653) XIII: Paid Armenian Agents Mold Public Opinion In US & Prove There Was No Turk Massacre Or . .: Secrets Of "Christian" Terrorist State Armenia

Paid Armenian Agents Mold Public Opinion in the United States American Eyewitnesses Prove There Was no Turk Massacre or Genocide of Armenians . .

It must have been because the Armenian leaders sent so many agents and spent so much money in the United States that they believed America would give them credit, millions of dollars, and combat troops. Hovannissian provides the answer as to why this bandit regime would think this way.

"At the end of the World War, most Armenians believed the United States would take the lead in guaranteeing their liberation and rehabilitation. That belief was based on the long record or American public sympathy, bipartisan support in Congress, and Woodrow Wilson’s strong conviction that the protection of Armenia was a ‘sacred trust of civilization`, yet despite the back-ing of many prominent Americans, the president was unable to make a firm commitment at the Paris Peace Conference"(l).

"Guaranteeing their liberation and rehabilitation». Hovannissian uses these code words translated into real world language to mean this: The United States would provide the troops, put Americans in harm’s way, and pay all the bills the Armenians would rack up; and hand out untold millions of dollars to the Armenian leaders, just so these bandits could turn their dream of wanting and coveting their neighbor’s land from sea to sea into a reality.

The Armenians didn’t approve of all the ways some Americans proposed to help them. A good example was this suggestion: An American mandate over the Ottoman Empire was the solution urged by a number of missionaries, diplomats, and businessmen with years of experience in the Near East. Perhaps the most articulate spokesman for this group was Caleb F. Gates, president of Robert College, who warned that the establishment of a separate Armenian state would be untenable on political and economic grounds. Talk of such a solution would provoke the Turks and imperil the survivors of previous massacres. It was necessary to uplift all the racial and religious elements, none of which was yet ready for self-government. With the whole empire under American supervision, the Armenians could be repatriated safely and, after resettling in sufficient numbers in the eastern vilayets (districts), could be granted a degree of `home rule.` Gates actively encouraged the Turkish Wilsonian League, which sought to preserve the empire’s territorial unity by opting for American supervision, and claimed that the Turks had demonstrated their trust in America by allowing Robert College to remain open even after the rupture of Turco-American diplomatic relations in 1917 (P 317).

This was farfetched because the United States never declared war on the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The question that was asked many times in different ways during this period by cool-headed Americans was: "Why should the United States provide the troops, foot all the Armenian bills for no telling how long, give the Armenians all the Ottoman Muslim lands the Armenians coveted, and protect them from the Turks?" Meanwhile, in the United States, the paid Armenian agents were hard at work molding American public opinion.

In the United States, the American Committee for the Independence of Armenia, the Armenian Press Bureau, and the Armenian National Union cast aspersions on Gates motives. The State Department and the Peace Conference received hundreds of telegrams and petitions, including one from thirty state governors, asking for immediate independence for integral Armenia. The New York Times termed Gate’s recommendations immoral, and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise expressed amazement that an American missionary and educator would use Robert College as an argument for preserving the Ottoman Empire: T name Dr. Gates` counsel extraordinary because it is violative of an repugnant to our sense of obligation to the Armenian people, who may explicably be moved to say of Dr. Gates and like minded folks – the good Lord deliver us from our friends. It would be better that Robert College shut its doors forever than to compromise with Turkish iniquities.

Armenian Protestant leaders, proud of their American inspired education and Westernization, were embarrassed by Gate’s declarations. Meeting with him in the offices of Cleveland H. Dodge on June 5, a deputation of the Armenian Evangelical Union of America questioned how he, fully aware of Turkish atrocities, could suggest continued coexistence of the two races. Gates denied that he was defending the Turks or discounting the possibility of a future Armenian state, but he firmly believed that the exaggerated Armenian claims to half of Anatolia would culminate in renewed massacres. Only under an American protectorate for the whole empire could the Armenians hope to progress toward eventual self-rule in a modestly defined region. The distress of Armenian Protestants was compounded by the fact that the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions hedged on the issue of Armenian independence (P 318-319).

The Board of American Foreign Missions had the good sense to insist "that political activity lay outside the scope of its endeavors» (P 319) It is too bad other American religious groups didn’t take this same approach rather than being taken in by the exaggerated Armenian claims. Another powerful voice, who continued to speak out, was that of Rear Admiral Mark L. Bristol, "who, as a proponent of aggressive American economic penetration in the Near East, and wary of supposed European plots to leave the United States `holding the bag` in Armenia, staunchly opposed partition and Armenian independence» (P 317-318).

