632) V: Armenia Loses Unprovoked War On Georgia Armenians Seek Free Handouts From Christian World: Secrets Of "Christian" Terrorist State Armenia

Armenia Loses Unprovoked War On Georgia Armenians Seek Free Handouts From The Christian World . .

On December 14, 1918, Armenia launched a surprise attack on its neighbor, Georgia, in an attempt to take land.

On December 17,1918, "When the Armenian invasion` was well under way...," Premier Zhordonia of Georgia spoke to his people:

There has taken place that which should not have taken place: Regretfully, Armenia had incited rebellion and then had brought up her regular army. The present Armenian government, in instigating this shameful conflict, has precipitated that which has never before occurred – war between Georgia and Armenia: Who had ever heard of war over a few incidents in a village or two? The real explanation could be found in the character of Kachaznuni’s government, which, like the wolf, eats the calf because such is its nature. That government could not live in peace and was obsessed with battling one or another of its neighbors, for like the wolf, it had to devour everything. Should not the Armenians have realized that, in view of their hostile relations with the Muslims, they must at least cling to the friendship of Georgia? But instead they had now burned this bridge as well.

“In Armenia”, continued Zhordonia, “there were two political currents, one composed of men of moderation seeking reconciliation and the other made up of militarists. Obviously the latter extremists had finally gained ascendancy, but Georgia would rise to battle this pack of mauserists” (l).

The Georgians discovered important Armenian government documents and they were published. The proof, from the Armenians themselves, revealed they "had made detailed plans for seizure of the land up to the Khram River, and Armenian military activity would seem to verify the authenticity of those documents"(P 111)

The war actually lasted only two weeks because the British intervened and the two countries returned to where they were before the Armenian surprise attack. The British occupied a "neutral zone" between the two countries.

Hovannissian expresses surprise that the Georgian government, in response to the sneak military attack was so harsh on Armenians living in Georgia. He writes:

The brunt of the war fell not upon the combatants or even the villages of Lori but upon the Armenians ofTiflis and the surrounding communities. Although Zhordonia’s government repeatedly underscored the distinction between the Armenian people and what it described as a clique of Armenian militarists, it nonetheless took stringent measures against the entire population. On December 24, 1918, the parliament passed legislation making treason punishable by death and confiscating of properties, and two days later the governor of the Tiflis gubernia declared all Armenians technically prisoners of war. Those Armenians in Tiflis who were natives of the districts under enemy occupation, that is the southern half of the Borchuvezd, were required to register within twenty-four hours or face prosecution under the law of treason. This announcement was followed by numerous arrests... (P 122).

Hovannissian continues:

The Armenian and Russian organizations in Tiflis protested in vain. The doors of the National Council of Armenians in Georgia were sealed and members of the council were placed under house arrest». The Armenian newspapers in Georgia were also were shut down. In the weeks after the fighting ended, Georgia arrested hundreds of people and deponed them. When the Armenian Council of Georgia was subsequently permitted to resume its activities, it denounced with acerbic indignation the unjust, cruel treatment inflicted by the Georgian government. Its protest read in pan: "The explanation of the Minister of Interior that this national persecution must be ascribed to the unauthorized acts of individual officials can only leave the most onerous impression upon the Armenian public, especially since the explanation follows that which has become a most common work of late – a word about the supposed respect for the Armenian people, a word that can now only wound the sensitivity of a people living under the most debasing and oppressive of conditions" (P 123).

Reaction throughout Georgia was quick and certain. Hovannissian writes: "In the country side, meanwhile, lawless bands and organized units of the People’s (Red) Guard plundered Armenian villages and spread terror to gain retribution and to punish the disloyal and treacherous` inhabitants» (P 124)

Once again, ordinary Armenians suffered from their leaders` attempt involving armed conquest of someone else’s land. The Georgians had every reason not to trust Armenians. Many innocent Armenians were hurt when they were fired from their city of Tiflis jobs. The government called for new elections (at this time Armenia had not even held one).

