642) VIII:Corrupt Armenian State–Their People Pay Terrible Price Greatest Scandal in AmericanCharitableHistory: Secrets Of "Christian" Terrorist State

The Corrupt Armenian State – Their People Pay a Terrible Price Greatest Scandal in American Charitable History . .

Hovannissian documented how Armenian Ottoman citizens at the beginning of World War I joined with Russians in an attempt to overthrow the government under which they had lived in peace for more than five hundred years. The Ottomans responded by removing all Armenians from the war zones. Such actions by a nation, acting in self-defense to protect itself, is not unusual throughout history. A modern example of this is the United States` removal of Japanese-Americans from the west coast of the country, moving them, by force, inland in 1941.

Throughout volume I of his book Hovannissian calls such removal "a massacre». Modern-day Armenians go even a step further and call the removal a "genocide». Isn’t all this odd in light of the fact Americans call their removal of Japanese Americans "self-defense"?

In volume II, he provides specific information from American eyewitnesses, who provide proof that 1.5 million or more Armenians became what he calls "refugees" and they were physically seen alive by Americans as they left Ottoman lands. In light of this very fact and his own repeated claim that the Armenian population in the Ottoman lands prior to World War I was 2 million – a number already exaggerated according to both Ottoman and European sources – just how in the world can Armenians claim massacre and genocide with a straight face?

Hovannissian begins his first chapter of volume II by writing about the first year of the Armenian leadership. He writes: "The appalling conditions that had caused `formless chaos` in 1918 had eased only slightly, yet enough to offer hope that a new dawn was breaking over Eastern (Russian) Armenia and that its rays would soon touch upon the desolate provinces of Western (Turkish) Armenia. The act of united Armenia , promulgated during the celebrations on May 28, anticipated national restoration by declaring the two sectors of historic Armenia henceforth `everlasting combined as an independent political entity" (l).

That sounds good but the truth is much different. In volume I, he calls the land-grab attempt as Armenian Russia, Armenian Turkey. In volume II, he changes this description to eastern (Russian) Armenia and western (Turkish) Armenia. The previous descriptions emphasize lands that are Russia and Turkey, whereas the latter descriptions shift focus to Armenia’s east and west.

Hovannissian calls the "Act of United Armenia" an "anticipated national restoration by declaring the two sectors of historic Armenia...everlastingly combined as an independent political entity» (P 2)

The fact of the matter is the so-called Republic of Armenia was a dictatorship from day one. The so-called "act of uniting» Armenia actually divided the country so profoundly, every political group, except the one in power – the dictators, refused to take part in the so-called national elections. The end result, after the one-party elections, was the dictators were more entrenched than ever.

The simple truth is that a few men created a pure dictatorship government and demanded free handouts (from European Powers and the United States) and also someone else’s land (Ottomans` and Russians`) upon which to establish a small state. When one sorts out what is true and what Isn’t, the events of the time become clear as to why situations unfolded as they did. Consider, for example, the actions of the Allies toward Armenia and why they acted as they did.

"The international status of the Republic of Armenia, after one year of nominal independence, remained obscure. The Allied and Associated Powers, while acknowledging Armenian sacrifices and loyalty during the war, cited technical difficulties in explaining their refusal to recognize Armenia as a formal ally and therefore as a state with the right to be seated at the Paris Peace Conference» (P 2).

The Armenian leadership demanded a seat as an equal with the winners of World War I. The basic problem was Armenia wasn’t a state until after the war ended. The Armenians were in truth nothing more than a small band of people scattered across Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Same can be said of the Kurds or the other small bands of peoples. Certainly, this dictatorship, making an all-out attempt to make a major land grab, wasn’t near an equal to the Allied governments who won the war. There wasn’t any reason to seat the Armenians at the Peace Conference table. To do so would open the door to every little gang of people who wanted to be called a state.

"When the Allied heads of state left Paris after signing the Versailles treaty in June 1919, they had neither concluded peace with the Ottoman Empire, resolved the Armenian mandate question, disarmed the Turkish divisions in eastern Anatolia, nor arranged for the repatriation of Armenian refugees” (P 2).