Take away all the fluff and one is left with this basic fact: Bristol and Gates were on the scene in the Ottoman Empire and saw firsthand that Armenia was not fit to become a state, much less a nation.
On March 20, 1920, President Woodrow Wilson suggested an "inter-Allied mission of inquiry" to look into "spheres of influence in the Near East» (P 322). This mission came to be called the King-Crane Commission named for the two individuals who headed it". Henry C. King, president of Oberlin College, and Charles R. Crane, an industrialist friend of Wilson and a trustee of Robert College» (P 323).

This commission looked into a wide range of issues. One issue was the proposal for a Jewish home in Palestine. The commission spent quality time in Istanbul hearing both Turkish and Armenian points of view. "Turkish newspapers criticized the ineptness of the politicians and again accused the Armenians of disloyalty and terrorism, of political and economic exploitation, and complicity in an international plot to eliminate Turkey from the map» (P 326).

Both sides – Armenians and Turks – presented their differing views and as always, Armenians were "arguing for a reconstructed state with ports on the Black and Mediterranean seas...» (P 323).

"...Admiral Bristol, who could not conceal his distaste for the British, Armenians, and Greeks as he propounded the `big point of view` to bring the `greatest good` to the `greatest number of people`" (P 328). "No witness advocated Armenian independence more fervently than Mary Louise Graffam, a long time Oberlin missionary and teacher at Sivas» (P 328) There is no question but that Ms. Graffam was an honorable woman who was loyal to her students. But she didn’t have total knowledge about the entire situation and had no business mixing religion and politics.

Another misguided but well-intended individual who appeared before the King-Crane Commission was Dr. George E. White, president of Anatolia College at Marsovan. Dr White stated "that under the Turkish government there was `no real security for the life of a man, the honor of a woman, the welfare of a child, the prosperity of a citizen or the rights of a father.` Armenia must have immediate independence under American sponsorship; delay could be fatal, for Mustafa Kemal was inciting the Turks to a campaign of `bloodshed, spoliation and warfare`" (P 329).

Think about Dr. White’s statement: "Armenia must have immediate independence under American protection because `delay could be fatal, for Mustafa Kemal was inciting the Turks to a campaign of`bloodshed, spoliation and warfare.`" This statement by a "learned" gentleman will go down in history as one of the most ignorant comments ever made by anyone. Mustafa Kemal saved his people and created a great independent republic; he is truly one of the great figures of the twentieth century. His reforms are models for the entire world for reaching out and helping all his people – especially the poorest of the poor. He truly deserves the honor bestowed on him by the freely elected Parliament – Ataturk – Father of Turkey. No other leader in the twentieth century has merited such honor and respect by his people. This Ataturk, a true military hero who never lost a battle, became a statesman who advocated "peace at home and peace in the world».

The King-Crane Commission issued its report on August 28, just five months after being appointed. The commission made recommendations relating to Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, and the Ottoman Empire. Regarding the Turks, the commission stated: "To bring stability in the Near East and peace in the world, the European powers should not partition and exploit the Ottoman Empire, and Anatolia should be kept inviolable as a Turkish homeland.

"King and Crane, not wishing to condone Armenian minority rule over a Muslim majority, described Armenian territorial pretensions as being rather `imperialistic` and based on a strained interpretation of facts. Except for a brief period in ancient history, the great expanse from Cilicia to the Caucasus had not all belonged to Armenia» (P 331-332).

There you have it. Evidence that the demand for his claim of Armenian Turkey and the Armenian plateau is nothing more than empty words based on wishful thinking by Armenians. Can any fair person support the Armenian acts of first being disloyal to the Ottomans and starting a revolution because they were a minority and then having the nerve to want the exact same thing with a foreign government protecting them so they could lord it over the Muslims?

The King-Crane report went on to add that Armenia should have lands and "the new state should therefore be limited to the Russian Armenian provinces and approximately those parts of the Trebizond, Erzurum, Bitlis, and Van vilayets which the Russian armies had occupied in 1916-1917» (P 332) Hovannissian doesn’t explain just why the commission included lands the Russians occupied briefly in the Ottoman Empire during the war.

The commission did state why it didn’t recommend giving Armenians the lands they were demanding: "All this is argued with the best interest of the Armenians in mind, to give them a real and not an illusory opportunity. They are in genuine danger of grasping at too much and losing all» (P 332).

This has to be one of the great understatements of history. Yet, in spite of this finding, the Armenian leaders continued to press forward demanding someone else’s land from sea to sea with American troops protecting them and American taxpayers paying all the bills.

There were two more American official inquiries regarding Armenia. The first visit was by U.S. Army Captain Emory Niles and Arthur Sutherland.