"The Armenians in Georgia expressed outrage that this government would require every voter to be `registered` as Georgian citizens. The Armenian plurality of Tiflis, from anger, fear, and humiliation, stayed away from the polls, as did thousands of Russians, who would not condescend to accept the status of Georgian subjects. Tiflis thus finally became a Georgian city ruled by Georgians. Armenians who previously could not have imagined residing anywhere but in the magnificent capital of the Caucasus now began to look toward Erevan” (P 124).

All democratic republics require citizenship before an individual can vote. But the Armenians claim their people must be "Armenian" but should be an equal partner and vote in another republic’s elections without declaring citizenship. Is there a single example of this type of attitude in any other nation’s history? Georgia came out of the two-week war with positive results.

Their army had been tested and had stood firm at the crucial moment. Georgia had succeeded in retaining Akhalkalak, whereas Armenia had been forced to relinquish all territory seized during the war. Moreover, as Tiflis had become the headquarters of the British command in western Transcaucasia and was more closely linked to Europe than any other capital in the Caucus, Georgia had been able both to present her case and to negotiate directly with allied representatives, thus gaining a decided advantage over Armenia. Zhordonia’s government hoped that the Armenian monopoly on European sympathy had begun to crumble and that the rights of the Georgian republic would be given proper consideration by the world peace conference, which was beginning to assemble in Paris (P 125).

Armenia began to lick its wounds and look to ward Azerbaijan as its next victim in attempting the conquest of someone else’s lands.

The first winter was especially hard. The Armenian people suffered greatly. Hovannissian notes: "The chaotic situation in Armenia was intensified by the presence of approximately 500,000 refugees» (P 126). This number is confirmed by reports of American and British officials as well as by relief workers.

Hovannissian continues: "These figures do not include the additional thousands who had found temporary sanctuary in Zangezur and Karabagh, Georgia, the North Caucasus and the steppe lands of Russia» (P 1 27) In addition, this number did not include the many thousands of Armenian refugees in the Arab world.

Again, the Armenian numbers do not add up. If 1 million Armenians were removed from the Ottoman combat zones – if 500,000 went to Armenia, if there were additional many thousands of Armenian refugees in other places, if thousands of Armenian women were taken into Muslim households – just how can Armenians claim genocide of 1.5 million of their people? Based on Armenian history Professor Richard G. Hovannissian’s numbers, the alleged 1.5 million Armenian genocide just could not have happened.

The actual facts do prove the Armenian people suffered unimaginable horror, thanks to the selfish decisions made by their leaders in starting: a civil war in the Ottoman Empire; an attempt to start a civil war in Georgia; and an attempt to begin a civil war in Azerbaijan.

Hovannissian reports the terror experienced by the Armenian people:

The winter of 1918-19 was one of the longest and most severe in the annals of Erevan. The homeless masses, lacking food, clothing, and medicine, passed hellish months in blizzard conditions. The starving people sometimes demonstrated or rioted for food, but these sporadic outbursts were to no avail. The state granaries were empty. Allied officials who came to Yerevan brought hope that before too long provisions would begin to arrive from abroad. Until that time the nation must persevere. But soon even this hope faded. An American eyewitness, overwhelmed by the misery, wrote: A terrible population. Unspeakably filthy and tatterdemalion throngs; shelterless, death-stricken throngs milling from place to place; children crying aloud; women sobbing in broken inarticulate lamentation; men utterly hopeless and reduced to staggering weakness, heedless of the tears rolling down their dirt-streaked faces. As a picture of the Armenians most in evidence in Armenia I can think of nothing better than this, unless I turn to other kinds of mobs: Large numbers here and there, wide-eyed, eager, hands outstretched in wolfish supplication; teeth bared in a ghastly grin that had long since ceased to be a smile – an emaciated, skin-stretched grin, fixed and uncontrollable.

