630) III: Armenia Founded As Dictatorship Armenia Didn’t Become Republic By Vote Of People: Secrets Of "Christian" Terrorist State Armenia

Armenia Founded As A Dictatorship Armenia Didn’t Become A Republic By A Vote Of The People . .

As the dust began to settle after World War I, a tiny group of Armenians claimed a small mountainous region of Russia and called themselves a "republic». In truth, this tiny band of individuals, was nothing more than a dictatorship. As Hovannissian stated: "There, in the midst of lawlessness and anguish, they endeavored without the benefit of pre-existing ruling apparatus or traditions to create the foundations of governmental). Hovannissian also noted "there was no `industrial` or `commercial` center within the country» (P 39).

Hovannissian observes that the country was "created as a revolutionary society to emancipate Turkish Armenia, it was neither structured as nor intended to evolve into a legal ruling organism». He goes on to add "the only semblance of administration in the districts around Yerevan remained a popular dictatorship headed by Aram Manukian, a hero of the resistance at Van in 1915 and the Yerevan in May 1918, and by Dro (short for Dresdomat Kanayan), a renowned partisan commander» (P 40).

Dro, "a renowned partisan commander"? Dro was renowned for his success in attacks on unarmed and defenseless villages. Historical evidence also reflects that when Dro faced real soldiers, he was a failure. From day one of this new dictatorship, the Armenians had problems with its neighbors – Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. The Armenians claimed some 1 million of their people lived in the territories of Georgia and Azerbaijan – and Armenia coveted and demanded the land where they claimed their people were or had been five to eight hundred years in the past. While they didn’t have that many Armenians living inside the Ottoman lands, they nonetheless demanded a large amount of these lands as well.

There are places within both Azerbaijan and Georgia where pockets of Armenians live. The Armenian logic is that the Armenians living in these areas have the right to vote to leave each country and join Armenia. In the United States this tactic would be for Native Americans to be able to vote by themselves to leave the United States, take their lands upon which they live, and join Mexico. In the case of Georgia, the Armenians clamored continually that their people have the right to secede. The United States fought one such war – the Civil War – when the southern states attempted to secede from the nation. Both sides paid a terrible price.

Armenia didn’t become a republic by a vote of the people. Hovannissian talks about the startup of the new state: “Amidst this `formless chaos` Armenia laid her legislative foundations. Elections then being out of the question, the four political parties agreed to triple the membership of the National Council and transform it into a legislature» (P 42).

Hovannissian records: "Although the Republic was small in size, deprived of its best lands, and unable to provide for all its citizens, Armenian boundaries would not remain inflexible forever». Hovannissian quotes one of the leaders, Anetick Sahakian, who proclaimed: "I believe that our borders will expand with the iron force of life, with the defense of our just and indisputable rights to the (Turkish) occupied lands..» (P 42). Consider the following:

Hovannissian calls Armenia a "Republic" then says "elections"are "out of the question». In truth – the government was inactual fact a "dictatorship from before there was an Armenian state”.

1. The Armenians really wanted some one else’s land for free.

2. The first Armenian leaders called for "our just and indisputable rights to the (Turkish) occupied lands». This is deception because history clearly reveals twenty-nine other civilizations have an even greater claim to the land. The Armenian logic was and is nothing more than coveting thy neighbor’s land. History is very clear on this point: Armenia didn’t have Turkish land to be deprived of as Hovannissian wants the world to believe. Ottoman Turks possessed those lands for some eight hundred years. Before that these lands were possessed by the Byzantine Empire and before that the Romans controlled the land. There had been no such "Armenian lands" for perhaps as long back as three thousand years. The Armenians were not a majority population in the places they claimed as their "ancient" homeland. In fact, the Armenians in their tiny state area had only been there for perhaps seventy-five years when Hovannissian makes his claims.

Regardless of how much the few Armenian nationalists wanted a state, there were basic problems that ensured failure. The people of Armenia paid (and continue to pay) a terrible price for the misadventures of their leaders.