The Niles-Sutherland Report

At the end of World War I, the Armenian leaders were clamoring for all Christian nations to come save them from the "terrible Turk». The Armenians made up many stories about how they had been massacred and mistreated by the Turks.

The U.S. government investigated the Armenian allegations and sent army Captain Emory Niles and civilian Arthur Sutherland to eastern Anatolia. These two men were directed to investigate the situation and determine actual facts. The Niles-Sutherland Report would become the basis the American Committee for Near East Relief (ACNRE, or popularly known as "Near East Relief") actions in giving financial aid relief.

Niles and Sutherland traveled throughout the region recording what they saw and heard regardless of ethnic or religious concerns. These two men made a determination of the terrible conditions of the Turkish Muslims as well as the situation of the Christian Armenians. The vast majority of the suffering they witnessed was Muslim suffering.

Why was this report hidden and not used by all following American investigation commissions? Why can only one partial copy of this report be found today in the U.S. Archives, "well-hidden among documents on very different topics, luckily not destroyed, but only buried"?(2)

The footnote on page 252 of McCarthy’s book is of great interest because of the observations and questions it raises. (3) "Other reports, such as those of the Harbord and King-Crane Commissions were surely well-publicized. By rights, the statements of Niles and Sutherland should have been included alongside the Harbord Reports, but were not. One cannot help but believe that their evidence was not what those in power wished to hear. General Harbord mentioned in his report that Captain Niles had visited areas of eastern Anatolia that the Harbord Commission had not seen, but Harbord completely misrepresents what Niles had written». Both the Harbord and King-Crane reports commented in detail on the situation in provinces such as Van and Bitlis without having been there. Very little attempt was made to elicit Turkish opinion or testimony. Indeed, the Harbord Commission’s only interpreters were Armenian, so the likelihood of accurate reporting about what the Turks thought was extremely remote».

The way Niles and Sutherland reported was to write, for the most part without comment, what they saw. As they progressed deeper into eastern Anatolia they began to change their reporting procedures regarding what can be called typical Western Christian opinions about Muslim Turks and Christian Armenians.

Consider the findings by Niles and Sutherland:

In this entire region [from Bitlis through Van to Bayazit] , we were informed, that the damage and destruction had been done by the Armenians, who, after the Russians retired, remained in occupation of the country, and who, when the Turkish Army advanced, destroyed everything belonging to the Muslims. Moreover, the Armenians are accused of having committed murder, rape, arson, and horrible atrocities of every description upon the Muslim population. At first we were most incredulous of these stories, but we finally came to believe them, since the testimony was absolutely unanimous and was corroborated by material evidence. For instance, the only quarters left at all intact in the cities of Bitlis and Van are the Armenian quarters, as was evidenced by churches and inscriptions on the houses, while Muslim quarters were completely destroyed. Villages said to have been Armenian were still standing, whereas Muslim villages were completely destroyed. (4)

Niles and Sutherland concluded: "We believe that it is incontestable that the Armenians were guilty of crimes of the same nature against Turks as those of which Turks are guilty against the Armenians». McCarthy observes, "The difference, of course, is that they had seen the evidence of the Armenian crimes, not the Turkish – the one charge is based on evidence, the other on hearsay. However, this makes it more reliable concerning what they actually saw, because, despite their prejudices, they reported evils perpetrated by Armenians» (5).

To read the Niles-Sutherland Report is to learn how a once prosperous region had become a desolate place after the Armenians staged their final rebellion. As they traveled, Niles and Sutherland saw crops, homes, and human lives that had been destroyed. They saw the Muslims shortly after the Armenians fled before the Turkish Army. It was a shocking sight to see what Christian Armenians had done to their fellow man.

As the Turks forced the Armenians out of Anatolia, the proof by Niles and Sutherland was that they destroyed each and every Muslim city and village they passed through on their retreat. Perhaps the most telling evidence Niles and Sutherland obtained was the number of Muslims in Anatolia before the Armenian revolt and the number of Muslims left in Anatolia after they fled.

In Van and Bitlis for example only about 10 percent of the Muslim population survived. Almost all Muslim public buildings and places of worship were gone. Niles and Sutherland found the same situation wherever they visited where there had been Armenian control. Contrast to this fact was all the Armenian villages remained intact..

The conclusion of this American report states "…the material evidence on the ground itself, have convinced us to the general truth of the facts, first that Armenians massacred Muslims on a large scale with many refinements of cruelty, and second that the Armenians are responsible for most of the destruction done to towns and villages.... The result is a country completely ruined, containing about one-fourth of fits former population» (6).