The pitiful multitude lay in the snow, in partially destroyed buildings, on doorsteps of churches, eventually too weak to protest or even to beg any longer. They lived in the land of stalking death; waiting with sunken face and swollen belly for the touch of that angel. And death came, delivering from anguish thousands upon thousands of refugees and native inhabitants alike.

Many who withstood the exposure and famine succumbed to the ravaging diseases that infested the derelict masses. Typhus was the major killer, striking in every district and at every age group, taking its largest toll among the children. The phenomenon of death came to be both expected and accepted. The insensible bodies were gathered from the streets by the hundreds each week and covered in mass graves, often without mourner or final rites... that year in the capital alone some 19,000 people contracted the disease and nearly 10,000 died from the three-headed monster – exposure, famine, pestilence (P 127-128).

This was the true genocide of the Armenian people, that caused by their own dictator leaders. It was the self-appointed Armenian leaders who began the rebellion from within the Ottoman Empire that led to these terrible and horrible conditions.

"The burden of several hundred thousand unsheltered and unemployed refugees was enough in itself to cause an economic maelstrom. Even during normal times the land under the actual jurisdiction of the Armenian government could not have supported so needy a population. The fertile soil of the Araxes valley and the once-cultivated fields of Turkish Armenia now under Muslim domination» (P 130).

Hovannissian would have the world believe the Muslims took this land away from the Armenians causing them to starve. The Muslim Turks had acquired these lands more than five hundred years before the Armenians attempted a rebellion. The Armenian Christians had lived in peace with their Muslim neighbors during this entire period of time. Now, a few Armenian warlords led a revolt in an attempt to overthrow the Ottoman government. The bottom line is these Armenian warlords failed and their people paid a terrible price, as did the Turks.

Hovannissian published the following figures to show the terrible plight of Armenians: "In 1919, for each 1000 persons in Armenia there were 8.7 births and 204.2 deaths, a net loss of 195.5. It was verily a land of death» (P 133) The Turks experienced an equally terrible time but Professor Hovannissian does not mention those losses at all. Rather, he uses the Christian Bible word "verily" [translated by Christians to mean "truly"} to deceive Christians. This is yet another example of Hovannissian attempting to use Christian "code" words to gain support in the Christian world for the Armenian cause even if he only tells half the story as he does in this example. If he were a fair historian, he would have given the birth and death ratio for Muslims, as well as for his "Christian" Armenians. After all, Muslims are human beings also. Grieving for Christian suffering and ignoring Muslim suffering is not the Christian thing to do.

The new Armenia, which was established out of Russia, was based on a farm economy. There was very little industry of any kind. There was a wine works and home manufacture of furniture, textiles, implements, and handicrafts and that was all.

The drastic decrease in agricultural production, beginning during the war years, contributed heavily to the Armenian tragedy. A poor harvest in 1914 was followed by the conscription of farmhands by the thousands, the revolutionary upheavals and civil strife throughout the Russian empire, the Turkish invasion of Transcaucasia, and the influx of nearly a half million refugees created a situation that insured the Armenian failure to establish a nation.

The question Hovannissian does not ask is what would have happened to the Armenian people had their leaders not attempted a rebellion behind the Ottoman battle lines, thus causing young farmers to be drafted into Armenian military?

There were other problems as well: "A soaring inflation resulted from these heavy losses. The assorted paper specie became nearly worthless as the price of food and essential items doubled and multiplied time and time again. Shrewd Armenian manipulators and speculators hoarded the remaining meager stocks, relinquishing small amounts of food to desperate people who paid with their last possessions and deeds of title. The government was faced with a catastrophe that it had not created but for which it was held accountable. It had little means to cope with problems, as neither legislation nor decree could deliver the starving masses» (P 133).

This is yet another example of a half-truth.

The "paper specie" became nearly worthless: The Armenian government printed their paper money (specie) even though they had no gold, silver, nor anything else to guarantee their paper money was good. Is it any wonder, therefore, that it was worthless?

