647) X: What Can Be Expected From Armenia Exalting Goal Of Friendship One Day & Slandering Their . .: Secrets Of "Christian" Terrorist State Armenia

What Can Be Expected From Armenia Exalting The Goal Of Friendship One Day And Slandering Their Neighbors Before the Allies the Next . .

?? late 1919, the Armenian leaders at long last got the message: They needed friendship with Georgia.

The virtual isolation of the Armenian Republic in 1919 underscored the importance of establishing normal relations with Georgia and thus safeguarding the single precarious lifeline from Batum to Erevan. The obstacles were formidable, as the cause of Armeno- Georgian affairs was predicated largely on a have and have-not basis. Georgia held most of the disputed territory and demonstrated Armenia’s vulnerability by frequently interrupted rail traffic and instituting reforms designed to eliminate the Armeno-Russian socioeconomic preponderance in Tiflis. (I)

Isn’t it interesting Hovannissian doesn’t mention the war, much less that the Armenian leaders started it by a sneak attack?

"The disdain with which many Allied officials treated the authorities in Tiflis, coinciding with the worldwide manifestations of sympathy for the Armenians, deepened Georgian resentment» (P 140). Of course, the corrupt dictators of Christian Armenia did not tell the democratic Christian Georgian government they were sending paid agents – yes, paid agents – all over the Christian world to drum up free handouts. Armenian didn’t want to share their free windfalls with their Christian brothers.

"Georgian newspapers observed sarcastically that the unfortunate Armenian people suffered from the absence of leaders, since those who claimed the title were unable to reach an accord even with the most favorably disposed neighboring government. But what else, queried Bor`ba, could be expected from officials who exalted the goal of friendship one day and slandered their neighbors before the Allies the next?" (P 141).

There was good reason why Georgia didn’t trust its neighbor because the Armenians had an established history and reputation of double-dealing that continues to this day.

The Georgian Foreign Minister publicly denounced the ru-mor-mongering and expressed disappointment that the government of Armenia, in tolerating such deformation, was clinging to the dubious policies of the Paris Peace Conference rather than seeking Caucasian solutions to Caucasian problems. The Georgian press emphasized that view in commenting upon the Muslim uprisings in Armenia. While deploring both Turkish involvement and allied passivity, the political editors noted that the Armenians had not been blameless. Dashnakist strategists had allowed partisan chiefs such as Dro, Hamogasp, and Andrandk to terrorize the Muslim population in pursuance of an ill-fated `Parisian orientation instead of a healthy "Caucasian" orientation (P 1 41-142).

Armenia has the old-world mind-set that anyone with a different faith must be eliminated. Armenia has it own brand of Christianity and by constitutional law, discourages any other form of Christianity from coming into their country. There is one exception to this: money. The Armenians will accept money from any form of Christianity.

As in the dark ages, Armenians hate and despise Muslims and have forced them out of the country. Armenia, with both Russian and U.S. military and financial aid, attacked Azerbaijan in 1992. The purpose was to rid 20 percent of Azerbaijan of more than 1 million Muslims and gobble up their lands for free. It is understandable why the Armenian friends in Russia would supply more than a billion dollars in military assistance to help take land in Azerbaijan (2). But why would the U.S. government also give this gang of thugs more than a billion dollars in additional in foreign aid even if Armenian agents lobbied for such funding that continues to this very day?

Even in 1919, Georgian Christians called upon the corrupt Armenian leaders to stop their reign of terror on Muslims. After all, Christians and Muslims had lived together in peace for a millennium before the corrupt Armenian dictator leaders attempted to launch a rebellion among the Muslims for the sole purpose of grabbing up their lands and possessions for free. To make matters worse, Armenians were never a majority in those lands they coveted – Muslims were. In other words, had the Armenians succeeded in their plan of betrayal, backstabbing, and aggression to establish greater Armenia, they would be a minority, which in turn means, they would create the "first Apartheid" system in the world, many decades before South Africa started it. So, what the Armenians bill as "the first genocide of the twentieth century" to unsuspecting Christians, is actually a failed attempt at the first apartheid in the twentieth century.

The Armenians, even after starting a war with Georgia, now wanted to use the Georgian railroad and equipment to transport supplies it had begged from around the world. The Armenians wanted Georgia to make their railroad and equipment available for almost nothing and wanted priority use each time supplies arrived in a Georgian port.

The Armenians argued their people were dying of hunger. Armenians should be given priority under such circumstances even if Georgians were in equally bad shape and dying also. The Georgians demanded a 15 percent transport fee. The Armenians protested to the Allies who in turn directed George Clemenceau, president of the Allied Council of Heads of Delegations, to send a harsh message to the Georgian government.

Shortly thereafter, the messages were printed in the Georgian press. The reaction was swift and direct:
Georgia, they cried, had given Armenians haven for centuries and, despite heavy economic strains, had permitted thousands more to enter during the World War. Georgia had made possible the very survival of Armenia in the midst of hostile elements. And now, the Georgian people had received the Armenian token of appreciation. Whether or not direct Armenian channels had been used, the Dasknaktartium and its irresponsible scandal sheets had to bear the blame for the malicious reports sent to Paris. The Armenian government was obliged to proclaim that Clemenceau’s telegram had been a gross injustice. Without such an announcement, any talk of Armeno-Georgian conferences to settle existing problems would be ludicrous. (3)

The Armenian response was typical. These corrupt dictators complained that both Georgia and Azerbaijan had too many railroad engines and cars.