Historian Justin McCarthy concludes: "The death rate is well beyond that of most of the great disasters in world history, such as the Thirty Years` War and the Black Death. Of course, Muslims were not the only ones to die. The Armenians death rate was at least as great, and Armenians losses cannot be ignored. But the world has long known of the suffering of the Armenians. It is time for the world to also consider the suffering of the Muslims of the east and the horror that it was.... Muslims were massacred or died from starvation and disease in stupefying numbers» (7).

The Harbor`d Report

There was a second American inquiry into Armenia. "The American Military Mission to Armenia, headed by Major General James G. Harbord, grew out of Henry Morgenthau’s proposal in June 1919 that Harbord take charge of repatriation and rehabilitation of Turkish Armenian refugees. When the appointment failed to materialize, largely because of the opposition of Hubert Hoover, Colonel W N. Haskell was named Allied High Commissioner to coordinate relief activities, but not repatriation, in Armenia. Hoover then mollified Morgenthau by agreeing to recommend that Harbord conduct a field inquiry into the measures required for successful repatriation and into political and economic problems attendant on the establishment of a new Armenian state” (8).

American officials wanted the allied governments to clearly understand the limited scope of this military mission. The American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference cautioned: "…The various official acts that may be performed in connection therein are not to be taken as implying official recognition by the United States of an Armenian Government or any of the other governments now existing in Transcaucasia. The nearly sixty members of the American Military Mission to Armenia were carefully selected on the basis of training, experience and expertise” (P 335). Four Armenian-American military personnel were included in the mission.

With the announcement of the establishment of this Military Mission, Armenian agents went to work in the United States. This mission was given widespread publicity. There was "speculation that its findings would determine the fate of Armenia and that Harbord would be the governor if America was made the mandatory power. Pro-Armenian newspapers played up his personal qualifications…” (P 334).

"The American Committee for the Independence of Armenia, in extending its best wishes to the mission... urged a speedy solution to the Armenian question and `consequently the full realization of the well deserved aspirations of a long suffering and worthy people” (P 336). This was a self-serving statement to say the least but more importantly an example of a foreign government’s attempt to influence American foreign policy for its own selfish interests.

But then there was Admiral Bristol headquartered in Istanbul. Hovannissian notes "Admiral Bristol’s reasons for distrusting the mission were quite different. Discounting any threat posed by the Turkish Nationalists, whose goals were rather to be commended than condemned. Bristol complained that the publicity given Haskell and Harbord showed inordinate concern for the Armenians and thus stirred unrest among Muslims. He urged Harbord to proceed with no more advertisement or ostentation than is necessary for a dignified and proper investigation» (P 337).

History has proven Admiral Bristol right. Today, Turkey is a creation of the Nationalist movement. America is better off because the Turkish Nationalists won their battle for independence, while the selfish Armenians tried to stop them. When the military mission reached the Ottoman Empire it was divided into a land party under the command of Harbord and a sea party that was to meet up with Harhard’s command in one month at Batum. "On the overland journey of more than a thousand miles, Harbord’s group traveling by railway, automobile, carriage, and even horseback, adhered closely to a predetermined time table» (P 338).

It was during this military mission that Hovannissian published American eyewitness accounts that proves, without any doubt, the events of 1915 never were one way massacres of Armenians nor could they have been a genocide. The basis for this statement is the numbers the American eyewitnesses provide. When totaled, they prove that the Armenians were alive when removed from Ottoman combat zones after they started a rebellion. Certainly there were abuses, and people were murdered, by both Armenians and Turks, but there never was "genocide", as Armenians claim today. Consider the actual evidence:

“In Konya, American relief director Mary Cushman reported that a half a million deportees had passed through the city in 1915 and that she had several hundred Armenian orphans in her care” (P 338).

Harbord’s group moved on to Aleppo in northern Syria. "As Aleppo had been the principal dispersal point of the deportees, the eyewitness descriptions by American Consul Jesse B. Jackson were filled with outrage. Supported by the testimony of Catholicos Sakal II (Khakayan) of Cilicia, Archbishop Mushagh Serokian, and members of the local Armenian Council, Jackson estimated that of the million Armenians deported to the South, about 100,000 survived in outlying regions of Sepia and Mesopotamia” (P 339).

There were 500,000 refugees who passed through Konya and an estimated 1 million passing through Aleppo – a total of 1.5 million living, breathing Armenians this far – but there is more.

"Kharput was the largest relief station on the Armenian plateau; more than 3,000 orphans were housed in what was left of Euphrates Collage and in twenty other shelters. Dr. Henry H. Riggs and his assistants, Levan Harputlian and Dr. Mikayel (Hakakian), reported that about 25,000 of the 175,000 Armenians in the province remained” (P 341).