History has shown that when any government prints too much money with nothing to guarantee it, inflation is certain to follow, just as it did in Armenia. This is why "the price of food and essential items doubled and multiplied time and time again». This is another example of how Armenia’s, self-appointed dictator leaders failed their own people. Pipe dreams of establishing a "greater Armenia" at the expense of neighbors` lives, lands, and resources, and with little more than lip service paid by the Christian world, duped by Armenian lies and misrepresentations, were bound to backfire and come back to haunt the back-stabbers.

The Armenian leaders knew "shrewd manipulators and speculators hoarded the remaining meager stocks, relinquishing small amounts of food to desperate people, who paid with their last possessions and deeds of title». Why didn’t the Armenian government treat this activity as a crime? Why didn’t they arrest the individuals who did such terrible things to their own people? This was a small country. It could not have been a secret who these individuals were. Were Armenian government officials a part of such profit-making operations?

Hovannissian states: “The government was faced with a catastrophe that it had not created but for which it was held accountable”. This is hogwash! Clearly the Armenian dictator leaders had started the revolution that failed that led to the terrible conditions of their people. They printed money that was worthless and knew that when they printed it. This government looked the other way and allowed hoarding and profiteering.

This so-called Armenia would have folded had it not been for one thing – the people of America came to their rescue. Hovannissian expressed it this way: "At that critical moment in the history of the Armenian people, the United States of America came to the rescue, giving life, awakening fresh hopes, and opening new horizons» (P 133)

Americans came to rescue Armenia because Armenian-paid agents went to the United States, played the Christian versus Muslim race-ethnic card, and told stories about an imagined massacre to gain sympathy. Their scheme worked because these stories were not challenged by Muslims. There was no debating mechanism in place for Muslims to refute Armenian allegations. After all, Christian Armenians could not have lied, could they? The Armenian tall tales were bought by the Christian world hook, line, and sinker. Christian good will and good intentions were misused and abused by the Armenian paid agents.

Private American charitable organizations were established to aid the poor Armenians:

An influential group of missionaries, philanthropists, industrialists, and educators founded the American Relief Committee. The organization promptly collected 100,000 thousand dollars for supplies to be distributed by Armenian officials in Constantinople and Syria. As the magnitude of the Armenian tragedy was revealed, the Committee expanded its operations, uniting late in 1915 with relief groups for Syria and Persia into the Armenian and Syrian Relief. During the next two years a steady flow of money and supplies was used to succor Christian refugees in the Near East, particularly destitute Armenians who had been deponed to the arid plains of the Arab provinces (P 1 33-134)

After the end of World War I, the American public was able to "renew and intensify relief operations...the Armenian and Syrian Relief, now operating as the American Committee for Relief in the Near East (ACRNE), launched a 30 million dollar campaign and in an unprecedented display of private charity succeed in raising nearly 20 million by the end of 1919» (P 1 34)

Hovannissian states: "Like nearly every country in Europe in 1919, Armenia stretched out an empty, open hand to the government of the United States. In a year when much of the world lay in ruins and was caught in the clutches of famine, the United States responded with more than a billion dollars in relief» (P 1 37). The Armenians learned all about the open American heart. Between the years of 1991 and 2001, the U.S. government gave 1.4 billion dollars in foreign aid to Armenia. This is perhaps more per capita than to any other nation on earth. This vast American taxpayer fortune given to Armenia was no accident. This gift was the result of a tiny but very loud Armenian lobby of the U.S. government.

How much of this 1.4 billion dollars flowed back into the United States to buy the services of secret Armenian agents who worked to get even more American taxpayer dollars for their little country? Armenia continues to refuse repay a red cent back to the United States for the loans it obtained in 1919. The Armenians seem to have mastered the techniques of panhandling, because it is easier to ask for and get money from the United States than to try to establish an industry in Armenia.