Even though the United States never declared war on the Ottoman Empire, the Armenians objected to the fact that the Versailles Treaty never "concluded peace with the Ottoman Empire». If you were never at war, why would you need a peace treaty? Okay, so the British, French, Greeks, and Italians did go to war against the Ottomans. Each of these nations wanted to cut up the Ottoman Empire and divide it among themselves. The Armenians were so naive, they thought all they had to do was claim to be loyal allies to get in on the cutting up of the pie. Such folly was just not going to happen and many thousands of poor mislead Armenians paid with their lives for the mistakes and greed of their own dictator leaders.

"In face of the postponement of the Turkish settlement, Armenian envoys labored diligently to prevent Allied sympathy from waning...Armenian societies the world over urged support for the Armenians, and international concern was demonstrated by the outpouring of public and private charity to sustain refugees scattered all the way from the Caucasus and the Anatolian coastal towns to camp sites in Mesopotamia, Syria, and Egypt» (P 4).

In the area of public relations, the Armenians were unmatched as evidenced by their paid agents` work to gain support and money for their efforts. Even with massive aid programs, the people of Armenia suffered. Why wasn’t there proper accounting of all the money and aid that was given to the Armenian government? As he noted in his volume I, there was a great deal of government corruption.

The typical citizen of Armenia suffered terribly as shown by these observations: "Continuous, waves of disease flowed from the crowded, infected hovels; and the poorly equipped hospitals, where freezing wind and sleet whipped through gaping holes and broken windows, often resembled morgues» (P 7).

The plight of the poor Muslims does not count by Armenian standards because they are not Christian. In a civilized world, is it acceptable conduct to attack a neighbor, take his land, and by force of arms, remove a million people for the only reason these people have a different religion than you do? The answer is loud and clear. No. Is this terrorism? Yes. State terrorism? Yes. Religious and ethnic cleansing? Yes. Aggressions? Yes. This is exactly what Armenia is doing today to more than 1 million Azerbaijan refugees their terrorist state forced from their homes.

The Armenian leaders had other problems: "Financial solvency was out of the question under the circumstances, because the combined net income of all government departments in 1919 was 30 million rubles, whereas expenditures exceeded a billion rubles». Hovannissian explains: “In the absence of a central banking system and significant reserves of precious metals and exportable goods, by the beginning of summer the exchange rate of the state ruble had plunged to a fourth of that of the Russian imperial bank note. With monthly wages averaging about 100 rubles for those fortunate enough to be employed, most families were unable to get an adequate supply of staple foods even when they were available...” (P 7). It is unbelievable how corruption operated in Armenia with the full knowledge of the government.

Extortionary practices of village commissars and militia chiefs, who paraded under the aegis of officialdom, brought discredit upon the government, but the swirl of events had not allowed for through administrative reforms. Many unscrupulous bureaucrats of the old regime clung to their posts, and newer appointees frequently proved no less venal. Untrained and inexperienced, they were grossly ignorant of local needs and customs. Yet, with the paucity of qualified personnel, the Ministry of Internal Affairs dared not risk still worse disorder by turning out the entire incumbent hierarchy (P 7-8).

These dictators had no idea of how to govern. To get money, they just cranked up a printing press and of course, their currency became worthless as they had nothing to back it up. Inflation was a natural result of irresponsible actions.

Can any civilized people conceive of a situation in a state where corrupt officials are kept in place, with the full knowledge of the government, based on the excuse "the Ministry of Internal Affairs dared not risk still worse disorder by turning out the entire incumbent hierarchy"? Something is terribly wrong with this basis for retaining and keeping in place an entire government system where all the officials are dishonest and corrupt. How can any nation, much less one just starting up, succeed under such conditions?

Consider the reaction of the average citizen of this new Armenia».The peasantry had traditionally regarded administrative offices as oppressive agencies that should be avoided and deceived. Hence they hid and hoarded vital supplies and attempted to evade taxes and other obligations of citizenship» (P 9).

There was no benefit to the average Armenian to have a state named Armenia. If there was bad government in the past, it became worse for hundreds of thousands of people. Their lot in life became much harder and living standards declined. The average Armenian’s life became worse because the dictators deceived the people into following them into even more grinding poverty.