Okay, that’s 1.5 million plus 3,000 plus 25,000 equals 1,528,000 Armenians accounted for thus far.

"At Malatia, in the fertile, fruit-laden plain southwest of Kharput, the mission learned that fewer than 1,000 of the 12,000 Armenian inhabitants remained” (P 342). The total of living and breathing Armenians is now 1,528,000. Hovannissian stated in volume I there were a total of some 2 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire (although Ottoman tax records show this number to be around 1.3 million, which is in closer agreement with European estimates hovering around 1 million). The Armenians in Istanbul and others not in the military zones were not "removed». Based on this Armenian historian’s own account, there just couldn’t have been 1.5 million Armenians massacred. It appears, the Armenians consider every Armenian who was removed to be a victim of genocide. Relocation is not genocide.

The bulk of the records are in the Armenian Revolutionary Federation vaults in Boston and Armenian capital Erevan. Ottoman records have been open to scholars in the last two decades. For a thorough picture, one must also take into account, records of both Czarist Russia and Soviet Union, along with those of British, American, German, French, Italian, and others. Even when existing data are studied without bias, one can clearly see that the scheming Ottoman Armenians betrayed and backstabbed the Ottoman Empire at a time when the latter was fighting in a world war for no less than its very own survival and was forced to relocate all Armenians to out-of-battle zones of the Ottoman Empire (Syria, Northern Iraq, and Caucasus). Records and written orders show that there was genuine wish on the part of the Ottoman leaders to protect the refugees during their travels. What transpired between 1915 and 1916, therefore, cannot be called “genocide”.

But there is much more evidence to consider to prove there couldn’t have been a massacre of the scope the Armenians are claiming. Consider the Ottoman Empire’s own tax records of the period – a total of 1.3 million Armenians. Consider also this fact and the source: The Armenian’s own "official" church states there were only 1.1 million Armenians within the Ottoman Empire during the time the alleged massacre happened. Six European historians of the period give total Armenian count for the period as between 1.1 and 1.4 million people.

It is noted that Harbord "met with local notables, whenever possible in the presence of Armenian and other Christian representatives, to ask about the local racial-religious composition, to solicit opinions on the political settlement, and to emphasize American interest in the well-being of Armenian survivors” (P 341).

Harbord had the opportunity to host a long meeting with the Turkish leader, Mustafa Kemal. "When Harbord expressed concern for Armenians, Kemal disclaimed any malice toward the Christian elements and condemned the wartime massacres, observing, however, that the outrages had been the work of `a small committee which had usurped the government.` The Greek outrages at Smyrna, on the other hand, were occurring under the cover of an Allied fleet, and the government of the `Erevan Republic` was trying to exterminate the local Muslim population in a `wave of sanguinary savagery`" (P 343). History has proven that Mustafa Kemal told the truth.

When Harbord’s mission reached Sivas, they learned the existence of even more Armenian refugees. He learned that ten thousand Armenians remained in the area and another ten thousand had come from other places. The total refugees Harbord’s mission had been able to account for had now grown to 1,548,000» (P 344) In addition, consider the hundreds of thousands of Armenians who were removed to Russian Armenia and who are not even included in this count.

Hovannissian states on page 295 of his volume I that there were "500,000" Armenian refugees stranded in Transcaucasia (Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan). This is a total of 2,058,000 Armenians the Ottomans threw out of their country. Hovannissian states on page 8 of his volume I there were 2 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire – how in the world can 1.5 of them have been massacred as today’s Armenians claim? Here is proof from the pen of an Armenian history professor that there was no massacre or genocide.

Consider the statement of Admiral Bristol in a letter written to Dr. James L. Barton (American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions) dated March 28, 1921: "I see that reports are being freely circulated in the United States that the Turks massacred thousands of Armenians in the Caucasus. Such reports are repeated so many times, it makes my blood boil. The Near East Relief has reports from Yarrow and our own American people, that absolutely show, such Armenian reports are absolutely false. The circulation of such false reports in the United States, without refutation, is an outrage...”

Admiral Bristol commanded U.S. military forces in this region of the world before he was named high commissioner and later the first American ambassador to Turkey. The admiral goes on to add in his letter to Dr. Barton the following: "In addition to the reports from our own American Relief workers that we in Kars and Alexandrople, an reports from such men as Yarrow, I have reports from my own Intelligence Officer and know that the Armenian reports are not true».

"At Erzurum the Americans were welcomed by notables headed by Governor Rashad Pasha and XI Army Corps Commander Kazim Karabekir... Karabekir took the party on a tour of the strategically important city. Pointing the rubble of two houses where he said Armenians had burned a thousand Turks during the Russian occupation, Karabekir complained bitterly that Armenian cruelty was unabated; recently 40,000 defenseless Muslims had been driven from their homes in districts just beyond the frontier» (P 345).