"Immediately after the armistice with Germany in 1918, the United States Food Administration shipped cargo after cargo to European shores, and Herbert Hoover sailed to France to direct the postwar relief operations of the American agencies» (P 137)

The U.S. Congress passed a 100-million-dollar funding law in February 1919. These funds were to be spent to help "non-enemy countries as well as the Armenians, Syrians, Greeks, and other Christian and Jewish populations of Asia Minor, now or formerly subjects of Turkey» (P 1 38). The anti-Turk, anti-Muslim lobby had done its work well with Congress. Such attitudes continue to this day, in spite of the fact that more Turks suffered at the hands of the Armenians than Armenians suffered at the hands of the Turks. Both sides of the story of this tragic war were never presented to the people of the United States. The reason was simple – Armenia is a Christian nation while Turkey was not. It was not necessary to tell Americans that the Armenians brought their troubles on themselves by attempting to overthrow the Ottoman government.

Up to the last quarter of 1919, government sponsored and private American relief operations provided the Armenian people food and supplies valued in excess of 20 million dollars. More than half this sum, especially the share given directly to the Armenian republic, was financed through the American Relief Administration. Both ARA and ACRNE assistance was coordinated by Herbert Hoover as Director General of Relief. For each ARA shipment, the Armenian government issued promissory notes to be deposited in the United States Treasury, whereas the ACRNE contributions were the direct gifts of the American people to the Armenian people (P 1 2).

It is a matter of national honor for a country to pay its debts. For a nation to fail to pay what it owes is to become known as a “dead-beat country”. Armenia must fall into the class of a dishonorable country because at no time over the past more than eighty-two years has one red cent been repaid by Armenia as to what it owes to the United States.

In late 2001, a House subcommittee of the U.S. Congress voted to give Armenia another bunch of American taxpayer dollars – 90 million to be exact. Why are American politicians giving such massive amounts of dollars to this tiny country? It’s past time to find answers and stop giving the big bucks to this gang of murderers who call themselves the Republic of Armenia. After all, the very "ethnic cleansing" (of Muslims in Azerbaijan and Georgia) is called "ethnic principle" by them, Isn’t it.

In 1919, the Armenians were lobbying for obtaining free land from sea to sea. This is what the Armenians wanted:

…It was recommended that a separate country of that name be established and placed under the guidance of the League of Nations. The boundaries of the new state were clearly `fixed by nature`, the Anti-Taurus Mountains in the west and the Taurus Mountains in the south being `topographical features of the first rank.` Armenia would gather in the Cilician region with Adana and the Mediterranean outlet, Trebizond with its Black Sea harbors and the six Turkish Armenian vilayets except for the districts south of the Taurus and west of the Anti-Taurus. To these lands would be added the Russian Armenian provinces ofKars and Yerevan and the counties ofAkhaltsikh (not officially claimed by the Armenian republic) and Akhalkalak. The Armenian problem, it was admitted, was ‘singularly difficult` since within the borders as delineated the Armenians was everywhere a minority, constituting not more than 30 or 35 percent of the population. Consequently a liberal interpretation of self-determination was required (P 265)

How could the Armenians demand lands in Georgia and Azerbaijan, where they claimed a majority of their people lived, and then demand land in Turkey where they had only 30 to 35 percent of the population? The Armenians wanted a major power, such as the United States, to spend its money and give up the lives of its troops to ensure these thugs could control 65 to 70 percent of another people.

The Armenians gave as their excuse for being disloyal to the Ottomans after five hundred years of peace that they were a minority and wanted their freedom. Now, after World War I was over, the Armenians wanted total control over a large majority of Muslims.

The reader will recall how the Armenians "claimed" a massacre when their people were removed from behind the Ottoman lines because they were disloyal. Now that the war was over, examine the following Armenian proposal for Karabagh in Azerbaijan.