"The government’s foremost objective would be to deliver the nation from the clutches of anarchy by striving to safeguard the life and property of all inhabitants, to restore the awareness of communication, and to succor the refugee population» (P 43). That never happened for the average Armenian. The Armenians then, as now, seem to be preoccupied with expansion at the cost of their neighbors; a recipe for disaster no matter how one slices it. This kind of addiction to the ideals of expansion by-force may also help explain current Armenian aggression in Azerbaijan. Regarding foreign affairs, the Armenians worked to "...secure Turkish withdrawal from the occupied portions of the Republic as well as the return of refugees to their native districts» (P 43).

The basic problem with this statement is Armenia was not a "Republic," it was a dictatorship. A strange entity, which was established by force and administered by force. Armenia never possessed the lands they complained the Turks "occupied" that they claimed to be theirs. The Armenians said they wanted "the return of refugees to their native districts». How can this be when Armenians today claim the Turks murdered 1.5 million of their people in these "native districts" in 1915? In the first place, 1.5 million people were more Armenians than they claimed who lived in these districts. There clearly were hundreds and hundreds of thousands of refugees, and obviously 1.5 million of them could not have been murdered as alleged by Armenians today. More dramatically, however, this revelation flies in the face of Armenian allegations that Turks committed genocide. After all, why would anyone wish to return to a place where, allegedly, a heinous crime like systematic annihilation of his kin took place? Would the Jews wish to return to Auschwitz? Would Israel "work to secure the return" of Jews to Auschwitz? Wouldn’t that be suicidal? The only reasonable explanation for this revelation is what the truth tells us already, namely, it was an armed conflict triggered by Armenian betrayals and ended up in forced relocation of those Armenians during the time of World War I. Another goal was to "determine Armenian boundaries with Georgia and Azerbaijan on the basis of ethnic principle, the only acceptable criteria in democratic states» (P 43). In plain words, the Armenians wanted land claimed by both Georgia and Azerbaijan. In addition, Armenia just wasn’t a "democratic state" as Hovannissian maintains repeatedly throughout his book. The truth of the matter is this little gang of men wanted power and someone else’s land and they would say and do anything to get both. In the following chapters there will be reports of the warfare between these states – always with Armenia demanding land from someone else and always with Armenia invading another country.

In the case of Georgia and Azerbaijan, the Armenians claimed they had people in specific parts of these states – thus the claim of "ethnic principle». However, in the case of Turkey, Armenia would demand they must have land from sea to sea in order to survive economically. It is interesting to note the change in Armenian attitude regarding this land, because they would be a minority within the total population. Their claim of "ethnic principle" would not apply to the Ottoman lands, as the Armenians were a minority wherever they lived. They just simply kept demanding more and more land and said and did whatever they could get away with to obtain it. They used propaganda to secure Western help to lay claim to their neighbors` lands.

Another problem facing the Armenian government was the division among the politicians attempting to run the new state. One complained that entire areas of government activity had been neglected. Another complained the government failed to consider labor. The chairman of the Social Democrats stated the government’s leadership compared "to that of the despised Czarist minister, Stolypin, who had attempted to hoodwink the masses by propounding `first peace then reforms.`"(P 43)

Armenia was beset with many problems, as Hovannissian explains, "Cholera reached epidemic proportions by the end of 1918. The meager supply of medication and disinfectants had been exhausted and there was no hope of receiving a new shipment from abroad. It was impossible to quarantine the infected that lived among the populace in crowded, unsanitary hutches. The refugee masses, roaming the countryside in search of food spread the disease over the breadth of the land» (P 44).

The Real Foundation of Armenia

Crime was a grave problem in Armenia during 1918. "The government was scandalized by the insolence of gangs of bandits; who robbed and killed in broad daylight. The government could not establish law and order or wield real authority until the entire civilian population had been disarmed and taught to respect discipline. He refuted the argument that an armed populace constituted an important military asset; it was an asset only for anarchy» (P 4 5).

A small but vocal group rejected the government’s proposal to "disarm the citizens": "Citizens possessed weapons in many countries where anarchy was unknown. What was actually needed, they said, was to rid the land of corrupt officials, who ignored and violated directives of the government and brought discredit to it" (P 45). Armenia is infamous for official corruption.

The dictatorial government adopted the proposal. However, it was an entirely different matter to enforce the new decree. "Unwilling or unable to depend upon the government for protection, Armenia’s inhabitants, Christian and Muslim alike, clung to their weapons» (P 46).