And the Armenians want to claim "genocide".

Consider Harbord’s experience when he visited Kars, then under Armenian control. Armenian leaders guided the Americans to areas they wanted them to see. "Before departing, the mission was treated to a lavish Caucasian banquet, replete with song and dance, toasts and speeches, but Harbord, who had recently heard Karabekir’s protests and seen many Muslim refugees near Hasankale and Khorasan, suspected that the three-hour feast was meant to discourage a fuller investigation” (P 346).

When Harbord’s group reached Yerevan "the exuberance of the Armenians did not leave the Americans unaffected: There was a certain comfortable feeling of serenity at finding ourselves among Christian Armenians after so much contact with the Muslim faith in Turkey...” (P 347)

Harbord and his military mission team departed Istanbul for Marseilles and two days after arrival, sent a report to the American delegation in Paris. The report would never be of much value to anyone, as the White House filed it away, until requested by the U.S. Senate for the 1920 debate. One part of the report noted "Armenians, like Jews, had never endeared themselves to other races, and they were not guiltless of bloodshed and violence» (P 357)

Back in America, the U.S. Senate began debate on the Peace Treaty and whether the country should became a member of the League of Nations. Leaders of the Senate who opposed both the Peace Treaty and U.S. involvement in the League of Nations

... warned against secret diplomacy, weakening of the Monroe Doctrine, the selfish manipulations of European powers, and the naivete of the American president to obtain oil, raw materials, and markets. England and France would quickly ratify the treaty and reward themselves with the former German colonies in Africa and the richest areas of the Near East, leaving the United States the wasteland of Armenia, staggering fiscal and military burdens, and even, ironically, the duty of playing nursemaid to the Turks, with whom the Americans had not been at war. What business did the United States have in the "cesspool of Europe” (P 368).

With the Senate defeat of both the Peace Treaty and membership in the League of Nations now a certainty, Senator William King introduced a joint resolution "calling upon the Allied and associated powers to honor their pledges to liberate and rehabilitate the Armenian people, to force the Turks to evacuate the Armenians from vilayets (districts), and give the Armenians arms and material with which to organize an efficient government and take control of the ``national territories`” (P 372).

The paid Armenian agents in America went into high gear in an effort to drum up support for the resolution. "At home, the American Committee for the Independence of Armenia coordinated bipartisan efforts through executive members John Sharp Williams, a personal friend of Wilson, and Henry Cabot Lodge, who dominated the Senate and its Foreign Relations Committee” (P 373).

It would be Lodge’s foreign relations subcommittee that would first consider the resolution. During this time Admiral Bristol, the American high commissioner at Istanbul, made certain all concerned knew of his views not to deploy even a small force in Armenia or the Ottoman Empire. The British, he said, were conniving to alienate Muslim world opinion from the United States by encouraging the Americans to intervene in Armenia. But as the European powers had been a war with Turkey and had contributed to the present conditions, they should be made to enforce the armistice. If the United States sent a single soldier, at least 150,000 others should be prepared to follow. `The responsibility for taking this step is so great that no sentimentalism or even the starvation of thousands of Armenians should make us lose sight of all that this involves (P 376).

During the time the U.S. Senate subcommittee was considering the resolution, an Armenian civil mission arrived in New York. "The mission’s primary purpose was to gain American economic and political assistance, but it was also to rally the divided Armenian-American community, whose manpower and technical skills were vital for the development of an independent state" (P 383).

Hovhannes Kachaznuni, a former Prime Minister of Armenia, headed this special economic and political mission. On October 10 he appeared and testified before a Congressional subcommittee where he asked for aid. "Such assistance, Kachaznuni said, would be an investment rather than a dole: `We have two guarantees. One is that Armenia is a very rich country in natural resources; the second is that the Armenian is an industrious and thrifty person, and he always pays his debts`"(P 383-384).

The former prime minister was guilty of the "big lie" as to: (1) There are no rich natural resources to speak of in Armenia, and (2) Armenia does not pay its debts. The truth is Armenia owes the U.S. government millions upon millions of dollars plus interest dating back to 1918. Armenia has not made one red cent of repayment and refuses to do so and continues to beg for more and more American handouts. In the letter to Dr. Barton written on March 28, 1921, Admiral Bristol wrote of the debts Armenia owed to the United States: "I certainly was surprised to hear, from your letter, that there was a movement on foot to loan money to Armenia. We have already loaned Armenia over 50 million and than money is lost. I recommend against this loan at the time. Another loan would be simply putting good money after bad». Sending one mission to the United States wasn’t enough for the Armenian leaders – they tried for overkill and followed up the civil mission a few weeks later with a military mission.