The Georgian contention that each republic should have title to whatever rolling stock was within its boundaries when the Transcaucasian Federation was dissolved in May 1918 was not acceptable, for Armenia would thus be left with only a score of damaged locomotives and 300 cars, whereas Azerbaijan would have nearly 400 locomotives and 4,000 cars and Georgia, 500 locomotives and more than 8,000 cars. An equitable redistribution of all the rolling stock was therefore imperative. The debate was indicative of the many complicated issues impeding named Armeno-Georgian relations (P 1 46)

Hovannissian writes that "the status of the nearly half a million Armenians in Georgia was an extremely complex and delicate issue» (P 147).

That’s quite a statement, considering Armenia had just started a war with Georgia. The Armenian professor states administrative reforms led to the dismissal of most Armenian and Russian civil servants. In order to relieve congestion in the capital and at the same time to clear it of refugees and other undesirable elements, Minister of Interior Ramishvili issued further ordinances requiring all non-citizens who were not property owners or gainfully employed and all citizens whose heads of householder were absent to leave the city. The latter category applied specifically to the dependents of men serving in Armenia or with the White Armies. Violators of the regulations were to receive severe punishment. In the Armenian view, the new rules of Georgia were heeding the admonition of a nationalist deputy in the Tiflis city Duma: “We must rid ourselves at any price of the Dashnakists and the families of the Armenian ministers” (P 148).

Can any fair person believe this Armenian dictatorial attitude? After all, these Armenian leaders had just launched an unprovoked attack on Georgia and then lost the war. Now Christian Georgians knew not to trust the Armenian Christians and took these actions to insure that officials in their government were loyal – and the Armenians object.

Consider the following lie the Georgians were subjected to by Armenians:

The sufferings of the people ofAkhalkalak dwarfed the tribulations of all other Armenians in Georgia. Thirty thousand had perished as the result of the Turkish occupation, and those who survived were starving. Some mothers attempted to save their daughters by offering them as wives to Georgian militiamen and soldiers. Russian, Jewish, and Georgian entrepreneurs were reportedly buying young girls for 100 to 300 rubles and sending them to brothels; eight-to twelve year-old orphan boys were being sold for a pittance at Bakurani; hundreds of women and children were pressed into servitude – in the adjacent Muslim districts. All roads leading away from Akhalkalak were strewn with the bodies of fleeing Armenians... Although the Tiflis government regarded Akhalkalak as an integral pan of the Republic of Georgia and even pretended to hold elections there, it did nothing to relieve the agony (P 148).

In the end Armenia and Georgia agreed to a land swap of sorts. The Armenians claimed "that in recent history the Armenian preponderance in Akhalkalak had been created by the exchange of populations between Turkish and Russian empires after the war of 1828-1829, the Armenian government would cede the country, except for the southern lake district near Alexandrople and relocate the population after establishment of a united Armenian state» (P 151).

In 1800, Armenians were scattered within and beyond a region that now encompasses Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Eastern Turkey. In all but small districts, Armenians were a minority, which had been under Muslim, primarily Turkish, rule for 700 years. The Russian empire had begun the imperial conquests of the Muslim lands south of the Caucasus Mountains. One of their main weapons was the transfer of populations – deportation. They, ruthlessly expelled whole Muslim populations, replacing them with Christians whom they felt would be loyal to a Christian government. Armenians were major instruments of this policy. Like others in the Middle East, the primary loyalty of Armenians was religious. Many Armenians resented being under Muslim rule, and they were drawn to a Christian State and to offers of free land (land which had been seized from Turks and other Muslims). A major population exchange began.

In Erivan Province (today the Armenian Republic), a Turkish majority was replaced by Armenians. In other regions such as coastal Georgia, Circassia, and the Crima, other Christian groups were brought in to replace expelled Muslims. There was massive Muslim mortality in some cases up to one third of the Muslims died. The Russians expelled 1.3 million Muslims from 1827 to 1878. One result of this migration, serving the purpose of the Russians, was the development of ethnic hatred and ethnic conflict between Armenians and Muslims. Evicted Muslims who had seen their families die in the Russian Wars felt animosity toward Armenians. Armenians who hated Muslim rule looked to the Russians as liberators. Armenians cooperated with Russian invaders of eastern Anatolia in wars in 1828, 1854, and 1877. When the Russians retreated, Armenians feared Muslim retaliation and fled. Hatred grew on both sides (P 162).

In the end, "Simon Vratzian spoke for the powerful Dashnakist faction, observing that the war with Georgia, `which we now recall with shame` would never have occurred had the two governments then settled differences in the manner prescribed in the present agreement.`"(4) There would not have been this agreement had the corrupt dictatorial Armenians won their war with Georgia rather than losing it.