There was also an attempt "to circumscribe the right of the Church of Armenia to continue its traditional role in educa-tion».There were voices pleading to ensure "separation of church and state" but the attempt was not successful (P 47). The Church of Armenia plays an important role in the government of the state even today. Of course, in a free and democratic nation, no church or any religion is permitted to involve itself in matters of state. Not so in "Christian" Armenia. Compare the difference between Turkey and Armenia. Even though Turkey is 98 percent Muslim, religion is not permitted to be a part of government in any way. Turkey, today, has a true democracy and there is true separation of church and state. This cannot be said for the Christian state of Armenia. In 1918 there were still other problems for Armenia. "The homeless, disease-ridden masses in the Yerevan Gubernia were an incessant scourge to government. Some 300,000 refugees had crowded within the suffocating bounds of the barren republic» (P 48).

"To feed the refugees the Minister of Interior levied arbitrary food quotas upon the few districts not devastated by the war. These extralegal measures evoked a bitter response in the affected villages and in Karabakh. The charge of aspiring to perpetual dictatorship was hurled at Aram Manukian. Even more distressing to the critics were the reports that men in military uniforms were terrorizing the peasantry and seizing its goods in the name of the Armenian government» (P 48).

The Armenians faced a severe financial crisis throughout the two-and-one-half years they attempted to establish a nation. "The government established a monopoly on the sale and distribution of grain» (P 48). This system evoked complaints because it was not administered fairly or honestly. There was always widespread official corruption throughout the entire brief history of the state.

"The Populists, respected for their business acumen, maintained that the monopoly had precipitated an artificial shortage of food. The peasantry, well aware that the prices set by the government were far below the actual retail value of the grain, had resorted to hoarding and to illegal sales. If the monopoly were abandoned in favor of a free economy, the Populists explained, a large supply of grain would reach the public and famine would be averted» (P 48). Needless to say, the suggestion to establish a free economy was rejected by the dictators. The people continued to suffer terribly because the individuals in political power lacked a vision for freedom.

The Armenian dictatorial government realized, early on, that they must have help from established nations to survive. Armenian agents were sent to the major countries of Europe, to the Ukraine, and to Soviet Russia. "For five months, until the end of World War I, they toiled under trying and humiliating conditions, with petitions, statistics, and logic as their only means» (P 49). In other words, the Armenians had nothing to offer of interest to established nations. The Armenians were seeking handouts and judging by the statements made by Hovannissian, they were treated by those established nations as no more than nuisance panhandlers.

By September 1918, "Armenian diplomatic labor…had been frustrated. In an ironic paradox Armenia turned to the Ottoman Empire» (P 51). If the Ottoman Empire really did commit the crime of genocide from 1915 to 1919, as Armenians allege, then why would the newly established Armenia turn to the Ottoman Empire for help in 1918, 1919, or 1920?

When the conference began, the Armenians "humbled themselves as far as to express gratitude to the Ottoman Empire for tolerating the establishment of the Armenian Republic». A Turkish spokesman stated during the talks that the Armenian problems were caused "by the Kurds, the military authorities, and the irresponsible local officials, but he charged the Armenians with disloyalty to the Ottoman homeland» (P 52).

Certainly Armenians were disloyal to the Ottomans, with whom they had lived in peace for more than five hundred years. Hovannissian writes of revolutionary activities by Armenians that assisted Ottoman enemies, not the least of these actions were the many Armenian military attacks behind Ottoman battle lines. This was the Armenian activity that caused Ottoman officials to remove the entire Armenian population from the war zones. Any nation will do what it has to do to protect its troops from the enemy. Armenians proved over and over again, with hit-and-run attacks, that they were enemies of the Ottomans. This was the reason the entire Armenian population was removed, except for those in Istanbul, Izmir, and Edirne, which lie in the western part of the empire and were no threat to the Ottoman war effort. Any other nation at that time would have done the same thing under the circumstances. Thereafter, the Armenians tried to excuse their disloyalty by ignoring the fact they started the killing of Ottomans. The Armenians attempted to cover up their bad deeds by claiming they were victims of a massacre because their people were removed from behind the battle lines.