Having experienced the futility of `knocking on official and unofficial doors in Europe, the Armenian Republic’s Paris delegation decided to send General Hakob (lakow) Bagratuni to lobby for passage of the Williams resolution and to complement the civil mission. Bagratuni’s credentials, signed by Aharovian on October 25, 1919, authorized him to solicit American military aid, assemble an Armenian-American expeditionary force if permitted, and recruit American instructors and technicians for the reorganization of the Armenian army (P 383).

Of course Hovannissian didn’t mention that Armenian leaders expected the American taxpayers to pay 100 percent of the cost of such an effort. The military mission was met in New York on November 22 with the same enthusiasm and the same fanfare that had greeted Kachaznuni six weeks earlier: happy crowds, a beaming reception committee, bouquets held out by trembling school girls, flattering flags, honor escorts in cars and on horseback, a procession down Fifth Avenue. At the Holland House, Armenian scouts and uniformed veterans lined the way to the grand ballroom, where Bagratuni exhorted the youngsters to stand tall as the sons of Hack, the epic progenitor of the nation, and to emulate Andrancik, Armenia’s soaring eagle. The emotional occasion was a boon to thousands of Armenian-Americans who had waited in anguish for years to hear news of their native townspeople and loved ones (P 386).

What were all those Armenian veterans doing in New York? Why had so many Armenians fled their "historic homeland" for America since the Armenians dictators claimed to be fighting to establish the Republic of Armenia? The answer was the same in 1919 as it was during the years 1991-2001 when more than a million Armenian fled their self-called "historic homeland` for any place other than Armenia. The economy was terrible and the government, even worst.

At a mass rally at the New York Hippodrome on December 7, Hovhannes Kachaznuni extended to 5,000 expatriates greetings from the hallowed peaks of ancient Masis [Ararat], the blossoming slopes of Aragads, the towering mountains and deep valleys ofArdsakh and Siunik, the verdant shores Mother Araxes, the pristine waters of Sevan, the awe-inspiring ruins of Ani and Dvin, the Mother Cathedral of Etchmiadzin, the magnificent monasteries of Haghpat, Tatev, Gandzasar. There was no longer czar, shah, or sultan: that hallowed land today is ours, compatriots – yours and mine.

Over the territory of Armenia there already flies an Armenian flag – do you hear, an Armenian flag. "Despite their suffering the Armenians did not want pity. They sought only temporary assistance to defend their embryonic state and expand it into Van, Marash, Karin (Erzurum), and other historic national territories». We ask this without being ashamed "because our role in the World War gives us the right to place this question before the Great Powers, before the civilized, progressive peoples, without being afraid, confident in our resources and capacities» (P 387).

Kachaznuni called the names of several specific pieces of land. The only thing wrong was that land belonged to someone else. Armenians had owned no national land for more than three thousand years and now they arise from the trash can of history and demanded "historic national territories" for free. Kachaznuni claimed Armenians “did not want pity”. He alleged "they sought only temporary assistance...». Someone should have asked – how long would "temporary assistance" be needed. More than eighty-three years have now passed and Armenians still continue to beg for "temporary assistance" with no end in sight.

Meanwhile Bagratuni was at work begging for military "temporary assistance». He submitted to the secretary of war "a detailed memorandum on the structure, strength, needs, and potential of the Armenians army, claiming that with adequate arms and equipment the Armenians could themselves undertake the occupation of their territories beyond the old Russo-Turkish frontier. And Bagratuni argued that to train an Armenian-American volunteer corps and to lend Armenia instructors and technical advisors would not seriously burden the United States» (P 388).

In plain words the Armenians, after losing war after war, first to the Ottoman Empire, then to Georgia, and finally to Azerbaijan, realized they had to have help starting their fourth war. American Secretary of State Robert Lansing "still held to the legalistic position that the United States could not give military aid to a government that had not been formally recognized» (P 388).

Isn’t it odd for Hovannissian to argue for his native Armenia in his "official" history. What kind of historian would call the U.S. secretary of state’s position to not help Armenia start another war as "legalistic"? Untold American mothers can be thankful Secretary Lansing was "legalistic" because he refused to get America involved in a shooting war where their sons would have been died.
The secretary of state continued to discourage official recognition of Armenia because it might show…

American approval of the dismemberment of the former Russian empire. In the matter of armaments, he said the Armenians could not be likened to the Poles who had been permitted to recruit and outfit a volunteer legion in the United States, because that assistance had been required by wartime exigencies and was authorized only after the United States had recognized a Polish government. As long as Lansing remained in office, he withheld recognition from Armenia and was not overruled by the president. Never given a clear-cut answer to their petitions the Armenians had to continue knocking on official and unofficial doors. Armenian disappointment with the administration soon broadened to include Congress (P 388).