Consider what else the average Armenian did:

Widespread evading of military service was systematic of the country’s woes. The agrarian classes were exhausted by the five-year drain of manpower and the constant suffering. The draft fell most heavily upon the poor, who could not secure exemption and who lacked the means to bribe local commissars. The Ministry of Military Affairs tried to broaden the base by instituting universal military service, with three years of active and fifteen years of reserve duty for eighteen-year-old youths or twenty-year-old students. All men between sixteen and forty-three were required to carry identification papers showing their military status so as to qualify for employment and state aid. The rapid succession of draft calls in 1919 indicated, however, that regulations alone could not solve the problem. In sheer desperation the cabinet finally authorized the restoration of the death penalty and the formation of extraordinary field tribunals for summary court-martial (P 9).

This is a fine example of an independent "Republic of Armenia». Government officials were on the take and dishonest. Is it any wonder that the poor youth of Armenia refused to continue to serve in the military, even under the threat of death. It would have been far better for these young men to have remained loyal to the Ottoman government, because they would not have been subjected to such terror inflicted upon them by their own Armenian officials. There were other problems. Armenia, in truth, had no real transportation or communication systems to serve the need of the people.

The inadequacy of the Republic’s roads was painfully demonstrated during the Muslim risings in the summer months, evoking more internal criticism. Who was responsible, queried the press, for devising repatriation schemes without even being able to protect the outskirts of Erevan? Why had the government failed to disarm Muslim centers when they were still reeling under the shock of the Ottoman defeat? Why had the villages of Zangibasaw, a district that had breathed fire as long as the Ottoman army stood at its side, been allowed to keep a stranglehold on the main arteries to Sharur-Daralogioz, Surmalu and Alexandrople? (P 22).

These questions were never answered by the dictator government.

In 1919, to create the impression that there was an "independent" Armenia, parliamentary elections were held during the summer. Because of the way the election system was set up by the dictator Armenian Revolutionary Federation Party, the party received 90 percent of the vote. The second place finisher had only 5 percent of the vote. How can any fair reporting historian call such a dictatorial state the Republic of Armenia?

These dictators still had to have the additional support and protection of outside powerful governments, if they were to survive. The reason was simple: They had no real political, military, or economic strength. The British position for this region of the world was as follows:

When the question was reviewed by the Inter-Departmental Conference on Middle Eastern Affairs on March 6, Churchill pressed for the quickest possible disengagement, since he `really did not see what British interests were involved.` In the primary goal of crushing Bolshevism before it could leap the boundaries of Russia, the secretary of state for war regarded Trans-Caucasus as relatively insignificant. The future Russian government would undoubtedly reincorporate the region, so what happened in the interval was of no major concern, except that the longer the British troops stayed, "the deeper our claws would stick in" (P 23).

This is exactly what happened. In a matter of months, the Russians took Armenia without firing a single shot. Great Britain was the only nation with troops in the lands the Armenians claimed and the British wanted out. However, "Italian territorial pretensions were anchored along the Adriatic and Mediterranean rather than on the more distant Black and Caspian seas. Replacing the British in the Caucasus would open lucrative markets and ensure an ample supply of petroleum, coal, copper, and other vital minerals as well as strengthen the Italian position in negotiations for a final Near Eastern Treaty” (P 4l). The Armenian leaders knew they must have the power of another nation’s army if they were ever going to grab those lands from sea to sea.

One British official wrote at the time regarding Armenia: "The trouble is that all these schemes which are being pressed by our representatives abroad for repatriating refugees, restoring order and protecting imperilled Christians require an expenditure of men and money which we are not prepared to meet and are in direct conflict with the general policy from all Eastern countries...” (P 41).

The Armenian minister of welfare concocted one scheme. He presented a plan for worldwide repatriation, with the first phases entailing movement into the eastern provinces of Anatolia from Persia, the Caucasus, the Black Sea coastal regions, and Russia. He recommended that a special department be created to organize responsible liaison committees in the Armenian communities abroad, conduct informational programs, gain the collaboration of wealthy compatriots, and set up, for each district to be reinhabited, administrative councils for agriculture, provisions, health and reconstruction. The Western Armenian refugees were pressing uncontrollably toward the borders, and action was essential to prevent regrettable repercussions. Everything was ready, and implementation could begin as soon as the allies concurred (P 42).