If the Ottomans set out to exterminate the entire Armenian population why didn’t they wipe out the Armenians, who lived in Istanbul, Izmir and Edirne and elsewhere that were not behind their armies battle lines? The Armenians living away from where the battles were fought were not harmed. The word "genocide" means deliberately wiping off a nation with no exception.

Many thousands of Armenians died during the war, as did even more Turks. The Ottoman Empire was in its last phase of life. Many thousands of innocent people lost their lives by the selfish greed of the Armenians who wanted to establish their own little kingdom. The true fact of the matter is many thousands of Turks were subjected to horrible massacres in the places where Armenians had joined forces with Russians. Hovannissian ignores the many Turkish witnesses, who are still alive, who were subjected to terrible Armenian brutality. Hovannissian, if he were objective, would have certainly included the accounts of hundreds of thousands of innocent Turks who were subjected to the horrors of war. The fact that Muslim suffering, mostly Turkish, is totally ignored, proves Hovannissian’s bias and the shaky grounds on which Armenian allegations of genocide are based.

The Armenians attempted to secure the help of the powerful European countries while they met with the Ottoman government in Istanbul. "The Armenian mission submitted charts, maps, and statistical data to substantiate its claim that no viable state could exist on the little rocky land left to Armenia» (P 53). It must also be noted the Armenians created their own version of facts and statistical data in an attempt to influence the Europeans. The bottom line was that the Armenians wanted – and they still do – additional land claimed by the Ottomans, Georgia, or Azerbaijan.

World War I ended on November 11, 1918. Hovannissian writes, "With Turkey vanquished, the allies could now satisfy the Armenian demand for justice and retribution sentiment aside, however, those who carefully read the terms of the... armistice had valid cause for misgivings. It was quite lenient and, in reference to Armenia, imprecise» (P 5 5). Here again, Hovannissian shows his bias toward modern-day Turkey. It was the Ottomans who lost the war in 1918. Turkey didn’t even come into existence until 1923, after a long and hard battle of independence fought between 1919 and 1923.

One should never ignore the fact that the Ottoman government was a monarchy, while the Turks established a true democratic republic that continues to this day. Armenia cannot say as much. The trouble and the confusion one has with Hovannissian’s comments, first of all, is in 1918 the Armenians had done little or nothing to put them in a position to "demand" anything from the winning allies. What the Armenians really wanted was "justice" defined by them and "retribution," or in plain words – something for nothing. This is why the allies did not provide anything for them at the peace table at Paris Peace Conference.

"Armenian leaders were alarmed that the armistice implied continued Ottoman sovereignty in Turkish Armenia, and they bitterly questioned how disorders involving Armenians might arise in those provinces, the Christian population long since having been deported, massacred, or driven into exile» (P 5 7).

Here he goes again. The Armenian professor uses that improper term (as he does over and over), “Turkish Armenia”. This term is not an indisputable historical fact, but partisan terminology and deliberately perpetuated misinformation. Clearly the Allies didn’t buy into that claim any more than they did the claims "Christians" were "deported, massacred, or driven into exile».

Hovannissian alleges "the great Allies – France, Great Britain, and the United States – had repeatedly proclaimed that the Armenians would be indemnified and that never again would they be allowed to experience `the blasting tyranny of the Turk.` The Armenian question, the Allies pledged, would be settled `according to the supreme laws of humanity and justice» (P 60).

This is a terrible misleading statement. First of all, no government of either France, Great Britain, or the United States ever entered into an agreement with Armenia that "proclaimed that Armenians would be indemnified and that never again would they be allowed to experience "the blasting tyranny of the Turk».

In fact, the United States never even declared war on the Ottomans. If America never went to war with this country, how could the United States "proclaim" the Armenians would be indemnified?

What Hovannissian alludes to are comments a few individuals made, speaking for themselves only. The Armenians poisoned the minds of a few people and they made statements about the terrible things that were alleged to have happened to Christians by Muslims. These private statements were made in response to the Armenians playing the religion-race card of Christians versus. Muslims. These words were nothing more than prejudiced personal comments. This is why official agreements and treaty requirements never gave such assurances or recognition to Armenia. Once official investigations into the wild claims of Armenians were completed, the allies rejected their claims outright. Much more will be said of this in the chapters to come.