Hovannissian explains one line of Armenian thinking: "On historical grounds it (Karabagh) should go to Armenia, but there is also a strong Azerbaijan element in the population, and the best permanent settlement might be to bring about a segregation of the Armenians from the Azerbaijanis into separate areas by persuading the Karabagh Armenians to emigrate to the Erivan district and the Erivan Azerbaijanis to Karabagh» (P 267)

Just what kind of logic Hovannissian has here, suggesting all those Azerbaijani Muslims being swept off their native lands and trying clumsily, to bring all Armenians together, on someone else’s land? Is Hovannissian suggesting a "genocide" of sorts here? These efforts are reminiscent tactics and racist acts of Adolf Hitler.

In January 1919, the Allied Peace Conference opened. Even though Armenia demanded a seat as an equal at the conference, they were refused and told "only organized states could participate» (P 276). There was another problem with the proposed seating of Armenians. "The Allies in general and France in particular were pledged to the restoration of `democratic Russia/ and would therefore find it difficult to treat with Armenia before considering the entire Russian question» (P 276) After all, Armenia also claimed Russian lands in addition to lands they claimed in Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaij an. Another way of looking at the land claims is this – the Armenians were just plain greedy.

The Armenians argued, "The voice of all Armenians living and dead must be heard. The indigenous Muslim population, too, had been decimated by the military campaigns and the resulting epidemics and famine, so that with the return of the Armenian deportees and expatriates and especially with the incorporation of the Russian Armenian provinces the newly independent nation would come to possess a relative Armenian majority» (P 278).

Let’s get this straight: The Armenians wanted to count both the living and the dead. They also admit there are countless "deportees and expatriates" who would return to Ottoman lands. In addition, they reason, if one counted the Russian Armenians they would have a majority of the people. But weren’t the Armenians annihilated by Turks in an act of genocide? How can the Armenians dream of establishing a majority now? If Armenians were killed systematically and totally by Turks, as the term "genocide" suggests, where did those deportees and expatriates come from? In other words, if there was a genocide, there cannot be any talk of deportees, expatriates, re-establishing Armenian majority, and so forth. When they seek sympathy (and dollars) in American Christian churches, they talk about the bad Turk and the terrible genocide; but when they seek land "from sea to sea" at conference tables of Europe, they talk about deportees, expatriates, re-establishing Armenian majority. Well, which is it? “Genocide” or deportation?

It is also interesting to note the Armenians are forced to admit (in order to make their numbers appear to be larger) that Muslims suffered great losses during the war. (Of course, Armenians don’t mention they are the ones who killed most of the Muslims).

The Armenian agents who walked the halls at the Paris Peace Conference begged that their country be given land from "sea to sea," as Hovannissian stated. They also begged that a major power protect them by disarming "the civilian population, expel Turkish officials from Armenian-claimed territory, punish those who had perpetrated or participated in the massacres, oust nomadic tribes that were fermenting unrest, relocate the Muslim immigrants who had recently settled in the region, and retrieve Christian women and children kept in Muslim households. Moreover, the Peace Conference should require the Ottoman government to pay an indemnity, making good the damages of all kinds suffered by the Armenian nation...” (P 280) The Armenians were not asking for much, were they? Here’s what they wanted:

1. Disarm the civilian population: Certainly the Armenians wanted someone else to take all the guns away from the 65 to 70 percent majority of the population who were not Armenian. Anyone can understand why the Armenians didn’t want such a large group to be able to defend themselves once Armenians took power. After all, the Armenians had guns behind the Ottoman lines and knew what a people could do to disrupt a government as they did in 1915.

2. Armenia wanted a major power to kick all the Ottoman officials out of a land that they had possessed for more than five hundred years just so they could have it.

3. The Armenians wanted a major power to "punish those that had perpetrated or participated in the Armenian-claimed massacres».