In other words, the dictatorial government of Armenia was ready, just as soon as the Allies provided them military protection, to grab up someone else’s land. History also shows that there has never been a "worldwide repatriation" of Armenians back to their self-serving, alleged "historic homeland». The plain truth is that Armenians within the alleged "historic homeland" have been fleeing the place as quickly as they could get away. Between the years 1990 and 2000 more than 1 million Armenians have escaped from their "ancient" homeland. In 1990 there were some 3.7 million poor souls in Armenia. By the year 2000 only 2.7 million people remained and most of them want to leave as quickly as they can find a way to do so.

Dr. Ussher, an American medical Christian missionary, suggested one of the several schemes to give someone else’s land to the Armenians. He proposed, "With the consent of the Ottoman government, able-bodied male refugees would be returned to the eastern vilayets [districts] in time for the autumn sowing season. First to go would be the farmers and technicians, furnished with seed and implements. Later the older orphans would be brought in to help with the harvest; not until sometime in 1920 would women and children follow” (P 44). Dr. Ussher also proposed that a foreign government would have to oversee the plan. The Ussher proposal received wide acceptance within Armenian support groups but it failed to win the crucial support of Hubert Hoover. Aside from discerning political implications in the project and distrusting private and missionary-sponsored relief organizations, Hoover had heard the damaging protests and caveats of Acting Rear Admiral Mark L. Bristol, the American commissioner at Constantinople. Bristol denounced Ussher’s plan as a combination of the naivete of missionaries and British manipulations to lure the United States into the bottomless Armenian pit. Repatriation against the will of the Muslim population would suggest that the Allies were sanctioning an operation not unlike the shocking Greek occupation of Smyrna. The Armenians were using the refugee issue for political rather than humanitarian ends, since repatriation would clearly enhance the probability of a permanent award of the affected territories to the so-called Armenia. The United States should recognize that the Anglo-Armenian plot would require a full-scale Allied military occupation of the region (P 47).

Hovannissian continues to use Christian buzzwords. Here he speaks of the Greek occupation of "Smyrna». Smyrna is a very small piece of a great city that grew up there over more than a thousand years and has been known as Izmir for many centuries.

How correct was the judgment of Admiral Bristol in 1919? Today, Armenia is a "bottomless Armenian pit," just as he said it was. In the ten-year period from 1991 through 2001 the American government has handed over to this tiny state well in excess of 1.4 billion taxpayer dollars as aid. This amount grows by some 90 million dollars or more each year beginning in the year 2002. Private Christian and charitable organizations contribute many more millions of dollars. The Armenians, true to their policy of asking for money from anyone who will listen, have received more than 1 billion dollars in military assistance from the Russians during this same period of time. (2) The Armenians used this massive amount of money to attack its neighbor, Azerbaijan. They captured 20 percent of its land and drove out more than 1 million poor Muslims in an ethnic cleansing campaign – all paid for with American and Russian taxpayer dollars.

What are American politicians doing such a thing for this tiny land-locked state that hasn’t been loyal to anyone for the past one hundred years? Isn’t this a very good reason for Muslim Middle Eastern oil producing states to raise American gas rates as they have done for the past ten years? Isn’t this a very good reason for the Muslim world to dislike America? Why haven’t we treated Azerbaijan fairly?

In the spring of 1919, former ambassador Morgenthau wrote to General Harbord that "750,000 Armenians were practically marooned in Transcaucasia” (3).

Throughout Hovannissian’s four volumes, there are accounts mentioned such as this one, regarding refugees in need – large numbers of refugees. Where, then, are the 1.5 million genocide victims Armenians claim today? Here, the former ambassador (whom Armenians love to quote) states in 1919 there are 750,000 refugees in the region of Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. Add that to the 1.5 million plus that the Ottomans sent to Arab countries as seen by American eyewitnesses – you get a total of more than 2,250,000 plus refugees. Clearly the Armenians count everyone removed from the combat zone and claim they were first murdered (hence the genocide claim) and then – since they are such good Christians – the 1.5 million were resurrected just like Jesus was. After all, Armenian leaders did compare the alleged genocide to "crucifixion" and the creation of their new dictator state to "resurrection" just like Jesus was. This is bogus.

