rather than his claim that: "I had been recently told by Talaat that he intended to deport all the Armenians who were left in Turkey." Once again, we see Morgenthau take rumors passed on to him, this time by his Armenian adviser/interpreter as coming from an unnamed source, and credit them to Talaat.

11) Given the consistency with which Morgenthau has misquoted, modified statements of, and simply fabricated most of the remarks he has attributed to Talaat, it seems only fitting that his description of his final meeting prior to his departure from Istanbul with the Turkish leaders should also be noteworthy primarily for its lack of veracity. He begins his account by saying:

"I had my farewell interview with Enver and Talaat on the thirteenth of January."95 and even in this short sentence manages to falsehood a) he did not hold a farewell interview with Talaat and Enver at all but met each man separately; and, b) his separate meetings with Talaat and Enver actually occurred on January 29, 1916. 96

With this less than auspicious beginning, one might well wonder how Margenthau is going to record his leave-taking from the Turkish leaders, Talaat Bey and Enver Pasha, with whom his. "Diary" and "Letters" show he had enjoyed friendly social and professional relations. He begins with the following statement:

"But we hope you are coming back soon, he Talaat added, in the polite (and insincere) manner of the oriental. 97

The reminder to the reader that Talaat was not even sincere in his leave-taking appears at first glance to be typical Morgenthau-Hendrick invective. However, an examination of other surviving documents relating to the book, establishes that in this instance the slander's author was none other than the Honorable Robert Lansing, the U.S. Secretary of State. As noted earlier, Morgenthau sent drafts of each section of his "Story" to Lansing, who personally commented on them. Indeed, just prior to the book's publication, Morgenthau wrote Lansing asking permission to acknowledge the "trouble taken by Secretary of State Robert Lansing in reading the manuscript and of the many valuable and wise suggestions he has made. 98 Lansing declined the honor with "I'm sure that you will agree with me that on the whole it would be advisable not to mention my name in connection with the book."99 Morgenthau agreed, and helped perpetrate an important omission which has lasted until today. For Lansing's comments (in his own hand), were taken seriously by Morgenthau and the present example illustrates their nature. In the Morgenthau-Hendrick draft of the closing chapters of Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, the passage quoted above actually read:

"But we hope you are coming back soon,' he [Talaat] added. We feel almost as though you were one of us." 100

Lansing's contribution was to pencil in the phrase: "with the usual insecure oriental politeness,"101 an emendation which Morgenthau immediately instructed Hendrick to incorporate.l02 Not only was Lansing's input totally uncalled for, but also a reading of Morgenthau's 'Diary' entry relevant to his final meeting with Talaat Bey fully illustrates the real nature of the relationship enjoyed by the two men:

"I also called on Talaat and requested his promise that he would not interfere with any American or other interests entrusted to me or [with) the Jews. He promised to everything except that he wanted to reserve the right to have a little fun with the British and French. He said that his promise only held good if I came back...

I asked Talaat whether I should call on the Sultan to say good bye and he said that I certainly should and that he would arrange it. 103

Anyone reading this passage realises that, contrary to what Lansing implied, there was a frank and open friendship linking the American Ambassador and the Ottoman Minister of the Interior. Why does Morgenthau allow the inclusion of so much slanderous material regarding Talaat Bey two years after the fact? The answer is simple and relates to the fact that Morgenthau was writing a piece of wartime propaganda with the expressly stated purpose of mobilising support for President Wilson's war effort. He consciously down played the close relationships he enjoyed with the Young Turk leadership throughout his sojourn in Constantinople and sacrificed truth for the greater good of helping to generate anti-Turkish sentiment which would transform itself into pro-war sentiment.

It is in the final section of Morgenthau's comments on his farewells with Talaat, that he establishes just how far he is willing to stretch the truth:

"And now for the last time I spoke on the subject that had rested so heavily on my mind for many months. I feared that another appeal would be useless, but I decided to make it.

"How about the Armenians?"

Talaat's geniality disappeared in an instant. His face hardened and the fire of the beast lighted up his eyes once more.

'What's the use of speaking about them?' he said, waving his hand. 'We are through with them. That's all over.'

Such was the farewell with Talaat. 'That's all over' were his last words to me."104

As we have seen, Morgenthau's 'Diary' contains nothing even vaguely resembling this closing harangue. Only one thing can really be said about the manner in which Morgenthau and Hendrick portrayed Talaat: it was consistent. It moved from slander to slander and when it seemed to lag near the end, Secretary of State Robert Lansing was on hand to pick up the level of the invective once again.