The Armenian leaders were slow learners and refused to take "no" for an answer. They used the example of Poland; however, there was one basic flaw in the Armenian logic: The Poles had volunteered to raise troops in the United State from within the Polish-American community while the shooting war was going on. The Armenian-Americans, on the other hand, waited until after the shooting ended before they wanted to recruit volunteer troops. One group of American-Armenians produced films and posters "that exploited the image of starving Armenians in order to raise funds. However well intended, this practice not only ruffled Armenian self-dignity, but, by depicting a helpless and hopeless people, played into the hands of elements opposed to political involvement in Armenia» (P 394) In other words, the Armenian public relations campaign was attempting to have it both ways, free handouts on one hand and the image of a powerful state on the other. Naturally, their campaign backfired.

Only in the continuance of humanitarian assistance did the United States react affirmatively to the Armenian quest for support. So long as political recognition was withheld, Hovhannes Kachaznuni’s efforts to obtain private loans and government credits would be seriously hampered. In contrast with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and other newly `liberated` states, for example, Armenia was deprived of a share of the 823,202 metric tons of surplus goods distributed by the United States Liquidation Commission. Pending recognition by the international community, Armenia perforce had to accept benevolence (P 397).

"Had to accept benevolence”.

Armenian had paid agents "working" the Christian nations of the world seeking just that – free hand-outs. Neither of the above "newly liberated states" was a state seeking to gobble up neighbor’s lands either. Clearly Armenia was not in a class anywhere equal to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia or other newly liberated states.

When it became clear the U.S. government would not recognize Armenia as an "official" state, Armenia went back to begging for handouts with a vengeance. Armenians now claimed "scarcely 25 percent of the population would survive the approaching winter without relief. The United States Grain Corporation, a federal agency was asked to `allocate wheat in return for promissory notes` from the Armenian Republic, the Armenian National Delegation, or any other suitable body. Hundreds of similar appeals from religious, civic, and fraternal groups and private citizens poured into the White House, the State Department, Congress and the Near East Relief» (P 399).

The Armenian paid agents were excellent at creating campaigns and targeting specific governmental bodies or agencies to influence final decisions such as this. The Armenian situation can best be described using the adage "having their cake and eating it too”.
When it comes to begging for official help, they run into one indisputable fact: Armenia was not an internationally recognized country and so cannot be helped by the U.S. Congress. Even with all of the public relations campaigns Armenia could muster, they could not change this fact or the "official stand" of the U.S. government.

When the Armenian leaders finally saw that "official stand" of the United States would not change, they tried getting a loan from the American taxpayer. "Woodrow Wilson, who had consistently shunned political action on the Armenian question, intervened to sustain the relief program. On November 14, as the Senate moved toward a vote on the Versailles Treaty, he informed Julius W. Barnes, president of the United States Grain Corporation, that the USGA could sell Armenia 35,000 tons of wheat and flour on credit or otherwise” (P 401).

In January 1920 Kachaznuni, on behalf of Armenia, signed a contract with the United States "calling for semi annual payments at 5 percent interest beginning in June of that year. Since treasury credits covered only the price of the flour and local handling charges, the NER accepted responsibility for freight and insurance costs” (P 402).

Armenia ultimately received 28 million dollars in food of which 16 million was assigned on credit (ARA; USGA) and 12 million in outright benevolence (ACRNE, NER; Red Cross) The first payment on this 16-million-dollar loan at 5 percent interest came due and payable in June 1920. More than eighty years have passed and Armenia hasn’t paid a cent. As Admiral Bristol noted, just as soon as Armenia joined the Russians of their own free will and became Communists, they repudiated all the U.S. debt repayments they had promised only months before to repay.

"The Armenians needed no interpreters to comprehend the Wall Street Journal’s observation that nations born out of war and starvation had to prove their right to existence by demonstrating that they had the virility to survive" (P 403).

All the Armenian leaders had demonstrated was their unfit-ness to govern their own people. Nation building was not part of the Armenian culture. Since nation building is an alien idea to Armenians, Armenia chose to attack Azerbaijan in 1992 and capture by force of arms (received from Russia) 20 percent of Azerbaijan, and ethnically cleanse more than 1 million unarmed, noncombatant Azerbaijani men, women, and children. Armenian tribalism overcame noble idea of building a modern nation.