History has recorded that future U.S. President Hubert Hoover did a remarkable job in helping to restore Europe after World War I. However, he had one problem area – the region where Armenia was located.

"By mid-1919 Hoover had little faith in the American Committee for Relief in the Near East, which he charged with `total lack of executive and business ability` and corruption that, if made public, would be the greatest scandal in American charitable history. He complained that the Caucasus was the only region where his efforts had not produced impressive results, because relief there had not been concentrated entirely in his hands” (P 49).

Only one point needs to be made: History has recorded that Hoover was an honest and able administrator; Armenia was neither honest nor competent. Truth of the matter was, the Armenian leaders did not want Hoover to handle all the aid that was coming into the region. The Armenians had lobbied and organized the Christians around the world and the Armenians wanted to be the sole recipient of the benefits and the only group to deal with them. This is why Hoover had so much trouble with the region and why there was such dishonesty in the Armenian aid program he complained about.

During this same time, Armenian leaders made an all-out effort to get a U.S. loan. Hoover killed this unsecured proposal. One of his reasons for not wanting to give American taxpayer money to Armenia was because he feared "such a measure might seem to commit the United States to accepting responsibility for the country» (P 53).

In his memoranda to and appearances before the American commission in Paris, Hoover emphasized the negative aspects of becoming involved with the Armenians except in a humanitarian way. On July I he warned... that Armenia was the `poorhouse of Europe`, and the Armenians were inferior fighters and would be unable to defend themselves for several generations, and that from 50,000 to 100,000 foreign troops would be needed to repatriate them. If the United States was saddled with that desolate region, an annual drain of at least 100 million dollars could be anticipated (P 53).

The allies in Paris, who studied the Armenian demands for "land from sea to sea," concluded that the Armenians could neither obtain nor govern such lands, even if they were given to them. The final report outlined the measures already initiated to relieve Armenian suffering and the view of all military experts that the Armenians could not expel the Turks even if furnished with arms and munitions. Some 60,000 foreign troops would be needed to repatriate the Armenians and to police the region for years at a cost of no less than 300 million dollars. This would have to be looked upon largely as a sheer effort to ease humanity. Whoever undertakes it will be exposed to constant political difficulties with the surrounding states on account of the mixed populations and the racial antagonism that go back over centuries (P 55).

Hovannissian was very critical of any nation not spending their own hard earned money to give Armenians these free lunches. After the Allied study report relating to Armenia was completed and the American military mission set up to explore the Armenian claims, he writes:

Hoover showed little further interest in the proposed Harbord mission. Indeed, his description of Armenia as the `poor house of Europe` would be borne out in any impartial study. The intricate mosaic of events did not augur well for the Armenians. Colonel Haskell, who was notified of his appointment on July 9, had neither the administrative capacity nor the strength of character to cope with the complexities in Transcaucasia. His tendency to impetuosity, haughtiness, and occasional panic would in the following months present a sharp contrast to Harbor’s firmness (P 56-57)

Senator Reed stated that General Harbord wrote as favorable report as he could in an attempt to get the U.S. Senate to approve the Armenian request for a mandate (4). President Wilson asked Congress to accept the "United States Mandate for Armenia» (5). What more could the president do? He wasn’t an Armenian dictator who could just decree a mandate. Robert Vansittard reported in the summer of 1919 "the Armenians are everywhere dying at such a rate that there will soon be none left for the future of Armenia and that `we should emphasize necessity for economizing the remaining lives in all possible means`» (6).

There is no question that hundreds of thousands of Armenians died as a result of their dictator leaders. The self-appointed leaders began a campaign of terror behind the Ottoman battle lines. This is why the Ottomans removed all of them, except those in Istanbul, Izmir, and Edirne, western parts of the Empire where the Armenian fifth column activity was judged not to pose a threat to Ottoman war effort. This has been a rule of warfare for many thousands of years. Clearly, the Armenians in 1919 count these Armenian deaths as part of a genocide claim they would make more than forty years after the fact. No one in fairness can say the Armenians who died in 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, and thereafter under the Communists died as a direct result of an alleged Turkish genocide.