The Armenians got their wish in seeking punishment for Ottomans. Great Britain made several arrests and trials were held. The interesting thing is most of the Ottomans charged with such terrible crimes were acquitted and found not guilty after a fair trial when both sides presented their evidence. Only a very small handful of individuals were ever found to be guilty of a "massacre». More will be written in a later chapter regarding specific details. Needless to say, no Christian Armenian was ever investigated for the massacre of Muslims and history reveals that Armenia butchered an untold number of Muslims.

However, the question must be raised since the Armenians requested a major power to find those guilty of "massacres" and punish them, why was only a handful found and not millions, or hundreds of thousands or thousands, or even hundreds? How could only a small handful of guilty Ottomans murder 1.5 million people as the Armenians claim today?

The Armenians didn’t want any investigation into how many Ottoman Muslims were massacred by Armenian Christians, nor did they want a total count.

4. The Armenians wanted a major power to "oust nomadic tribes that were fomenting unrest». In other words, the Armenians wanted a major power to remove the Kurds who had remained loyal to their own government, the Ottomans. In a later chapter a comparison will be made to the losses of Armenians as contrasted to the Kurds. It is interesting to note the Kurds didn’t suffer anything like Armenians did. That’s the difference between loyalty and disloyalty.

It also must be pointed out that the Armenians objected to the Ottoman’s removing them from the war zone after they took sides with the enemy. Now, the Armenians wanted a major power to rid the lands they wanted of Kurds.

5. Relocate Muslim immigrants: This is again an example of a double standard and their hateful ethnic discrimination, Isn’tit. "Christian" Armenians cannot tolerate "Muslims" (Turks or Kurds). Revealing, Isn’t it? Where do "Christian" Armenians learn this kind of "un-Christian" ideas and values? If Armenians were this intolerant, as Hovannissian clearly states, why do they insist on calling themselves Christians? How do the Armenians reconcile "intolerance" with "Christianity"?

6. Retrieve Christian women and children kept in Muslim households. Armenians make this allegation time after time but never provide numbers, names, or addresses. Muslims were experiencing terrible economic times and common sense cries out that this could not be widespread (if it happened at all} as the Armenians claim.

7. The Armenians wanted a major power to make "the Ottoman government to pay indemnity" for alleged damages during World War I. The Peace Conference gave them nothing.

It is interesting to note that Persia did make a claim to the land called "Central Asia" at the Paris Peace Conference. In truth, this ancient nation could have made claims to what they could have called "Persian Turkey" or "Persian Russia" or the "Persian Plateau». After all, they had a much stronger historical claim to these lands than did Armenia. Needless to say, the Armenians objected to such a claim.

Another source that proves Armenian betrayal and disloyalty, and which must be brought into this argument at this time, is a letter written by Boghos Nubarian. He was the head of the Armenian National Delegation to Paris Peace Conference. He wrote a letter that was published in the Times of London on January 30, 1919, indicating the Armenians had been, since the beginning of the war, de facto belligerents. They fought alongside the Allies on all fronts, in Palestine and Syria, where the Armenian volunteers, recruited by the Armenian National Delegation at the request of the French government, made up more than half of the French contingent. In the Caucasus, where, without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the Imperial Russian Army, more than 40,000 of their volunteers offered resistance to the Turkish Armies.

This letter, in conjunction with the revelations in Hovannissian’s book, clearly shows who the aggressors were: Armenians. Some in French uniforms, some in Russian uniforms, some in Ottoman uniforms, some in no uniforms. Different uniforms but same malice: Annihilate the Turk. Here, the Armenian leader is saying to the victorious allies: "We helped you out by backstabbing the Turks – where is our reward?"

Note that there is no word about genocide (a term not coined until 1948) or even descriptions that may remotely be construed to mean genocide. If the Armenians were really subjected to genocide, why does their "chief of delegation" forget to mention it in his letter addressing the allies? Why do the allies dismiss the Armenian claims? If the allies dismissed the Armenian claims then, why would they or should they accept them now?.